Table 4. Average treatment estimates across sites for 1997 MTO locations, by neighborhood characteristics.

	City-specific external dataa		Economic disadvantageb		Violent crime rates		Collective efficacy		All indicatorsc
	Exp vs. control	Sec8 vs. control	Exp vs. control	Sec8 vs. control	Exp vs. control	Sec8 vs. control	Exp vs. control	Sec8 vs. control	Treatment groups combined	Exp vs. control	Sec8 vs. control
Baltimore	0.27	0.10	-0.66	-0.37	-0.40	-0.11			0.32	0.44	0.19
Boston	0.08	0.08	-0.39	-0.25	-0.18	-0.21	0.25	0.20	0.20	0.22	0.18
Chicago	0.14	0.01	-0.64	-0.74	-0.30	-0.13	0.46	0.05	0.31	0.36	0.29
Los Angeles	0.49	0.38	-0.96	-0.74	-0.68	-0.74			0.67	0.71	0.62
New York	0.39	0.18	-0.58	-0.26	-0.70	-0.46	0.77	0.34	0.46	0.56	0.30

^aTo calculate average treatment effects for city-specific external data, we assigned a negative value for neighborhood indicators that got worse (e.g., dirty streets) and took the absolute value of other treatment effects—thus creating a summary measure in which higher values indicate better neighborhood conditions

^bEconomic disadvantage: poverty, % persons 25 years+ with less than high school degree, unemployment

^cAbsolute value of all of the listed indicators combined, average of averages