«Contesting the streets Volume 18, number 1 • 2016 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research ...»
Despite these limitations, our findings represent an important step forward in understanding how CSE relates to health and mental health outcomes. Further, the importance of these findings is greater when considered in combination with other results. Experimental and qualitative results strongly suggest that girls who leave neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage experience improvements in mental health and that those improvements are due to a reduction in exposure to a CSE (Briggs, Popkin, and Goering, 2010; Popkin, Leventhal, and Weismann, 2010; Smith et al., 2014). Our own psychometric work has established that exposure to neighborhood CSE can be measured and is distinct from, but related to, other indicators of neighborhood disadvantage. In this study, we show that, net of other indicators of neighborhood disadvantage, exposure to CSE is associated with poor mental health among both adults and children and the experience of sexual harassment, the latter for girls more so than boys. These results establish that the mechanism we theorized to explain the positive effect of moving out of poor neighborhoods on girls is plausible.
The finding that the association between CSE and mental health is reduced or eliminated when social disorder is controlled suggests that CSE is more closely related to social disorder than the other indicators of neighborhood characteristics that we examined. These results point toward community-level interventions to reduce CSE as an important component of interventions to improve neighborhood conditions in public housing developments and other disadvantaged neighborhoods. Such interventions are distinguishable from others that are aimed at reducing social organization—with which CSE is highly correlated, because they will contain specific components that address the issue of gender norms and gendered behavior.
The finding that the negative association between CSE and mental health is not stronger for girls was a surprise; it may be the consequence of small sample size. Nevertheless, the theory of CSE posits that this component of social disorder has differential effects on boys and girls, rather than no effects on boys.
Important next steps include examining CSE and its relationship to outcomes in the context of longitudinal research and with larger and more generalizable samples. The findings from this body of research have important implications for public health and social service interventions in such disadvantaged neighborhoods and for the ability of individuals living there to lead healthier lives.
Acknowledgments Funding for the research study came from an R24 award from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities; the W.K. Kellogg Foundation; and the Open Society Foundations. The authors do not have any conflicts of interest.
Authors Susan J. Popkin is the Director of the Urban Institute’s Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development and a senior fellow in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center.
Janine Zweig is a senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute.
Nan Astone is a senior fellow in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population at the Urban Institute.
Reed Jordan is a research associate in the Policy Advisory Group at the Urban Institute.
Chantal Hailey is a doctoral student at New York University.
Leah Gordon is a project director at the Oregon Health & Science University.
Jay Silverman is a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, Division of Global Public Health.
References Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W.W. Norton.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza, Susan J. Popkin, and John Goering. 2010. Moving to Opportunity: The Story of an American Experiment To Fight Ghetto Poverty. Oxford, United Kingdom; New York: Oxford University Press.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, and Greg J. Duncan. 1997. “The Effects of Poverty on Children,” The Future of Children 7 (2): 55–71.
Browning, Christopher R. 2002. “The Span of Collective Efficacy: Extending Social Disorganization Theory to Partner Violence,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (4): 833–850.
Cobbina, Jennifer, Jody Miller, and Rod Brunson. 2008. “Gender, Neighborhood Danger, and RiskAvoidance Strategies Among Urban African-American Youths,” Criminology 46 (3): 501–538.
Dunlap, Eloise, Andrew Golub, and Bruce D. Johnson. 2004. “Girls’ Sexual Development in the Inner City: From Compelled Childhood Sexual Contact to Sex-for-Things Exchanges,” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 12 (2): 73–96.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Margery Austin Turner. 1997. “Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing Recent Evidence,” Housing Policy Debate 8 (4): 833–866.
Fox, Greer Litton, and Michael Benson. 2006. “Household and Neighborhood Contexts of Intimate Partner Violence,” Public Health Reports 121 (4): 419–427.
Hannon, Lance E. 2005. “Extremely Poor Neighborhoods and Homicide,” Social Science Quarterly 86 (s1): 1418–1434.
Higa, Darrel, Marilyn J. Hoppe, Taryn Lindhorst, Shawn Mincer, Blair Beadnell, Diane M. Morrison, Elizabeth A. Wells, Avry Todd, and Sarah Mountz. 2014. “Negative and Positive Factors Associated With the Well-Being of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Youth,” Youth & Society 46 (5): 633–687.
Kawachi, Ichiro, Bruce P. Kennedy, and Richard G. Wilkinson, eds. 1999. Income Inequality and Health. Vol. 1. New York: New Press.
Leventhal, Tama, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2004. “A Randomized Study of Neighborhood Effects on Low-Income Children’s Educational Outcomes,” Developmental Psychology 40 (4): 488–507.
Ludwig, Jens, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Lisa Gennetian, Emma Adam, Greg Duncan, Lawrence Katz, Ronald Kessler, Jeffery Kling, Stacy Tessler Lindau, Robert Whitaker, and Thomas McDade. 2011.
“Neighborhoods, Obesity, and Diabetes—A Randomized Social Experiment,” New England Journal of Medicine 365 (16): 1509–1519.
Miller, Jody. 2008. Getting Played: African American Girls, Urban Inequality, and Gendered Violence.
New York: NYU Press.
Orr, Larry, Judith D. Feins, Robin Jacob, Erik Beecroft, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Lawrence F. Katz, Jeffrey B. Liebman, and Jeffrey R. Kling. 2003. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Interim Impacts Evaluation. Report prepared by Abt Associates Inc. and the National Bureau of Economic Research for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Popkin, Susan J., Gregory Acs, and Robin Smith. 2010. “Understanding How Place Matters for Kids,” Community Investments 22 (1): 23–26.
Popkin, Susan J., Mary Bogle, Janine M. Zweig, Priya Saxena, Lina Breslav, and Molly Michie.
2015. Let Girls Be Girls: How Coercive Sexual Environments Affect Girls Who Live in Disadvantaged Communities and What We Can Do About It. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Popkin, Susan J., Chantal Hailey, Janine Zweig, Nan Astone, Reed Jordan, Leah Gordon, and Jay Silverman. Forthcoming. “Coercive Sexual Environments: Development and Validation of a Scale,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Popkin, Susan J., Tama Leventhal, and Gretchen Weismann. 2010. “Girls in the ’Hood: How Safety Affects the Life Chances of Low-Income Girls,” Urban Affairs Review 45 (6): 715–774.
Popkin, Susan J., and Marla K. McDaniel. 2013. HOST: Can Public Housing Be a Platform for Change?
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Popkin, Susan J., Molly M. Scott, Joe Parilla, Elsa Falkenburger, Marla McDaniel, and Shinwon Kyung. 2012. Planning the Housing Opportunity and Services Together Demonstration: Challenges and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas Gannon-Rowley. 2002. “Assessing ‘Neighborhood Effects’: Social Processes and New Directions in Research,” Annual Review of Sociology 28:
Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy,” Science 277 (5328): 918–924.
Sampson, Robert J., Patrick Sharkey, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2008. “Durable Effects of Concentrated Disadvantage on Verbal Ability Among African-American Children,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (3): 845–852.
Sanbonmatsu, Lisa, Jens Ludwig, Lawrence F. Katz, Lisa A. Gennetian, Greg J. Duncan, Ronald C.
Kessler, Emma Adam, Thomas W. McDade, and Stacy Tessler Lindau. 2011. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Final Impacts Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Scott, Molly S., Susan J. Popkin, Marla McDaniel, Priya Saxena, and Reed Jordan. 2013. Serving HOST Families: The Challenges to Overcome. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Smith, Robin, Megan Gallagher, Susan Popkin, Amanda Mireles, and Taz George. 2014. “Coercive Sexual Environments: What MTO Tells Us About Neighborhoods and Sexual Safety,” Cityscape 16 (1): 85–112.
Turner, Margery A., Susan J. Popkin, and Lynette Rawlings. 2009. Public Housing Transformation:
The Legacy of Segregation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wodtke, Geoffrey T., David J. Harding, and Felix Elwert. 2011. “Neighborhood Effects in Temporal Perspective: The Impact of Long-Term Exposure to Concentrated Disadvantage on High School Graduation,” American Sociological Review 76 (5): 713–736.
Cityscape 183 Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research • Volume 18, Number 1 • 2016 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Office of Policy Development and Research 184 Departments Data Shop Data Shop, a department of Cityscape, presents short articles or notes on the uses of data in housing and urban research. Through this department, the Office of Policy Development and Research introduces readers to new and overlooked data sources and to improved techniques in using well-known data. The emphasis is on sources and methods that analysts can use in their own work. Researchers often run into knotty data problems involving data interpretation or manipulation that must be solved before a project can proceed, but they seldom get to focus in detail on the solutions to such problems. If you have an idea for an applied, data-centric note of no more than 3,000 words, please send a one-paragraph
to email@example.com for consideration.
Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics To Analyze Housing Decisions, Dynamics, and Effects Katherine McGonagle Narayan Sastry University of Michigan Abstract The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is the world’s longest running household panel survey. It started in 1968 and has followed the same families—and their descendants— for nearly 50 years. PSID was conducted annually from 1968 through 1997 and has been conducted biennially since 1997. As of 2015, 39 waves of data have been collected.
In 2015, interviews were completed with more than 9,000 households and information was collected on about 25,000 household members. PSID has achieved high wave-towave response rates throughout most of its history. Since the beginning of the study, detailed information has been collected on family composition, income, assets and debt, public program participation, and housing. At the beginning of the recent housing crisis, PSID began collecting information about mortgage distress and foreclosure activity.
PSID currently includes several major supplemental studies. The Child Development Supplement and the Transition into Adulthood Supplement collect detailed information about behavior and outcomes among children and young adults in PSID families, such as educational achievement, health, time use, family formation, and housingrelated decisions among young adults. PSID data are publicly available free of charge
Abstract (continued) to researchers; some data available only under contract to qualified researchers allow linkage with various administrative databases and include information such as census tract and block of residence that can be used to describe neighborhood characteristics.
PSID data have been widely used to study topics of major interest to Cityscape readers, including housing decisionmaking, housing expenditures and financing, residential mobility and migration, and the effects of neighborhood characteristics on a variety of measures of child and family well-being. This article provides an overview of PSID and its housing- and neighborhood-related measures. We briefly describe studies using PSID on housing-related topics. Finally, we point readers to resources needed to begin working with PSID data.
The Panel Study of Income Dynamics The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is the world’s longest running, nationally representative household panel study, with information collected on sampled families and their descendants for nearly 50 years. PSID began in 1968 to gauge the success of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and to track the economic well-being of U.S. families. Housing and neighborhood characteristics are key indicators of family economic well-being and have been included in the study since its inception.