Short-term Impacts of Moving for Children:
Evidence from the Chicago MTO Program
Emily Rosenbaum
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Fordham University
Laura E. Harris
Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center
Urban Institute
February 20, 2000
Introduction
In recent years, the attention of social scientists has increasingly focused on the role that
neighborhoods play in promoting or impeding the positive development of children and youth. This
shift from thinking about children s development as primarily an intrafamilial process to one that is
embedded within the environmental context (Furstenberg 1993; Furstenberg et al. 1999; Sampson
1997) has been influenced by the growing recognition that the geography of opportunity (Galster and
Killen 1995) varies greatly, with extremely poor and highly segregated inner city communities offering
the fewest and least beneficial resources for families and children to draw upon (Wilson 1987, 1996).
Children and youth living in such neighborhoods are often exposed to exceptionally high levels of
crime and violence, relatively few role models of mainstream economic and social behavior, and a
deteriorating physical and economic infrastructure, all of which can attenuate the ties that bind
neighbors together and thus may compromise children s positive development. In addition, the
features of schools in many highly disadvantaged neighborhoods -- including fewer and lower-quality
resources than those available in more-affluent schools, and clim ates which replicate the social
problems in the surrounding area (Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson 1997) -- may contribute to the
poorer educational outcomes among low-income children (Ellen and Turner 1997).
The importance of neighborhood effects on children s li fe chances is underscored by the fact
that the risk of living in extremely disadvantaged communities is not neutral with respect to
race/ethnicity and poverty status; poor minority children are far more likely to reside in disadvantaged
neighborhoods than are poor white children (Gephart 1997). Poor minority children s increased risk
of exposure to potentially harmful environments derives from structural factors that constrain minority
housing choices to less desirable neighborhoods (Rosenbaum, Friedman and Schill 1999; Turner 1993,
1998; Yinger 1995) and that perpetuate high levels of racial segregation and poverty concentration
(Massey and Denton 1993). Because exposure to disadvantaged environments compounds the already
1
increased risk of compromised outcomes associated with being poor and nonwhite, it is imperative to
identify ways of providing such at-risk children with healthier environments. Many parents in
distressed neighborhoods are keenly aware of the numerous risks facing their children and express the
desire to move to other areas, yet report that inadequate financial resources prevent them from
achieving this goal (Furstenberg et al. 1999).
Tenant-based housing assistance (i.e., housing vouchers and certificates) can broaden housing
options for the poor and thus enable some of the most disadvantaged families to leave resource-poor
inner-city neighborhoods for potentially improved environments elsewhere (Turner 1998). Compared
to low-income households residing in project-based public housing, low-income households assisted
with vouchers and certificates are less likely to live in highly segregated and very poor neighborhoods
(Newman and Schnare 1997; Turner 1998). However, the potential for housing vouchers and
certificates to help low-income families find homes in neighborhoods offering greater opportunities and
a better quality of life is not always realized; vouchers and certificates are more likely to improve
neighborhood environments for assisted families when used in the suburbs versus the central city, and
when combined with additional services such as housing counseling (Turner 1998). The long-run
differences in the educational outcomes of children participating in the Gautreaux program illustrate
such findings. Evaluations of Gautreaux demonstrate that children who moved to the suburbs were
more likely than their city-mover counterparts to have been enrolled in college tracks while in high
school (40% versus 23%), less likely to have dropped out of high school (5% versus 20%), and more
likely to have enrolled in college (54% versus 21%) (Rosenbaum 1991, 1995). The quasiexperimental nature of Gautreaux suggests that it is exposure and access to the broader opportunities in
suburban environments that are responsible for these differences rather than selectivity related to
choice of destination, yet, the latter cannot be ruled out completely.
The evidence of neighborhood effects on children s life chances gleaned from the studies of the
2
Gautreaux program played a crucial role in the decision to create the Moving to Opportunity (MTO)
demonstration program (Turner 1998). MTO helps low-income families living in publicly assisted
housing in high-poverty neighborhoods (i.e., tracts where at least 40% of the population is in poverty)
in five cities move to private-market housing in other areas. The program features a controlled
experimental design, and thus is better suited than Gautreaux or survey-based studies to evaluate how
neighborhood conditions influence the life chances of children and youth (Duncan 1999; Turner 1998).
Participating families are randomly assigned to one of three groups: the experimental group who
receives housing assistance and mobility counseling and must move to low-poverty neighborhoods
(i.e., tracts with at most a 10% poverty rate); the comparison group who receives housing assistance
and can move anywhere; and the control group who receives no housing assistance at all (but may
move on their own). Thus, with MTO, researchers can evaluate, for instance, the impact of moving
versus staying in place, or the effect of moving to low-poverty neighborhoods with counseling versus
simply leaving public housing.
In this paper, we focus on children whose families moved under the Chicago MTO program,
and address two very broad questions. First, how has moving affected children s lives? And second,
do children s short-term experiences vary depending on their program group status? By design we can
only address short-term impacts of moving, yet we evaluate two broad dimensions of children s
experiences: the quality of their new neighborhoods, and their school-related experiences, as reported
by their mothers.
The organization of our paper is as follows. In the next section we describe the sources of data
used in the analyses, as well as the characteristics of the children in our analytical sample. Following
that, we describe the characteristics of mover children s neighbo rhoods, evaluating the gains and losses
children experience as a result of moving, and whether the magnitude of these changes vary depending
on children s program group status. Next, we examine the types of experiences children have with
3
their new schools. Finally, in the concluding section, we summarize and discuss our results.
Sources of data and characteristics of the Chicago children
Sources of data. Our analysis relies on three sources of data. The first is the Urban Institute s
Underclass Database, which provides us with 1990 census tract indicators. These indicators are used
to describe both origin and destination tracts for the children in our sample. The second source of data
is the baseline survey conducted by HUD of participating families, prior to moving. The baseline
survey provides basic sociodemographic information on household members as well as information
concerning reasons for moving, experiences with crime, housing and neighborhood problems, feelings
of safety, measures of social distance and social integration, work experience, child care, and other
topics. The respondent to the baseline survey is the householder, namely, the person applying for the
program.
The third source of data is our own post-move telephone survey. As discussed fully elsewhere
(Rosenbaum, Harris, and Denton 1999), a series of administrative problems at the Chicago site
significantly delayed our receipt of the information we needed to contact the families who had moved
(i.e., telephone numbers and addresses). The delays and subsequent problems we encountered in
contacting families 1 resulted in our having to adjust our research plan from a two-wave telephone
survey to a single, yet comprehensive, telephone survey. Perhaps more significant was the impact
these problems had on the size of our final sample. While the goal for the number of households to
lease-up in Chicago was 285 (143 in the experimental, or MTO, group and 142 in the comparison,
or Section 8, group), we ultimately received contact information for 234 mover families, of whom
1
The most common problems we encountered when trying to reach mover families were
disconnected telephone numbers and the sheer absence of telephone numbers. As described elsewhere
(Rosenbaum et al. 1999), our relatively low response rate reflects more the problems involved in
trying to complete a telephone survey with a very poor and highly mobile population, rather than the
refusal of families to speak with us. In fact, once we were able to contact the families, they were
generally eager to share their experiences with us.
4
we contacted and surveyed 120 (or 51.3%). As part of our survey, we collected information on a
focal child aged 6-17, defined as the oldest child in that age group.2 Of the 120 families we
surveyed, we were able to collect this information for 81 such children (49 in the MTO group, 32 in
Section 8); these 81 children, then, make up our analytical sample.
Characteristics of the Chicago children. At the time of the baseline survey, the 81 children in
our sample were on average 11 years old. Slightly more than half (55%) were male, all were black,
and almost all (93%) were the own child (i.e., biological son/daughter) of the householder (who is
typically a single woman). 3 The average size of the children s households was 3.94 persons,
consisting of the focal child, and, on average, just over one adult (i.e., someone age 18 or older), one
other child in the 6-17 age group, and just under one child age 5 or younger.
Sixty percent of the children s mothers had neither a high school diploma nor a GED, and
about 18% were enrolled in school at the time of the baseline survey. While less than one-third of
mothers overall were working for pay, an additional 54% had ever worked for pay, but were not doing
so at the time of the baseline survey. Consistent with the relatively low levels of educational
attainment and current employment among mothers, the children s households relied heavily on
various forms of financial assistance. Just under 80% of children lived in households receiving AFDC
at the time of the baseline survey, 87% lived in households receiving food stamps, 28% lived in
households receiving WIC benefits, and 67% had access to Medicaid. In contrast, only 10% of
children received some form of child support.
The available information from the baseline survey suggests that the Chicago mover children
2
While this age group is quite broad and contains very different developmental stages, we
chose it to conform to choices made by HUD for their baseline survey. In addition, we repeated in
our post-move survey some of the questions HUD asked about the children in this age group in order
to have observations on the focal child for two points in time.
3
Among the householders in the child-based file, 99% were women, and only 6 (7.8%) were
married at the time of the baseline.
5
were carefully supervised and monitored by their mothers. For example, the vast majority of children
spent their after-school and evening hours supervised by someone (94% and 95%, respectively),
typically their own mothers (62% were supervised by their own mother after school, and 67% were so
supervised in the evening hours). Insofar as this represents a high degree of close supervision, it is
consistent with the concerns that MTO program mothers had for their own and their children s safety
in their origin neighborhoods (Goering et al. 1999). Furstenberg and associates (Furstenberg et al.
1999) report that many families in very disadvantaged neighborhoods respond to the dangers and risks
in their immediate environments by following a highly individualized lock-down strategy of
parenting, characterized by keeping their children at home or allowing them out only when
chaperoned.
Changes in neighborhood conditions as a result of moving
Background. As indicated above, the goal of the MTO program is to help poor families living
in disadvantaged neighborhoods move to neighborhoods which may offer greater opportunities for
social and economic advancement. Thus, the fundamental premise underlying the program s objectiv es
and suggested by a growing research literature is that neighborhoods matter (cf. Ellen and Turner
1997). While the number of studies that try to link neighborhood-level characteristics with children s
outcomes has risen in the past decade or so (Gephart 1997; Ellen and Turner 1997), it is widely agreed
that much less progress has been made in identifying the precise mechanisms by which neighborhoods
affect children s outcomes (Furstenberg and Hughes 1997; Galster and Killen 1995; Sampson 1997;
Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls 1999).
One of the most comprehensive theoretical approaches to understanding how community
characteristics can transmit effects to families and children is social disorganization theory (Elliott et
al. 1996; Sampson 1997) which suggests that structural aspects of the community -- notably
6
socioeconomic composition, unemployment rates, family composition, and residential instability -influence the level of social organization in the community. Social organization refers to a range of
social processes and relationships that reflect shared norms, the presence and strength of formal and
informal networks and institutions, and the ability of neighbors to achieve common goals, enforce
norms of acceptable behavior, and pass on these standards through the collective socialization of
children and youth by all adults in the community (Elliott et al 1996; Furstenberg and Hughes 1997;
Sampson 1997). Thus, key aspects of socially organized neighborhoods are their high levels of social
capital (Coleman 1990) and collective efficacy, which can enhance parenting and thus child and
adolescent development (Furstenberg et al. 1999; Sampson 1997; Sampson et al. 1999). Social
organization, then, forms the link between structural factors and individual-level behaviors, choices,
and decisions.
The social disorganization model suggests that disadvantaged neighborhoods are less socially
organized than are advantaged neighborhoods, since the structural features of disadvantage (e.g.,
poverty and residential instability) tend to break down the relationships and processes which lie at the
heart of social organization (Sampson 1997). For example, the task of developing or maintaining
shared norms of behavior is far more difficult in neighborhoods where residents are transient
(frequently moving in or moving out) than in areas where neighbors are more likely to be long-term
residents and know each other.
Descriptions of this link between structural characteristics of neighborhoods and aspects of
social organization abound in the ethnographic literature. For example, in Streetwise, Anderson
(1990) profiles the physical and socioeconomic decline in Northton and discusses how the
consequent rise in drug use and crime causes many residents to withdraw from community
participation into the safety of their homes. The decrease in the number of watchful eyes on the street
causes further breakdown in the social organization of Northton, which in turn causes more people to
7
move out or isolate themselves from their community. Among those withdrawing from community
life are some of the Old Heads, who traditionally provided guidance and advice to youth coming up
in the neighborhood, as well as opportunities for gainful employment. The Old Heads, then, were key
actors in the collective socialization of area youth. But in the new social environment of Northton,
many Old Heads feel that informally intervening in the lives of youth threatened their own personal
safety, and thus choose to withdraw from such roles.
The work of Furstenberg and his colleagues (Furstenberg 1993; Furstenberg et al. 1999)
reveals the link between structural features of inner-city neighborhoods, the degree of social
organization, and family management strategies. The families living in low-resource and disorganized
neighborhoods tended toward individualistic strategies of childrearing, isolating themselves and their
children, since they did not trust the local schools and other parents to enforce their parenting values.
In contrast, the families in the more socially cohesive neighborhoods draw on kin, neighbors, and local
institutions to supplement their own monitoring and supervision of their children s activities. Parents
in these kinds of neighborhoods are thus able to approach parenting as more of a collective activity that
provided their children with a broader range of resources to draw upon.
Two recent studies that demonstrate quantitatively the link between the structural context of
neighborhoods and levels of social organization (Elliott et al. 1996; Sampson et al. 1999) are of
particular relevance to our current study, since they focus on the city of Chicago. Using a combination
of census data and survey data aggregated to the neighborhood level, Elliott and his colleagues (1996)
find a significant and negative relationship between the level of neighborhood disadvantage and the
amount of informal control area residents report for their neighborhoods. The more disadvantaged the
area, the less successful residents are in maintaining social control. In addition, the level of social
control in the area mediates the effect of neighborhood disadvantage on the prevalence of adolescent
problem behaviors, including delinquency.
8
Relying on survey data collected in 1995 from a sample of Chicago residents, and 1990 census
data, Sampson and his colleagues (1999) find varying relationships between specific structural
characteristics of neighborhoods (e.g., concentrated disadvantage, residential instability, and
concentrated affluence) and three dimensions of child-focused collective efficacy (child-centered social
control, reciprocated exchange, and intergenerational closure). As in the study by Elliott et al. (1996),
Sampson and colleagues (1999) create neighborhood-level indicators of collective efficacy by
aggregating the individual-level responses of survey residents. Sampson et al. (1999) find that while
all three measures of child-focused collective efficacy are inversely related to the level of concentrated
disadvantage, child-centered social control is more strongly related to this structural characteristic than
are reciprocated exchange and intergenerational closure. The strong relationship between childcentered social control and concentrated disadvantage, moreover, is consistent with the findings of
Elliott et al. (1996) reported above. In contrast, intergenerational closure and reciprocated exchange
are better predicted by concentrated affluence and residential instability.4
Thus, at the heart of social disorganization theory is the notion that social processes and
relationships -- such as role models of acceptable behavior, collective socialization, informal social
control, and social disorder -- are related to structural aspects of neighborhoods and in fact form the
bridge linking structure and children s development. With respect to our analysis, we ask, do MTO
and Section 8 children move to neighborhoods that feature improved structural characteristics and
4
Sampson et al. (1999) also find that proximity to areas with high levels of collective efficacy
is beneficial, regardless of a given area s own level of collective efficacy. That is, for areas
characterized by high levels of collective efficacy, location nearby similar areas compounds the
benefits of this social resource for children. Similarly, areas lacking their own reserves of collective
efficacy may draw upon the reserves located in proximally situated areas; however, when surrounding
areas themselves have limited stores of collective efficacy, the resulting isolation from this positive
resource creates a potentially deleterious environment for children s development. A visual
comparison of maps provided by Sampson et al. (1999) and maps of the origin and destination tracts
for the Chicago MTO and Section 8 families (Goering et al. 1999) suggests that the origin
neighborhoods tend to be in these isolated such areas, namely those both low in social efficacy and
surrounded by similarly under-resourced neighborhoods.
9
higher levels of social organization than those they left behind? And, does the requirement that MTO
families and their children move to low-poverty neighborhoods mean that they move to neighborhoods
with even greater levels of social organization than those to which Section 8 families move?
Evaluating the answers to these questions requires that we have measures pertaining to the
structural characteristics of neighborhoods, as well as the social processes that are expected to mediate
neighborhood influences (Furstenberg and Hughes 1997). To this end, we use the census-based
indicators identified by Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls (1999) to measure three structural
characteristics: concentrated disadvantage/racial segregation, residential instability, and concentrated
affluence.5
Changes in neighborhood conditions. In Table 1 we present the census-based indicators of
neighborhood structure for origin neighborhoods, and for destination neighborhoods of children in the
Section 8 and MTO groups separately. The data unequivocally indicate the extreme poverty and
joblessness characterizing origin neighborhoods: over three-fourths of the population is poor, and 60%
of households receive public assistance. In addition, these areas were virtually racially homogeneous,
and missing many two-parent families. Drawing on the relationships reported by Sampson et al.
(1999), these high levels of disadvantage suggest that the children s origin neighborhoods most likely
featured very low levels of social control.
The indicators related to residential instability and concentrated affluence suggest that origin
neighborhoods also were limited in terms of their levels of intergenerational closure and reciprocated
exchange. That is, virtually no housing units were owner occupied in 1990 (less than 3%), almost half
of the population age five and older had not lived in the same unit in 1985, and few residents reported
5
While Sampson et al. (1999) utilize additional structural characteristics in their analysis
(including concentrated immigration, population density, and the ratio of adults to children) we chose
to examine only concentrated disadvantage, concentrated affluence, and residential instability for two
reasons. First, they produce the most theoretically consistent relationships with the neighborhood-level
construct of collective efficacy, and second, they are the most easily replicated with the data available
to us.
10
high incomes, professional/managerial jobs, or a college education.
In contrast to the conditions prevailing in origin neighborhoods, those in the destination
neighborhoods for children in both groups suggest the potential for higher levels of social organization.
For both MTO and Section 8 children, the levels of concentrated disadvantage/racial segregation in
their new neighborhoods are much lower than in their old neighborhoods. Correspondingly, the levels
of concentrated affluence are much higher. While it is clear that both groups of children have moved to
objectively better neighborhoods, the structural characteristics of MTO children s destination
neighborhoods appear to be far more advantageous than those of the Section 8 children. For example,
the poverty rate of Section 8 children s destinati on neighborhoods is more than three times higher than
that in MTO children s destination neighborhoods, and the difference in terms of the percent of
households receiving public assistance is about tenfold. The primary exception to this general rule is
in terms of the percentage of the population age five and older living in the same unit in 1985. The
levels of residential stability are fairly similar across the three types of areas, and no significant
difference is found between Section 8 and MTO children s neighb orhoods on this measure.
With respect to the social processes and relationships that constitute social organization, we
utilize measures from the baseline survey (for origin neighborhoods) and our post-move survey (for
destination neighborhoods). In particular, we examine measures capturing feelings of safety (as
indicators of the perceived effectiveness of social control), feelings of attachment to the neighborhood,
social interactions with neighbors and the presence social ties, and the extent of social and physical
disorder.
The data in Table 2 refer to origin neighborhoods. Consistent with the suggestion of low
levels of social control garnered from the analysis of census-based indicators, very few mothers
reported at the baseline feeling very safe in four situations (near the local school, at home alone at
night, and on the streets near home during the day and at night). In fact, no Section 8 mothers
11
reported feeling very safe on the streets near home during the day or night. Similarly, the existence of
problems in origin neighborhoods related to social and physical disorder -- strong correlates of social
disorganization -- are almost universally reported by both MTO and Section 8 mothers. These results
very clearly suggest that origin neighborhoods were characterized by very high levels of danger and
disorganization.
Despite the extreme disorganization suggested by both the objective census-based indicators
and the subjective reports of children s mothers, the presence of social interactions and ties within
origin neighborhoods suggest that MTO and Section 8 mothers did not completely isolate themselves
from other area residents. In particular, even in the face of the potentially chaotic atmosphere
suggested by high levels of social and physical disorder, and the very real threat of danger, the
majority of mothers in both groups believed it was very likely that they would tell their neighbor if
that neighbor s child were misbehaving.6 These large percentages suggest a strong willingness to
participate in relationships or networks with neighboring parents, with the goal of
monitoring/correcting children s behavior. However, the smaller percentages of mothers reporting
that it was very likely that their neighbors would tell them about their own child s misbehavior
suggests that the willingness to engage in informational networks with other parents may not be fully
reciprocated. Indeed, these lower percentages suggest a degree of suspicion, perhaps, on the part of
the mothers concerning the ability/willingness of other parents to enforce their own parenting norms
(cf. Furstenberg 1993), indicating an absence of collective socialization.
Table 3 contains information pertaining to the presence of social organization in the families
new neighborhoods, including items identical to those in the baseline (allowing an examination of
changes over time), and items unique to our post-move survey. Starting with feelings of safety, two
findings are immediately evident. First, both MTO and Section 8 mothers are significantly more
6
The presence of a statistically significant difference (albeit minor) between the groups was
unexpected, and difficult to explain.
12
likely to report feeling safe in all four situations in their new versus their old neighborhoods,
suggesting that all families have made gains in terms of the level of social control in their
neighborhoods. However, MTO mothers are far more likely than Section 8 mothers to report this high
a degree of perceived safety in their new neighborhoods, in three of the four situations. This latter
program-group difference suggests that MTO mothers were more successful than their Section 8
counterparts in moving to neighborhoods with greater degrees of social control.
A similar pair of findings emerge when we examine reported problems with aspects of physical
and social disorder. That is, for the measures which appear in both the baseline and our post-move
survey, both groups of mothers are far less likely to report problems with disorder in the new
neighborhoods (with all such differences achieving statistical significance at the p "d.001 level). In
addition, MTO mothers are significantly less likely than Section 8 mothers to report problems with
trash, people drinking in public, drug dealers/users and abandoned buildings in their new
neighborhoods. These differences again suggest that the MTO families destination neighborhoods are
characterized by higher levels of social organization than are the areas to which Section 8 families
moved. This conclusion is bolstered by the finding that MTO mothers are far less likely than Section
8 mothers to report problems with incivility ( people saying insulting things ), crime and violence,
and widespread idleness ( lots of people who can t find jobs ) in their new neighborhoods.
Turning to the results pertaining to social ties and interactions, the data again suggest that
MTO mothers were better able than Section 8 mothers to move to neighborhoods with higher levels of
social control. That is, while the percentages of MTO and Section 8 mothers reporting that they or
their neighbors would share information concerning children s misbehavior in their new neighborhoods
are statistically similar, significantly more MTO mothers perceive such networks in their new versus
their old neighborhoods. In contrast, the percentages of Section 8 mothers reporting that they or their
neighbors would report on misbehaving children are similar for origin and destination neighborhoods.
13
With respect to feelings of attachment to the new neighborhood, we asked mothers to indicate
if the statement read by the interviewer was either true or false. On two of the statements ( I can
recognize many of the people who live in this neighborhood and I feel at home in this
neighborhood ), statistically similar majorities of mothers from both groups responded affirmatively.
However, significantly more MTO than Section 8 mothers felt that: their new neighborhoods are good
places for them to live; it is important for them to live in their new neighborhood; they expect to
remain there for a long time; and, if there were a problem in their neighborhood, their neighbors could
get it solved. This last indicator is perhaps the most significant with respect to the overall discussion
of social organization, since it reflects a perception on the part of the mothers of the collective
solidarity and effectiveness of their neighbors, and of the extent to which norms concerning problems
are shared. Thus, again the data suggest that moving to their new neighborhoods entailed a
significantly greater benefit for MTO mothers than Section 8 mothers.
We also asked mothers in our post-move survey to compare a set of opportunities and risks for
teenagers in their new versus their old neighborhoods. These data are presented in Table 4. Large
majorities from both groups of mothers report that the risks to teenagers are far lower in their new
neighborhoods than in their old neighborhoods. Specifically, according to the mothers, teenagers are
far less likely to drink, do drugs, get pregnant/get a girl pregnant, get AIDS, get attacked or shot in
their new neighborhoods. Similarly, most mothers believe that teenagers in their new neighborhoods
are more likely to graduate from high school or college than are teenagers in their old neighborhoods.
These reports clearly indicate that both groups of mothers feel that their new neighborhoods offer
substantially better and healthier environments for teenagers. However, MTO mothers are
significantly more likely than Section 8 mothers to perceive reduced risks to the life chances and health
of teenagers in their new versus their old neighborhoods. While the differences between the
percentages of MTO and Section 8 mothers reporting reduced chances of graduating high school and
14
college are not significant, MTO mothers were significantly more likely than Section 8 mothers to
report that teenagers in their new neighborhoods were more likely to graduate high school and college
(not shown). Finally, when asked to rate their new neighborhoods as a place for teenagers to grow up
on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high), MTO mothers provided a significantly higher overall rating than
did Section 8 mothers. Overall, then, it appears that MTO families been able to move to areas with
substantially greater opportunities and fewer risks than did their Section 8 counterparts.
Summary. In summary, both groups of mothers appear to have been able to move to
neighborhoods with far higher levels of social organization than existed in their origin neighborhoods.
Not only do comparisons of structural indicators in origin and destination neighborhoods suggest
improved environments, but mothers perceive greater safety, less social and physical disorder, and
broader opportunities and fewer risks for the children in their new versus their old neighborhoods.
Such a finding suggests a significant measure of success for all movers in the program in the short run.
However, the data also consistently demonstrate that MTO mothers have gained residence in
neighborhoods with significantly higher levels of social organization and more opportunities for their
children than the Section 8 mothers have. Such a finding points to the added benefit of the
requirement that MTO families move to low-poverty neighborhoods, and of the added assistance
received by the experimental families.
School-related experiences
Background. In this section, we turn our attention to the short-term experiences children have
with their new schools. As discussed above, long-term evaluations of the Gautreaux program
demonstrate differences in the educational attainments of suburban-moving and city-moving children
(Rosenbaum 1991, 1995). That the suburban movers would eventually out-perform the city movers by
as large a margin as was seen not entirely anticipated. That is, an early follow up (conducted when the
15
children were, on average, age 12) suggested that the suburban schools had better resources and
teachers, and greater opportunities than either the city movers schools or the schools all the child ren
left behind, yet the suburban movers reported that their children were having more problems adjusting
(Rosenbaum 1991, 1995). These initial difficulties were manifested by a higher tendency to be placed
in special education classes and in low-ability groups, assignments which could either lead to longlasting educational disadvantages, or, enable the children to catch up academically with their new
middle-class classmates (Rosenbaum 1991, 1995).7
Thus, the Gautreaux evaluations suggest that in the short term, the suburban movers
encountered school-related experiences that were not uniformly positive, yet in the long run outperformed their city moving counterparts. The discrepancy between the short- and long-term
differences between suburban and city movers raises important questions about if and how they may be
related; however, because individual children were not followed across the Gautreaux evaluations
(Rosenbaum 1991), it is not known how the early experiences affected long-run outcomes.8 A unifying
explanation for children s experiences and outcomes in the two studies points to the superior resources
commanded by the suburban schools, an explanation consistent with institutional models of
neighborhood effects (Jencks and Mayer 1990). That is, because the city and suburban children had
been exposed to the same educational system prior to moving, their differing short-term experiences
after moving raises the possibility that the suburban schools, by virtue of their greater resources, were
better able to detect learning problems and/or the need for additional help, and to respond to such
7
While it was unclear if these difficulties were due to the higher academic standards and
more-challenging curricula in their new schools, an alternative explanation focuses on the social
distance separating the suburban movers from the mainly white middle-class teachers and
administrators in suburban schools (cf. Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson 1997; Halpern-Fischer et al.
1997; McLloyd 1990; Rosenbaum 1995).
8
Another limitation of the Gautreaux evaluations is that the researchers followed up only
those families who stayed in their new neighborhoods. Thus, it is not possible to evaluate the
characteristics of those who stayed versus those who left their new neighborhoods; such characteristics
may be related to long-term outcomes.
16
needs. Similarly, the superior achievement of suburban children in the long term is consistent with the
greater resources and enhanced opportunities in suburban schools.
Based on the short-term experiences of the Gautreaux children, we might expect to find that
MTO children have more problematic short-term experiences than Section 8 children. In particular, it
is likely that MTO children are more likely to be placed in classes designated to deal with behavior
problems or learning problems, and to be suspended or expelled since the move. However, given the
likely differences in resources in suburban and city schools, it is also likely that, overall, MTO
mothers will be more likely than Section 8 mothers to rate their children s new schools in a positive
fashion. Thus, we expect to find a mixture of positive and negative experiences.
Examining the short-term school-related experiences of the children in our sample is
complicated by the fact that not all children changed schools when they moved, and that the chance of
changing schools is far greater for MTO children than Section 8 children (82% versus 62%, p "d.01,
one tailed test). Because we phrased most of our school-experience-related questions using the
reference period of since the move, we must limit our analysis to children who actually changed
schools, in order to avoid confounding experiences in the old schools with experiences in the new
schools. Given our problems with small sample sizes in our regular child-based analytical sample, it is
clear that eliminating even a few children from these analyses leads to even more serious sample size
problems. Indeed, when we eliminate children who did not change schools, we are left with
approximately 40 MTO children and 18 Section 8 children. Thus, we present results only for all
children (who changed schools) and note significant differences between the program groups when the
level of significance is sufficiently high to suggest that the patterns we see are not simply artifacts of
extremely small cell sizes.9 In addition, we also draw on the responses by mothers to open-ended
9
It should be noted that given the larger number of MTO children who changed schools, our
results for all children will be more strongly influenced by the experiences for MTO than Section 8
children.
17
questions concerning the things they like most and least about their child s new school.
Children s school-related char acteristics from the baseline. As we did in the earlier section,
we begin by reviewing the data available from HUD s baseline survey. All children in our sample
were enrolled in school at the time of the baseline, and had completed, on average, grade 5. The
congruence between this level of completed education with the average age of the children (about 11)
suggests that the children in our sample were progressing in school on time, on average, with respect
to age. At school, some children were placed in classes designated for special purposes: 12% were in
a class for advanced work, 21% in a class for learning problems, and 11% in a class for behavior
problems. Very few children were reported to have any physical, emotional or mental problems that
required special medicine or equipment (7%), that made it hard for him/her to get to school (1%), or
to play active games or sports (6%). Just over 20% of mothers reported that their child had been
suspended or expelled in the two years preceding the baseline, and 27.5% reported that the school had
asked that someone come to the school to discuss problems the child was having with his/her
schoolwork or behavior.
The mothers of the children in our sample appear to be highly engaged in their children s
school lives. Slightly more than 92% reported in the baseline survey that they had attended a general
school meeting in the preceding 12 months. Similarly, just over 82% reported that they had gone to a
school event, and 60% reported having volunteered at their child s school, all in the 12 months
preceding the baseline survey. In addition, slightly under 40% reported that they had worked with a
youth group in the last year.10 Entwisle and her colleagues (1997) argue that parental involvement is a
key factor in children s educational success. By going to schoo l and visiting with teachers, parents can
become informed about the curriculum, the teachers approach to di fferent topics, and about age-
10
It should be noted that the questions asked whether the respondent or another adult in the
household had done these activities. However, on average, the children in our sample lived with only
one adult, as indicated above.
18
appropriate learning tasks which they can use to help supplement the child s progress both during the
school year and when school is not in session.
Children s school-related experiences af ter the move. At the time of the post-move survey, the
average age of all the children (school changers and non-school changers) was about 12.6 years.11 For
school changers, the average age was 12.3 years, while non-changers were slightly more than a year
older, at 13.6 years of age. Children who changed schools were enrolled in 6th grade, on average,
suggesting that overall there was little experience with being left back a year as a result of moving.
Indeed, using an admittedly crude linkage of age to grade, we estimate that only 6.9% (N=4) of the
children who changed schools are too old for their grade. Consistent with the differences in
neighborhood racial composition reported in Table 1, MTO mothers are far less likely than Section 8
mothers to report that their children s class is mostly African American (p "d.01).
Table 5 presents the mother s reports concerning chil dren s school-related experiences.
Looking first at children s class placements, among mover children who changed schools, 8.6% were
placed in a class for advanced work in their new schools, 24% in classes for learning problems, and
3.4% in classes for behavior problems. When compared to the overall percentages culled from the
baseline for all mover children in the sample, there appears to be a tendency for children to be placed
less often in advanced classes and in those for behavior problems in their new schools, but a bit more
frequently in classes for learning problems.
The profile of special placements does not appear to translate into a pronounced deterioration
of children s grades. Rather, the mothers reports suggest that the children are, on the whole, doing
well academically. That is, more than 45% report that their child s grades have improved since the
move, while another 24% report no change in their child s grade. Somewhat in contrast, however,
27.6% of mover children who changed schools have been suspended or expelled since they moved, a
11
On average, 18 months separate the date of the move and the date of our interview
including the focal-child questions.
19
percentage somewhat higher than that reported at the baseline for all mover children.
Turning to the mothers perception s and evaluations, the results indicate that the mothers feel
very positively about their children s new schools. For example, more than 60% of mothers reported
that their child is very satisfied in his/her new school, and a similar percentage reported that she
herself was very satisfied with her child s new school. The apparent pleasure that the mothers have
taken in their children s new schools is also evident in rating scales we asked mothers to complete.
Specifically, we asked mothers to give a grade (from A to D, and F) on four dimensions of school
quality: the extent to which the teachers care about the students; the effectiveness of the principal as a
leader of the school; the safety of the school; and the ability of the school to maintain order and
discipline. The grades mothers gave, then, fall on a scale ranging from 0 (which indicates a negative
evaluation, or an F ) to 4, which indicates a very positive evaluation (or a grade of A ). The
average score on each of the four dimensions exceeds 3, with the maintenance of order and discipline
receiving the highest average scores for each group, with safety coming in a close second. Translating
these values back into grades, it appears that mothers give their children s new schools grades in
excess of B, with the grades for order and discipline, and for safety, approaching a B+. The
significance of these positive grades given by mothers is even greater when we consider that having
better schools for their children to attend was reported as the first or second most important reason for
moving (on the baseline survey) by 65% of the mothers in our child-based file. 12
We also asked a set of comparative questions, asking mothers to evaluate their child s new
school with the child s old school on four dimensions. Specifically, we asked whether the teachers in
the new school were more or less willing to help children with their school work; whether teachers
were more or less willing to meet with parents to discuss the child s progress; whether the academic
12
This reason, better schools for my children, was the most popular reason given for
wanting to move after getting away from crime and drugs (reported by 78% of mothers in our childbased file).
20
standards were more or less demanding; and, whether the child is more or less interested in going to
school. The data demonstrate that the majority of mothers evaluate their children s new schools in a
more positive light than their children s old schools. For example, the majority feel that the teachers
in the new schools are far more willing to help and discuss the child s progress. In addition, close to
three-fourths of all mothers feel that the academic standards in their children s new schools are more
demanding than those in their children s old schools, and about two-thirds feel their children are now
more interested in going to school compared to their attitudes when enrolled in their old schools.
As lead-in questions to open-ended questions designed to elicit responses with greater depth
concerning the mother s experiences with their chil dren s new schools, we asked whether there was
something about the new school that bothered the mother, and whether there was something about the
new school that she particularly liked. While statistically similar percentages of mothers in both
groups report that there was something that they particularly liked (about 30% overall), Section 8
mothers were significantly more likely (at p "d.01 level) than MTO mothers to indicate that there was
something about their child s new school that bothered them. Unfortunately, only one Section 8
mother opted to elaborate, and her complaints focused mainly on the limited number of electives
available at the new school; however, her daughter was attending a charter school rather than the local
neighborhood school, but was planning to transfer to the local school in the fall. In contrast, a number
of MTO mothers offered to tell us more fully about the things at their children s new school s that
bother them. The most commonly reported problems appear to involve their children not getting along
with teachers or other students. For example, one MTO mother reported that one of the male students
in her daughter s class was harassing her, and another mother com plained that her son s classmates
know that her son cannot control his anger (because of his attention deficit disorder), and they
intentionally provoke him. A different mother reported that her son didn t get along wi th his computer
teacher, while another told us that her daughter s teacher is picking on her. Similarly, another MTO
21
mother simply said that her son s new teacher is giving him a hard time.
Summary. In summary, the children s school-related experiences in the Chicago MTO
program appear on the whole to be very similar to those of the suburban-moving children in
Gautreaux. That is, our results point to a mixture of apparently negative experiences with a number of
positive experiences and evaluations. For example, despite reports of clashes between the children and
their new teachers and classmates, it is clear that the mothers of children who changed schools feel
very positively about a wide range of things about their children s new schools. In particular, the
consistently positive ratings of teachers, and the safe and orderly atmosphere of the new schools stand
out in the mothers reports. In addition, although the children who changed schools appear to
experience relatively high rates of being placed in special classes for learning problems, and to be
suspended/expelled, the evidence also suggests that, on the whole, the children are thriving in their
new schools. That is, relatively few have seen their grades suffer, while the majority are more
interested in going to school and are very satisfied with their new schools. Given the program s
motivation to improve the life chances of families and children, these initial short-term results bode
well for the children s future educational achievements.
Conclusion
The goal of this paper was to evaluate how moving under the Chicago MTO program affected
children s lives, and whether children s experiences differed dependin g on their program-group status.
While we were limited to examining only the short-term effects of moving, we looked at two broad
domains of children s lives: the qualit y of their neighborhoods and their school-related experiences.
In general, our results indicate that moving as part of the Chicago MTO program conferred
significant benefits to children in both groups. With respect to the quality of their new neighborhoods,
both groups of children were able to move to areas with far lower levels of disadvantage and racial
22
segregation, far lower levels of social and physical disorder, far higher levels of safety, and far more
opportunities than were present in their origin neighborhoods. These findings, moreover, suggest that
the levels of social organization were far higher in the children s dest ination neighborhoods. Insofar as
high levels of social organization benefit children s development -- and most observers argue that this
is indeed the case -- our results suggest that in the short term, the MTO program has successfully
provided participating children with a chance for a better life.
This general conclusion can be extended to our results pertaining to children s school-related
experiences. While extremely small sample sizes precluded a responsible comparison of programgroup differences, our results for all children who changed schools suggest that mothers are generally
very happy with their children s new teachers and schools. The maj ority rated their children s new
schools very highly, and when asked to compare the new with the old schools, the new schools
emerged as clearly better. However, the mothers did express certain reservations about their
children s new schools, and these appear to largely relate to problem s occurring between their children
and a particular new classmate or teacher. Given the social distance that likely separates the mover
children with their new teachers and classmates -- especially in the case of the MTO children -- it is
perhaps not entirely surprising that such problems might arise in the short term.
While our results suggested that, overall, both groups of children have benefitted substantially
by moving, it is also abundantly clear that the benefits accruing as a result of moving under the
Chicago MTO program have been significantly greater for MTO than Section 8 children. This added
benefit is evident regardless of the data examined; that is, the structural characteristics of MTO
children s neighborhoods appear more advantageous relative to those of Section 8 children s
neighborhoods, and the mothers reports of safety, disorder, and opportunities/risks point clearly to the
superiority of MTO children s destination neighborhoods. Insofar as these superior environments will
ultimately provide the MTO children with even greater opportunities than those available to the Section
23
8 children, this difference argues in favor of providing all assisted families with the kinds of extra
services available to MTO families, and/or encouraging relocation to suburban or low-poverty
neighborhoods in all housing-mobility programs (cf. Turner 1998).
24
References
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coleman, James. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology 94:S95-S120.
Duncan, Greg and Stephen Raudenbush. 1999. Neighborhoods and adolescent development: How can
we determine the links? Paper presented at Does it take a village: Community Effects on
children, adolescents and families, Penn State University, November 5-6.
Ellen, Ingrid, and Margery Austin Turner. 1997. Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent
evidence. Housing Policy Debate 8(4): 833-866.
Elliott, Delbert, William Julius Wilson, David Huizinga, Robert Sampson, Amanda Elliott, and Bruce
Rankin. 1996. The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33(4):389-426.
Entwisle, Doris, Karl Alexander, and Linda Steffel Olson. 1997. Children, schools, and inequality.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Furstenberg, Frank. 1993. How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods.
In Sociology and the Public Agenda, edited by William Julius Wilson. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Furstenberg, Frank, and M.E. Hughes. 1997. The influence of neighborhoods on children s
development: A theoretical perspective and a research agenda. Pp. 346-371 in Indicators of
Children s Well-being, edited by Robert Hauser, Brett Brown, and William Prosser. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Furstenberg, Frank, Thomas Cook, Jacquelynne Eccles, Glen Elder, and Arnold Sameroff. 1999.
Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Galster, George, and Sean Killen. 1995. The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A
reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate 6(1):7-43.
Gephart, Martha. 1997. Neighborhoods and communities as contexts for development. Pp. 1-43 in
Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consequences for Children, edited by Jeanne BrooksGunn, Greg Duncan, and J. Lawrence Aber. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Goering, John, Joan Kraft, Judith Feins, Debra McGinnis, Mary Joel Holin, and Huda Elhassan.
1999. Moving to Opportunity for fair housing demonstration program: Current status and
initial findings. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Jencks, Christopher, and Susan Mayer. 1990. The social consequences of growing up in a poor
neighborhood. Pp. 111-186 in Inner City Poverty in the United States, edited by the National
Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
25
Massey, Douglas, and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Newman, Sandra, and Ann Schnare. 1997. And a suitable living environment : The failure of
housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality. Housing Policy Debate 8(4): 703-742.
Rosenbaum, Emily, Samantha Friedman, Michael Schill and Hielke Buddelmeyer. 1999. Nativity
differences in neighborhood quality among New York City households, 1996. Housing Policy
Debate 10(3):625-658.
Rosenbaum, Emily, Laura Harris, and Nancy Denton. 1999. New places, new faces: An analysis of
neighborhoods and social ties among MTO movers in Chicago. Forthcoming in a volume (to
be titled) on MTO, published by the Russell Sage Foundation.
Rosenbaum, James. 1991. Black pioneers: Do their moves to the suburbs increase economic
opportunity for mothers and children? Housing Policy Debate 2(4):1179-1213.
Rosenbaum, James. 1995. Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice:
Lessons from the Gautreaux program. Housing Policy Debate 6(1): 231-269.
Sampson, Robert. 1997. The embeddedness of child and adolescent development: A community-level
perspective on urban violence. Pp. 31-77, in Childhood and Violence in the Inner City, edited
by Joan McCord.
Sampson, Robert, Jeffrey Morenhoff, and Felton Earls. 1999. Beyond social capital: Spatial
dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review 64:633-660.
Turner, Margery Austin. 1993. Limits on neighborhood choice: Evidence of racial and ethnic
steering in urban housing markets. Pp. 118-147 in Clear and Convincing Evidence, edited by
Michael Fix and Raymond Struyk. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Turner, Margery Austin. 1998. Moving out of poverty: Expanding mobility and choice through
tenant-based assistance. Housing Policy Debate 9(2):373-394.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work Disappears. New York: Knopf.
Yinger, John. 1995. Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
26
Table 1
Census-based characteristics associated with community social organization
for children s origin tracts, and for children s destination tracts by program group status
(standard deviations in parentheses)
1990 characteristic
Concentrated disadvantage/
racial segregation
% population in poverty
% households receiving
public assistance
% adults (16+) who are
unemployed
% non-Hispanic black
% female-headed families
and subfamilies
Residential stability
% owner-occupied housing units
% in same housing units in 1985
Concentrated affluence
% families with income "e
$75,000
% adults with at least a
college degree
% civilian labor force in
professional/managerial
occupations
N
Origin
tracts
Destination tracts
Section 8
MTO
76.25
(13.52)
36.15
(18.10)
10.03
(7.89)
60.32
(16.43)
29.58
(14.78)
2.93
(8.43)
44.15
(16.93)
99.37
(0.67)
23.31
(13.57)
86.98
(23.52)
2.96
(5.39)
52.28
(39.40)
85.25
(6.42)
62.69
(19.99)
34.36
(16.50)
2.79
(4.98)
54.97
(9.54)
27.43
(23.38)
53.33
(10.90)
67.26
(19.91)
56.09
(16.22)
0.14
(0.64)
5.57
(8.69)
10.26
(9.64)
3.79
(1.74)
11.97
(11.31)
17.05
(14.27)
11.12
(5.12)
80
18.60
(10.24)
32
23.62
(11.73)
49
Note: All differences between MTO & Section 8 children s destination tract characteristics are significant at at least p
except for the percent of population aged 5 a nd older who were in the same housing unit in 1985 (nonsignificant).
"d.05 (one- tailed tes t)
Table 2
Selected indicators of the social organization in children s origin neighborhoods,
based on reports by mothers, by program group status
(standard deviations in parentheses)
Indicator
Feeling very safe
In parking lots & streets near local school
At home alone at night
On streets near home during the day
On streets near home at night
Reported problems in neighborhood with:
Trash
Graffiti
People drinking in public
Drug users/dealers
Abandoned buildings
Social interactions/ties in neighborhood
Very likely would tell neighbor about their child
Very likely neighbor would tell me about my child
Have friends in neighborhoods
Have family members in neighborhood
N
Section 8
MTO
3.22
(17.96)
9.68
(30.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
4.26
(20.40)
6.38
(24.71)
4.26
(20.40)
2.13
(14.59)
100.00
(0.00)
100.00
(0.00)
96.77
(17.96)
100.00
(0.00)
93.55
(24.97)
95.74
(20.40)
97.87
(14.59)
95.74
(20.40)
97.87
(14.59)
93.48
(24.96)
74.19
(44.48)
58.06
(50.16)
61.29
(49.51)
48.39
(50.80)
31
55.32'
(50.25)
42.55
(49.98)
40.43'
(50.39)
38.30
(49.14)
47
' p "d.10; * p "d.05; ** p "d.01; *** p "d.001; two-tailed test.
Table 3
Selected indicators of the social organization in children s destination neighborhoods,
based on reports by mothers, by program group status
(standard deviations in parentheses)
Indicator
Feeling very safe
In parking lots & streets near local school
At home alone at night
On streets near home during the day
On streets near home at night
Reported problems in neighborhood with:
Trash
Graffiti
People drinking in public
Drug users/dealers
Abandoned buildings
People saying insulting things or bothering others
Crime and violence
Lots of people who can t find jobs
Different racial or cultural groups who do not get along
Social interactions/ties in neighborhood
Very likely would tell neighbor about their child
Very likely neighbor would tell me about my child
Have a real conversation once a week or more
Getting along with neighbors better since moved in
Made some new friends in neighborhood
Section 8
MTO
20.00 a
(40.68)
46.88 b
(50.70)
28.13 b
(45.68)
28.13 b
(45.68)
50.00**b
(50.55)
48.98 b
(50.51)
45.83*b
(50.35)
40.43'b
(49.61)
56.25 b
(50.40)
18.75 b
(39.66)
43.75 b
(50.40)
46.88 b
(50.70)
28.13 b
(45.68)
25.00
(43.99)
61.29
(49.51)
72.41
(45.49)
6.25
(24.59)
28.57**b
(45.64)
8.16 b
(27.66)
6.12***b
(24.22)
16.67**b
(37.66)
8.16*b
(27.66)
4.26**
(20.40)
22.45***
(42.16)
44.44**
(50.25)
2.04
(14.29)
83.87
(37.39)
70.97
(46.14)
33.33
(49.51)
50.00
(50.80)
58.06
(44.48)
91.67d
(27.93)
80.95d
(39.74)
17.86
(39.00)
36.73
(48.71)
61.22
(49.23)
Continued
Table 3: continued
Indicator
Feelings of neighborhood attachment
This is a good neighborhood for me to live in
I feel at home in this neighborhood
It is important for me to live in this neighborhood
I expect to stay here for a long time
I can recognize many of the people who live
in this neighborhood
If there is a problem in this neighborhood, people
here can get it solved
Section 8
MTO
71.87
(45.68)
90.62
(29.61)
40.63
(49.90)
40.63
(49.90)
93.88**
(24.22)
95.92
(19.99)
76.60**
(42.80)
67.35**
(47.38)
62.50
(49.19)
64.20
(48.24)
65.63
(48.29)
77.22*
(42.21)
' p "d.10; * p "d.05; ** p "d.01; *** p "d.001; one-tailed test.
a Differences between baseline and post-move survey are significant at p "d.05, one-tailed test.
b Differences between baseline and post-move survey are significant at p "d.001, one-tailed test.
Table 4
Mother s reports of opportunities and risks for teenagers in destination versus origin neighborhoods
(standard deviations in parentheses)
Indicator
Compared to the teenagers in the old neighborhood,
overall, teenagers in the new neighborhood are
less likely to...
... graduate from high school
... complete college
... drink a lot of alcohol
... get involved with drugs
... get pregnant/get a girl pregnant
... get AIDS
... get beat up, attacked, or molested
... get shot
Overall rating of neighborhood as a place for
teenagers to grow up a
Section 8
3.33
(18.26)
13.33
(34.57)
71.43
(46.00)
72.41
(45.49)
59.26
(50.07)
73.91
(44.90)
79.31
(41.23)
79.31
(41.23)
3.57
(1.04)
' p "d.10; * p "d.05; ** p "d.01; *** p "d.001; one-tailed test.
a Measured on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high).
MTO
2.33
(15.25)
6.98
(25.78)
88.37*
(32.44)
88.37'
(32.44)
80.95*
(39.74)
83.33
(37.72)
97.73*
(15.08)
88.64
(32.10)
4.53***
(0.69)
Table 5
Children s school-related experiences since the move,
and mothers perceptions and evaluaions of their children s new schools.
(standard errors in parentheses)
School-related experience
Percent
std. dev.
Children s school-related experiences
Placed in class for:
Advanced work
Learning problems
Behavior problems
8.60
24.14
3.45
(28.31)
(43.17)
(18.41)
Suspended/expelled
27.59
(45.09)
Grades have gotten:
Better
Worse
Stayed the same
46.55
29.31
24.14
(50.32)
(45.92)
(43.17)
Child is very satisfied with new school
62.07
(48.95)
Mothers perceptions and eval uations
Mother is very satisfied with new school
61.40
(49.11)
Mean score of rating scale on:a
How much the teachers care about the students
How effective the principal is as a leader
How safe the school is
Maintenance of order and discipline
3.193
3.125
3.228
3.351
(.9342)
(1.1765)
(.9639)
(1.0435)
Compared to the school the child attended before the move:
The teachers are more willing to help the children
The teachers are more willing to meet with parents to
discuss the child s progress or achievement
The academic standards are more demanding
Child is more interested in going to school
54.39
(50.25)
67.86
73.68
66.67
(47.13)
(44.43)
(47.56)
Something about school bothers mother
Something about school mother particularly likes
75.00
29.82
(43.69)**
(46.16)
N "d
58
a values range from 0 to 4.
** difference between MTO and Section 8 groups are significant at p "d.01 level (one-tailed test).