55 lines
3.3 KiB
YAML
55 lines
3.3 KiB
YAML
|
author: Blumenberg, E., & Pierce, G.
|
|||
|
|
year: 2014
|
|||
|
|
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
|
|||
|
|
uri: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.935267
|
|||
|
|
discipline: development
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
country: United States
|
|||
|
|
period: 1994-2001
|
|||
|
|
maxlength: 84
|
|||
|
|
targeting: implicit
|
|||
|
|
group: poor women
|
|||
|
|
data: baseline and follow-up survey;
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
design: experimental
|
|||
|
|
method: RCT; multinomial regression model
|
|||
|
|
sample: 3199
|
|||
|
|
unit: household
|
|||
|
|
representativeness: national
|
|||
|
|
causal: 1 # 0 correlation / 1 causal
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
theory:
|
|||
|
|
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: no relationship 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%).
|
|||
|
|
No relationship 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.
|