Effect of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Housing Vouchers on Adolescent Risky Sexual Behavior Over a 15-Year Period.

We examined whether a housing voucher intervention influenced adolescent risky sexual behavior (RSB) across 15 years in the Moving to Opportunity Study. Low-income families in public housing that resided in 5 cities were randomized to one of three treatment groups: a housing voucher to move to low-poverty neighborhoods (i.e., < 10% poverty rate), a Sect. 8 voucher but no housing relocation counseling, or a control group that could remain in public housing. Youth and their caregivers completed baseline surveys, as well as two uniform follow-ups: interim (2001-2002; 4-7 years after baseline) and final (2008-2010; 10-15 years after baseline). Approximately 4,600 adolescents (50.5% female) aged 13-20 years participated at the final timepoint. Adolescents reported on their RSB, including condom use, other contraceptive use, early sexual initiation (< 15 years old), and 2+ sexual partners in the past year. We modeled each indicator separately and as part of a composite index. We tested baseline health vulnerabilities as potential effect modifiers. The low-poverty voucher group and the Sect. 8 voucher group were combined due to homogeneity of their effects. Applying intent-to-treat (ITT) regression analyses, we found no significant main effects of voucher receipt (vs. control) on any RSB. However, we found protective effects of voucher receipt on RSB among youth with health problems that limited activity, and youth < 7 at baseline but adverse effects among females, youth > 7 at baseline, and youth who were suspended/expelled from school. Results highlight the importance of understanding how housing interventions differentially influence adolescent health and behaviors.

Do Alcohol Outlets Mediate the Effects of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment on Adolescent Excessive Drinking? A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Housing mobility impacts adolescent alcohol use, and the neighborhood built environment may impact this relationship. Methods: Moving to Opportunity (MTO) was a multi-site, three-arm, household-level experiment. MTO randomly assigned one of three treatment arms (1994-1997) allowing families living in public housing to (1) receive a voucher to be redeemed any neighborhood (2) receive a voucher to be redeemed in a neighborhood with less than 10% poverty (3) remain in public housing (control). MTO decreased girls' alcohol use, but increased boys' alcohol use. Treatment groups were pooled because they are similar conceptually and statistically on our primary outcome. Among youth aged 12-19 in 2001-2002 (N = 2829), we estimated controlled direct effects mediation of MTO treatment effects on youth with housing vouchers (N = 1950) vs. controls (N = 879) on past 30-day number of drinks per day on days drank, using gender-stratified Poisson regression. Mediators were density of on- and off-premises alcohol outlets per square mile at the families' census tract of residence in 1997. Results: Treatment group youth were randomized to live in 1997 census tracts with lower off-premises, but higher on-premises, outlet density. MTO treatment (vs. controls) decreased drinking for girls via alcohol outlet density, but only at higher levels of outlet density. Treatment was 18% more beneficial when girls moved to high density neighborhoods, compared to controls who stayed living in public housing in high density neighborhoods. Conclusion: Additional social processes unmeasured in the current study may play an important role in the alcohol use and other health risks for girls.

Housing mobility protects against alcohol use for children with socioemotional health vulnerabilities: An experimental design.

PURPOSE: Neighborhood context may influence alcohol use, but effects may be heterogeneous, and prior evidence is threatened by confounding. We leveraged a housing voucher experiment to test whether housing vouchers' effects on alcohol use differed for families of children with and without socioemotional health or socioeconomic vulnerabilities. TRIAL DESIGN: In the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) study, low-income families in public housing in five US cities were randomized in 1994 to 1998 to receive one of three treatments: (1) a housing voucher redeemable in a low-poverty neighborhood plus housing counseling, (2) a housing voucher without locational restriction, or (3) no voucher (control). Alcohol use was assessed 10 to 15 years later (2008 to 2010) in youth ages 13 to 20, N = 4600, and their mothers, N = 3200. METHODS: Using intention-to-treat covariate-adjusted regression models, we interacted MTO treatment with baseline socioemotional health vulnerabilities, testing modifiers of treatment on alcohol use. RESULTS: We found treatment effect modification by socioemotional factors. For youth, MTO voucher treatment, compared with controls, reduced the odds of ever drinking alcohol if youth had behavior problems (OR = 0.26, 95% CI [0.09, 0.72]) or problems at school (OR = 0.46, [0.26, 0.82]). MTO low-poverty treatment (vs. controls) also reduced the number of drinks if their health required special medicine/equipment (OR = 0.50 [0.32, 0.80]). Yet treatment effects were nonsignificant among youth without socioemotional vulnerabilities. Among mothers of children with learning problems, MTO voucher treatment (vs. controls) reduced past-month drinking (OR = 0.69 [0.47, 0.99]), but was harmful otherwise (OR = 1.22 [0.99, 1.45]). CONCLUSIONS: For low-income adolescents with special needs/socioemotional problems, housing vouchers protect against alcohol use.