What moves people out of poverty housing — and what doesn't.
Housing policy has produced some of the most influential experiments in social science. The Moving to Opportunity study transformed how researchers think about neighborhood effects. Housing First upended decades of treatment-first orthodoxy. The evidence is clearer than the policy debate suggests.
7
experiments
6
positive results
0
null or negative
3
replicated
Key Findings
01
Moving to lower-poverty neighborhoods improves long-run outcomes for children but not adults.
Moving to Opportunity — the largest housing mobility experiment ever run — assigned 4,600 families in high-poverty public housing to receive vouchers restricted to low-poverty areas, unrestricted vouchers, or no voucher. Adults showed no significant employment or earnings effects. Children who moved before age 13 showed dramatically better outcomes: higher college attendance (30% more likely), higher earnings at age 26 (+31%), lower poverty rates, and better mental health. The age threshold matters: the same voucher that produced large effects for young children produced no detectable effects for older teens.
02
Legal representation prevents eviction more reliably than any other intervention tested.
New York City's universal right-to-counsel program — the first in the US — evaluated outcomes for tenants in housing court. When tenants were represented by counsel, 84% avoided eviction, compared to roughly 50% in the unrepresented era. Philadelphia's right-to-counsel pilot produced similar results. The asymmetry is structural: most landlords have legal representation; almost no tenants do. Providing legal counsel corrects this asymmetry and substantially changes case outcomes.
03
Housing First ends chronic homelessness more effectively than treatment-first approaches.
The At Home / Chez Soi study in five Canadian cities randomized chronically homeless individuals with mental illness to Housing First (immediate housing with wraparound services, no sobriety or treatment requirement) or treatment as usual (shelters, treatment programs, waiting lists for housing). Housing First produced dramatically higher housing stability (80% stably housed at 24 months vs. 40%) at similar or lower total system costs. The finding replicated in multiple cities and across different target populations.
Important Null & Negative Results
Popular housing interventions that did not produce the expected outcomes when rigorously evaluated.
Inclusionary Zoning Affordability Audit
Chicago, IL, United States · 2018
Inclusionary zoning mandates — requiring developers to include affordable units — have been found in multiple studies to reduce overall housing supply while providing modest affordability benefits to a small number of units, often leaving net housing affordability unchanged or worse.
All Experiments in the Registry
Moving to Opportunity Housing Vouchers
mixedBaltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York · 1994
At Home / Chez Soi — Housing First
positiveVancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montréal, Moncton, Canada · 2009
Inclusionary Zoning Affordability Audit
positiveChicago, IL, United States · 2018
Rapid Re-Housing vs. Transitional Housing
positiveColumbus, OH, United States · 2016
Denver Social Impact Bond — Supportive Housing for Chronic Homelessness
positiveDenver, CO, USA · 2016
Philadelphia Eviction Right to Counsel
positivePhiladelphia, PA, USA · 2019
Right to Counsel — NYC Eviction Court Legal Representation
positiveNew York City, USA · 2017
What the Evidence Cannot Yet Tell Us
What happens to Moving to Opportunity children who moved after age 13? The evidence shows null effects, but the mechanisms — whether it's school quality, peer effects, or something else — remain unclear.
Does Housing First work for people without serious mental illness? Most evidence comes from populations with co-occurring mental health conditions.
What is the optimal duration of rapid rehousing assistance? Most programs offer 3–12 months; the right duration for different populations is unknown.
How do eviction prevention programs interact with local rental markets — do they reduce supply by protecting tenants, or do they stabilize communities by reducing turnover?
Can neighborhood mobility programs be scaled? MTO was implemented by lottery; universal programs face relocation resistance from higher-income communities.