Skip to main content

Expanding Housing Choices for HUD-Assisted Families

HUD.GOV HUDUser.gov

Expanding Housing Choices for HUD-Assisted Families

Report Acceptance Date: March 1996

Posted Date: March 30, 1996



Publication Icon
Expanding Housing Choices for HUD-Assisted Families

APPENDIX A: ELIGIBLE CITIES AND APPLICANTS

FOR THE MTO DEMONSTRATION

The FY 1993 NOFA for the Moving to Opportunities for Fair Housing (MTO) demonstration was issued by the Office of Public and Indian Housing on August 16, 1993 and closed on November 15, 1993. Twenty-one cities were eligible to apply: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Fort Worth, Houston, Kansas City, MO, Long Beach, CA, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, and Washington, DC. Sixteen applications were submitted jointly by PHAs and non-profits:

1. Baltimore/Community Assistance Network

2. Boston/Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership.

3. Chicago/Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities.

4. Cleveland/Cuyahoga Plan of Ohio.

5. Dallas/Dallas Urban League.

6. Denver/No NPO selected.

7. Detroit/Operation Get Down.

8. Fort Worth/Housing Opportunities, Inc.

9. Houston/Harris County Hospital.

10. Kansas City, MO/Greater Kansas City Housing Information Center.

11. Los Angeles/Fair Housing Congress/Beyond Shelter.

12. New York/Northern Manhattan Improvement Corp.

13. Philadelphia/Housing Association of Delaware Valley.

14. San Diego Housing Commission/Fair Housing Council of San Diego.

15. San Francisco/Catholic Charities, Project Homeward Bound.

16. Washington, D.C./Apartment Improvement Program/Housing Counseling Services.

APPENDIX B:

REFERENCE DATA ON MTO DEMONSTRATION SITES

Baltimore Boston Chicago Los Angeles New York
Housing Authority Housing Authority of Baltimore City Boston HousingAuthority Chicago Housing Authority Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles New York City Housing Authority
Non-Profit Community Assistance Network Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership Leadership Council for Metropolit.Open Com. Fair Housing Congress and Beyond Shelter Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation
MTO Target Area
# Census Tracts 5 7 4 9 12
Avg. Poverty Rate 67% 49% 67% 54% 47%
# Projects 8 8 6 11 14
Progress to Date (2/28/96)
# MTO Lease-Ups
(% of Target Number)		 98
(69%)		 99
(69%)		 18
(13%)		 63
(67%)		 41
(29%)
# Comparison Lease-Ups
(% of Target Number)		 68
(48%)		 44
(31%)		 33
(23%)		 32
(34%)		 14
(10%)
MTO Success Rate 60% 55% N/A 51% 25%
Comparison Success Rate 71% 73% N/A 62% 16%
Preliminary Costs
Per Family Served $1,665 $1,569 N/A $1,308 $ 590
Per Family Placed $2,844 $2816 N/A $2,111 $2,501

APPENDIX C: MTO SMALL RESEARCH GRANTS

RESEARCHER

TOPIC

Robert Crain (Columbia University)
 This study, focusing on African-American MTO participants, uses an existing survey instrument already in use in another community to examine the housing search strategies of MTO participants, the characteristics common to families that successfully adapt to an MTO move, and the effect of moving to a predominantly white neighborhood on teenaged participants' social, educational, and employment opportunities.
Joe Darden (Michigan State University)
New York
Lawrence Katz (Harvard University)
 This study uses MTO baseline data and public data to give an aggregate overview of the extent to which MTO movers have increased opportunities in their new neighborhoods, and to investigate the various barriers to mobility.
Jeffrey Kling (MIT)
Boston
Helen Ladd (Brookings Institution)
 This study uses participant interviews and census data to examine the actual and perceived changes in educational opportunities experienced by MTO movers.
Jens Ludwig (Georgetown University)
Baltimore
Mark Matulef (Westat, Inc.)
 This study uses existing MTO databases, interviews with program staff and focus groups to determine whether MTO participants who receive housing counseling and search services realize their locational, social, and economic objectives at a higher rate than participants who receive only conventional Section 8 briefings.
Manuel Pastor (Occidental College)
Los Angeles
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (Columbia University)
 This study involves interviewing teenaged students and their parents who are MTO participants to describe the peer, family, school, neighborhood, and individual processes that might facilitate or restrict adaptation to the new setting.
Phillip Thompson (Columbia University)
New York
Nancy Denton (SUNY Albany) This study uses a survey of MTO and Section 8 families to identify the nature and extent of adjustment problems, and to pinpoint the differences in these problems based on the program in which the family is participating.
Chicago
Sara McLanahan (Princeton University)
Maria Hanratty (Princeton University)		 This study uses several data sources, including a telephone survey of MTO participants to examine the factors that affect families' decisions to participate in the MTO program, and the determinants of participants' choice in housing location.
Los Angeles
Donald Norris (University of Maryland, Baltimore County) This study investigates differences in MTO participants' housing search strategies, and examines the factors that influence their choices of residential location, by interviewing counselors and conducting focus groups of MTO participants.
Baltimore

Table of Contents


Publication Categories: Publications     Affordable Housing     Public and Assisted Housing     Housing Choice Vouchers/Section 8 & Project-Based Section 8    

 


All Publications
Search for Publications
Search for Ongoing Research