Wait for the results. Then the results of the study might result in policy changes, which will then be evaluated to show how the wonderful practice plays out in the real world.

In the '90s I was all gung-ho for a policy rooted in sound research. You take families living in "persistent poverty" and relocate them. In their new digs, they receive subsidies for their living quarters. Kids attend "good" schools. The neighborhoods were middle or upper-middle class. They'd have access to good jobs. It's all the things that more recent research saying that life opportunities depend on geography, i.e., on neighborhood, would predict should work, with the added bonus that it helped break up pockets of persistent poverty. This was the prediction.

And the research said that those things did work. Kids did better in school, families stuck together better, family income rose. So the Clinton administration made it a policy to help very low SES/intergenerational-poverty families move into nice neighborhoods. This is still often the basis of mixed-neighborhoo policies in, say, Harris County (Houston, in other words).

Thing is, by the early 2000s the policy was evaluated and found to fail. Kids often returned to their original neighborhoods to be with friends. Families moved back. Even if the kids did better in schools, they were still below the "indigenous" populations. If you're #50 out of 50, it doesn't matter if your test scores are 69 or 73, you're still #50.

Except by the time the policy was shown to be pretty much a failure that did little but piss off established residents of a neighborhood and create resentment it had a constituency in the population, in academia, and in the bureaucracy. So it's still policy. Anecdotes say it's a wonderful thing; too bad there's no data to back it up--in fact, the data say it's a rather expensive wash--but in a post-Enlightenment anti-intellectual world, who needs crummy data when you have impressions and belief?

So do the study. The results will come out great. We'll try it in reality. And the results will be an expensive 0 that we're stuck with for decades, the pointless being the enemy of the good. But we'll have nice pats on the back, even if we have to dislocate our shoulders to receive them from ourselves.

Where they tried to get very low income inner city households to live in the burbs after it was agreed that the concentration of poverty was not ideal for children involved?

I've seen studies that show that it was not a failure but more of a mixed bag.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hud+hcv+Gautreaux+results

Forced busing didn't work well either.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/features/2014/the_liberal_failure_on_race/how_the_left_s_embrace_of_busing_hurt_the_cause_of_integration.html

Schools could be forced to desegregate—that is, to accept black students—but genuine integration, as King said, was an “unenforceable” demand. The government can put us in the same room, but they can’t make us get along.
To this day, the language of racial balance, as used by the left, keeps us talking about “integrated schools.” But institutions don’t integrate. People do. If a school is 3 percent black, but all of those students are actively engaged in making friends and participating in student activities, then those children are well and fully integrated. If a school is 20 percent black but all the black students stay on their own side of the cafeteria and then get bused home at 3 p.m. every day, then there is no integration taking place at that school. Trying to measure integration with percentages is like trying to measure your weight in inches.

Black America wasn’t fighting for integration, per se. They were fighting for agency, the right to exercise control over their lives and, hopefully, to enjoy the full protection of the government while doing so. In education, that’s not what they got. They got a policy that demanded white schools produce statistical proof of significant progress, and one where whites were in charge of executing the burdens imposed on them by the courts. Black schools were unilaterally closed down, their students divvied up and distributed to whatever white school needed to adjust its numbers in order to avoid being sued, often over the very loud protests of black parents; at angry town hall meetings, integration was denounced as a white supremacist plot to destroy the black community. Some black students, fearing the prospect of a hostile white environment, dropped out of school rather than ride the bus.

A 1972 Gallup poll showed that 77 percent of whites were against busing. The same poll showed 47 percent of blacks were against it as well. Many black Americans did believe in the school bus and the access it provided, and busing might have been a viable tool for those families had it been smartly and surgically applied. It wasn’t. It was presented in a sweeping fashion that denied many blacks the agency they sought.

What will we do when we've all been replaced and there are no jobs?

I'm only half kidding with this question. Mincome will happen, it has to.