CHAC MOBILITY PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT
Interim Report
November 2001
Prepared for:
MacArthur Foundation
Prepared by:
The Urban Institute
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
CHAC MOBILITY PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT
Interim Report
November 2001
Prepared By:
Mary K. Cunningham
Susan J. Popkin
Erin B. Godfrey
Beata A. Bednarz
The Urban Institute
Metropolitan Housing and Communities
Policy Center
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
and
Janet L. Smith
Anne Knepler
Doug Schenkleberg
University of Illinois at Chicago
Great Cities Institute
Chicago, IL 60607
Submitted To:
MacArthur Foundation
140 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Grant No. 99-61174-HCD
UI No. 07011-000-05
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 it funders.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
Research Questions and Methods ........................................................................................... 3
Scope of the Report .................................................................................................................. 6
2. CHAC’S MOBILITY PROGRAM .............................................................................................. 8
Program Components............................................................................................................. 10
Program Outcomes ................................................................................................................. 11
3. RESPONDENTS AT BASELINE ........................................................................................... 14
Reasons for Moving, Respondent Characteristics, and Services Needed............................ 14
Baseline: Housing and Neighborhood Conditions................................................................. 21
4. MOBILITY ASSISTAN CE AND NEIGHBORHOOD OUTCOMES ....................................... 23
Housing Quality and Perceived Changes in Neighborhood Quality ...................................... 29
5. RECENT CHANGES AN D ONGOING CHALLENGES........................................................ 33
6. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 37
7. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 38
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1.1 - Research Question
Exhibit 2.1 - Mobility Program
Exhibit 2.2 - Neighborhood Outcomes: CHAC Administrative Data
Exhibit 3.1 - Reasons for Moving
Exhibit 3.2 - Reasons for Voluntary Moves
Exhibit 3.3 - Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Exhibit 3.4 - Health
Exhibit 3.5 - Asthma
Exhibit 3.6 - Self-Efficacy
Exhibit 3.7 - Section 8 Search Barriers
Exhibit 3.8 - Non-housing Services Needed
Exhibit 3.9 - Housing Quality
Exhibit 3.10 - Social Disorder and Violence in Neighborhood
Exhibit 4.1 - Survey Response and Relocation Status
Exhibit 4.2 - Move Status
Exhibit 4.3 - Neighborhood Outcomes for Movers
Exhibit 4.4 - Neighborhood Outcomes by Poverty Categories
Exhibit 4.5 - Neighborhood Outcomes: Minority Concentration
Exhibit 4.6 - Housing Quality, by Neighborhood Poverty Levels
Exhibit 4.7 - Social Cohesion and Trust, by Neighborhood Poverty Levels
Exhibit 4.8 - Social Disorder, by Neighborhood Poverty Levels
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
1.
1
INTRODUCTION
The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) Relocation and Mobility Counseling Assessment
intends to examine neighborhood outcomes for Housing Choice Voucher holders and to assess
CHAC’s efforts in providing mobility counseling to voucher holders interested in moving to
opportunity neighborhoods. The study also aims to provide ongoing feedback to the CHA and
CHAC—the organization that administers the Housing Choice Voucher program and operates
the Mobility Program—and other actors concerned about the Housing Choice Voucher Program,
such as the Mayor’s Office; Chicago Department of Human Services; and the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The study is funded by a grant from the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and is being conducted by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit policy research organization based in Washington, D.C., and its partner, the University of
Illinois at Chicago.
The purpose of this interim report is to provide preliminary feedback on the impact of
CHAC’s Mobility Program as seen through data collected during the first two waves of our
study. The study tracks the moving experiences of a cohort of Housing Choice Voucher holders
(who have been receiving Housing Choice Voucher assistance for at least one year) as they
proceed through the process of making a move with their voucher. This report presents a
descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the respondents in our sample and examines
neighborhood outcomes for voucher holders who moved.
Background
In recent years, the emphasis of federal housing policy has shifted from project-based
housing subsidies to tenant-based subsidies, increasing the importance of the Housing Choice
Voucher Program in providing housing assistance to low-income families. Congress
established the Housing Choice Voucher Program in 1974. 1 The program has grown
tremendously since its inception and today it currently serves approximately 1.4 million
households (Schussheim 1996). The original goal of the program—to provide affordable
housing options to low-income households—has expanded over time and now includes
“deconcentration” of low-income households.
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 to 40 percent of their monthly income toward rent (plus utilities) and
1
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 merged the Section 8 certificate and Section 8
voucher program into one to create the Housing Choice Voucher Program. This program is referred to throughout
this report as the “Housing Choice Voucher Program,” the “voucher program,” or “vouchers.”
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
2
the Housing Choice Voucher Program makes up the difference. 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’s) Housing
Choice Voucher Program is one of the largest in the country. The CHA’s program is expected
to continue to grow substantially over the next five years. The expiration of Section 8 projectbased 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
Chicago public housing are expected to add thousands of families to the Housing Choice
Voucher Program rolls.2
Policy analysts, practitioners, and housing advocates disagree about whether 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
increasing choice and expanding housing opportunities for low-income families (Turner 1998).
However, in Chicago, the results of this shift are not as clear. A majority of Housing Choice
Voucher recipients are located on the south side of Chicago and in the southern suburbs, and
the “clustering” of voucher holders appears to be a substantial problem both inside the city and
in the bordering suburbs (Fischer 1999).
Chicago has a long history of mobility programs intended to reduce economic and racial
segregation in its public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. The most famous of
these is the Gautreaux program, created in 1976 as the result of a desegregation settlement. 3
The settlement called for 7,100 housing certificates to be provided to current and former CHA
residents for 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 these nonminority areas (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum 2000). The certificates
were administered by the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, which 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 volunteers who wish to make
2
See the CHA Transformation Plan (October 2001) for more details regarding demolition and relocation.
Most of these demolitions are covered by a 1996 federal law calling for the conversion to vouchers of certain severely
distressed public housing developments.
3
In the landmark Gautreaux case the courts found that the CHA and HUD had discriminated against black
tenants, concentrating them in large-scale developments located in poor black neighborhoods. The decision against
the 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).
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
3
mobility moves.4 In addition to Gautreaux, Housing Choice Partners 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 voucher
program in September 1995. The agency first initiated a small mobility program in 1995 as part
of its contract, then administered the Chicago Moving to Opportunity Demonstration from 1996
to 1998. In 1999, CHAC dramatically expanded its mobility efforts, requesting a waiver from
HUD to convert funds from 250 vouchers in order to create an expanded mobility program. The
result of this increased effort is CHAC’s Mobility Program.
The Mobility Program, geared to current Housing Choice Voucher recipients who are
moving with their vouchers, is one of the only mobility programs in the country that is run directly
by the same agency that administers the voucher program rather than by a nonprofit
contractor.5 The program offers a variety of services, including one-on-one counseling, life-skills
training, landlord negotiation seminars, neighborhood tours, and the Security Deposit Loan
Program to foster moves to opportunity areas.
Research Questions and Methods
A number of studies have examined how neighborhood poverty levels influence
outcomes for families with vouchers.6 However, to date, there has been no systematic
examination of how mobility programs operate, what makes them effective, and what
components need to be strengthened. The Relocation and Mobility Counseling Assessment7
study attempts to fill this gap by providing meaningful data that draw on a three-wave panel
survey, program observations, and interviews with administrative staff.
4
For a full discussion of the Leadership Council’s role in relocation, see S.J. Popkin and M.K. Cunningham
(2001) CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
5
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.
6
See, for example, HUD’s Moving To Opportunity Demonstration. For a full description of the Moving To
Opportunity Program see U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Policy Development and Research
Division. Expanding Housing Choices for HUD-Assisted Families: Moving to Opportunity. Washington, DC, April
1996.
7
The Relocation and Mobility Counseling Assessment has two components: an assessment of the
counseling and relocation services provided to CHA relocatees and an assessment of services provided to
participants in CHAC’s Mobility Program. In July 2001, the Urban Institute released a report that focused on results
from the first component of this study—counseling and relocation services to CHA relocatees. This report focuses on
the second component—assessing CHAC’s Mobility Program. See Popkin and Cunningham “CHA Relocation
Counseling Assessment: Interim Report” July 2001.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
4
The overall purpose of the study is to provide a systematic examination CHAC’s Mobility
Program and how it influences neighborhood outcomes. More specifically, the objectives of the
study are to (1) understand the barriers faced by Housing Choice Voucher searchers while they
look for housing in Chicago; (2) examine the services offered to participants in CHAC’s Mobility
Program; and (3) identify short-term outcomes for participants in the program. Further, the
study is meant to provide feedback to CHAC as it implements its Mobility Program and
continues to grapple with the challenges of serving a rapidly changing population. Exhibit 1.1
outlines our specific research questions.
EXIBIT 1.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Barriers
§
§
Services and
Facilitators
§
§
§
§
Locational
Outcomes
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
What problems and challenges do Housing Choice Voucher recipients
face in locating housing and leasing up?
What proportion of the population has multiple problems; what
proportion requires intensive counseling before attempting a move; and
what proportion will need long-term support in order to maintain their
Housing Choice Voucher assistance?
Do participants search in low-poverty areas?
What factors affect families’ willingness to consider unfamiliar areas,
including families’ preferences for particular communities, fears of
moving to unfamiliar areas, concerns about encountering discrimination,
and the limited availability of appropriate units (e.g., affordable units,
units with a large number of large bedroom units)?
Are there other services that they feel they need?
What are the characteristics of those participants who move to lowpoverty areas?
What types of services do these participants receive?
What proportion of Housing Choice Voucher holders move to lowpoverty neighborhoods?
How do these participants compare with successful movers?
What are the relocation outcomes for participants (i.e., the
characteristics of the neighborhoods they move from and to)?
How satisfied are movers with their new units and neighborhoods?
Do they feel they have received adequate follow-up support?
Are there any early impacts on employment or quality-of-life outcomes
for participants?
What are the early outcomes for those who fail to find units?
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
5
To answer these questions, our study uses a variety of methods, including a three-wave
panel survey, interviews with administrative staff at CHAC, and observation of program
activities.8 These methods are described below.9
Three-Wave Panel Survey. The survey sampled 203 CHAC voucher holders who had
been on the Housing Choice Voucher Program for at least one year and were moving
voluntarily, being evicted from their apartment by their landlord, or required to move because
their unit failed Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspection. Data collection took place at
CHAC directly following transfer briefings, 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. We conducted the first followup wave of data collection with the same respondents between November 2000 and January
2001. The third and final survey wave began in May 2001 and was completed in September
2001.
Process Study. A process study of the counseling and mobility services provided by
CHAC’s Mobility Program was conducted in order to answer research questions related to
program operations. 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,
and also conducted one-on-one interviews with program administrators and individual
counselors. Finally, they conducted follow-up interviews with program administrators in January
and March 2001. In addition to qualitative data collected during our process study, we collected
summarized administrative data on program outcomes from 5/01/99-4/30/01. These data are
presented along with our description of CHAC’s mobility program.
It is important to note that there are a number of limitations inherent in our research
design. Our sample was selected from second movers who attended a transfer briefing
between April and June 2000. Only the Housing Choice Voucher holders interested in
participating in our study were surveyed at the end of the transfer briefing. This study design
has several implications for the population our sample represents. In order to address this
issue, descriptive statistics available from CHAC administrative data were examined. There
appear to be several differences between our sample of movers and the population of voucher
holders. CHAC administrative data that were examined showed that the respondents in our
sample have slightly lower incomes but are slightly more likely to be employed. Further,
8
In-depth interviews with CHAC Mobility Program participants may be conducted during the last wave of this
study (November 2001–January 2002).
9
Please see appendix A for a complete description of our methods.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
6
Hispanic and elderly households are likely underrepresented in our sample, which likely
represents two groups: Housing Choice Voucher holders who are moving voluntarily—and thus
are likely to be more motivated—and voucher holders who have to move as a result of an
eviction or failed inspection (involuntary movers).
Scope of the Report
This report presents a descriptive analysis of the characteristics of our respondents, their
reasons for moving, the barriers they confronted during their search, and, for the respondents
who moved, their neighborhood outcomes. Throughout this report, we focus is on several
important questions:
§
Who among our Housing Choice Voucher sample moved?
§
What are the characteristics of movers, and how are they different from non-movers?
§
What are the neighborhood outcomes for the respondents who moved?
Answering these questions is the first step toward understanding how to target specific
populations for mobility efforts.
One of the main objectives of our study is to examine the types of neighborhoods to
which families on the Housing Choice Voucher Program move and how mobility counseling
relates to neighborhood outcomes. To do so, we are studying Housing Choice Voucher
movers, most of whom are moving voluntarily and thus can choose not to move and instead
remain in their current apartment. Therefore, not all of our respondents will have moved by the
end our study, limiting our sample size for certain types of analysis. Because of the limitations
of our sample size, however, it is still too early to completely assess the effectiveness of mobility
assistance for our sample of respondents.
For the final report (expected March 2002), we expect that more of our respondents will
have moved and we will be able to conduct a multivariate analysis that examines whether
participation in the Mobility Program increases the likelihood of moves to low-poverty
neighborhoods. Further, we will examine if there are other “predictors,” such as income,
education level, and so on, of moving to low-poverty neighborhoods.
It is important to note that CHAC’s Mobility Program is very much a work in progress.
Therefore, this report highlights some of the changes CHAC has implemented in order to
strengthen the program during the course of our study. Since our survey sample was first
interviewed in May 1999, during the early phases of the program, those 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
has taken note of CHAC’s responses during the study period. Thus, in addition to a snapshot of
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
7
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 five sections. Section 2 provides a description of
CHAC’s Mobility Program, including program outcomes to date (CHAC administrative data),
how participants move through the Mobility Program, and major program components. Section
3, drawing on data from the first two waves of our survey, describes the respondents in our
sample. Section 4 provides a descriptive analysis of neighborhood outcomes and housing
quality, specifically examining differences between movers to opportunity neighborhoods and
movers to high-poverty neighborhoods. Section 5 presents outcomes from our process study,
highlighting some of the recent changes CHAC has made in order to strengthen the Mobility
Program and, drawing on lessons learned to date, presents our recommendations for continued
improvement. The report concludes with Section 6.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
2.
8
CHAC’S MOBILITY PROGRAM
Across the country, a number of innovative housing agencies are operating mobility
programs that help voucher holders move to better neighborhoods. Although programs vary
widely, the fundamental goal of mobility programs is to open access to better neighborhoods
and promote upward mobility. 10 Some mobility programs arise out of litigation that addresses
issues of segregation; others, such as the Regional Opportunity Counseling Program, are
funded by HUD.
As mentioned in the introduction, CHAC initiated a small mobility program when the
organization took over the Housing Choice Voucher Program in 1995 and subsequently
administered the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration from 1996 through 1998. In 1999, 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 targets
voucher holders who have been receiving voucher assistance for at least one year and are
willing to consider moving to a low-poverty census tract.11
The overall goal of CHAC’s Mobility Program is to help families move to “opportunity
neighborhoods.”12 As required by HUD, CHAC defines an opportunity neighborhood as one in
which the poverty rate is less than 23.49 percent. 13 Although many mobility programs across
the country consider race or percentage minority when defining opportunity neighborhoods,
CHAC does not include this measure in its definition. 14 Throughout the report when we refer to
opportunity neighborhoods we are referring to neighborhoods with poverty levels of less than
23.49 percent.
10
See Turner and Williams, “Housing Mobility: Realizing the Promise,” January 1998, for a broad overview
of mobility programs operating across the country.
11
With funding from the MacArthur Foundation, CHAC provided housing search assistance and some
mobility counseling to Welfare to Work voucher holders who were searching for housing in May 2001.
12
Staff often refer to low-poverty neighborhoods as “opportunity neighborhoods” because the term “lowpoverty” is an academic term commonly used by the research community but not in everyday conversation.
13
It should be noted that 23.49 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.
14
Typically, mobility programs that use race in their definition of low-poverty or “opportunity neighborhoods”
are required to under consent decrees resulting from desegregation lawsuits.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
9
CHAC’s program is unusually large compared with other programs across the country.
The program is managed by a program manager and staffed by 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 $995,000 and currently serves 2,000
households.
The Mobility Program is a voluntary program; therefore, participants must sign up if they
are interested. Typically, Housing Choice Voucher holders are introduced to the Mobility
Program at transfer briefings, when they get their “moving papers” to move with their voucher.
At the briefing, Mobility Program staff provide information about the program and encourage
participants to enroll in it. The briefings usually last about two hours. Along with information
about the moving process, staff provide specific information about CHAC’s Mobility 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. In addition to staff presentations, CHAC shows a video on mobility featuring real
participants who have moved to low-poverty neighborhoods. Recently, CHAC created separate
briefings for Spanish-speaking households, and these are conducted twice a month.
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. The initial assessment is used to gauge the level of services the
participant will need. In addition, all participants have their credit checked and must pass a
criminal background check. With the information gathered during the assessment, participants
are placed into either Track 1 or Track 2, depending on their needs.15 The tracking system was
developed so that mobility counselors could delineate between households that need
assistance with only basic services, such as search assistance, and households that may need
more services. The goal is for the tracking system to allow counselors to allocate the time they
spend with mobility participants more effectively, which in turn will allow them to serve more
households.
Track 1 households typically receive mobility services (housing search assistance, van
tours, access to the resource room, and so on). Track 2 participants are offered the same
services and 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 their housing search. To date, a majority of program participants have been
placed in Track 1 (63 percent); only 19 percent have been placed in Track 2. The remaining 18
percent have not been assigned to a track. The tracking system was adopted after the program
was in operation; therefore, some participants were not assigned to a track.
15
CHAC developed a point system to assign participants to one of the two tracks.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
10
After a participant is assigned to a track, counselors work with program participants oneon-one to make referrals to social service agencies. However, with caseloads of 150 to 400
clients, counselors are able to provide services only to those who actively request continued
assistance.
Program Components
The program offers a wide range of services, including workshops, a resource room with
information about different communities, van tours, unit referrals, follow-up services, and the
Security Deposit Loan Fund. All participants who enroll in the program receive access to the
resource room. Exhibit 2.1 presents a diagram of the major program elements, which are
described in detail below.
•
Unit Referrals. Program participants are encouraged to conduct their own housing
searches; however, in many cases, mobility counselors provide unit listings to searchers.
Counselors try to match available units (usually based on bedroom size and
neighborhood preference) to Mobility Program participants.
•
Workshops. A number of workshops on housekeeping, budgeting, credit repair,
parenting, and other life-skills topics are offered to participants who enroll in the Mobility
Program. Although most of these workshops are not required, all participants must
attend a half-day workshop on budgeting and tenant rights before they can receive unit
referrals.
•
Supportive Service Referrals. A number of participants who enroll in the program
must address other personal barriers before moving to a low-poverty neighborhood. For
example, some households may have problems with drug addiction or legal issues, or
may be victims of domestic violence. Counselors work with program participants to
identify these problems and then provide them with supportive service referrals to local
nonprofits.
•
Van Tours. CHAC offers van tours for participants to view neighborhoods and specific
units. These tours are meant to assist program participants who do not have access to
transportation or who would otherwise not search in unfamiliar communities. The van is
rented for one week out of the month and is available to mobility counselors and landlord
outreach specialists.
•
Resource Room. The resource room provides a wealth of information about how to
search for an apartment. A staff person is available in the room at all times to assist
searchers. Resources include citywide and local newspapers, information on different
communities, and online housing search sources. In addition, the resource room
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
11
provides information on supportive services (e.g., how to apply for food stamps). The
room is available to all participants in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
•
Expedited Inspections. Mobility counselors are now certified inspectors, so program
participants are often able to get their units inspected more quickly. 16
•
Security Deposit Loan Fund. The Security Deposit Loan Fund is offered only to
program participants who lease up in opportunity neighborhoods. Participants who
borrow money from the loan fund sign a payment plan agreeing to pay back the loan in
monthly installments at zero interest.
•
Landlord Outreach. Currently, two staff persons are dedicated to conducting outreach
to landlords with units in low-poverty neighborhoods. Typically, staff will scan the local
community newspapers and call new landlords to see if they are interested in
participating in the program. Landlord specialists also find new landlords by driving
around and identifying units for rent in opportunity neighborhoods. Most important,
landlord specialists focus on developing long-term relationships with landlords so the
landlords will continue to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Program administrators have developed a packet to send to landlords who are
interested in the program. This packet highlights some of the advantages of
participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. If landlords want to list their
apartments with CHAC, the landlord specialist enters their contact information into a
program database. Information on these landlords is then provided to searchers through
their mobility counselors.
•
Follow-up Services. In the past, mobility counselors were required to provide follow-up
services to the program participants they assisted during a housing search. Recently,
CHAC created a separate counselor position to conduct follow-up services after the
participant moves. Postmove follow-up is provided for up to one year after the move.
Program Outcomes
CHAC administrative data were analyzed in order to examine outcomes for all
households that have participated in CHAC’s Mobility Program to date (administrative data
cover the period May 1, 1999, to April 30, 2001). These data are useful because they provide a
full picture of program outcomes overall. The data are used to examine how neighborhood
outcomes for the respondents in our sample compare with other participants in the Mobility
Program (see section 3).
16
Although mobility counselors are certified inspectors, union rules prevent counselors from conducting
inspections during their regularly scheduled hours; instead, they must conduct inspections during overtime.
Exhibit 2.1. Mobility Program
Phase I
Intake
Assessment
Credit and Criminal
Background Check
Moving
Breifing
Track 1
Track 2
Phase II
Social Service
Referrals
Unit Referrals
Van Tours
Workshops
(required)
Security Deposit
Loan Program
Phase III
Moves/
Inactive
Moves
One week
follow up
Landlord
Contact
Phase IV
Post Program
30-day
60-day
Visit
Telephone
6-month visit
Program
Activities
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
13
Approximately 4,280 Housing Choice Voucher recipients have enrolled in the Mobility
Program. Of that total, 38 percent (1,638) were forced moves—meaning that the unit in
question failed HQS inspection repeatedly and the household had to find another unit—and 51
percent (2,199) were voluntary moves.17 Approximately 50 percent (2140) of the households
that enrolled in the Mobility Program have subsequently moved.18 Of this 50 percent,
approximately 32 percent moved from high-poverty neighborhoods to opportunity
neighborhoods, and 31.9 percent moved from opportunity neighborhoods to new opportunity
neighborhoods. Adding these two groups together, almost 64 percent of the people who moved
leased units in opportunity neighborhoods. About one-quarter (26.7 percent) of movers
remained in high-poverty neighborhoods (moved from high-poverty to high-poverty), and a very
small percentage (6.7 percent) moved from opportunity neighborhoods to high-poverty
neighborhoods (exhibit 2.2).
Exhibit 2.2. Neighborhood Outcomes:
CHAC Administrative Data
high-poverty to highpoverty
27%
high-poverty to
opportunity
32%
opportunity to highpoverty
7%
N=2140
opportunity to
opportunity
32%
17
18
% percentage of all
CHAC movers
previously enrolled in
Second Mover
program
5/01/99-4/31/01
The remaining 443 enrolled participants are “not specified.”
It should be noted that 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 Program Assessment: Interim Report
3.
14
RESPONDENTS AT BASELINE
This section begins by describing the characteristics of our survey sample at baseline.
Next, it presents neighborhood outcomes for our sample after one year. Finally, it presents
neighborhood and housing quality outcomes for those respondents who moved with their
vouchers between April 2000 and January 2001.
Reasons for Moving, Respondent Characteristics, and Services Needed
Our sample includes CHAC Housing Choice Voucher recipients who have been in the
program for at least one year and are (1) moving voluntarily, (2) being evicted from their
apartment by their landlord, or (3) required to move because their unit failed HQS inspection. In
interviews with the heads of household—that is, the voucher holders—most (58 percent) of the
respondents were found to be moving voluntarily, about 24 percent were moving because their
apartment failed inspection, and approximately 10 percent were being evicted (exhibit 3.1). 19
The three main reasons voluntary movers had an interest in moving were “to get a bigger or
better apartment” (37 percent), “to get away from drugs and gangs” (20 percent), and because
of “problems with landlord” (15 percent). Most of our respondents have experience moving with
Housing Choice Vouchers. More than a third (32 percent) have moved at least twice, about 16
percent have moved three times, and about 5 percent have moved four times (exhibit 3.2).
An average household in our sample is an African-American family with one or two
children living on $10,000 or less per year. Less than half (40 percent) are currently employed,
and approximately 43 percent did not graduate from high school. About 42 percent of our
sample are receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); 42 percent are
receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Income (SSDI).
Most of our sample (56 percent) are ages 36 to 49; only a small number (3 percent) are elderly
(exhibit 3.3). A comparison of the typical Housing Choice Voucher recipient in our sample with
the CHA public housing relocatees in our sample from the first component of this study finds
that Housing Choice Voucher recipients are more likely to be employed, have slightly higher
incomes, and have higher education levels.20
19
20
It is important to note that these were self-reported reasons for moving.
See Popkin and Cunningham, “CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment: Interim Report,” July 2001 for a
detailed description of the characteristics of CHA public housing relocatees.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
15
Exhibit 3.1. Reasons for Moving
Apartment Failed
Inspection
24%
Moved Voluntarily
58%
Evicted by
Landlord
10%
Other
8%
Exhibit 3.2.
To get a bigger or
better apartment
37%
N=203
% percentage of
respondents
at baseline
Reasons For Voluntary Moves
To get away from
drugs and gangs
20%
N=118
Problem with landlord
15%
Other
28%
%
percentage
of
voluntary
movers at
baseline
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
16
Exhibit 3.3
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
CHAC
N=203
Gender
Female
Male
92%
8%
Age
25 or younger
26-35
36-49
50-59
60 or older
7%
18%
56%
15%
3%
Number of children
1-2 children
3 or more children
55%
45%
Education
No high school
Some high school
HS grad (no college)
HS grad (college)
4%
39%
35%
22%
Length of time in CHA (n=117)
Less than 5 years
More than 5 years
38%
62%
Income
$10,000 or less
$10,001 to $20,000
$20,001 to $30,000
Over $30,000
70%
22%
6.6%
1%
Currently Employed
20 or more hours
Less than 20 hours
40%
90%
10%
Receiving public aid or TANF
Receiving SSI or SSDI
Have a valid drivers license
Have access to a car that runs
42%
42%
42%
38%
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
17
Most respondents rated their health as either “fair” or “good” (exhibit 3.4). However, it
appears that the incidence of asthma is high among households in our sample. Almost half (48
percent) of respondents have been told by a doctor that they have asthma, and about a quarter
(23 percent) have visited the emergency room in the past six months because of asthma
(exhibit 3.5). These rates of asthma appear dramatically different from the incidence among the
general population, where roughly 7 percent of people younger than 18 years old report they
have asthma.21 It should be noted that self-reported incidence of asthma is similar (around 50
percent) in our CHA public housing relocatee sample (Popkin and Cunningham 2001).
Exhibit 3.4. Health
Poor
12%
Excellent
21%
Fair
31%
Good
36%
N=160
% percentage of
respondents at baseline
Levels of motivation for making a mobility move were expected to vary, depending on a
respondent’s situation, past experience, and current circumstances. In order to capture how
movers felt when they started their search, the baseline included a measure of self-efficacy,
which indicates how much control people believe they have over their lives and is associated
with depression and other characteristics such as long-term welfare recipiency (c.f. Popkin
1990). Almost all of our respondents (90 percent) believe that “when I make plans, I can usually
carry them out.” Only one-third (33 percent) believe that “good luck is more important than hard
work for success.” However, baseline did reveal that more than half (60 percent) agree with the
21
According to the National Center for Environmental Health, 1994.
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/asthma/speakit/epi.htm. (Accessed September 13, 2001.)
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
18
statement “every time I try to get ahead, something stops me,” and approximately half (48
percent) agree that “planning only makes people unhappy because plans hardly ever work out
anyway" (exhibit 3.6). While these respondents appear to have relatively low self-efficacy, a
larger proportion of CHAC respondents score higher than respondents in our CHA sample
(Popkin and Cunningham 2001).
Exhibit 3.5. Asthma
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
N=203
20
% percentage of
respondents at
baseline
10
0
Told by a doctor they have asthma
Visited an emergency room in the
past 6 months because of asthma
The factors respondents were most likely to cite as barriers to finding an apartment with
Housing Choice Vouchers were “finding a place you like” (84 percent) and “finding landlords
who will accept Section 8” (84 percent). More than half (62 percent) believe that “landlords who
do not want to rent to families with children” will be a “big problem” or “some problem,” and more
than half identify “not having access to transportation for apartment hunting” as a major barrier
(exhibit 3.7). The problems in these reports are similar to those reported by CHA public housing
relocatees and suggest that, in many cases, CHAC movers have low expectations for finding
new housing with their vouchers. This finding could be due to previous experience searching
for housing with Housing Choice Vouchers.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
19
Exhibit 3.6. Self-Efficacy
Good luck is more
important than hard
work for success
Planning only makes
people unhappy ….
When I make plans, I
can usually carry them
out
N=160
%
percentage
of
respondents
at baseline
Every time I try to get
ahead, something stops
me
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Exhibit 3.7. Section 8 Search Barriers
Finding a place you can
afford
Landlords who do not
want ot rent to families
with children
Not having access to
transportation for apt.
hunting
N=160
Finding landlords who will
accept Section 8
%
percentage
of
respondents
at baseline
Finding a place with
enough bedrooms
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
20
More of our respondents reported needing assistance with services related to long-term
self-sufficiency than assistance with immediate or “crisis” problems. For example, about a third
(31 percent) reported needing assistance in obtaining a GED, almost 40 percent reported
needing assistance with college counseling, and about 58 percent reported needing assistance
with 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 in rebuilding their credit (exhibit 3.8).
Co
Co
Do
Su
He
Re
lle
m
m
bs
Ge
pu
ge
bu
Me
alt
es
ta
te
tti
itc
ild
h
nt
C
nc
r
ng
ou
pr
in
al
V
T
e
g
ob
ns
iol
ra
H
a
A
Cr
ea
in
lem
en
bu
el
GE
i
ed
i
lth
ng
ce
ng
se
D
s
i
Exhibit 3.8. Non-Housing Services Needed
N=203
%
percentage of
respondents
at baseline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
21
Baseline: Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Respondents reported varying levels of problems with their housing before they moved.
The three measures respondents reported “big problems” or “some problems” with were walls
with peeling paint or broken plaster (46 percent), plumbing that does not work properly (46
percent), and broken locks or no locks on unit doors (39 percent). Less than a third of
respondents reported “big problems” or “some problems” with the remaining measures (rats or
mice, cockroaches or other bugs, heat not working) (exhibit 3.9) 22.
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
N=160
% percentage
of respondents
at baseline
Walls with peeling paint
or broken plaster
0
22
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
It is important to note that all units that receive Housing Choice Voucher subsidies are inspected to ensure
that they meet HUD’s Housing Quality Standards. The respondents in our sample who had to move because their
unit failed HQS inspections are likely to report more problems with housing conditions.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
22
Most of our respondents reported problems with neighborhood quality, in terms of social
disorder, physical disorder, and violence. More than half of our respondents 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. Further, almost a third (29
percent) reported problems with people being attacked or robbed, and 42 percent reported
problems with shootings or violence in their neighborhood (exhibit 3.10). Reports of problems
with safety, drugs, and gangs are consistent with respondents’ reasons for moving.
Exhibit 3.10. Social Disorder and Violence
in Neighborhood
Shootings and violence
Police not coming when
called
Gangs
Groups of people just
hanging out
N=160
People using drugs
%
percentage
of
respondents
at baseline
People selling drugs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
4.
23
MOBILITY ASSISTANCE AND NEIGHBORHOOD OUTCOMES
One of the main objectives of our study is to examine the types of neighborhoods that
families in the Housing Choice Voucher Program move to and how mobility counseling relates
to neighborhood outcomes. As indicated earlier, this report focuses on several important
questions: Who among our Housing Choice Voucher participants moved? What are the
characteristics of the movers? How are they different from non-movers? Our analysis shows
the following:
More than half of the respondents in our sample moved to new units. By the time
our six-month follow-up began in November 2000, more than half of our sample of CHAC
Housing Choice Voucher holders had moved. As exhibit 4.1 shows, our survey team was able
to contact 160 (79 percent) of the original respondents at follow-up. 23 Of these 160
respondents, 96 (60 percent) had moved since they were first interviewed at baseline (exhibit
4.2). It is interesting that, although more involuntary movers might be expected to move, about
the same proportion of participants who had to move because of a failed HQS inspection or
eviction moved by our six-month follow-up, as did voluntary movers (59 percent and 61 percent,
respectively).
Exhibit 4.1. Survey Response and Relocation Status
Number Of Respondents
Total Baseline Sample
Total Respondents at 6-month follow-up
Respondents not contacted
203
160
43
Response Rate
78.8%
Moving Status of those Contacted
Movers
Nonmovers
23
64
96
Our nonresponse analysis shows that there are not many statistically significant differences between the
respondents that we could not contact and the respondents we interviewed for Wave II, who thus remained in our
sample. See Appendix A for a full description of our nonresponse analysis.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
24
Exhibit 4.2. Move Status
Did not move
40%
N=160
Moved
60%
% percentage of
respondents
at Wave II
Almost half of movers moved to opportunity neighborhoods. About 20 percent of
movers moved from high-poverty neighborhoods to opportunity neighborhoods, and 23 percent
of movers who originated in opportunity neighborhoods moved to another unit in a opportunity
neighborhood. Adding these two groups together, a total of 43 percent of our respondents who
moved are now living in opportunity neighborhoods. The remainder of our respondents moved
to high-poverty neighborhoods: 38 percent moved from high-poverty to high-poverty
neighborhoods, and 19 percent moved from opportunity to high-poverty (exhibit 4.3). 24
If we break down the poverty ranges further we find that 13 percent of households who
moved relocated in neighborhoods where less than 10 percent of the households are living
below the poverty rate. Four of those households moved from very high-poverty neighborhoods
to neighborhoods with poverty rates of less than 10 percent (See exhibit 4.4 for further
breakdowns). Map 1 illustrates the neighborhood outcomes for CHAC respondents and
displays relative changes in poverty rates between original and destination addresses.
24
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 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 appear to be moving to high-poverty areas are actually moving to
gentrifying neighborhoods. Similarly, it is possible that CHAC respondents who appear to be moving to low-poverty
neighborhoods may have moved to high-poverty neighborhoods.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
25
Exhibit 4.3. Neighborhood Outcomes for
Movers
opportunity to
opportunity
23%
high-poverty to
high-poverty
38%
high-poverty to
opportunity
20%
opportunity to
high-poverty
19%
N=90
% percentage of
respondents
who moved
Exhibit 4.4. Neighborhood Outcomes by
Poverty Categories
Greater than 40
percent low-income
22%
Less than 10
percent low-income
14%
10-20 percent lowincome
24%
30-40 percent lowincome
17%
20-30 percent lowincome
23%
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
27
When we compared the survey data above to the CHAC administrative data (see section
2), we found that our data show lower percentages of moves to opportunity neighborhoods and
more respondents moving from opportunity neighborhoods to high-poverty neighborhoods.
These differences are likely the result of several factors: (1) the timing of the study (i.e., the fact
that our sample was drawn during the early phases of the Mobility Program implementation); (2)
the study time frame (i.e., this report provides data only on respondents’ experiences during a
six-month period); and (3) the small sample size. Despite the limitations of the survey data,
they are still useful because they track outcomes for voucher holders as they move through the
moving process.
A majority of respondents in our sample moved to segregated neighborhoods. As
shown in exhibit 4.5 and map 2, although some of our respondents moved to lower-poverty
tracts, these neighborhoods are still highly segregated—70 percent of all households have
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 reveal that families are interested in living in diverse neighborhoods. More
than half of our respondents indicated 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 would like to live in a neighborhood where the residents are all
African American
Exhibit 4.5. Neighborhood Outcomes:
Minority Concentration
> 90 percent African-American
< 90 percent African-American
30%
70%
N=90
% percentage of
respondents
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
29
There are no significant differences in personal characteristics between
respondents in our sample who moved and those who remained in their current unit. At
baseline, and again at the six-month follow-up, a large amount of information was captured
about our respondents, including demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and
indicators of health and self-efficacy. These characteristics of the participants who moved were
compared with the characteristics of participants who did not move to determine whether any
participant characteristics make participants more likely to move. Overall, few statistically
significant differences were found between movers and non-movers (see appendix C for tables).
It is difficult to isolate program effects. The vast majority of respondents (76 percent)
had enrolled in CHAC’s Mobility Program, which provides participants with extra services aimed
at relocation to lower poverty areas. Enrollment in the program, however, did not make a
statistically significant difference in whether the respondent moved to a opportunity
neighborhood. These findings do not necessarily mean that the Mobility Program has no effect
on neighborhood outcomes; it is likely that our sample size is too small to uncover statistically
significant differences. It is also likely that this finding reflects programmatic rules that allow
participants to remain enrolled in the Mobility Program even if they are not actively participating.
Some of the respondents in our sample are listed as “enrolled” in the program but may not have
received mobility services before they moved. Finally, our data did include information on the
extent of services each participant received. As noted earlier, it is anticipated that, for our final
report, data limitations will be overcome by merging CHAC administrative data (on who is
participating in the program and the services they received) with our survey data. With the
combined data, multivariate analyses will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of CHAC’s
Mobility Program in assisting moves to opportunity neighborhoods.
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—like what was done with poverty
rates and percentage minority. While these measures allow us to objectively define and classify
“types” of neighborhoods—for example, opportunity or high-poverty—they have numerous
limitations. Most notably, the census tract data currently available are severely outdated. For
this reason, participants were asked a number of questions intended to gauge conditions in their
neighborhoods. Below, a snapshot of respondents was taken after they moved in order to
compare neighborhood and housing conditions for opportunity movers versus high-poverty
movers.25 Our analysis revealed the following findings:
25
It is important to note that this analysis does not compare pre-move housing and neighborhood conditions
to post-move conditions; instead we take a snapshot at one point in time. We plan to analyze improvements over
time in the final report.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
30
Movers to opportunity neighborhoods report better housing conditions. Overall,
movers to opportunity neighborhoods were less likely to report “big problems” or “some
problems” with five aspects of building maintenance: peeling paint, rats or mice, roaches,
broken locks, and heat that does not work. It is interesting that more opportunity movers report
“big” or “some" problems with plumbing in their units (see exhibit 4.6).
Exhibit 4.6. Housing Quality, by
Neighborhood Poverty Levels
100
Low-Poverty
90
High-Poverty
80
70
60
50
40
30
N=96
20
%
percentage
of
respondents
who moved
10
0
Walls with peeling
paint or broken
plaster
Plumbing that
does not work
properly
Rats or mice in
the apartment
Cockroaches or
Broken locks or Heat not working
other bugs in the no locks on doors for more than 24
apartment
to unit
hours
Movers to opportunity neighborhoods report higher levels of social cohesion
among their neighbors. The six-month follow-up also shows statistically significant differences
between movers to high- and opportunity areas in their perceptions of social cohesion in their
communities. Approximately 23 percent more movers to low-poverty areas than movers to
high-poverty areas report that “neighborhoods are close-knit” and that “people in the
neighborhood can be trusted.” High scores on these measures indicate a stronger, more
cohesive community and are associated with low crime rates (Sampson et al. 1997) (exhibit
4.7).
Movers to opportunity neighborhoods report lower levels of problems with crime
and social disorder. Consistently, more movers to high-poverty areas reported “big problems”
or “some problems” on each individual element of social disorder. Approximately 14 percent
more movers to high-poverty neighborhoods report problems with people selling drugs; 24
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
percent more report problems with people using drugs; 20 percent more report problems with
gangs; and 11 percent more report the police not coming when called (exhibit 4.8).
31
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
32
Exhibit 4.7. Social Cohesion and Trust, by
Neighborhood Poverty Levels
100
Low-Poverty
High-Poverty
90
80
70
60
50
N=96
40
%
percentage
of
responden
ts who
moved
30
20
10
0
People around here
are willing to help
their neighbors
This is a close-knit
neighborhood
People in this
People in this
People in this
neighborhood share neighborhood can be
neighborhood
values
trusted
generally get along
with each other
Exhibit 4.8. Social Disorder,
by Neighborhood Poverty Levels
100
Low-Poverty
High-Poverty
90
80
70
60
50
40
N=96
30
%
percentage
of
respondents
who moved
20
10
0
People selling drugs
People using drugs
Groups of people just
hanging out
Gangs
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
5.
33
RECENT CHANGES AND ONGOING CHALLENGES
In addition to the collection of quantitative data through our survey, a process study
allowed the collection of data about key features of CHAC’s Mobility Program, including how
program participants move through the program, key program elements, and programmatic
challenges that may hinder moves to opportunity neighborhoods. Our study also documented
incremental changes that CHAC program administrators made in response to problems
encountered during the early phases of implementation.
The next section summarizes the data that were collected through our process study,
and highlights our major findings about programmatic implementation. The section presents
recent changes CHAC administrators have implemented and some of the key areas CHAC
should continue to address.
During our study, CHAC continued to implement new policies that seek to strengthen the
program. We found several key reforms:
C
Monitoring and tracking. CHAC mobility staff have made substantial efforts to track
second movers as they come through the program. This monitoring process needs to
continue so that CHAC can continue to make changes as needed.
C
Housing Choice Voucher briefings. Earlier research conducted by the Urban Institute
(Popkin and Cunningham 1999) suggests that the Housing Choice Voucher briefings
were confusing and covered a lot of information in a poorly organized format. Further,
the mobility component of the briefing was often passed through too quickly during the
last few minutes of the briefings, instead of being a common thread throughout the
briefing. Since that time, CHAC has worked with a communication consultant and has
completely revamped its briefings and briefing materials to make them easier to
understand. In addition, CHAC created separate briefings for Spanish-speaking
households, and these are conducted twice a month.
C
Inspections. A common complaint from both housing counselors and program
participants who are searching for housing is that inspections often take too long and
result in lost units, particularly for participants interested in moving to opportunity
neighborhoods. Our process study has documented slow inspections as an ongoing
problem. Recently, CHAC took steps to train all mobility inspectors so that they can
perform expedited inspections for families enrolled in the Mobility Program.
C
Security Deposit Loan Program. One of the major barriers to moving to opportunity
neighborhoods is being able to afford a security deposit (Popkin and Cunningham 1998,
Cunningham, Sylvester, and Turner 2000). To address this issue, CHAC created a
Security Deposit Loan Program that offers zero-interest loans to participants in the
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
34
Mobility Program who move to opportunity neighborhoods. Initially, CHAC had some
problems with participants not repaying 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 can pay half of what they owe or renegotiate their loan
if they need to, but at this point, they must continue to pay their loan on time.
C
Follow-up services. Moving to an unfamiliar neighborhood is not easy, and the
provision of follow-up services may make a difference in how families who move to
opportunity neighborhoods adjust and choose to remain in their new neighborhood. In
the past, CHAC housing search counselors had trouble providing comprehensive followup services to the participants who moved to opportunity neighborhoods because they
focused their time on assisting families with moving. To overcome this problem, CHAC
recently created a separate counselor position to conduct follow-up services after the
participant moving.
There are still a number of areas in which the program could be strengthened. Some of
these concerns and continuing challenges are highlighted below:
•
On average, caseloads continue to be relatively high, although they vary by month and
how quickly or slowly people lease up. At times, counselors reported that their
caseloads are as high as 400 participants. Counselors also report that they spend most
of their time on the phone and sometimes have as many as 60 messages from clients in
a day. CHAC may want to consider limiting the number of households in the program at
any given time or increasing the program’s resources so that it can increase the quality
of services for the households enrolled in the program.
•
Consistent briefings also appear to be a continuing challenge. CHAC has invested
considerable time and funds in overhauling the mobility briefings to ensure that the
materials are interesting, visually attractive, and easy to read. Still, there is variability in
how particular items are presented at briefings, mostly due to the style or knowledge of
the presenter. Further, more than half of our respondents reported not being shown the
video on making a mobility move, and 18 percent of the respondents did not enroll in the
Mobility Program because they “did not understand it.” These data suggest that briefing
staff may not be reaching all potential mobility participants.
•
Discrimination against voucher holders is a widely reported problem (this was heard
from both counselors and program participants). During the briefings, mobility
counselors emphasize that in the city of Chicago, landlords cannot discriminate against
voucher holders. Program participants are told to contact Fair Housing and file a
complaint if they believe they have been discriminated against. While this is good
advice, program participants typically view filing a complaint as a difficult, lengthy
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
35
process. Further, program participants are not protected in suburban jurisdictions.
CHAC mobility staff should consider partnering with a fair housing agency to develop a
strategic plan to address the issue of discrimination against voucher holders within the
city of Chicago, where it is illegal to discriminate against voucher holders. Suburban
jurisdictions, which do not have protections for voucher recipients, should be lobbied to
adopt local ordinances.
•
Lack of meaningful and up-to-date information about poverty levels in
neighborhoods. As indicated previously, CHAC, like all mobility programs, relies on
census data to guide participants to opportunity neighborhoods. In many cases, census
data may be so outdated that households are moving to neighborhoods that have
“tipped” and are no longer low-poverty. Similarly, lack of up-to-date data may prevent
movers from moving to opportunity neighborhoods. Also, neighborhoods that were once
considered high-poverty may have improved; however, 1990 census data do not reflect
these improvements.
•
Improve and focus the content of follow-up services. Almost a quarter of our
respondents “moved back” from opportunity neighborhoods to high-poverty
neighborhoods. Further, a number of participants report “problems with landlords” as a
main reason for wanting to move. These data suggest that follow-up services should
focus on helping families to become stable in their new neighborhoods and develop
better relationships with their landlords. The families who are ready for long-term selfsufficiency services should be referred to the CHAC's Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS)
Program.
•
Improve the connection between the FSS and Mobility programs. Our survey data
show that high percentages of our respondents reported needing assistance with selfsufficiency-related services (education, job training, and so on), suggesting that there
are a number of families who are participating in the Mobility Program who are also likely
targets for the FSS Program. These families should be targeted during follow-up and
encouraged to enroll in the FSS Program. Similarly, staff should recruit mobility
participants, particularly those who have escrow accounts, from the FSS Program.
Forging a strong connection between mobility follow-up services and enrollment in FSS
may help more households remain in opportunity neighborhoods and become selfsufficient over the long term.
•
Take active steps to alleviate discrimination against voucher holders. Our survey
respondents and in-depth interview respondents consistently report problems with
finding landlords who will accept Housing Choice Vouchers. CHAC mobility staff should
consider partnering with a fair housing agency to develop a strategic plan to address the
issue of discrimination against voucher holders within the city of Chicago, where it is
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
illegal to discriminate against voucher holders. Suburban jurisdictions, which do not
have protections for voucher recipients, should be lobbied to adopt local ordinances.
36
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
6.
37
CONCLUSION
CHAC has made significant progress in transforming a small mobility program into one
of the largest programs in the country. Approximately 1,500 families who participated in
CHAC’s Mobility Program now live in opportunity neighborhoods (CHAC 2001). Overall, the
number of voucher holders living in low-poverty neighborhoods has increased from 29 percent
in 1995 to 42 percent in 2001. Despite the program’s substantial progress, however, a majority
of households receiving Housing Choice Vouchers still live in high-poverty, segregated
neighborhoods.
Policymakers, local housing administrators, and researchers continue to express
concern about the consequences of having large clusters of Housing Choice Voucher holders in
high-poverty neighborhoods. Although some progress has been made toward encouraging
Housing Choice Voucher holders to consider other, low-poverty neighborhoods, much more
remains to be done.
Addressing challenges highlighted above is increasingly more important as housing
assistance shifts from project-based to tenant-based assistance. The large influx of CHA
residents with little experience in the private market is likely to have a major impact on the
program and it appears that additional resources may be need to address their needs within the
current structure of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Changes in the welfare system and
the current economic downturn are also likely to place new demands on the program and
increase the need for housing search assistance.
CHAC Mobility Program Assessment: Interim Report
7.
38
REFERENCES
Cunningham, Mary K., David Sylvester. Section 8 Families in the Washington Region:
Neighborhood Choices and Constraints. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Council of
Governments, 1999.
CHAC 2001. Administrative data provided by Jennifer O’Neil.
Fischer, Paul. 1999. Section 8 and the Public Housing Revolution: Where Will Families Go?
Chicago, Ill.: The Wood Fund of Chicago.
Popkin, S.J. "Welfare: Views from the Bottom." (1990) Social Problems 37(1): 64-79.
Popkin, S. J. and M. 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, S.J. and M.K. Cunningham. CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment: Interim Report.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, July 2001.
Rubinowitz, Leonard S. and James E. Rosenbaum. 2000. Crossing the Class and Color Lines:
From Public Housing to White Suburbia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, Robert J., S. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. (1997). Neighborhoods and Violent
Crime: A Multi-level Study of Collective Efficacy. Science 277 (August 15): 918-924.
Schussheim, Morton J. Housing the Poor: Federal Housing Programs for Low-Income Families.
Congressional Research Service Report to Congress (1998).
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.
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 uses 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
and II of survey data collection and a description of the interviews conducted with
administrative staff.
Panel Survey of Participants
This report includes data from two 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.
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, were 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.
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. The SRL Project Coordinator
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 interviewer training manual covering all aspects of the data collection
procedures which 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.
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 collection 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 sample (Wave II) consisted of respondents who completed a
pretest or baseline interview. Table A-1shows the response rate for Wave II of the
survey data collection.
Table A-1 Response Rate for Wave II Survey
Number
Total Sample
203
Non duplicates
203
Contact to Screener
200
Cooperation to Screener
181
Eligible
176
Contact to Final
167
Cooperation to Final
160
Response rate
160
Rate
100%
98.5%
89.2%
86.7%
82.3%
78.8%
78.8%
Nonresponse Analysis
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. Between April and mid-August
2000, UIC staff interviewed counselors at CHAC and observed key program activities.
Interviews with Agency Staff
In March 2000, 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
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Data Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Respondent Characteristics at a Glance
CHAC
N=203
Gender
Female
Male
92%
8%
Age
25 or younger
26-35
36-49
50-59
60 or older
7%
18%
56%
15%
3%
Number of children
1-2 children
3 or more children
55%
45%
Education
No high school
Some high school
HS grad (no college)
HS grad (college)
4%
39%
35%
22%
Length of time in CHA (n=117)
Less than 5 years
More than 5 years
38%
62%
Income
$10,000 or less
$10,001 to $20,000
$20,001 to $30,000
Over $30,000
70%
22%
6.6%
1%
Currently Employed
20 or more hours
Less than 20 hours
40%
90%
10%
Receiving public aid or TANF
Receiving SSI or SSDI
Have a valid drivers license
Have access to a car that runs
42%
42%
42%
38%
Exhibit 1-2
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Section 8 Search Barriers
CHAC
N=203
Do think these factors will be a “big problem” or “some
problem” while searching for housing with Section 8?
Finding a place with enough bedrooms
59%
Finding a place you like
84%
Finding a place you can afford
69%
Finding a place that will pass Section 8 inspection
68%
Finding landlords who will accept Section 8
84%
Knowing how to look for a new apartment
34%
Not having access to transportation for apartment hunting
55%
Having a disability which makes it difficult to search
35%
Finding child care so you can look for housing
24%
Discrimination because of your race
38%
Landlords who do not want to rent to families with children
62%
Taking time off from work to look for an apartment
40%
Exhibit 1-3
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Housing Quality
CHAC
N=203
Percent reporting “big problem” or “some problem”
Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster
46%
Plumbing that does not work properly
46%
Rats or mice in the apartment
22%
Cockroaches or other bugs in the apartment
31%
Broken locks or no locks on doors to unit
39%
Heat or not working for more than 24 hours
47%
Exhibit 1-4
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Household Member Victimized in the Past Year
CHAC
N=203
Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen
10%
Threatened with a knife or gun
15%
Beaten or assaulted
10%
Stabbed or shot
Anyone trying to break into home
8%
15%
Exhibit 1-5
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, and Violence
CHAC
N=203
Social Disorder Scale
People selling drugs
People using drugs
Groups of people just hanging out
Gangs
Police not coming when called
63%
61%
52%
52%
18%
Physical Disorder Scale
Graffiti
Trash and junk
24%
30%
Violence Scale
People being attacked or robbed
Shootings and violence
Rape or sexual assaults
29%
42%
17%
Exhibit 1-6
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Health
CHA
N=190
General Health
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
16%
28%
24%
9%
Health compared to six months ago
Much better
Somewhat better
About the same
Somewhat worse
Much worse
18%
13%
53%
11%
5%
Ever told by doctor had asthma?
48%
Past 6 months anyone in HH had asthma attack
29%
Past 6 months visited ER because of asthma
23%
Exhibit 1-7
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Self-Efficacy
CHAC
N=203
Every time I try to get ahead, something stops me
60%
When I make plans, I can usually carry them out
90%
Planning only makes people unhappy because plans
hardly ever work out anyway
48%
Good luck is more important than hard work for success
33%
Exhibit 1-8
Wave I: CHAC Respondents
Financial Hardship
CHAC
N=203
In the past 6 months:
Worried whether food runs out
Often true
Sometimes true
16%
36%
Food bought ran out too soon
Often true
Sometimes true
11%
35%
Ever cut meals because not enough money
22%
How often in last 6 months
Almost every month
Some months but not every month
Only one or two months
18%
50%
32%
Paid rent late in the last 6 months
23%
How many times paid rent late in last 6 months
Once
Two to three times
Four to six times
41%
44%
15%
Last 6 months couldn’t afford a telephone
39%
Appendix C
Wave I: CHAC Movers and
Nonmovers
Data Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1
Wave I: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Respondent Characteristics at a Glance
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Gender
Female
Male
58%
83%
42%
17%
Age
25 or younger
26-35
36-49
50-59
60 or older
7%
18%
53%
19%
3%
6%
10%
67%
14%
3%
Number of children
1-2 children
3 or more children
54%
58%
46%
42%
Education
No high school
Some high school
HS grad (no college)
HS grad (college)
4%
30%
41%
25%
6%
45%
30%
19%
Length of time in CHA**
Less than 5 years
5 years or more
26%
41%
74%
59%
Income
$10,000 or less
$10,001 to $20,000
$20,001 to $30,000
More than $30,000
68%
20%
10%
2%
71%
26%
3%
0
Currently Employed
20 or more hours
Less than 20 hours
43%
90%
10%
36%
91%
9%
Receiving public aid or TANF**
Receiving SSI or SSDI
Have a valid drivers license
Have access to a car that runs
36%
45%
46%
43%
53%
47%
39%
36%
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 2-2
Wave I: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Section 8 Search Barriers
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Finding a place with enough bedrooms
61%
61%
Finding a place you like
84%
83%
Finding a place you can afford
70%
71%
Finding a place that will pass Section 8
inspection
71%
65%
Finding landlords who will accept Section 8
85%
83%
Knowing how to look for a new apartment
33%
44%
Not having access to transportation for
apartment hunting
53%
53%
Having a disability which makes it difficult to
search
36%
38%
Finding child care so you can look for housing
23%
23%
Discrimination because of your race
35%
40%
Landlords who do not want to rent to families
with children
57%
66%
Taking time off from work to look for an
apartment
44%
38%
Do think these factors will be a “big
problem” or “some problem” while
searching for housing with Section 8?
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 2-3
Wave I: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Housing Quality
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster
45%
51%
Plumbing that does not work properly
38%
45%
Rats or mice in the apartment
22%
20%
Cockroaches or other bugs in the
apartment
33%
28%
Broken locks or no locks on doors to unit
34%
45%
Heat or not working for more than 24 hours
46%
50%
Percent reporting “big problem” or
“some problem”
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
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 2-4
Wave I: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Household Member Victimized in the Past Year
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen
7%
16%
Threatened with a knife or gun
13%
19%
Beaten or assaulted
5%
19%
Stabbed or shot
5%
11%
Anyone trying to break into home
16%
13%
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 2-5
Wave I: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, Violence
Social Disorder Scale
People selling drugs
People using drugs
Groups of people just hanging out**
Gangs
Police not coming when called
Physical Disorder Scale
Graffiti
Trash and junk
Violence Scale
People being attacked or robbed
Shootings and violence
Rape or sexual assaults
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
63%
63%
50%
55%
18%
69%
62%
56%
51%
21%
23%
22%
27%
36%
26%
40%
16%
30%
50%
15%
Exhibit 2-6
Wave I: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Health
CHA
Movers
N=96
CHA
Nonmovers
N=64
General Health
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don’t know
14%
32%
18%
25%
11%
16%
28%
20%
23%
13%
Health compared to six months ago
Much better
Somewhat better
About the same
Somewhat worse
Much worse
18%
13%
49%
17%
4%
14%
14%
56%
8%
8%
Ever told by doctor had asthma?
46%
49%
Past 6 months anyone in HH had
asthma attack
28%
25%
Past 6 months visited ER because of
asthma
24%
16%
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 2-7
Wave I: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Self-Efficacy
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Every time I try to get ahead,
something stops me
62%
59%
When I make plans I can usually carry
them out
90%
89%
Planning only makes people unhappy
because plans hardly ever work out
anyway
47%
43%
Good luck is more important than
handwork for success
34%
27%
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 2-8
Wave I: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Financial Hardship
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Worried whether food runs out
Often true
Sometimes true
18%
34%
16%
38%
Food bought ran out too soon
Often true
Sometimes true
14%
30%
11%
34%
Ever cut meals because not enough money**
19%
30%
How often in last 6 months have you cut
meals because not enough money
Almost every month
Some months but not every month
Only one or two months
11%
50%
39%
11%
68%
21%
Paid rent late in the last 6 months
17%
21%
How many times paid rent late in last 6
months
Once
Two to three times
Four to six times
50%
38%
13%
46%
31%
23%
Last 6 months couldn’t afford a telephone
36%
39%
In the past 6 months:
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Appendix D
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Data Exhibit
Exhibit 3-1
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Housing Quality
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster***
14%
45%
Plumbing that does not work properly***
19%
48%
Rats or mice in the apartment***
17%
45%
Cockroaches or other bugs in the apartment***
17%
59%
Broken locks or no locks on doors to unit***
5%
27%
Heat or not working for more than 24 hours***
9%
38%
Percent reporting “big problem” or “some
problem”
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 3-2
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Social Cohesion and Trust
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
How many family members live in the same
neighborhood as you?
None
A few
Many
59%
32%
8%
75%
25%
0%
How many of your friends live in the same
neighborhood as you?
None
A few
Many
58%
36%
5%
63%
33%
5%
People around here are willing to help their
neighbors**
82%
61%
People in this neighborhood share values**
73%
57%
This is a close-knit neighborhood***
80%
41%
People in this neighborhood can be trusted
55%
48%
People in this neighborhood generally get along
with each other*
80%
68%
How likely is that your neighbors would do
something if they saw
Percentage of respondents reporting “very likely”
or “likely”
Children skipping school and hanging out on a
street corner?***
74%
47%
Children spray-painting graffiti on a local
building?***
82%
50%
Children showing disrespect to an adult?***
78%
47%
A fight breaks out in front of their home?***
82%
59%
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 3-3
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Household Member Victimized in the Past Year
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen
5%
11%
Threatened with a knife or gun**
5%
16%
Beaten or assaulted
6%
8%
Stabbed or shot
1%
2%
Anyone trying to break into home
9%
6%
Percent reporting at least one household
member being victimized in the past year
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 3-4
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, and Violence
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
Social Disorder Scale
People selling drugs**
People using drugs***
Groups of people just hanging out***
Gangs**
Police not coming when called**
59%
56%
44%
63%
28%
80%
83%
81%
81%
45%
Physical Disorder Scale
Graffiti***
Trash and junk***
24%
33%
59%
59%
Violence Scale
People being attacked or robbed**
Shootings and violence***
Rape or sexual assaults***
46%
45%
31%
67%
70%
59%
Percent reporting “big problem” or
“some problem”
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 3-5
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Health
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
General Health
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
14%
18%
29%
28%
11%
18%
30%
16%
23%
14%
Health compared to six months ago
Much better
Somewhat better
About the same
Somewhat worse
Much worse
17%
17%
52%
9%
5%
6%
27%
55%
6%
6%
Ever told by doctor had asthma?
42%
45%
Past 6 months anyone in HH had asthma attack
25%
25%
Past 6 months visited ER because of asthma**
25%
12%
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 3-6
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Self-Efficacy and Depression
Depression Scale
Not depressed (<16)
Depressed (16-30)
Depressed (31-45)
Very depressed (46-60)
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
64%
24%
7%
4%
47%
38%
16%
0%
Self-Efficacy
Every time I try to get ahead, something stops me
61%
64%
When I make plans, I can usually carry them out
89%
86%
Planning only makes people unhappy because plans
hardly ever work out anyway
39%
41%
Good luck is more important than hard work for
success
41%
33%
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 3-7
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Financial Hardship
CHAC
Movers
N=96
CHAC
Nonmovers
N=64
In the past 6 months:
Worried whether food runs out
Often true
Sometimes true
16%
45%
19%
39%
Food bought ran out too soon
Often true
Sometimes true
15%
38%
6%
48%
Ever cut meals because not enough money*
21%
34%
How often in last 6 months have you cut meals
because not enough money
Almost every month
Some months but not every month
Only one or two months
25%
40%
35%
10%
43%
48%
Paid rent late in the last 6 months**
25%
20%
39%
42%
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
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Appendix E
Wave II: CHAC Low-Poverty Movers and
High-Poverty Movers
Data Exhibit
Exhibit 4-1
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Housing Quality
CHAC
Low-Poverty
N=45
CHAC
High-Poverty
N=54
Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster*
7
20
Plumbing that does not work properly
20
16
Rats or mice in the apartment
10
24
Cockroaches or other bugs in the apartment**
5
26
Broken locks or no locks on doors to unit
2
8
Heat or not working for more than 24 hours
7
10
Percent reporting “big problem” or “some
problem”
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 4-2
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Social Cohesion and Trust
CHAC
Low-Poverty
N=45
CHAC
High-Poverty
N=54
How many family members live in the same
neighborhood as you?
None
A few
Many
54
37
10
60
32
8
How many of your friends live in the same
neighborhood as you?
None
A few
Many
56
39
5
60
34
6
People around here are willing to help their
neighbors
85
77
People in this neighborhood share values
72
70
This is a close-knit neighborhood*
92
70
People in this neighborhood can be trusted**
65
42
People in this neighborhood generally get along
with each other
83
75
Children skipping school and hanging out on a
street corner?
77
72
Children spray-painting graffiti on a local
building?
83
79
Children showing disrespect to an adult?
72
84
A fight breaks out in front of their home?
91
74
How likely is that your neighbors would do
something if they saw
Percentage of respondents reporting “very likely”
or “likely”
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 4-3
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Household Member Victimized in the Past Year
CHAC
Low-Poverty
N=45
CHAC
High-Poverty
N=54
Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen
7
4
Threatened with a knife or gun
2
8
Beaten or assaulted
5
8
Stabbed or shot
0
2
Anyone trying to break into home
12
6
Percent reporting at least one household
member being victimized in the past year
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 4-4
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, and Violence
CHAC
Low-Poverty
N=45
CHAC
High-Poverty
N=54
Social Disorder Scale
People selling drugs
People using drugs**
Groups of people just hanging out
Gangs
Police not coming when called
48
49
40
54
23
62
70
52
73
34
Physical Disorder Scale
Graffiti
Trash and junk
20
27
30
42
Violence Scale
People being attacked or robbed
Shootings and violence
Rape or sexual assaults
47
39
42
47
52
34
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 4-5
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Health
CHAC
Low-Poverty
N=45
CHAC
High-Poverty
N=54
General Health
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
17
24
24
20
15
12
12
33
35
8
Health compared to six months ago
Much better
Somewhat better
About the same
Somewhat worse
Much worse
15
22
54
5
5
21
12
19
12
6
Ever told by doctor had asthma?
32
49
Past 6 months anyone in HH had asthma attack
24
27
Past 6 months visited ER because of asthma
24
26
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 4-6
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Self-Efficacy and Depression
CHAC
Low-Poverty
N=45
CHAC
High-Poverty
N=38
Every time I try to get ahead, something stops me
37
45
When I make plans, I can usually carry them out
66
59
Planning only makes people unhappy because plans
hardly ever work out anyway
92
88
Good luck is more important than hard work for
success
43
39
Self-Efficacy
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001
Exhibit 4-7
Wave II: CHAC Movers and Nonmovers
Financial Hardship
CHAC
Low-Poverty
N=45
CHAC
High-Poverty
N=54
Worried whether food runs out
Often true
Sometimes true
20
42
14
50
Food bought ran out too soon
Often true
Sometimes true
20
37
12
41
Ever cut meals because not enough money
17
27
How often in last 6 months have you cut meals
because not enough money
Almost every month
Some months but not every month
Only one or two months
43
29
29
15
46
39
Paid rent late in the last 6 months
22
31
How many times paid rent late in last 6 months
Once
Two to three times
Four to six times
Six to eight times
56
44
0
0
40
60
0
0
Last 6 months couldn’t afford a telephone
39
39
In the past 6 months:
Notes:
Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.
Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001