What’s the ’Hood Got to Do with It? Parental Perceptions about How Neighborhood Mechanisms Affect Their Children

Abstract

During the past decade, a rapidly expanding body of empirical research has emerged that statistically links disadvantaged neighborhood environments with social and economic outcomes of low-income, minority children. Nonetheless, the mechanisms by which neighborhoods putatively affect children remain poorly understood. This article examines the perceptions of low-income parents regarding how their neighborhood might affect their children. We examine quantitative and qualitative data gathered from phone interviews with 246 parents who live in subsidized housing scattered across a wide variety of neighborhoods in Denver, Colorado. We supplement this information with data obtained through a series of focus group interviews with a subset of these parents. Our findings indicate that low-income parents perceive the following primary neighborhood mechanisms: (1) the degree (or lack) of social norms and collective efficacy (24%); (2) influence of children's peers (12%); (3) exposure to crime and violence (11%); and (4) the presence and quality of institutional resources (3%). Approximately one-third of all parents reported that their neighborhood had no impact at all on their children, citing that their children were either "too young" to be affected by these mechanisms or that parents had sufficient resources to buffer any deleterious effects of the neighborhood. Parents residing in high-poverty neighborhoods were much more likely to perceive a neighborhood effect, however. Binary and multinomial logistic regression analyses were employed to identify the extent to which an array of demographic characteristics and neighborhood type correlated with parents' perceptions. Latino parents were significantly less likely than other low-income parents to report a neighborhood impact mechanism. Relative to those who reported no particular neighborhood impact mechanism, those who identified: (1) safety issues were more likely to have a spouse or parent present, and have low self-esteem; (2) peer influences were more likely to have higher levels of education and live in a high-poverty but low-crime area.A rapidly expanding body of empirical research has emerged during the last decade assessing the degree to which neighborhood environments affect the social and economic outcomes of lowincome, minority families and their children (see reviews by Brooks

Contextual effects on educational attainment in individualised, scalable neighbourhoods: Differences across gender and social class

“…However, there is less agreement about the mechanisms behind such contextual effects (Galster, 2012;Galster and Santiago, 2006). Different mediating processes discussed among researchers include social control, collective socialization, social capital, and institutional characteristics, see Ainsworth (2002) andGalster (2007).…”

“…Such institutional mechanisms are discussed by a number of authors (Ainsworth, 2002;Galster and Santiago, 2006;Sampson, Morenoff and Gannon-Rowley, 2002) and relate, for example, to the quality of institutions and the availability of institutions such as health centers, schools, universities, hospitals and job centers (for a discussion of school effects see e.g. (Brännström, 2008;Sellstrom and Bremberg, 2006;Sykes and Musterd, 2011;Östh, Andersson and Malmberg, 2013).…”

Goede bedoelingen in het onderwijs : Kansen en missers

“…In de literatuur over de mechanismen van buurteffecten worden scholen verondersteld een van de lokale instellingen te zijn die bijdragen aan plaatsgebonden effecten (Sampson e.a., 2002;Galster & Santiago, 2006). Het is bekend dat kenmerken van scholen (bijvoorbeeld kwaliteit en effectiviteit) van plaats tot plaats verschillen.…”

Sector-Wise Exploratory Analysis of Household Residential Location Choice in the African Context: Empirical Evidence from Benin City, Nigeria

“…The decision of households to reside in a particular sector within a city could be due to socioeconomic status (de Palma et al, 2007;Zondag & Pieters, 2005;Weisbrod et al, 1980), administrative and central character (Andrew & Meen, 2006;Axhausen et al, 2004;, Sociocultural network and ethnic ties (Ozo, 1986;Owusu, 2004;Kapoor et al, 2004), environmental and neighbourhood attributes (Clarke et al, 2006;Galster & Santiago, 2006), etc. Urban residential location models (Alonso, 1964;Muth, 1969;Mills, 1967Mills, , 1972 indicate that the determinants of choice of residential location include income of the household, family size, population density, rent and cost of movement.…”

“…Other literature has shown that households may be attracted to a particular area because some neighbourhoods provide satisfaction or dissatisfaction due to the presence or absence of good quality schools, crime, noise, social interaction and community spirit (Parkes et al, 2002;Galster & Santiago, 2006). For example, in China households seeking for a home are willing to pay more for reputable sectors and for areas where the quality of neighbourhood with respect to security, accessibility and convenience is high (Wang & Li, 2006).…”