Research Article

Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults

+ See all authors and affiliations

Science  21 Sep 2012:
Vol. 337, Issue 6101, pp. 1505-1510
DOI: 10.1126/science.1224648

You are currently viewing the figures only.

View Full Text

  1. Fig. 1

    Impact on each outcome of assignment to the MTO treatment (voucher) groups for adults interviewed in a long-term survey. The squares represent the ITT estimate for the effect of being assigned to MTO treatment (pooling low-poverty and traditional voucher groups), rather than control, for the outcomes listed on the x axis: economic self-sufficiency, physical health, mental health, and SWB (Table 2 and supplementary materials, sections 1, 4, and 5). The box whiskers represent the 95th percent confidence interval around the estimates.

  2. Fig. 2

    Instrumental variable estimation of the relationship between SWB and average (duration-weighted) (A) tract poverty rate, (B) tract share minority, (C) tract poverty controlling for minority share, and (D) tract minority share controlling for tract poverty. The y axis is a three-point happiness scale (1 = not too happy, 2 = pretty happy, 3 = very happy) expressed in SD units relative to the control group. Share poor is the fraction of census tract residents living below the poverty threshold. Share minority is the fraction of census tract residents who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups. Tract shares are linearly interpolated from the 1990 and 2000 decennial census and 2005 to 2009 American Community Survey and are weighted by the time respondents lived at each of their addresses from random assignment through May 2008. Share poor and minority are z scores, standardized by the control group mean and SD. The points represent the site (Bal,Baltimore; Bos, Boston; Chi, Chicago; LA, Los Angeles; NY, New York City) and treatment group (LPV, low-poverty voucher; TRV, traditional voucher; C, control group). The slope of the line is equivalent to a two-stage least-squares estimate of the relationship between SWB and the mediator shown in each panel, using interactions of indicators for MTO treatment group assignment and demonstration site as instruments for the mediator (controlling for site indicator main effects).

Related Content