In this article, I attempt a synthesis of the housing subsidy voucher literature to explain why, when in theory, vouchers enable users to move out of poor neighborhoods, in practice, they often do not. This mixed-methods meta-analysis presents an examination of the formative assumptions of the program and their relationship to empirical findings, with special attention to qualitative findings. Based on this synthesis, I propose that though some of the findings are mixed, the ones regarding the role of the housing market are, for the most part, consistent across the literature. Two themes regarding the role of location choice patterns and utilization rates developed from the analysis: market barriers and product problems. Qualitative data from a variety of studies and contexts profile how recipients struggled to use a voucher to participate in the private rental market due to issues of transportation and discrimination.  Moreover, the voucher product fails to make participants equivalent to private market renters in a number of crucial ways. Thus, voucher users differ widely from private market renters in terms of freedom of choice about where to move and when to make a housing transition. The consequences of these constraints appear to be compromised housing quality, both in terms of the housing unit itself as well as the location and low voucher utilization. This synthetic view cannot account for all outcomes or exceptional cases, but where the program intersects with more general phenomenon– particularly how market forces influence location outcomes – the results lead to seemingly consistent and predictable results.