Mixed-income initiatives provide critical investments in neighborhoods, including investments to improve schools, and provide case management and family support services to low-income families. The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) is one of the largest and most comprehensive mixed-income neighborhood redevelopment initiatives to date; however, research has yet to examine the CNI’s effect on educational outcomes. We applied a robust difference-in-difference (DID) method to dynamically estimate the effect of attending a CNI partner school and receiving CNI family case management services on student performance in math and reading, as well as attendance and behavior. We found that attending a CNI partner school substantially decreased suspensions, modestly decreased absences, and slightly decreased math performance. While receiving case management services marginally increased English language arts (ELA) performance, this effect was only found among students with a history of economic distress. Furthermore, dynamic modeling revealed that the effects on punishment were durable, while the effects on academics were short-lived. Moreover, the effects differed across both gender and age, representing substantial heterogeneity.
BergmanP.ChettyR.DeLucaS.HendrenN.KatzL. F.PalmerC. (2019). Creating moves to opportunity: Experimental evidence on barriers to neighborhood choice (Working Paper No. 26164). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26164
ChettyR.HendrenN.KatzL. F. (2016). The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the Moving to Opportunity experiment. American Economic Review, 106(4), 855–902. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150572
4.
ChunY.JabbariJ.FoellA.NandanP.ChenY. (2025). Making the case: Exploring the role of case management in relocation and return decisions in choice neighborhoods initiative. City & Community, 24(2), 111–136.
DerianA. (2016, February). Helping families in Choice Neighborhoods. Urban Institute.
9.
de Souza BriggsX. (1998). Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the many faces of social capital. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 177–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1998.9521288
10.
EvansM. E.ArmstrongM. I.KuppingerA. D. (1996). Family-centered intensive case management: A step toward understanding individualized care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234678
11.
GoodsonB.LayzerJ.St. PierreR.BernsteinL.LopezM. (2000). Effectiveness of a comprehensive, five-year family support program for low-income children and their families: Findings from the Comprehensive Child Development Program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)00040-X
12.
FoellA.FowlerP. J.PurnellJ. Q.NebbittV.JabbariJ.ChunY. (2025). Choice and opportunity: Housing relocation, neighborhood change, and family well-being in the South City Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) in Memphis, TN. Housing Policy Debate, 35(4), 659–685.
13.
FoellA.FowlerP. J.PurnellJ. Q.NebbittV.LukeD. A. (2026). Cross-sector partnerships in the South City Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI): An exploratory case study of collaboration network structure and process in Memphis, Tennessee. Journal of Urban Affairs, 48(1), 259–280.
14.
HardingD. J. (2010). Living the drama: Community, conflict, and culture among inner-city boys. University of Chicago Press.
15.
HardingD. J.GennetianL.WinshipC.SanbonmatsuL.KlingJ. R. (2010). Unpacking neighborhood influences on education outcomes: Setting the stage for future research (Working Paper No. 16055). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16055
16.
JabbariJ.FoellA.JenkinsD. A.ChunY.GovindanA.JohnsonOJr. (2025). Moving from HOPE to choice: Childhood inequalities and mechanisms for reducing inequalities across mixed-income housing and neighborhood redevelopment initiatives. Urban Education, 60(9), 2401–2437. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859231152563
17.
JohnsonO.Jr (2012). Relocation programs, opportunities to learn, and the complications of conversion. Review of Educational Research, 82(2), 131–178.
18.
KleitR. G.KangS.ScallyC. P. (2016). Why do housing mobility programs fail in moving households to better neighborhoods?Housing Policy Debate, 26(1), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2015.1015232
MeyerP. (2019). MAP® Growth™ technical report. Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA).
22.
NguyenM. T.RoheW.FrescolnK.WebbM.DoneganM.HanH. S. (2016). Mobilizing social capital: Which informal and formal supports affect employment outcomes for HOPE VI residents?Housing Studies, 31(7), 785–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2016.1151274
23.
NogueraP. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban Education, 38(4), 431–459.
24.
PendallR.HendeyL. (2013). A brief look at the early implementation of Choice Neighborhoods (pp. 1–14). Urban Institute.
25.
PendallR.HendeyL.GreenbergD.PettitK. L.LevyD. K.KhareA.HaileyC. (2016). Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline conditions and early progress. Urban Institute.
26.
PopkinS. J. (2004). A decade of HOPE VI: Research findings and policy challenges. Urban Institute.
27.
PopkinS. J.LevyD. K.HarrisL. E.ComeyJ.CunninghamM. K.BuronL. (2002). HOPE VI panel study: Baseline report. Urban Institute.
28.
RodaA.WellsA. S. (2013). School choice policies and racial segregation: Where white parents’ good intentions, anxiety, and privilege collide. American Journal of Education, 119(2), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/668753
29.
SampsonR. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago press.
30.
SharkeyP.ElwertF. (2011). The legacy of disadvantage: Multigenerational neighborhood effects on cognitive ability. American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1934–1981. https://doi.org/10.1086/659666
31.
Shelby County Board of Education. (2015, September28). Sub-agreement for Choice Neighborhoods education services by and between Urban Strategies Inc. and Shelby County Board of Education. (Unpublished contract).
32.
TegelerP.GevarterL. (2021). Mixed income neighborhoods and integrated schools: Linking HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods Initiative with the Department of Education’s Magnet Schools Assistance Program (Policy brief). Poverty & Race Research Action Council.
33.
TurbovM.PiperV. (2005). HOPE VI and mixed-finance redevelopments: A catalyst for neighborhood renewal. Brookings Institution.
34.
TurnerM. A.de Souza BriggsX. (2008). Assisted housing mobility and the success of low-income minority families: Lessons for policy, practice, and future research. Urban Institute.
35.
Urban Institute. (2014). Developing Choice Neighborhoods: An early look at implementation in five sites—Interim report. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2540757
36.
VaradyD. P.RaffelJ. A.SweeneyS.DensonL. (2005). Attracting middle-income families in the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00229.x
37.
WilsonW. J. (2012). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
