title:A Driving Factor in Mobility? Transportation’s Role in Connecting Subsidized Housing and Employment Outcomes in the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Program
publisher:Journal of the American Planning Association
limitations:low levels of explanatory power for individual model outcomes, esp for disadvantaged population groups; possible endogeneity bias through unobserved factors (e.g. human capital)
observation:
- intervention:subsidy (housing mobility)
institutional:0
structural:1
agency:0
inequality:spatial; gender
type:1# 0 vertical / 1 horizontal
indicator:1# 0 absolute / 1 relative
measures:employment
findings:norelationship between subsidy and employment outcomes; increased employment probability for car ownership; increased employment probability for high transit areas, not increased job gain for moving to high transit area
channels:high transit area employment paradox may be due to inherent difficulty of connecting household to opportunity in dispersed labor market just via access to transit
direction:0# 0 = no relationship no direction
significance:0# 0 nsg / 1 msg / 2 sg
notes:98% of sample is female
annotation:|
A study looking at the effects of a housing mobility intervention in the United States on employment for disadvantaged households,
and comparing its impacts to the ownership of a car for the same sample.
It follows the 'Moving to Opportunity' programme which provided vouchers to randomized households for movement to a geographically unrestricted area or to specifically to a low-poverty area (treatment group),
some of which are in areas with well-connected public transport opportunities.
The sample for the study is made up predominantly of women (98%).
Norelationship between programme participation and increased employment probability could be established.
However, a positive relationship exists between owning an automobile and improved employment outcomes for low-income households,
as well as including those households that are located in 'transit-rich' areas.
Access to better transit itself is related to employment probability but not gains in employment -
the authors suggest this reflects individuals' strategic relocation to use public transit for their job.
However, moving to a better transit area itself does not increase employment probability,
perhaps pointing to a certain threshold required in transit extensiveness before it facilitates employment.
Ultimately, the findings suggest the need to further individual acess to automobiles in disadvantaged households or for extensive transit network upgrade which have to cross an efficiency threshold.
Some limitations of the study are its models low explanatory power for individual outcomes, more so among disadvantaged population groups,
as well as some remaining possibility of endogeneity bias through unobserved factors such as individual motivation or ability.
