The effects of the MTO program are compared in table 4 for households in the LATE identification support set $S1,2M$ and for households in the falsification set $F1,2M$. While receiving an MTO voucher resulted in large improvements to labor force participation rates for households in the group with improvements in neighborhood quality (those in $S1,2M$), there was no effect on labor force participation for households in the group with no improvement in neighborhood quality. Employment actually went down for those whose neighborhood quality did not improve, perhaps due to the disruptiveness of moving without the benefits of moving closer to jobs (Weinberg, 2000; Andersson et al., 2018). And while welfare (TANF) receipt and BMI decreased for voucher recipients who did not move to higher-quality neighborhoods, this effect was much larger for those who did move to a higher-quality neighborhood. Table 5 compares the ITT effects for the subpopulations in table 4 with the ITT effects estimated in the literature for all adults.

Table 4.
Adult Program Effects Estimates by Neighborhood Selection Groups
 Falsification Set $(μ(xi),UD(i))∈F1,2M$ (No Change in Neighborhood Quality) Identification Set $(μ(xi),UD(i))∈S1,2M$ (Improvement in Neighborhood Quality) $E[Y|ZM]$ $E[Y|ZM]$ $ZM=1$ $ZM=0$ $E[Y|ZM=1]-$$E[Y|ZM=0]$ $ZM=1$ $ZM=0$ $E[Y|ZM=1]-$$E[Y|ZM=0]$ Neighborhood selection Neighborhood quality (⁠$D$⁠) 1.02 1.00 0.02 1.37 1.00 0.37 (0.07) (0.00) (0.07) (0.10) (0.09) (0.13) Neighborhood quality (⁠$q$⁠) 1.7 0.4 1.2 6.4 1.1 5.3 (0.8) (0.1) (0.8) (1.0) (0.9) (1.3) Labor market In labor force (%) 63.6 63.6 0.0 63.0 53.2 9.8 (3.9) (5.4) (6.4) (3.2) (3.8) (4.7) Employed (%) 47.1 53.6 −6.5 53.5 41.7 11.8 (4.2) (5.4) (6.8) (3.3) (3.9) (5.0) Household income ($) 14,252 14,134 119 15,629 13,506 2,123 (924) (998) (1,366) (847) (883) (1,175) Earnings ($) 7,583 8,554 −971 8,364 7,642 722 (914) (992) (1,375) (611) (767) (917) Welfare benefits Received TANF (%) 32.2 33.7 −1.5 24.9 39.9 −15.0 (3.7) (5.0) (6.6) (3.0) (3.4) (4.6) Health BMI (raw) 30.0 30.4 −0.3 29.7 30.9 −1.2 (0.5) (0.8) (1.0) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7)
 Falsification Set $(μ(xi),UD(i))∈F1,2M$ (No Change in Neighborhood Quality) Identification Set $(μ(xi),UD(i))∈S1,2M$ (Improvement in Neighborhood Quality) $E[Y|ZM]$ $E[Y|ZM]$ $ZM=1$ $ZM=0$ $E[Y|ZM=1]-$$E[Y|ZM=0]$ $ZM=1$ $ZM=0$ $E[Y|ZM=1]-$$E[Y|ZM=0]$ Neighborhood selection Neighborhood quality (⁠$D$⁠) 1.02 1.00 0.02 1.37 1.00 0.37 (0.07) (0.00) (0.07) (0.10) (0.09) (0.13) Neighborhood quality (⁠$q$⁠) 1.7 0.4 1.2 6.4 1.1 5.3 (0.8) (0.1) (0.8) (1.0) (0.9) (1.3) Labor market In labor force (%) 63.6 63.6 0.0 63.0 53.2 9.8 (3.9) (5.4) (6.4) (3.2) (3.8) (4.7) Employed (%) 47.1 53.6 −6.5 53.5 41.7 11.8 (4.2) (5.4) (6.8) (3.3) (3.9) (5.0) Household income ($) 14,252 14,134 119 15,629 13,506 2,123 (924) (998) (1,366) (847) (883) (1,175) Earnings ($) 7,583 8,554 −971 8,364 7,642 722 (914) (992) (1,375) (611) (767) (917) Welfare benefits Received TANF (%) 32.2 33.7 −1.5 24.9 39.9 −15.0 (3.7) (5.0) (6.6) (3.0) (3.4) (4.6) Health BMI (raw) 30.0 30.4 −0.3 29.7 30.9 −1.2 (0.5) (0.8) (1.0) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7)

The first three columns of this table report the effects of receiving an experimental MTO voucher for households predicted by the estimated choice model to reside in a low-quality neighborhood even when receiving an MTO voucher. The last three columns report the effects of receiving an experimental MTO voucher for households predicted by the estimated choice model to potentially move to a higher-quality neighborhood when receiving an MTO voucher.

Table 5.
Adult Program Effects Estimates by Neighborhood Selection Groups
 $E[Y|ZM=1]-E[Y|ZM=0]$ $(μ(xi),$$UD(i))∈S1,2M$ $(μ(xi),$$UD(i))∈F1,2M$ All Adults Labor market In labor force (%) 9.8 0.0 3.8 (4.7) (3.9) (2.0) Employed (%) 11.8 −6.5 1.4 (5.0) (6.8) (2.1) Household income ($) 2,123 119 239 (1,175) (1,366) (571) Earnings ($) 722 −971 136 (917) (1,375) (443) Welfare benefits Received TANF (%) −15.0 −1.5 −2.1 (4.6) (6.6) (1.9) Health BMI (raw) −1.2 −0.3 (0.7) (1.0)
 $E[Y|ZM=1]-E[Y|ZM=0]$ $(μ(xi),$$UD(i))∈S1,2M$ $(μ(xi),$$UD(i))∈F1,2M$ All Adults Labor market In labor force (%) 9.8 0.0 3.8 (4.7) (3.9) (2.0) Employed (%) 11.8 −6.5 1.4 (5.0) (6.8) (2.1) Household income ($) 2,123 119 239 (1,175) (1,366) (571) Earnings ($) 722 −971 136 (917) (1,375) (443) Welfare benefits Received TANF (%) −15.0 −1.5 −2.1 (4.6) (6.6) (1.9) Health BMI (raw) −1.2 −0.3 (0.7) (1.0)

The first column of this table reports the ITT effects of receiving an experimental MTO voucher for households predicted by the estimated choice model to potentially move to a higher-quality neighborhood when receiving an MTO voucher. The second column reports the ITT effects of receiving an experimental MTO voucher for households predicted by the estimated choice model to remain in a low-quality neighborhood even when receiving an MTO voucher. The final column reports estimates from the literature of the ITT effects of receiving an experimental MTO voucher for all adults. The ITT on TANF receipt for all adults comes from table F3 from Kling, Liebman, and Katz (2007b), with the rest of the all adults ITT effects coming from tables D7.1a, D8.1, and D8.2 in Orr et al. (2003). The effects reported in the final column are regression-adjusted with robust standard errors.

Close Modal