Children who participated in the Moving to Opportunity program, which aimed to help families escape concentrated poverty, are not significantly better off than their peers who remained in poverty-stricken neighborhoods. However, recent findings from the ongoing study suggest that more comprehensive initiatives to improve both schools and neighborhoods may have a better chance of breaking the cycle of poverty.
The latest studies on the research project, presented at the annual conference of the American Economic Association, reveal that moving children out of concentrated poverty improves their parents’ well-being, but it does not lead to improved academic achievement in reading or mathematics or increase their chances of graduating from high school or finding employment as adults. Even children who moved before the critical period of age 6, which is important for brain development, showed no academic benefits from relocating to higher-income neighborhoods.
Janet M. Currie, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, commented on the studies presented at the conference, stating that despite the billions of dollars spent by the federal government on housing vouchers and similar programs to promote social mixing, there is still a persistent lack of opportunity in low-income neighborhoods, perpetuating cycles of poverty.
Lawrence F. Katz, an economics professor at Harvard University, and Roland G. Fryer Jr., another Harvard economist, are starting to analyze the data from the Moving to Opportunity program to explore how community and school improvements can work together to support student achievement. Katz is studying how interventions in schools and neighborhoods can help break the cycle of intergenerational poverty and improve long-term outcomes for individuals from poor families and neighborhoods.
For instance, the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York City, which combines school improvement programs with community engagement, health initiatives, and other supports, has shown positive effects on students’ academic achievement.
In terms of adult well-being, the Moving to Opportunity program did have some positive outcomes. Adults who moved to neighborhoods with lower poverty rates experienced better mental and physical health, equivalent to a $13,000 pay raise. This improvement was significant considering that the average income of program participants was $20,000 per year.
However, when it comes to the children of families who moved through the program, the improvements in their parents’ well-being did not translate into better academic achievement. The researchers were able to compare outcomes for adults and children who participated in the program with those who did not receive any assistance or standard housing support in their original neighborhoods. Overall, the program did not provide significant academic benefits for the children involved.
A recent study conducted last autumn on four major federal housing programs confirms the findings of the Moving to Opportunity study. It revealed that the majority of children who relocated to a better neighborhood through a public-assistance program did not necessarily enroll in higher-quality schools. Ms. Currie from Princeton University also suggested that the underwhelming outcomes for children may indicate the presence of hidden strengths in their original neighborhoods. Ironically, children residing in high-poverty areas may have had access to more targeted services, such as federal Title I education aid, home visits, or other similar programs. Mr. Katz emphasized that while neighborhood conditions undeniably have an impact on the well-being and health of impoverished families, we should not solely rely on them as an anti-poverty initiative.
