Movers and Stayers – Residential Mobility as a Measure of Family Well-Being

Before searching for solutions to social challenges, policymakers must make decisions on how to define a social problem. According to Robin Phinney in “Exploring Residential Mobility among Low-Income Families,” policymakers tend to neglect residential mobility as a measure of well-being in favor of more standard metrics including economic stability, health, and safety.

In exploring the relationship between well-being and residential mobility, Phinney seeks to answer two questions. First, how do low-income families that move, movers, differ from low-income families that do not, stayers? Second, what distinguishes mover and stayer families that report having a positive housing experience, such as better quality or more affordable housing, from those that have a negative experience such as eviction or foreclosure? Phinney controls for a broad set of variables including educational attainment, neighborhood safety, and homeownership, and finds that being African American, experiencing a job loss, or reporting hard drug use increases the probability of a negative moving experience, whereas physical health problems are associated with housing dissatisfaction among individuals who do not move.

Previous research has explored negative and positive mobility, and how a variety of factors, including race, resources, and exposure to domestic violence are related to mobility patterns. Phinney expands on this work in four ways. First, it is the first time a study has examined how various characteristics are related to both positive and negative mobility within the one sample. Second, the sample data include detailed records of participants’ personal characteristics over the course of six years, allowing for a deeper level of analysis into how various factors relate to each other and change over time. Third, Phinney’s data include homeowners as well as renters, recognizing that rates of homeownership among low-income families have increased. Finally, Phinney draws attention to the importance of mobility as a measure of family quality of life.

Phinney uses a sample of 874 women from the Women’s Employment Study (WES). Following the 1996 passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the WES interviewed welfare participants five times over the course of six years. Each respondent was a single female head of household between the ages of 18 and 54, African American or white, lived in the same urban Michigan county, and received welfare benefits.

With this information, the first part of Phinney’s study compares movers with non-movers based on characteristics including age, race, life stage, individual and household problems, and housing and neighborhood problems. The second part examines the differences between positive and negative movers’ experiences of housing instability, defined as eviction, homelessness, doubling-up to share expenses, or three or more moves between survey years, their consistency as renters or homeowners, and their self-reported satisfaction with their housing situation.

According to Phinney’s findings, nearly 25 percent of both movers and non-movers reported being dissatisfied with their housing. Relative to satisfied stayers, both positive and negative movers are more likely to experience low educational attainment, mental health problems, and domestic violence. Only three variables distinguished negative movers from positive movers: they are more likely to be African American, to have lost a job, or to report hard drug use.

As Phinney points out, this suggests that the spike in unemployment during the recent recession may have drastically increased negative mobility. Negative stayers are more likely to be younger, suffer from poor quality housing, and experience physical health problems. The latter suggests that physical health problems may represent a constraint on moving for low-income families, Phinney suggests further research should explore whether a causal relationship exists.

Phinney also finds housing instability to be much more prevalent among dissatisfied movers, while satisfied movers are more likely to become homeowners. Lastly, government housing assistance significantly increased the probability that stayers reported satisfaction with their housing, while movers are less likely to report receiving assistance. This suggests that housing assistance may be effective in helping families remain in good housing. According to Phinney, a potential policy response to employment instability could be increasing short-term housing assistance.

Phinney’s research shines a light on which low-income families may be most at risk for negative mobility or constraints on seeking better housing, and suggests that short-term housing assistance may make all the difference for families facing employment instability. Policymakers should heed her call to consider residential mobility a key measure of well-being and explore what policy responses can ensure other vulnerable populations benefit from positive housing conditions.

Article Source: Robin Phinney, “Exploring Residential Mobility among Low-Income Families,” Social Service Review 87, No.4 (Dec 2013): 780-815.

Feature Photo: cc/(Thomas Bruce)