Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 91, Issue 2, pp 223–241 | Cite as

The Aftermath of Public Housing Relocations: Relationships between Changes in Local Socioeconomic Conditions and Depressive Symptoms in a Cohort of Adult Relocaters

  • Hannah L. F. Cooper
  • Josalin Hunter-Jones
  • Mary E. Kelley
  • Conny Karnes
  • Danielle F. Haley
  • Zev Ross
  • Richard Rothenberg
  • Loida E. Bonney
Article

Abstract

USA is experiencing a paradigm shift in public housing policy: while policies used to place people who qualified for housing assistance into spatially concentrated housing complexes, they now seek to geographically disperse them, often to voucher-subsidized rental units in the private market. Programs that relocate residents from public housing complexes tend to move them to neighborhoods that are less impoverished and less violent. To date, studies have reached conflicting findings about the relationship between public housing relocations and depression among adult relocaters. The present longitudinal multilevel analysis tests the hypothesis that pre-/postrelocation improvements in local economic conditions, social disorder, and perceived community violence are associated with declines in depressive symptoms in a cohort of African-American adults; active substance misusers were oversampled. We tested this hypothesis in a cohort of 172 adults who were living in one of seven public housing complexes scheduled for relocation and demolition in Atlanta, GA; by design, 20 % were dependent on substances and 50 % misused substances but were not dependent. Baseline data captured prerelocation characteristics of participants; of the seven census tracts where they lived, three waves of postrelocation data were gathered approximately every 9 months thereafter. Surveys were administered at each wave to assess depressive symptoms measured using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), perceived community violence, and other individual-level covariates. Participants' home addresses were geocoded to census tracts at each wave, and administrative data sources were used to characterize tract-level economic disadvantage and social disorder. Hypotheses were tested using multilevel models. Between waves 1 and 2, participants experienced significant improvements in reported depressive symptoms and perceived community violence and in tract-level economic disadvantage and social disorder; these reductions were sustained across waves 2–4. A 1 standard deviation improvement in economic conditions was associated with a 1-unit reduction in CES-D scores; the magnitude of this relationship did not vary by baseline substance misuse or gender. Reduced perceived community violence also predicted lower CES-D scores. Our objective measure of social disorder was unrelated to depressive symptoms. We found that relocaters who experienced greater pre-/postrelocation improvements in economic conditions or in perceived community violence experienced fewer depressive symptoms. Combined with past research, these findings suggest that relocation initiatives should focus on the quality of the places to which relocaters move; future research should also identify pathways linking pre-/postrelocation changes in place characteristics to changes in mental health.

Keywords

Public housing Public housing relocations Depression Multilevel models Neighborhood characteristics African-Americans 

References

  1. 1.
    Goetz EG. Clearing the way: deconcentrating the poor in urban America. Washington: The Urban Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keating L, Flores C. Sixty and out: Techwood Homes transformed by enemies and friends. J Urban Hist. 2000; 26(3): 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schill MH. Distressed public housing: where do we go from here? Univ Chicago Law Rev. 1993; 60(2): 497–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Massey D, Denton N. American apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Massey D, Kanaiaupuni S. Public housing and the concentration of poverty. Soc Sci Q. 1993; 74(1): 109–122.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fauth RC, Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. Seven years later: effects of a neighborhood mobility program on poor Black and Latino adults' well-being. J Health Soc Behav. 2008; 49(June): 119–130.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kling JR, Liebman JB, F LK, Sanbonmatsu L. Moving to opportunity and tranquility: neighborhood effects on adult economic self-sufficiency and health from a randomized housing voucher experiment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section; 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. Moving to opportunity: an experimental study of neighborhood effects on mental health. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93(9): 1576–1582.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    del Conte A, Kling J. A synthesis of MTO research on self-sufficiency, safety and health, and behavior and delinquency. Poverty Res News. 2001; 5(1): 3–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kramer MR, Waller LA, Dunlop A, Hogue CR. Housing transitions and low birth weight among low-income women: longitudinal study of the perinatal consequences of changing public housing policy. Am J Public Health. 2012; 102(12): 2255–2261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kling J, Liebman JB, Katz LF. Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects. Econometrica. 2007; 75(1): 83–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fauth RC, Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. Short-term effects of moving from public housing in poor to middle-class neighborhoods on low-income, minority adults' outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2004; 59: 2271–2284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirsch AR. Making the second ghetto: race and housing in Chicago 1940–1960. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedman LM. Public housing and the poor: an overview. Calif Law Rev. 1966; 54(2): 642–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spence LH. Rethinking the social role of public housing. Hous Policy Debate. 1993; 4(3): 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Casey C. Characteristics of HUD-assisted renters and their units in 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research; 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schill MH, Wachter SM. The spatial bias of federal housing law and policy: concentrated poverty in urban America. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev. 1995; 143(5): 1285–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bickford A, Massey D. Segregation in the second ghetto: racial and ethnic segregation in American public housing 1977. Soc Forces. 1991; 69(4): 1011–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carter WH, Schill MH, Wachter SM. Polarisation, public housing and racial minorities in US cities. Urban Stud. 1998; 35(10): 1889–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oliver ML, Shapiro TM. Black Wealth/White wealth: a new perspective on racial inequality. Secondth ed. New York: Routledge; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Popkin S, Cove E. Safety is the most important thing: how HOPE VI helped families. Washington: Urban Institute; 2007.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Popkin S, Levy D, Harris LE, et al. HOPE VI panel study: baseline report. Washington: Urban Institute; 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Popkin S, Price DJ. Escaping the hidden war: safety is the biggest gain for CHA families. Washington: The Urban Institutes; 2010.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Popkin S, Gwiasda VE, Olson LM, Posenbaum DP, Buron L. The hidden war: crime and the tragedy of public housing in Chicago. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. Final Report to Congress and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Washington: National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing; 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Popkin S, Katz B, Cunningham M, Brown K, Gustafson J, Turner M. A decade of HOPE VI: research findings and policy challenges. Washington: The Urban Institute; 2004.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boston TD. Environment matters: the effect of mixed-income revitalization on the socio-economic status of public housing residents: a case study of Atlanta. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology; 2005.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Popkin S, Rich M, Hendey L, Hayes C, Parilla J. Public housing relocations and crime: making the case for responsible relocation. Washington: The Urban Institute; 2012.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ruel E, Oakley DA, Ward C, Alston R, Reid LW. Public housing relocations in Atlanta: documenting residents' attitudes, concerns and experiences. Cities. 2013; 35: 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oakley D, Ward C, Reid L, Ruel E. The poverty deconcentration imperative and public housing transformation. Sociol Compass. 2011; 5(9): 824–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atlanta Housing Authority. Amended and restated statement of policies governing the Housing Choice Tenant-Based Program. Atlanta: AHA; 2013.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Digenis-Bury E, Brooks D, Chen L, Ostrem M, Horsburgh R. Use of a population-based survey to describe the health of Boston public housing residents. Am J Public Health. 2008; 98(1): 85–91.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sikkema K, Koob J, Cargill V, et al. Levels and predictors of HIV risk behavior among women in low-income public housing developments. Public Health Rep. 1995; 110: 707–713.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Williams C, Adams-Campbell L. Addictive behaviors and depression among African-Americans residing in a public housing community. Addict Behav. 2000; 25(1): 45–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Boardman J, Finch B, Ellison CG, Williams DR, Jackson J. Neighborhood disadvantage, stress, and drug use among adults. J Health Soc Behav. 2001; 42(2): 151–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hill TD, Angel RJ. Neighborhood disorder, psychological distress, and heavy drinking. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61: 965–975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jones-Webb R, Snowden L, Herd D, Short B, Hannan P. Alcohol-related problems among black, Hispanic, and white men: the contribution of neighborhood poverty. J Stud Alcohol. 1997; 58(5): 539–545.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Latkin C, Williams CT, Wang J, Curry AD. Neighborhood social disorder as a determinant of drug injection behaviors: a structural equation modelling approach. Health Psychol. 2005; 24(1): 96–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Latkin CA, Curry AD, Hua W, Davey MA. Direct and indirect associations of neighborhood disorder with drug use and high-risk sexual partners. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32(6 Suppl): S234–S241.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schroeder JR, Latkin CA, Hoover DR, Curry AD, Knowlton AR, Celentano DD. Illicit drug use in one's social network and in one's neighborhood predicts individual heroin and cocaine use. Ann Epidemiol. 2001; 11: 389–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams CT, Latkin CA. Neighborhood socioeconomic status, personal network attributes, and use of heroin and cocaine. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32(6 Suppl): S203–S210.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cunningham M, Popkin S, Burt M. Public housing transformation and the "hard to house". Washington: The Urban Institute; 2005.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977; 1: 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Radloff LS, Locke BZ. The community mental health assessment survey and the CES-D scale. In: Weissman MM, Myers JL, Ross CE, eds. Community surveys of psychiatric disorder. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 1986: 177–189.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997; 277(5328): 918–924.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Logan JR, Xu Z, Stults B. Longitudinal tract Data Base. Foundation RS, trans. Providece, Rhode Island: spatial Strucures in the Social Sciences, Brown University; 2012.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Leonard NR, Lester P, Rotheram-Borus M, Mattes K, Gwadz M, Ferns B. Successful recruitment and retention of participants in longitudinal behavioral research. AIDS Educ Prev. 2003; 15(3): 269–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ribisl KM, Walton MA, Mowbray CT, Luke DA, Davidson WS, Bootsmiller BJ. Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: review and recommendations. Eval Program Plan. 1996; 19(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cottler LB, Compton WM, Ben-Abdallah A, Horne M, Claverie D. Achieving a 96.6 percent follow-up rate in a longitudinal study of drug abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996; 41: 209–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scott CK. A replicable model for achieving over 90 % follow-up rates in longitudinal studies of substance abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004; 74: 21–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Singer J, Willett J. Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. New York City: Oxford University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Latkin C, Curry A. Stressful neighborhoods and depression: a prospective study of the impact of neighborhood disorder. J Health Soc Behav. 2003; 44(March): 34–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dempsey M. Metro Atlanta crime rates: 2009. AJC. Friday, Oct. 1, 2010, 2009.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Galea S, Ahern J, Nandi A, Tracy M, Beard J, Vlahov D. Urban neighborhood poverty and the incidence of depression in a population-based cohort study. Ann Epidemiol. 2007; 17(3): 171–179.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sundquist K, Ahlen H. Neighbourhood income and mental health: a multilevel follow-up study of psychiatric hospital admissions among 4.5 million women and men. Health Place. 2006; 12(4): 594–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Curry A, Latkin C, Davey-Rothwell M. Pathways to depression: the impact of neighborhood violent crime on inner-city residents in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67(1): 23–30.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yen IH, Kaplan GA. Poverty area residence and changes in depression and perceived health status: evidence from the Alameda County Study. Int J Epidemiol. 1999; 28(1): 90–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Silver E, Mulvey EP, Swanson JW. Neighborhood structural characteristics and mental disorder: Faris and Dunham revisited. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55(8): 1457–1470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Matheson FI, Moineddin R, Dunn JR, Creatore MI, Gozdyra P, Glazier RH. Urban neighborhoods, chronic stress, gender and depression. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 63(10): 2604–2616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kim D. Blues from the neighborhood? Neighborhood characteristics and depression. Epidemiol Rev. 2008; 30: 101–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Clampet-Lundquist S. HOPE VI, relocation: moving to new neighborhoods and building new ties. Hous Policy Debate. 2004; 15(2): 415–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cooper H, Bonney L, Ross Z, et al. The aftermath of public housing relocation: relationship to substance misuse drug and alcohol dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2013; 33(1): 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rao U. Links between depression and substance abuse in adolescents: neurobiological mechanisms. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31(6 Suppl 1): S161–S174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stiffman AR, Hadley-Ives E, Elze D, Johnson S, Dore P. Impact of environment on adolescent mental health and behavior: structural equation modeling. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1999; 69(1): 73–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Harries K. Social stress and trauma: synthesis and spatial analysis. Soc Sci Med. 1997; 45(8): 1251–1264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Takagi D, Ikeda K, Kawachi I. Neighborhood social capital and crime victimization: comparison of spatial regression analysis and hierarchical regression analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2012; 75(10): 1895–1902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Latkin CA, German D, Hua W, Curry AD. Individual-level influences on perceptions of neighborhood disorder: a multilevel analysis. J Community Psychol. 2009; 37(1): 122–133.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kruger DJ, Reischl TM, Gee GC. Neighborhood social conditions mediate the association between physical deterioration and mental health. Am J Community Psychol. 2007; 40(3–4): 261–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Thomas JC, Sampson LA. High rates of incarceration as a social force associated with community rates of sexually transmitted infection. J Infect Dis. 2005; 191(Suppl 1): S55–S60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Thomas JC, Thomas KK. Things ain't what they ought to be: social forces unerlying racial disparities in rates of sexually transmitted diseases in a rural North Carolina county. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 49: 1075–1084.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Thomas JC, Torrone E. Incarceration as forced migration: effects on selected community health outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96(10): 1762–1765.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fullilove MT. Root shock: how tearing up city neighborhoods hurts America, and what we can do about it. New York: One World Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wallace D, Wallace R. A plague on your houses: how New York was burned down and national public health crumbled. New York: Verso; 2001.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wallace R. Urban desertification, public health and public order: "Planned shrinkage", violent death, substance abuse, and AIDS in the Bronx. Soc Sci Med. 1990; 31(7): 801–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wallace RG. AIDS in the HAART era: New York's heterogeneous geography. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56(6): 1155–1171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fullilove MT. Root shock: the consequences of African American dispossession. J Urban Health. 2001; 78(1): 72–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fullilove MT, Wallace R. Serial forced displacement in American cities, 1916–2010. J Urban Health. 2011; 88(3): 381–389.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997; 44(2): 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Watters JK, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989; 36(4): 416–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Devine DJ, Gray RW, Rubin L, Tahiti LB. Housing choice voucher location patterns: implications for participant and neighborhood welfare. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannah L. F. Cooper
    • 1
  • Josalin Hunter-Jones
    • 1
  • Mary E. Kelley
    • 1
  • Conny Karnes
    • 1
  • Danielle F. Haley
    • 1
  • Zev Ross
    • 1
  • Richard Rothenberg
    • 1
  • Loida E. Bonney
    • 1
  1. 1.Rollins School of Public HealthAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations