Evaluating the Rental Assistance Demonstration Choice Mobility Option, Part 2: Resident Experiences and Outcomes

Evaluating the Rental Assistance Demonstration Choice Mobility Option, Part 2: Resident Experiences and Outcomes

This article is the second in a three-part series discussing the findings of the 2023 report "Evaluation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD): Implementation and Impact of the Choice Mobility Option". This article presents qualitative findings on resident experiences in RAD and views about Choice Mobility. The first article reviewed findings about the prevalence of Choice Mobility use among RAD eligible residents while the third article will focus on experiences of PHA staff and property owners with the Choice Mobility option.

Through one of its components, the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program allows public housing agencies (PHAs) to convert public housing properties to Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments contracts, thereby expanding their access to financing options commonly used to support and preserve subsidized affordable housing developments. The PHA can choose to convert to a project-based voucher (PBV) contract administered by HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) or a project-based rental assistance (PBRA) contract administered by HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing Programs. HUD added the Choice Mobility option to RAD conversions, granting RAD residents the right to request a tenant-based (rather than project-based) voucher, enabling them to move to a housing unit on the private rental market. In the 2023 report "Evaluation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD): Implementation and Impact of the Choice Mobility Option," researchers examined the Choice Mobility option from the perspective of resident experience. 

Data Sources

To better understand the perspectives and experiences of residents, the study included a survey administered between February and May 2022 of a representative sample of former RAD residents who chose to use the Choice Mobility option and a representative sample of RAD residents who were eligible to move using the Choice Mobility option but did not. Overall, respondents completed 479 surveys by web, 173 by telephone, and 68 by mailed hardcopy for a total of 720 responses. Respondents completed 704 surveys in English and 16 surveys in Spanish. The overall response rate was 49.6 percent. 

The study also used HUD administrative data and Census data to understand the demographic, neighborhood, and housing market characteristics of Choice Mobility use and resident outcomes.

RAD Resident Experience with the Choice Mobility Option and Outcomes

To understand resident experience and outcomes, the study analyzed the reasons for using or not using the Choice Mobility option, their experiences with the process, and neighborhood and housing quality. 

Reasons for using or not using the Choice Mobility option

The study found that most RAD residents reported limited interest in moving or exercising their Choice Mobility option. For nonmovers, the most cited reason for not requesting a tenant-based voucher was satisfaction with their current unit, followed by satisfaction with their current neighborhood. For movers, relocating to a better neighborhood was by far the most commonly given reason for moving, followed by dissatisfaction with the physical condition of their previous units. For both movers and nonmovers, job-related reasons (including commute time or proximity to work) were the least-cited factor influencing their relocation decision. Among nonmovers, 15 percent indicated that they did not request a voucher because of a perceived lack of voucher availability.

Experience with the Choice Mobility process 

The study revealed a knowledge gap among RAD-eligible residents on their familiarity with the Choice Mobility option. While 75 percent of movers were aware of this option, only 32 percent of nonmovers were. At RAD PBV properties, 56 percent of nonmovers surveyed reported a lack of familiarity with Choice Mobility whereas 85 percent of RAD PBRA nonmovers reported not knowing about the Choice Mobility option.

Among residents who used Choice Mobility, many encountered obstacles to a quick and successful lease-up. Approximately 41 percent reported being on a waiting list for more than 6 months before receiving a tenant-based voucher, while approximately half of movers reported either having problems finding a unit that fit their needs or finding a landlord willing to take their voucher. Significant shares of movers identified other challenges, including finding information about either homes or neighborhoods, or being able to afford non-rent moving costs. 

Using administrative data, the study found that movers were more likely to be Black, younger, of a large household size, and less likely to have a household member living with a disability compared to nonmovers.

Neighborhood and housing quality 

Regardless of whether a household moved or not, most survey respondents expressed satisfaction with their current neighborhoods. Movers, however, were more satisfied than nonmovers, with 70 percent of movers reporting that they were very or somewhat satisfied with their current neighborhood, compared to the 56 percent of nonmovers reporting the same. 

Movers reported that the amenities in their new neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, transit, and grocery stores, were at least the same as (40%) or better than (47%) the amenities available at the RAD-converted properties. By contrast, only 7 percent of movers reported that the amenities in their new neighborhood were worse than those in their former neighborhood. These results reinforce the finding that neighborhood characteristics were the most commonly cited factor influencing resident uptake of the Choice Mobility option. The appeal of a neighborhood that better fits a household's needs was strong enough to overcome some increased costs; movers reported higher rent and utility costs than did nonmovers (movers tended to relocate to neighborhoods with lower poverty rates than the neighborhoods where their RAD unit was located). 

About two-thirds of movers and nonmovers rated their current unit's physical condition as excellent or good and 10 percent or less rated the condition as poor. There were slight differences in the assessment of physical conditions by movers and nonmovers, but these differences were not statistically significant.

The study results reveal that although overall use of the Choice Mobility option is low, the program provides the opportunity for residents to move to neighborhoods and into units that better serve their needs. The study also showed that more residents could potentially benefit from improved communication from PHAs about the Choice Mobility option, especially in RAD PBRA properties, and from more housing mobility-related supports. Finally, it is positive to find that residents who stay in a RAD-converted property are satisfied with both their housing and their neighborhood.