Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 21.
Published in final edited form as: Science. 2012 Sep 21;337(6101):1505–1510. doi: 10.1126/science.1224648

Table 2.

MTO effects on post-randomization housing and neighborhood conditions of adult participants interviewed in long-term survey. Table shows average outcomes for control group adults and intention-to-treat (ITT) contrast of outcomes for adults assigned to treatment (pooling the low-poverty and traditional voucher groups) rather than control. Housing and neighborhood conditions measured from long-term survey data and Census tract-level data interpolated from the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and the 2005–09 American Community Survey. ITT calculated using OLS regression controlling for baseline covariates, using weights (see Table 1 note, and supplemental materials sections 1 and 5).

MTO treatment
(voucher) groups
vs. control
Control
mean
ITT SE N
Census tract characteristics
   Share poor at different points in time
     1 year post-random assignment 0.499 −0.160*** (0.007) 3224
     5 years post-random assignment 0.399 −0.089*** (0.007) 3208
     10–15 years post-random assignment (May 2008) 0.311 −0.034*** (0.007) 3206
Share poor for all addresses since random
assignment (duration-weighted)
   Share poor 0.396 −0.082*** (0.005) 3270
   Share poor, z-score using U.S. tract poverty
distribution
2.082 −0.666*** (0.041) 3270
   Share poor, z-score using MTO control group tract
poverty distribution
0.000 −0.653*** (0.040) 3270
Duration-weighted poverty rate is
   Less than 20% 0.054 0.196*** (0.013) 3270
   Less than 30% 0.242 0.237*** (0.018) 3270
   Less than 40% 0.512 0.206*** (0.018) 3270
Share minority
   10–15 years post-random assignment (May 2008) 0.844 −0.024** (0.009) 3206
   All addresses since random assignment (duration-
weighted)
0.880 −0.046*** (0.006) 3270
Residential mobility
     Number of moves after random assignment 2.165 0.584*** (0.068) 3273
Self-reports on long-term (10–15 year) follow-up
surveys about neighborhood and housing conditions
   Feel unsafe during day 0.196 −0.039** (0.015) 3262
   Number of housing problems (0–7) 2.051 −0.380*** (0.076) 3267
   Likely or very likely to report kids spraying
graffiti (collective efficacy)
0.589 0.064*** (0.020) 3255
   One or more friends with college degree 0.532 0.049** (0.020) 3203
***

= P<.01,

**

= P<.05,

*

= P<.10 on two-tailed t-test.