CHAC MOBILITY COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

CHAC MOBILITY

COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

Mary K. Cunningham

Susan J. Popkin

With assistance from:

Erin Godfrey

Beata Bednarz

October 2002

CHAC MOBILITY

COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

Final Report

Prepared By:

Mary K. Cunningham

Susan J. Popkin with assistance from:

Beata Bednarz

Erin Godfrey

The Urban Institute

Washington, DC 20037 and

Janet L. Smith

Anne Knepler

Doug Schenkleberg

University of Illinois at Chicago

Great Cities Institute

Chicago, IL 60607

Submitted To:

The MacArthur Foundation

Chicago, IL 60603UI

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.

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

Background ......................................................................................................................... 1

Mobility Programs in Chicago............................................................................................. 1

Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... 2

Methodology........................................................................................................................ 3

Limitations of This Research.............................................................................................. 4

Purpose of the Report......................................................................................................... 5

2.

CHAC’S MOBILITY PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 6

Program Components......................................................................................................... 7

Process and Programmatic Issues ..................................................................................... 9

Administrative Data: Program Outcomes........................................................................... 9

Recent Changes ............................................................................................................... 10

3.

BASELINE SURVEY........................................................................................................ 12

Reasons for Moving, Respondent Characteristics, and Services Needed...................... 12

Housing and Neighborhood Conditions............................................................................ 19

4.

TWELVE-MONTH FOLLOW-UP SURVEY ..................................................................... 21

Neighborhood Outcomes.................................................................................................. 22

Housing Quality and Perceived Changes in Neighborhood Quality ................................ 26

5.

EARLY LESSONS............................................................................................................ 31

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 33

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 1

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,

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.”

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 2 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, lowminority 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

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.

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 3 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.

Methodology 6

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

5

See Popkin and Cunningham July 2001 and August 2002.

6

See appendix A for a complete description of study methods.

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 4 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

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).

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 5 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.


2. CHAC’S MOBILITY PROGRAM

Across the country, a small number of housing agencies are operating mobility programs that help voucher holders move to better neighborhoods. Although programs vary widely, their fundamental goals are to open access to better neighborhoods and promote upward mobility.

9

Some mobility programs arise out of litigation that addresses issues of segregation; others— such as the Regional Opportunity Counseling Program and the Moving to Opportunity demonstration—are funded by HUD.

As described earlier, CHAC initiated a small mobility program when it took over the

Housing Choice Voucher Program in 1995, and subsequently administered the Moving to

Opportunity demonstration from 1996 to 1998. In 1998, the agency requested a waiver from

HUD to convert funds from 250 vouchers to create an expanded mobility program. This funding supports the mobility program, counseling for disabled households provided by Access Living, counseling for Latino families provided by Latinos United, and CHAC’s security deposit loan program. The mobility program targeted voucher holders who had been in the Housing Choice

Voucher Program for at least one year and were willing to consider moving to a low-poverty census tract.

The overall goal of CHAC’s mobility program is to help families move to “opportunity neighborhoods.” 10 CHAC defines an opportunity neighborhood as one in which the poverty rate is less than 24 percent.

11 Although many mobility programs across the country consider race or percentage minority (because it is so highly correlated with poverty) when defining opportunity neighborhoods, CHAC’s program does not include race in its definition.

CHAC’s program is unusually large compared with other programs across the country. It is managed by a program coordinator and staffed with five mobility counselors, two landlord outreach specialists, a follow-up counselor, a workshop leader, and a program assistant. The program has an annual budget of $2.1 million.

12 Currently, CHAC’s mobility program serves approximately 1,000 households.

9

See Turner and Williams (January 1998) for a broad overview of mobility programs operating across the country.

10

Staff often refer to low-poverty neighborhoods as opportunity neighborhoods, because “low-poverty” is an academic term that is commonly used by the research community, not in everyday conversation.

11

It should be noted that 24 percent is higher than most definitions of low-poverty. For example, the Moving to Opportunity demonstration defines low-poverty as less than 10 percent, as does HUD’s Regional Opportunity

Counseling Program.

12

This funding supports a variety of mobility-related activities, including housing search assistance for people with disabilities.


The mobility program is voluntary; participants must sign up if they are interested.

Typically, voucher holders are introduced to the mobility program at transfer briefings, when they get their “moving papers.” The briefings usually last about two hours. Along with information about the moving process, staff provide specific information about CHAC’s mobility counseling program. This component of the briefing includes an introduction to the portability options offered through the Housing Choice Voucher Program, highlighting the benefits of moving to an opportunity neighborhood. Recently, CHAC created separate briefings, conducted twice a month, for Spanish-speaking households.

After a participant enrolls in the mobility program (usually at the transfer briefing or by contacting a mobility counselor), a mobility counselor contacts the household and schedules an initial assessment interview to gauge the level of services the participant will need. Counselors place participants in either Track 1 or Track 2, depending on their needs.

13 Track 1 households typically receive mobility services (housing search assistance, van tours, access to the resource room). Track 2 recipients are referred to additional supportive services—for example, substance abuse counseling, legal aid, or domestic violence counselors—before their housing search or, less ideally, during the housing search. To date, 63 percent of program participants have been placed in Track 1 and only 19 percent in Track 2. The remaining 18 percent were not assigned to a track.

14

After participants are assigned to tracks, counselors work with participants to make referrals to social service agencies. However, counselors have caseloads of approximately

150, so they are able to provide services only to those who actively request assistance.

Program Components

The mobility program offers a wide range of services, including workshops, a resource room with information about various communities, van tours, unit referrals, follow-up services, and the security deposit loan fund. (See exhibit 2.1 in Appendix B for a diagram of major program elements.)

•

Unit referrals. Program participants are encouraged to conduct their own housing search; however, in many cases, mobility counselors provide listings to searchers looking for units in low-poverty neighborhoods. All listings are not made available to all program participants, because counselors want to avoid a scenario in which participants

13

CHAC developed a point system to assign participants to one of the two tracks.

14

These data were provided by CHAC for the period of January 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002. The tracking system was adopted after the program was in operation; therefore, some participants were not placed in a track.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 8 flood landlords with inquiries about a particular unit. Instead, counselors try to “match” searchers to landlords.

Workshops. A number of workshops on housekeeping, budgeting, credit repair, and other life skills topics are offered to participants who enroll in the mobility program. Two of these workshops

 tenant/landlord rights and responsibilities, and money management—are mandatory.

Supportive service referrals. Some of the participants in the program must address other issues before moving to a low-poverty neighborhood. For example, they may have drug addiction or legal problems, or may be victims of domestic violence. Counselors work with program participants to identify these problems and provide referrals to local nonprofits that can offer supportive services.

Van tours. CHAC offers van tours of neighborhoods or to view specific units to help participants who do not have access to transportation or who would not otherwise search in unfamiliar communities. The van is rented, and counselors have access to it at all times.

Resource room. The resource room provides a range of information about how to search for an apartment. Resources include citywide and local newspapers, information on different communities, and online housing searches. In addition, the resource room provides information on supportive services, such as how to apply for food stamps. The room is available to all participants in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Expedited inspections. Mobility counselors are certified inspectors, so program participants are often able to get their units inspected more quickly.

Security deposit loan fund. The security deposit loan fund is offered only to program participants who lease up in low-poverty areas. Participants who borrow money from the loan fund sign a payment plan agreeing to pay back the loan in monthly installments, at zero interest.

Outreach to landlords. Currently, two staff positions are dedicated to conducting outreach to landlords with units in low-poverty neighborhoods. Typically, staff will scan the newspaper and call landlords to see if they are interested in the program. Program administrators developed a packet to send to those who express interest, highlighting some of the advantages of participating. If landlords want to list their apartment with

CHAC, the landlord specialist enters their contact information into a program database.

Mobility counselors give searchers information on these landlords.

Follow-up services. In the past, mobility counselors were required to provide follow-up services to program participants they assisted during a housing search. This

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report responsibility proved to be too much, so CHAC created two additional counselor positions to conduct follow-up services after the participant moves. Follow-up is provided for up to one year after the move.

9

Process and Programmatic Issues

In addition to collecting quantitative data through our survey, we conducted a “process study” that allowed us to collect data about key features of CHAC’s mobility program, including how the program participants moved through the program, key program elements, and programmatic challenges that might hinder moves to low-poverty neighborhoods. Our study documented incremental changes CHAC program administrators made in response to problems encountered during the early phases of implementation. We also analyzed administrative data to provide a fuller picture of program outcomes.

Project staff conducted group interviews with CHA staff and counseling program administrators in January 2000 and held interviews and program observations from April through August 2000. They observed workshops and other program activities, such as van tours. Project staff conducted follow-up interviews with program administrators in January and

March 2001, in winter 2001, and in spring 2002. Most of our observations of program activities were conducted during the front end of the study in March 2001.

Administrative Data: Program Outcomes

We analyzed CHAC administrative data to examine outcomes for all households that participated in the mobility program during the past year (administrative data cover January 1,

2001, through May 31, 2002). These data are useful because they provide a fuller picture of program outcomes overall. We use the data to examine how the neighborhood outcomes for the respondents in our sample compare with other participants in the mobility program (see

Section 3).

According to CHAC, 1,026 voucher recipients enrolled in the mobility program, 15 and approximately 64 percent subsequently moved.

16 Approximately 27 percent moved from highpoverty neighborhoods to opportunity neighborhoods, and 32 percent of those who started off in opportunity neighborhoods moved to new opportunity neighborhoods. Adding these two groups together, almost 60 percent of movers leased units in opportunity neighborhoods. About a third

(32 percent) moved from high-poverty to opportunity and a very small percentage (7 percent)

15

The total and other data reported in this section cover May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2001.

16

Participants who voluntarily enrolled in the mobility program can decide not to move at any time; therefore, this percentage is not an indicator of success or failure.

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 10 moved from low-poverty neighborhoods to high-poverty neighborhoods (exhibit 2.1). Only 39 percent of movers in 2001 moved to opportunity neighborhoods without assistance from the mobility program; the remaining 61 percent moved to high-poverty neighborhoods.

Exhibit 2.1. Neighborhood Outcomes:

CHAC Administrative Data

High-poverty to highpoverty

27%

High-poverty to opportunity

32%

Opportunity to highpoverty

7%

Opportunity to opportunity

32%

N=1,026

% percentage of all

CHAC movers previously enrolled in mobility program

Jan 2001-May 2002

Recent Changes

During the study period, CHAC continued to adopt new policies intended to strengthen the program; many of these changes were in response to the recommendations outlined in our interim report (February 2001). The key changes were as follows:

•

Monitoring and tracking. CHAC has made substantial efforts to monitor the program since its inception. CHAC expanded its tracking database, and the “event tracking log” monitors all families participating in the program. This database is connected to the software used to track voucher administration, and it tracks some of the services provided through the mobility program.

•

Housing choice voucher briefings. Earlier research conducted by the Urban Institute

(Popkin and Cunningham 1999) suggested that the housing choice voucher briefings

•

•

•

•

•

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 11 were confusing and presented information in a poorly organized format. Further, the mobility component of the briefing was often covered too quickly, during the last few minutes of the briefings. To overcome these problems, CHAC worked with a communication consultant and completely revamped its briefings and briefing materials to make them easier to understand. In addition, CHAC created separate briefings, conducted twice a month, for Spanish-speaking households.

Inspections. A common complaint from both housing counselors and program participants searching for housing is that inspections often take too long and result in lost units, particularly for participants interested in moving to low-poverty neighborhoods.

Our process study documented slow inspections as an ongoing problem. CHAC responded by training all mobility counselors to perform expedited inspections for families enrolled in the mobility counseling program.

Security deposit loan program. One of the major barriers to moving to low-poverty neighborhoods is the inability to afford a security deposit (Cunningham, Sylvester, and

Turner 2000); Popkin and Cunningham 1998). In 1998, CHAC created a security deposit loan program that offers zero-interest loans to participants in the mobility program who move to low-poverty neighborhoods. Initially, CHAC had some problems with participants failing to repay their security deposit loans. In January 2001, CHAC initiated a process to improve payback rates. If a loan is more than 90 days late, CHAC issues an ”intent to terminate” notice, which means participants are at risk of losing their voucher. Participants may pay half of what they owe or renegotiate their loan, but they must continue to pay their loan on time.

Follow-up services. Moving to an unfamiliar neighborhood is not easy, and follow-up services may make a difference in how families who move to low-poverty neighborhoods adjust and whether they choose to remain in their new neighborhood. In the past, CHAC housing search counselors had trouble providing comprehensive follow-up services to the participants who moved to low-poverty neighborhoods, because they focused on helping families move. To overcome this problem, CHAC created two post-move counselor positions and outlined goals and procedures, including home visits, activity goals, and a follow-up package.

Combating discrimination against voucher holders. Since 2001, CHAC has partnered with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL) to respond to discrimination complaints from voucher holders. Under this partnership, CHAC provides direct referrals to LCCRUL, which has lined up a number of attorneys to conduct intake interviews and provide free legal services.

Improving the connection between the Family Self-Sufficiency and Mobility

Programs. Our earlier report showed that high percentages of our respondents

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 12 reported needing assistance with self-sufficiency-related services (education, job training, and so on), suggesting that a number of families who are participating in the mobility program are also likely targets for the FSS program. CHAC has made some initial steps toward connecting these programs; for example, mobility counselors have a goal of referring a specific number of families to FSS. The number of families living in low-poverty areas who are participating in the FSS program has increased significantly.

3. BASELINE SURVEY

In April 2000, we surveyed a sample of 203 CHAC housing choice voucher recipients.

We begin by describing the characteristics of our survey sample at baseline.

Reasons for Moving, Respondent Characteristics, and Services Needed

Our sample included CHAC housing choice voucher recipients who had been in the program for at least one year and were moving voluntarily, being evicted, or had to move because their unit failed HQS inspection. We interviewed the head of household—that is, the voucher holder. We found that 58 percent of the respondents were moving voluntarily, about 24 percent had to move because their apartment failed inspection, and approximately 10 percent were being evicted (exhibit 3.1). The three main reasons voluntary movers gave for their interest in moving were “to get a bigger or better apartment” (37 percent); “to get away from drugs and gangs” (20 percent); and “problems with landlord” (15 percent) (exhibit 3.2). All our voucher holders had been in the program for at least a year, which meant they had moved at least once with a voucher (when they leased up). About 47 percent were moving for the first time; 32 percent had moved twice; about 16 percent had moved three times; and about 5 percent had moved four times (exhibit 3.3).

A typical household in our sample was a single-parent African-American family with one or two children living on $10,000 per year. Less than half (40 percent) were employed, and approximately 43 percent had not graduated from high school. About 42 percent of our sample were receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); 42 percent were receiving

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Income (SSDI). Most of our sample (56 percent) were ages 36–49 years old; only a small number (3 percent) were elderly

(Table 3.1). When we compare the typical voucher recipient in this sample with the CHA public housing relocatees in our sample from the first component of the study, we find that voucher recipients are more likely to be employed, have slightly higher incomes, and have higher education levels.

17

17

See Popkin and Cunningham (July 2001) for a detailed description of the characteristics of CHA public housing relocatees.


Exhibit 3.1. Reasons for Moving

Moved voluntarily

58%

Apartment failed inspection

24%

Other

8%

Evicted by landlord

10%

N=203

% percentage of respondents at baseline

Exhibit 3.2. Reasons For Voluntary Moves

To get a bigger or better apartment

37%

To get away from drugs and gangs

20%

Problems with landlord

15%

Other

28%

N=118

% percentage of voluntary movers at baseline

13


Exhibit 3.3. Number of Moves Prior to

Moving Briefing

Three times

16%

Four times

5%

First post-lease-up move

47%

14

Two times

32%

N=203


At baseline, we asked respondents about their health. Most rated their health as either

“fair” or “good” (exhibit 3.4), but the incidence of asthma was high. Almost half (48 percent) of respondents had been told by a doctor that they have asthma, and about a quarter (23 percent) had visited an emergency room in the previous six months because of asthma (exhibit 3.5).

These rates of asthma are dramatically different from the incidence among the general population, where roughly 7 percent of people younger than 18 years report that they have asthma.

18 The self-reported incidence of asthma was similar (around 50 percent) in our CHA public housing relocatee sample (Popkin and Cunningham 2001).

Depending on a respondent’s situation, past experience, and current circumstances, we expected that levels of motivation to make a move would vary. To capture how movers felt when they started on their search, we included a measure of self-efficacy, which indicates how much control people feel they have over their lives and is associated with depression and with other characteristics such as long-term welfare recipiency (c.f. Popkin 1990). Almost all our respondents (90 percent) believed that “When I make plans, I can usually carry them out.” Only

33 percent believed that “Good luck is more important than hard work for success.” However,

18

According to the National Center for Environmental Health, 1994, http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/asthma/speakit/epi.htm

(accessed 9/13/01).


60 percent agreed with the statement “Every time I try to get ahead, something stops me,” and

48 percent agreed that “Planning only makes people unhappy, because plans hardly ever work out anyway” (exhibit 3.6). While these respondents appeared to have relatively low selfefficacy, they scored higher than respondents in our CHA sample (Popkin and Cunningham

2001).

Exhibit 3.4. Health

Poor

12% Excellent

21%

Fair

31%

Good

36%

N=203


To identify what searchers believed were the biggest barriers to moving, we asked respondents about a number of problems that have been highlighted in past research (see

Popkin and Cunningham 1999, 2000, 2001). The factors respondents were most likely to cite as barriers to finding an apartment with vouchers were “finding a place you like” 84 percent) and

“finding landlords who will accept Section 8 vouchers” (84 percent). Almost two-thirds (62 percent) believed that “landlords who do not want to rent to families with children” would be a

“big problem” or “some problem,” and more than half identified “not having access to transportation for apartment hunting” as a major barrier (exhibit 3.7). These reports are similar to problems reported by CHA public housing relocatees and suggest that, in Chicago’s tight rental market, CHAC movers have low expectations for finding new housing with their vouchers.

Gender

Female

Male

Age

25 or younger

26-35

36-49

50-59

60 or older

Number of children

1-2 children

3 or more children

Education

No high school

Some high school

HS grad (no college)

HS grad (college)

Length of time in CHA

Less than 5 years

More than 5 years

Income

$10,000

$10,001 to $20,000

$20,001 to $30,000

Over $30,000

Currently Employed

20 hours or more

Less than 20 hours

Receiving public aid or TANF

Receiving SSI or SSDI

Have a valid drivers license

Have access to a car that runs

Table 3.1

Baseline CHAC Respondents

38%

62%

70%

22%

6.6%

1%

40%

90%

10%

42%

42%

42%

38%

CHAC

Respondents

N=203

92%

8%

7%

18%

56%

15%

3%

55%

45%

4%

39%

35%

22%


Exhibit 3.5. Asthma

30

20

10

0

60

50

40

100

90

80

70

N=203


Told by a doctor they have asthma Visited an emergency room in the past 6 months because of asthma

E x h i b i t 3 . 6 . S e l f - E f f i c a c y

G o o d l u c k i s m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n h a r d w o r k f o r s u c c e s s .

P l a n n i n g o n l y m a k e s p e o p l e u n h a p p y b e c a u s e p l a n s h a r d l y e v e r w o r k out .

W h e n I m a k e p l a n s , I c a n u s u a l l y c a r r y t h e m out.

E v e r y t i m e I t r y t o g e t a h e a d , s o m e t h i n g s t o p s m e .

0 1 0 2 0 30 4 0 5 0 60 7 0 8 0 90 1 0 0

N = 2 0 3

% p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s a t b a s e l i n e

17


Exhibit 3.7. Voucher Search Barriers

Finding a place you can afford

Landlords who do not want to rent to families with children

Not having access to transportation for apartment. hunting

Finding landlords who will accept Section 8

N=160


Finding a place with enough bedrooms

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Finally, we asked our respondents what kinds of nonhousing services they might need.

Interestingly, more of our respondents reported needing assistance with services related to long-term self-sufficiency than help with immediate problems or crises. For example, about a third (31 percent) reported needing assistance obtaining a GED almost 40 percent mentioned college counseling, and about 58 percent mentioned computer training. Less than 5 percent of respondents reported needing help with domestic violence or substance abuse. About a quarter

(26 percent) of respondents reported needing assistance with health problems, and about 12 percent reported needing help with mental health problems. Most notable, however, is the high percentage (62 percent) of respondents who reported needing assistance rebuilding their credit

(exhibit 3.8).


Exhibit 3.8. Nonhousing Services Needed

19

Rebuilding credit

Health problems

Mental health

Substance abuse

Domesitc violence

Computer training

College counseling

Getting a GED

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

N=203

% percentage of respondent s at baseline

Housing and Neighborhood Conditions

Most respondents reported problems with the quality of their current housing. At baseline, we asked about six measures of housing quality. The three measures respondents reported “big problems” or “some problems” with were walls with peeling paint or broken plaster

(46 percent), plumbing that did not work properly (46 percent), and broken locks or no locks on doors to the unit (39 percent). For the remaining measures (rats or mice, cockroaches or other bugs, heat not working) less than a third of respondents reported “big problems” or “some problems” (exhibit 3.9).

In addition, the majority of our respondents reported problems with crime and disorder in their neighborhoods. More than half reported problems with people selling drugs (63 percent), people using drugs (61 percent), gangs (52 percent), and groups of people just hanging out (52 percent) in their neighborhood. Almost half (42 percent) reported problems with shootings or violence (exhibit 3.10). Reports of problems with safety, drugs, and gangs are consistent with respondents’ reasons for moving.


Exhibit 3.9. Housing Quality

Heat not working for more than 24 hours

Broken locks or no locks on doors to unit

Cockroaches or other bugs in the apartment

Rats or mice in the apartment

Plumbing that does not work properly

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

N=203


Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster

0 10 20

Exhibit 3.10. Social Disorder and Violence in Neighborhood

Shootings and violence

Police not coming when called

Gangs

Groups of people just hanging out

People using drugs

People selling drugs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

N=203


20


4. TWELVE-MONTH FOLLOW-UP SURVEY

Twelve months after baseline (May–September 2001), we conducted a second follow-up survey with our cohort of respondents. As exhibit 4.1 shows, our survey team was able to contact 145 (71 percent) of the original respondents at follow-up.

19 This section describes our findings on how many respondents moved and the types of neighborhoods they moved to.

Exhibit 4.1. Twelve-Month Follow-Up

Survey Response Rate

Unable to contact

29%

Surveyed at twelve-month follow-up

71%

N=203


By the 12-month follow-up (August 2001), 74 percent of the respondents in our sample had moved to new units (exhibit 4.2). Respondents who did not move cited a variety of reasons, including not being able to find an apartment they liked 21 percent) and health or financial reasons. Twenty-nine respondents said they decided not to move because they liked the neighborhood they were in.

19

Our nonresponse analysis shows few statistically significant differences between the respondents we could not contact and those we interviewed for Wave III who thus remained in our sample.


Exhibit 4.2. Move Status

Twelve-Month Follow-Up

Did not move

26%

22

N=145

% percentage of respondents at Wave III Moved

74%

Neighborhood Outcomes

Neighborhood outcomes for movers varied substantially. Using CHAC’s definition of low-poverty, almost half (43 percent) of the movers moved to opportunity neighborhoods. About

20 percent moved from high-poverty neighborhoods to opportunity neighborhoods, and 23 percent of those who started out in opportunity neighborhoods moved to another unit in an opportunity neighborhood. The remainder of our respondents moved to high-poverty neighborhoods—38 percent moved from high-poverty neighborhoods and 19 percent from opportunity neighborhoods 20 (exhibit 4.3). Map 1 illustrates the neighborhood outcomes for

CHAC respondents and displays relative changes in poverty rates between original and destination addresses.

20

It is important to note here that our poverty rate data are from the 1990 census. Detailed income information from the 2000 census will not be available until late 2002. Given the current housing market in Chicago and the effects of the CHA relocation effort, many previously poor neighborhoods have begun to gentrify. It is possible that some of the CHAC respondents who appeared to be moving to high-poverty areas were actually moving to gentrifying neighborhoods. Similarly, it is possible that CHAC respondents who appeared to be moving to low poverty neighborhoods actually moved to high-poverty neighborhoods.


Exhibit 4.3. Neighborhood Outcomes for

Movers


Opportunity to opportunity

23%

High-poverty to high-poverty

38%

Opportunity to high-poverty

19%

High-poverty to opportunity

20%

N=105

% percentage of respondents who moved

If we further break down the poverty categories, we find that 8 percent of movers moved to neighborhoods with very low poverty rates (less than 10 percent poor). Almost a quarter (23 percent) moved to neighborhoods where the poverty rate was between 10 and 20 percent poor.

The remaining 69 percent moved to what most researchers would consider mid-range or highpoverty neighborhoods (exhibit 4.4).

These outcomes show substantial promise for a voluntary mobility program, and our figures are comparable to the success rates for other voluntary mobility programs. For example, Housing Opportunity Program (HOP), a voluntary program administered by the Dallas

Housing Authority, had a success rate of 40 percent of participants moving to low-poverty neighborhoods. Similarly, 19 percent of the participants in the Gautreaux program (the first mobility program operated in Chicago) moved to low-poverty neighborhoods (Rosenbaum and

Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum 2000). The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration produced similar success rates. In Chicago, 34 percent of MTO participants moved to low-poverty neighborhoods (Georing et al. 1999).

We looked closely at the data on movers’ neighborhoods and found that the difference in actual poverty rate between low-poverty movers and high-poverty movers was, in many cases, very small. The minimum decrease in poverty rate is less than 1 percentage point. The mean

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 25 percentage decrease for movers to low-poverty neighborhoods was 16 percent. Most movers ended up in communities with poverty rates between 17 percent and 34 percent. These data suggest that while we categorize neighborhoods as “low-poverty” and “high-poverty,” in reality the neighborhood quality may not be substantially different.

Exhibit 4.4. Neighborhood Outcomes by

Poverty Categories


Greater than 40 percent low-income

29%

Less than 10 percent low-income

8%

10-20 percent lowincome

23%


16%


24%

When we compared the survey data above with the CHAC administrative data (see

Section 2), we found that our data showed lower percentages of moves to low-poverty neighborhoods and more respondents moving from low-poverty neighborhoods to high-poverty neighborhoods. These differences are likely the result of several factors: (1) the timing of the study—the fact that our sample was drawn during the early phases of the implementation of the mobility counseling program; (2) the study time frame—this report provides data only on respondents’ experiences during a 12-month period; and (3) the small sample size.


It is important to note that while most of our respondents made improvements in neighborhood poverty rates, an overwhelming majority moved to racially segregated neighborhoods. As shown in exhibit 4.5 and map 2, although some of our respondents moved to census tracts with lower poverty rates, these neighborhoods were highly segregated—72 percent of all households moved to areas that are more than 90 percent African American.

While it is true that segregative moves could be attributed to household choice, data from our survey and from our in-depth interviews indicate that the families in our sample are interested in living in diverse neighborhoods. At the six-month follow-up, more than half of our respondents said that they would like to live in a neighborhood where there is a “mix of African-American,

Hispanic, and white” residents. Only 11 percent of our respondents reported that they want to live in a neighborhood where the residents are all African American.

Exhibit 4.5. Neighborhood Outcomes:

Minority Concentration


28%

> 90 percent African American

< 90 percent African American

N=105

% percentage of respondents

72%

Housing Quality and Perceived Changes in Neighborhood Quality

Improvements in neighborhood quality and housing conditions are difficult to quantify.

Researchers commonly look to attributes of census tracts—as we did with poverty rates and percentage minority. While these measures allow us to objectively define and classify “types” of neighborhoods—for example, low-poverty or high-poverty—they have numerous limitations.

Most notably, the 1990 census tract data currently available are outdated. For this reason, we asked participants a number of questions intended to gauge conditions in their neighborhood.


As we did at baseline, at the 12-month follow-up we asked respondents to rate the quality of their housing along six different measures: peeling paint, broken plumbing, rats or mice, roaches, broken locks, and heat that does not work. In general, movers to both lowpoverty and high-poverty neighborhoods reported only slightly better housing conditions. On all measures, differences were small

 from 5 to 8 percent. Further, in only two of the measures— problems with rats and locks on doors—did we find statistically significant differences between the responses of movers to low-poverty and high-poverty neighborhoods (exhibit 4.6). These

Exhibit 4.6. Housing Quality by

Neighborhood Poverty Levels

Twelve-Month Follow-Up

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

Low-poverty

High-poverty

30

20

10

0






Heat not working for more than 24 hours

N=105

% percentage of respondents who moved reporting some/big problem small differences could be attributed to sampling error.

The lack of differences in housing conditions at the 12-month follow-up could be attributed to Housing Choice Voucher Program regulations, which require all housing units to pass HQS inspections. It is likely that there are few differences, because all housing units are inspected and therefore meet a baseline standard.

On measures of neighborhood quality (e.g., crime, social and physical disorder) there are no significant differences between the responses from movers to low-poverty and highpoverty neighborhoods (exhibit 4.7). This lack of reported differences is surprising, particularly

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 29 because at the six-month follow-up, low-poverty movers were less likely to report “big problems” or “some problems” with housing conditions, crime, and social and physical disorder.

21

21

See Popkin and Cunningham (February 2000) for a complete description of our findings at the six-month follow-up.


Exhibit 4.7. Crime and Social Disorder in the Neighborhood

Twelve-Month Follow-Up

70

60

90

80

50

40

30

20

Low-poverty

High-poverty

10

0

People using drugs People selling drugs Shootings and violence


Gangs People being attacked or robbed

There are a number of possible explanations for this lack of reported differences. The first is the timing of the move. Most of our respondents (96) moved at the beginning of the study

 six months after baseline. An additional nine respondents moved between the 6-month follow-up and the 12-month follow-up. At the six-month follow-up survey, our movers had just recently moved and, therefore, were possibly more likely to be satisfied or to recognize improvements in their housing and neighborhood conditions. By the time we surveyed our respondents 12 months later, the novelty of moving may have worn off.

The second possible explanation is that we would see more dramatic differences between low-poverty movers and high-poverty movers if we defined these categories more stringently. To investigate this possibility, we stratified our data, using less than 15 percent poor as low-poverty and more than 15 percent poor as high-poverty. We found no significant differences when we placed movers into these categories. We broke down the data further, defining low-poverty as less than 10 percent poor and high-poverty as more than 10 percent poor. Again, we found no significant differences.

The lack of reported differences between movers to extremely low-poverty neighborhoods and to high-poverty neighborhoods may mean that our respondents moved to neighborhoods defined as low-poverty census tracts, but they moved to a blocks that have more

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 31 crime or lower-quality housing. Preliminary research suggests that voucher holders may live in

“pockets” of low-poverty census tracts where housing or neighborhood conditions do not reflect the census tract as a whole (Popkin, Harris, Cunningham 2001); Rosenbaum and Harris 2001).

In interpreting this finding, we should also consider the recent substantial increase in the crime rate in Chicago. It is possible that during the past six months, lower-poverty neighborhoods previously unaffected by crime experienced increases that would bring them on par with higher-poverty neighborhoods.

Finally, and perhaps most plausible, the poverty rate data we used are 1990 census data and are clearly outdated. It is plausible that many of the neighborhoods our respondents are moving to have changed significantly. Some neighborhoods that fall under CHAC’s definition of low-poverty may have tipped and become high-poverty. Similarly, many of the neighborhoods defined as high-poverty may have gentrified and become low-poverty.

5. EARLY LESSONS

CHAC has made significant progress in transforming a small mobility program into one of the largest programs in the country. Approximately 1,000 families who participated in

CHAC’s mobility counseling program now live in low-poverty neighborhoods. Our study reveals that a majority of respondents enrolled in CHAC’s mobility program and almost half moved to low-poverty neighborhoods. In comparison with the success rates of other voluntary mobility programs, these numbers

 coupled with CHAC’s willingness to improve the program

 suggest substantial promise.

Still, a majority of the households in Chicago that receive voucher assistance live in high-poverty segregated neighborhoods. As the mobility program continues to grow, CHAC faces several unique challenges. Most notably, the large influx of CHA residents with little experience in the private market is likely to have a major impact on the Housing Choice Voucher

Program. Additional resources will likely be needed to address their needs within the current structure of the program.

At the same time, policymakers, local housing administrators, and researchers continue to express concern about the consequences of having large clusters of voucher holders in lowincome neighborhoods. Although some progress has been made in encouraging voucher holders to consider other low-poverty neighborhoods, CHAC, CHA, and housing advocates need to continue to think creatively about strategies that will alleviate current problems with clustering and prevent future concentrations of low-income households.

There are a number of areas in which the program could be further strengthened to increase its impact on outcomes for participants. CHAC should continue to address areas

CHAC Mobility Counseling Assessment: Final Report 32 outlined in our interim report.Early lessons from our study suggest that CHAC should also focus on the following points:

•

Focus program resources. Many respondents enrolled in the mobility program during the moving briefing but did not follow through with counselors. Mobility counselors confirmed that a number of households that are officially listed as being in the program, and that the counselors have tried to contact, are not interested in receiving services.

CHAC should remove such enrollees from the program after a specific period. This policy would allow CHAC counselors to focus on participants who are interested in receiving services and moving to a low-poverty neighborhood.

•

Information is key. CHAC, like all mobility programs, relies on census data to guide participants to opportunity neighborhoods. Our data suggest that many of the neighborhoods that are officially considered low-poverty share many of the same problems as those labeled high-poverty. In some cases, census data may be so outdated that households are moving to neighborhoods that have tipped and are no longer low-poverty. A more complex analysis, involving crime statistics and other data, would help inform CHAC about which neighborhoods truly offer a better environment for participants.

•

Keep an eye on what works. It is important to track the services provided to participants who enroll in the mobility program. CHAC has made significant progress: in a few years, the program went from tracking clients on paper to using a database. Still, it is difficult to isolate what makes participants successful in moving to low-poverty neighborhoods. A database that tracks key components of the program—such as involvement in the security deposit loan program, attendance at workshops, and counselor contact—could help CHAC identify the components that work.

Since CHAC took over the Section 8 program in 1995, the number of voucher holders living in low-poverty neighborhoods has increased from 29 percent to 42 percent in 2001.

These numbers reflect a commitment to deconcentrating the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

However, in a city plagued by a long history of racial and economic segregation, much more remains to be done to ensure that low-income families have access to neighborhoods that provide opportunity.


REFERENCES

Cunningham, Mary K., and David Sylvester. 2000. Section 8 Families in the Washington

Region: Neighborhood Choices and Constraints . Washington, DC: Metropolitan Council of Governments.

CHAC. 2001. Administrative data provided by Jennifer O’Neil.

Fischer, Paul. 1999. Section 8 and the Public Housing Revolution: Where Will Families Go?

Chicago: The Wood Fund of Chicago.

Popkin, Susan. 1990. "Welfare: Views from the Bottom." Social Problems 37(1): 64–79.

Popkin, Susan and Mary K. Cunningham. 1999. “CHAC Inc. Section 8 Program: Barriers to

Successful Leasing Up.” Report prepared for CHAC, Inc. Washington, D.C.: The Urban

Institute.

Popkin, Susan and Mary K. Cunningham. 2001. CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment:

Interim Report . Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, July.

Popkin, Susan and Mary K. Cunningham. 2002. CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment: Final

Report . Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, July.

Rubinowitz, Leonard S., and James E. Rosenbaum. 2000. Crossing the Class and Color Lines:

From Public Housing to White Suburbia . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Turner, Margery Austin. 1998. “Moving Out of Poverty: Expanding Mobility and Choice Through

Tenant-Based Housing Assistance.” Housing Policy Debate 9(2).

Turner, Margery Austin, and Kale Williams. 1998. Housing Mobility: Realizing the Promise .

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Health and Human

Performance. Retrieved May 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.mhhe.com/catalogs/sem/hhp/faculty/labs/stress/01.mhtml

The Chicago Housing Authority. October 2001. CHA Plan for Tranformation.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Policy Development and Research

Division. 1996. Expanding Housing Choices for HUD-Assisted Families: Moving to

Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Appendix A

Methodology

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

Our study employs a variety of methods, including a three wave panel survey, interviews with administrative staff at CHAC, and observation of program activities. This appendix provides an overview of our sampling frame and response rates for Waves I,

II, and III of survey data collection as well as a description of the interviews conducted with administrative staff.

Panel Survey of Participants

This report includes data from all three waves of data collection. The first wave of the survey was conducted between April and June 2000 and collected baseline information on CHAC second mover sample characteristics, service needs, health, selfefficacy, and factors relevant to moving—such as reasons for moving and enrollment in

CHAC’s Mobility Program. The second wave, conducted six months later between

November and January 2001, collected follow-up data on both CHAC second mover respondents who moved from their previous address and those who remained. We asked respondents who moved about their experiences throughout the process of searching for housing, leasing up, and adjusting to new units and communities, and about the quality of their housing and new neighborhoods. For the respondents who remained in their previous address, we asked about their current housing and neighborhood conditions and reasons why they did not move. The third wave of the survey, conducted between May and September 2001, followed up on respondents six months after the second wave survey. Again, we surveyed both respondents who moved from public housing and those who remained, and asked about their experiences searching for housing, leasing up, finding and adjusting to their new communities, and the quality of their home and neighborhood. Of the respondents who did not move, we asked about their current housing and neighborhood conditions and reasons why they remained.

Sampling Frame

Our sampling frame included CHAC Section 8 Movers who had been on the program for at least one year and were either moving voluntarily, being evicted from their apartment by their landlord, or had to move because their unit failed HQS inspection.

We interviewed the head of household —that is, the holder of the voucher. Respondents were interviewed on-site at CHAC immediately following a transfer briefing. We interviewed any briefing attendees who were willing to participate, including those who enrolled in the Mobility Program and those who did not. The sampling frame for waves II and III consisted of the universe of respondents interviewed at baseline.

Survey Administration

The University of Chicago’s Survey Research Laboratory (SRL) was responsible for survey administration. SRL conducted a pretest of the survey instrument and data collection procedures with five CHAC respondents and then conducted a study-specific training session for the field staff prior to the start of data collection. The training included a general orientation to the design and purpose of the study, instructions for conducting the initial telephone contacts, a question-by-question review of the main survey, and practice interviews. The project coordinator also prepared an interviewertraining manual covering all aspects of the data collection procedures that was used during the training session and as a reference manual throughout the course of data collection.

Baseline CHAC second mover data collection consisted entirely of face-to-face interviews. Data collection took place at CHAC on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays directly following the transfer briefing. SRL staff went to the CHAC facility towards the end of the briefing and made a brief announcement regarding the interview. All eligible participants were interviewed in separate areas of the briefing room. Data collection took place from April 19, 2000 to June 14, 2000. The baseline survey lasted approximately 20 minutes, and each participant was paid $10 for completing the interview.

For wave II data collection, SRL field staff first attempted to contact baseline respondents by telephone. If they were successful, they administered a 20-minute follow-up survey. Approximately 75 percent of completed Wave II interviews were conducted by phone. For respondents who could not be contacted by telephone, faceto-face interviews were conducted. A $20 Jewel (local grocery store) certificate was given or mailed to each respondent upon completion of the survey.

Data collection for wave III proceeded as described above for wave II. SRL field staff first attempted to contact baseline respondents by telephone. If they were successful, they administered a 20-minute follow-up survey. Approximately 86 percent of completed Wave III interviews were conducted by phone. For respondents who could not be contacted by telephone, face-to-face interviews were conducted. A $20 Jewel

(local grocery store) certificate was given or mailed to each respondent upon completion of the survey.

Response Rates

During baseline, SRL successfully completed interviews with 203 attendees to 20

Section 8 briefings. To calculate an initial response rate for these interviews, we obtained CHAC data indicating the number of people who attended the mover briefings on each of the days survey administration took place. This data allowed us to compare the number of interviews completed over the data collection period with the total number of people who attended the briefings. Of the 477 second movers who attended briefings on the days of data collection, 203 were willing and able to be interviewed. The baseline response rate was thus 43 percent.

The six month (wave II) and twelve month (wave III) sampling frame consisted of respondents who completed a baseline interview. Tables A-1 and A-2 show the response rate for wave II and wave III of the survey data collection, respectively.

Table A-1: Response Rate for Wave II Survey

Number

Total Sample

Non duplicates

Contact to Screener

Cooperation to Screener

Eligible

Contact to Final

Cooperation to Final

Response rate

203

203

200

181

176

167

160

160

Rate

100%

98.5%

89.2%

86.7%

82.3%

78.8%

78.8%

Table A-2: Response Rate for Wave III Survey

Number

Total Sample

Non duplicates

Contact to Screener

203

203

202

Cooperation to Screener

Eligible

Contact to Final

Cooperation to Final

Response rate

167

167

154

149

Nonresponse Analysis

Rate

100%

99.5%

82.2%

82.2%

75.9%

73.4%

73.4%

We conducted an analysis of respondents who were surveyed at baseline but were not surveyed in the 6 month follow-up to check if these respondents were different from the respondents included in our sample. We ran cross-tabulations on respondents and nonrespondents to compare demographic and socio-economic characteristics, and enrollment in the CHAC’s Mobility Program. Using chi-square statistics, we found only a few statistically significant differences between nonrespondents and respondents.

Slightly more respondents received AFDC, TANF or SSI. Respondents were slightly older in age than nonrespondents and reported poorer overall health. Finally, more

nonrespondents paid their rent late in the last 6 months. Although this analysis suggests a few slight differences in the respondent and nonrespondent samples, frequencies for these differences all occur in the same direction, implying that the general trend of respondent characteristics is still very similar. In addition, there no statistically significant differences between the two groups on the vast majority of characteristics. Therefore, we can assume the Wave II sample remains representative of all CHAC movers who attended transfer briefings at CHAC between April and June of 2000.

Process Study

The second component of this research is a process study of the relocation and mobility counseling services provided by CHAC. The process study is designed to provide ongoing feedback on program activities, and serve as a tool to help agency staff identify any problems and make necessary changes to their counseling programs.

There are two major components of the process study: 1) interviews with counseling agency staff; and 2) observation of program activities.

Interviews with Agency Staff

During all three waves of this study, UI and UIC staff conducted interviews with administrators and counselors at CHAC to obtain information about: the agency’s missions, the range and content of the services being provided, the types of challenges staff are encountering, and any changes made to the service package over time. We also asked about any other initiatives that might affect services, for example, the CHA and CHAC’s proposed initiative to develop a standard set of educational materials for

Section 8 participants and landlords. We interviewed CHAC administrators about any external factors that may affect counseling, such as emergency relocations of CHA residents, changes in funding, or shifts in policy emphasis. Finally, we asked about broader issues that may affect outcomes for participants, particularly changes in the rental market.

Observation of Program Activities

The process study design included observation of key program activities.

Observing program activities provides a rich account of the complexity of the different service delivery models offered by each counseling agency. The observer’s role was to record interactions among staff and clients, how the program activities operate, and the intensity, or level, of the service provided. At baseline, project staff would observed seven program activities offered by CHAC. These included observing two tenants rights and budget workshops, two moving papers briefings, interviews and resource rooms, and a van tour of western Cook County suburbs.

Appendix B

Appendix C

Wave III: CHAC Respondents

Data Exhibits

Gender

Female

Male

Age

25 or younger

26-35

36-49

50-59

60 or older


1-2 children

3 or more children

Education

No high school

Some high school


HS grad (college)

Income

$10,000 or less

$10,001 to $20,000

$20,001 to $30,000

$30,000+


20 or more hours

Less than 20 hours





Exhibit 1-1

Wave 3: CHAC Respondents

Respondent Characteristics at a Glance

CHAC

N=145

92%

8%

2%

11%

63%

16%

8%

50%

50%

7%

36%

32%

25%

66%

26%

6%

1%

42%

87%

13%

31%

50%

44%

37%

Notes:

Exhibit 1-2


Section 8 Search Barriers

Do think these factors will be a “big problem” or “some problem” while searching for housing with Section 8?


Finding a place you like


Finding a place that will pass Section 8 inspection


Knowing how to look for a new apartment

Not having access to transportation for apartment hunting

Having a disability which makes it difficult to search

Finding child care so you can look for housing

Discrimination because of your race


Taking time off from work to look for an apartment

CHAC

N=145

68%

87%

71%

68%

75%

39%

64%

40%

26%

35%

61%

46%

Exhibit 1-3


Housing Quality

Housing Quality Index

Percent reporting “big problem” or “some problem”

CHAC

N=145

1.50






Heat or not working for more than 24 hours

32%

31%

25%

23%

13%

17%

The housing quality index was calculated by adding all of the respondents that reported a “big problem” with each housing question and calculating the average. All indices have a Cronbachs Alpha >.60

Exhibit 1-4


Household Member Victimized in the Past Year

CHAC

N=145

Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen

Threatened with a knife or gun

Beaten or assaulted

Stabbed or shot

Anyone trying to break into home

6%

7%

8%

0%

6%

Exhibit 1-5


Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, and Violence

CHAC

N=145

Social Disorder Scale 3.24


People using drugs


Gangs


Physical Disorder Scale

Graffiti

Trash and junk

Violence Scale

77%

77%

71%

73%

37%

0.76

37%

39%

1.48

People being attacked or robbed


Rape or sexual assaults

50%

62%

42%

The social disorder scale, physical disorder scale, and violence scale were calculated by adding all of the respondents that reported a “big problem” with each related question and calculating the average. All indices have a Cronbachs Alpha

>.60

Exhibit 1-6


Health

General Health

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Health compared to six months ago

Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse

Ever told by doctor had asthma?

Past 6 months anyone in HH had asthma attack

Past 6 months visited ER because of asthma

Exhibit 1-7


Self-Efficacy

Every time I try to get ahead, something stops me

When I make plans, I can usually carry them out

Planning only makes people unhappy because plans hardly ever work out anyway

Good luck is more important than hard work for success

CHAC

N=145

54%

88%

40%

34%

CHAC

N=145

11%

17%

35%

26%

12%

16%

11%

58%

13%

2%

39%

20%

14%

In the past 6 months:

Exhibit 1-8


Financial Hardship

Worried whether food runs out

Often true

Sometimes true

Food bought ran out too soon

Often true

Sometimes true

Ever cut meals because not enough money

How often in last 6 months

Almost every month

Some months but not every month

Only one or two months

Paid rent late in the last 6 months

How many times paid rent late in last 6 months

Once

Two to three times

Four to six times

Six to eight times

Last 6 months couldn’t afford a telephone

CHAC

N=145

20%

20%

14%

41%

29%

22%

42%

37%

20%

34%

59%

3%

3%

30%

Appendix D

Wave III: CHAC Movers and

Nonmovers

Data Exhibits

Gender

Female

Male

Age

25 or younger

26-35

36-49

50-59

60 or older


1-2 children

3 or more children

Education

No high school

Some high school


HS grad (college)

Income

$10,000 or less

$10,001 to $20,000

$20,001 to $30,000

Above $30,000


20 or more hours

Less than 20 hours

Exhibit 2-1

Wave 3: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers


CHAC

Movers

N=67

Receiv ing public aid or TANF




30%

25%

71%

21%

6%

2%

43%

86%

14%

28%

49%

43%

36%

5%

52%

48%

4%

40%

90%

10%

2%

13%

64%

16%

Notes:

Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.

Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001

35%

24%

62%

30%

7%

1%

41%

88%

12%

32%

51%

45%

37%

10%

48%

52%

9%

32%

CHAC

Nonmovers

N=78

95%

5%

3%

10%

62%

16%

Exhibit 2-2



CHAC

Movers

N=67


Finding a place with enough bedrooms*




Finding landlords who will accept Section


Not having access to transportation for apartment hunting*






Notes:



61%

82%

69%

64%

75%

37%

54%

34%

28%

37%

57%

45%

CHAC

Nonmovers

N=78

24%

33%

65%

47%

74%

91%

72%

72%

76%

41%

72%

44%

Exhibit 2-3


Housing Quality

CHAC

Movers

N=67



Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster***

0.97

Plumbing that does not work properly**

Rats or mice in the apartment**

Cockroaches or other bugs in the apartment*

13%

22%

13%

27%

CHAC

Nonmovers

N=78

1.96

47%

37%

36%

40%


Heat or not working for more than 24 hours**

12%

9%

13%

23%

Notes:




Exhibit 2-4



CHAC

Movers

N=67

Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen**


Beaten or assaulted

Stabbed or shot


Notes:



10%

6%

6%

0%

6%

CHAC

Nonmovers

N=78

3%

8%

10%

0%

6%

Exhibit 2-5


Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, Violence

CHAC

Movers

N=67

CHAC

Nonmovers

N=78

Social Disorder Scale 2.85 3.58

People selling drugs**

People using drugs**

Groups of people just hanging out**

Gangs*

Police not coming when called**


Graffiti

Trash and junk

Violence Scale

69%

70%

62%

65%

29%

0.64

30%

34%

1.13

83%

84%

77%

79%

45%

0.86

42%

44%

1.77

People being attacked or robbed***

Shootings and violence***

Rape or sexual assaults*

39%

47%

33%

60%

74%

49%

Notes:




>.60

General Health

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Exhibit 2-6


Health

CHAC


Movers

N=67

13%

12%

33%

31%

10%

Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse




Notes:



19%

9%

55%

16%

0%

37%

24%

13%

CHAC

Nonmovers

N=78

9%

21%

37%

21%

13%

13%

13%

60%

10%

4%

40%

17%

14%

Exhibit 2-7

Wave 3: Movers and Nonmovers

Self-Efficacy

CHAC

Movers

N=67


When I make plans I can usually carry them out


Good luck is more important than handwork for success

Notes:



55%

91%

39%

39%

CHAC

Nonmovers

N=78

53%

84%

41%

29%

Exhibit 2-8

Wave 3: Movers and Nonmovers


CHAC

Movers

N=67



Often true

Sometimes true


Often true

Sometimes true


How often in last 6 months have you cut meals because not enough money**

Almost every month





Once

Two to three times

Four plus times


Notes:



12%

29%

59%

13%

44%

44%

11%

28%

21%

40%

15%

42%

25%

29%

50%

21%

26%

30%

65%

5%

32%

CHAC

Nonmovers

N=78

19%

40%

13%

40%

31%

Appendix E

Wave I, Wave II, and Wave III:

CHAC Respondents

Data Exhibits

Gender

Female

Male

Age

25 or younger

26-35

36-49

50-59

60 or older


1-2 children

3 or more children

Education

No high school

Some high school


HS grad (college)

Income

$10,000 or less

$10,001 to $20,000

$20,001 to $30,000

$30,000+


20 or more hours

Less than 20 hours





Exhibit 1-1

Waves 1,2, and 3: CHAC Respondents


W1

(N=203)

92%

8%

7%

18%

56%

15%

3%

55%

45%

22%

6.6%

1%

40%

90%

10%

42%

4%

39%

35%

22%

70%

42%

42%

38%

W2

(N=160)

93%

7%

4%

16%

58%

16%

7%

55%

45%

27%

4%

2%

42%

85%

15%

36%

6%

35%

33%

25%

67%

48%

40%

33%

W3

(N=145)

92%

8%

2%

11%

63%

16%

8%

50%

50%

26%

6%

1%

42%

87%

13%

31%

7%

36%

32%

25%

66%

50%

44%

37%

Exhibit 1-2



W1 W2 W3














59% 72% 68%

84% 88% 87%

69% 72% 71%

68% 61% 68%

84% 78% 75%

34% 48% 39%

55% 65% 64%

35% 48% 40%

24% 30% 26%

38% 29% 35%

62% 62% 61%

40% 45% 46%


Exhibit 1-3


Housing Quality

W1

2.32


W2

1.53

W3

1.50







46%

46%

22%

31%

39%

47%

27%

31%

28%

34%

14%

21%


32%

31%

25%

23%

13%

17%

Exhibit 1-4



W1

Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen 10%


Beaten or assaulted

Stabbed or shot


15%

10%

8%

15%

W2

8%

9%

7%

1%

8%

W3

6%

7%

8%

0%

6%

Exhibit 1-5



W1 W2

Social Disorder Scale 3.68 2.88


People using drugs


Gangs



63%

61%

52%

52%

18%

1.10

68%

68%

59%

70%

36%

0.82

W3

3.24

77%

77%

71%

73%

37%

0.76

Graffiti

Trash and junk

Violence Scale




24%

30%

1.92

29%

42%

17%

38%

44%

1.48

55%

55%

43%

37%

39%

50%

62%

42%

1.48


>.60

General Health

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Exhibit 1-6


Health

W1

16%

28%

24%

9%

0%


Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse




Exhibit 1-7


Self-Efficacy

W1

18%

13%

53%

11%

5%

48%

29%

23%





60%

90%

48%

33%

W2

15%

23%

24%

26%

12%

13%

21%

53%

8%

6%

43%

25%

20%

W2

62%

88%

40%

38%

W3

11%

17%

35%

26%

12%

16%

11%

58%

13%

2%

39%

20%

14%

W3

54%

88%

40%

34%


Exhibit 1-8



W1


Often true

Sometimes true

16%

36%


Often true

Sometimes true



Almost every month



11%

35%

22%

18%

50%

32%



Once

Two to three times

Four to six times

Six to eight times


23%

41%

44%

15%

0%

39%

W2

17%

42%

41%

11%

42%

26%

17%

41%

41%

23%

43%

57%

0%

0%

40%

W3

20%

20%

14%

41%

29%

22%

42%

37%

20%

34%

59%

3%

3%

30%

Appendix F


CHAC Respondents - NONMOVERS

Data Exhibits

Gender

Female

Male

Age

25 or younger

26-35

36-49

50-59

60 or older


1-2 children

3 or more children

Education

No high school

Some high school


HS grad (college)

Income

$10,000 or less

$10,001 to $20,000

$20,001 to $30,000

$30,000+


20 or more hours

Less than 20 hours





Exhibit 1-1

Waves 1, 2, and 3: NONMOVERS


W2

(N=64)

97%

3%

3%

13%

63%

16%

6%

57%

43%

27%

2%

2%

44%

82%

18%

47%

8%

41%

28%

23%

70%

53%

38%

34%

W3

(N=78)

95%

5%

3%

10%

62%

16%

10%

48%

52%

30%

7%

1%

41%

88%

12%

32%

9%

32%

35%

24%

62%

51%

45%

37%
















W2

66%

48%

30%

29%

62%

45%

72%

88%

72%

61%

78%

48%

W3

72%

44%

24%

33%

65%

47%

74%

91%

72%

72%

76%

41%

Exhibit 1-3


Housing Quality



W2

2.63

W3

1.96







46%

48%

46%

60%

27%

38%

47%

37%

36%

40%

13%

23%


Exhibit 1-4

Waves 1,2, and 3: NONMOVERS


W2



Beaten or assaulted

Stabbed or shot


16%

8%

2%

6%

W3

3%

8%

10%

0%

6%

Exhibit 1-5



W2



People using drugs


Gangs



80%

83%

81%

81%

45%

1.19

W3

3.58

83%

84%

77%

79%

45%

0.86

Graffiti

Trash and junk

Violence Scale




59%

59%

1.95

67%

70%

59%

42%

44%

1.77

60%

74%

49%


>.60

General Health

Exhibit 1-6


Health

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor


Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse




Exhibit 1-7


Self-Efficacy





W2

55%

6%

6%

45%

25%

13%

17%

30%

16%

23%

14%

6%

27%

33%

W2

64%

86%

41%

W3

60%

10%

4%

40%

17%

14%

9%

21%

37%

21%

13%

13%

13%

W3

53%

84%

41%

29%

Exhibit 1-8





Often true

Sometimes true

W2

19%

40%


Often true

Sometimes true



Almost every month



6%

48%

34%

10%

43%

48%



Once

Two to three times

Four to six times

Six to eight times


20%

38%

62%

0%

0%

42%

W3

19%

40%

13%

40%

31%

29%

50%

21%

26%

30%

65%

5%

0%

32%

Appendix G


CHAC Respondents - NONMOVERS

Data Exhibits

Gender

Female

Male

Age

25 or younger

26-35

36-49

50-59

60 or older


1-2 children

3 or more children

Education

No high school

Some high school


HS grad (college)

Income

$10,000 or less

$10,001 to $20,000

$20,001 to $30,000

$30,000+


20 or more hours

Less than 20 hours





Exhibit 1-1



W2

(N=64)

97%

3%

3%

13%

63%

16%

6%

57%

43%

27%

2%

2%

44%

82%

18%

47%

8%

41%

28%

23%

70%

53%

38%

34%

W3

(N=78)

95%

5%

3%

10%

62%

16%

10%

48%

52%

30%

7%

1%

41%

88%

12%

32%

9%

32%

35%

24%

62%

51%

45%

37%
















W2

66%

48%

30%

29%

62%

45%

72%

88%

72%

61%

78%

48%

W3

72%

44%

24%

33%

65%

47%

74%

91%

72%

72%

76%

41%

Exhibit 1-3


Housing Quality



W2

2.63

W3

1.96







46%

48%

46%

60%

27%

38%

47%

37%

36%

40%

13%

23%


Exhibit 1-4



W2



Beaten or assaulted

Stabbed or shot


16%

8%

2%

6%

W3

3%

8%

10%

0%

6%

Exhibit 1-5



W2



People using drugs


Gangs



80%

83%

81%

81%

45%

1.19

W3

3.58

83%

84%

77%

79%

45%

0.86

Graffiti

Trash and junk

Violence Scale




59%

59%

1.95

67%

70%

59%

42%

44%

1.77

60%

74%

49%


>.60

General Health

Exhibit 1-6


Health

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor


Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse




Exhibit 1-7


Self-Efficacy





W2

55%

6%

6%

45%

25%

13%

17%

30%

16%

23%

14%

6%

27%

33%

W2

64%

86%

41%

W3

60%

10%

4%

40%

17%

14%

9%

21%

37%

21%

13%

13%

13%

W3

53%

84%

41%

29%

Exhibit 1-8





Often true

Sometimes true

W2

19%

40%


Often true

Sometimes true



Almost every month



6%

48%

34%

10%

43%

48%



Once

Two to three times

Four to six times

Six to eight times


20%

38%

62%

0%

0%

42%

W3

19%

40%

13%

40%

31%

29%

50%

21%

26%

30%

65%

5%

0%

32%

CHAC MOBILITY COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

CHAC MOBILITY

COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

Mary K. Cunningham

Susan J. Popkin

With assistance from:

Erin Godfrey

Beata Bednarz

October 2002

CHAC MOBILITY

COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

Final Report

Appendix A

Methodology

Appendix B

Appendix C

Wave III: CHAC Respondents

Data Exhibits

Appendix D

Wave III: CHAC Movers and

Nonmovers

Data Exhibits

Appendix E

Wave I, Wave II, and Wave III:

CHAC Respondents

Data Exhibits

Appendix F

Wave I, Wave II, and Wave III:

CHAC Respondents - NONMOVERS

Data Exhibits

Appendix G

Wave I, Wave II, and Wave III:

CHAC Respondents - NONMOVERS

Data Exhibits

Related documents

Products

Support

CHAC MOBILITY COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

CHAC MOBILITY

COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

Mary K. Cunningham

Susan J. Popkin

With assistance from:

Erin Godfrey

Beata Bednarz

October 2002

CHAC MOBILITY

COUNSELING ASSESSMENT

Final Report

Appendix A

Methodology

Appendix B

Appendix C

Wave III: CHAC Respondents

Data Exhibits

Appendix D

Wave III: CHAC Movers and

Nonmovers

Data Exhibits

Appendix E

Wave I, Wave II, and Wave III:

CHAC Respondents

Data Exhibits

Appendix F

Wave I, Wave II, and Wave III:

CHAC Respondents - NONMOVERS

Data Exhibits

Appendix G

Wave I, Wave II, and Wave III:

CHAC Respondents - NONMOVERS

Data Exhibits

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib