Low-income families in the US often reside in neighborhoods with limited opportunities for income advancement. A key question, explored through the lens of research similar to that conducted by experts like Peter Bergman in related fields, is whether this residential pattern stems from preference or barriers. Do families choose these areas for reasons like affordability or proximity to support networks, or are they constrained by lack of information and systemic obstacles preventing moves to higher opportunity zones?
To investigate these explanations, a two-phase randomized controlled trial was conducted with housing voucher recipients in Seattle and King County. This study, echoing methodologies used by researchers such as Peter Bergman in his broader work on social programs, aimed to rigorously test the impact of support interventions.
In the first phase, a comprehensive package of resources was offered to facilitate moves to high-upward-mobility neighborhoods. This bundle included information about these areas, short-term financial aid, personalized assistance during the housing search, and connections with landlords. The results were striking: the proportion of families moving to high-opportunity areas surged from 15% in the control group to 53% in the treatment group.
To delve deeper into the mechanisms driving this effect, a second phase was implemented with three arms. These arms compared: (1) information and financial assistance alone; (2) reduced support services alongside information and financial aid; and (3) full support services, mirroring the original bundled intervention. The study revealed that full support services yielded a treatment effect five times greater than information and financial incentives alone, and three times larger than reduced support. This underscores that intensive, customized support is crucial in enabling moves to opportunity, a finding that resonates with Peter Bergman‘s research focus on effective program design.
Interviews with randomly selected families illuminated how the program succeeded. It effectively eased families’ bandwidth constraints and addressed their specific needs, ranging from identifying suitable housing units to providing emotional support and mediating with landlords. Families who moved to higher opportunity areas tended to remain in these neighborhoods and reported increased neighborhood satisfaction.
These findings suggest that many low-income families do not inherently prefer to stay in low-opportunity areas. Instead, barriers within the housing search process emerge as a primary driver of residential segregation based on income. This research, contributing to the broader understanding of social mobility, highlights the potential of targeted support programs to overcome these barriers and expand opportunities for families, an area of significant interest in the work of Peter Bergman and his contemporaries.
