Table 1.
Moving to Opportunity Adults, Baseline Variables (Measured 1994 to 1997), Overall and by Treatment Group.
| Means by Treatment Group |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construct | Variable | Overall | Low Poverty Neighborhood Section 8 |
Geographically Unrestricted Section 8 |
Controls | P value |
| Total in Interim Survey, 2002 | N | 3526 | 1453 | 993 | 1080 | |
| Age | Years | 33.5 | 33.4 | 33.7 | 33.3 | 0.618 |
| Gender, % | Female | 98.5% | 99.0% | 98.1% | 98.2% | 0.123 |
| Race/Ethnicity, % | African American | 63.8% | 64.4% | 63.4% | 63.4% | 0.865 |
| Hispanic ethnicity, any race | 28.9% | 28.0% | 30.0% | 29.1% | 0.657 | |
| White | 2.7% | 2.9% | 2.5% | 2.8% | 0.914 | |
| Other race | 3.8% | 3.6% | 3.8% | 4.2% | 0.107 | |
| Missing race | 0.7% | 1.1% | 0.2% | 0.6% | 0.809 | |
| Site, % | Baltimore | 15.0% | 15.0% | 14.8% | 15.2% | 0.978 |
| Boston | 21.7% | 21.7% | 22.2% | 21.4% | 0.932 | |
| Chicago | 22.7% | 23.2% | 22.9% | 22.0% | 0.826 | |
| Los Angeles | 15.6% | 15.6% | 15.0% | 16.3% | 0.704 | |
| New York | 24.9% | 24.6% | 25.1% | 25.1% | 0.959 | |
| Household size | 2 people | 21.5% | 22.8% | 20.7% | 20.5% | 0.425 |
| 3 people | 30.9% | 30.3% | 30.5% | 32.0% | 0.687 | |
| 4 people | 22.7% | 23.1% | 22.6% | 22.4% | 0.917 | |
| ≥ 5 people | 24.8% | 23.7% | 26.1% | 25.1% | 0.483 | |
| Family structure, % | Never married No teens (age 13–17) in | 62.1% | 61.9% | 62.2% | 62.2% | 0.993 |
| home | 60.8% | 59.2% | 61.2% | 62.5% | 0.327 | |
| Socioeconomic position, % | Employed | 26.7% | 28.6% | 25.4% | 25.2% | 0.082 |
| On AFDC (welfare) | 74.5% | 74.0% | 74.7% | 75.1% | 0.878 | |
| Education, % | High school diploma | 37.3% | 38.8% | 37.9% | 34.6% | 0.137 |
| GED | 17.9% | 16.8% | 17.9% | 19.2% | 0.423 | |
| In school Household member with |
15.7% | 16.0% | 15.6% | 15.5% | 0.628 | |
| Household Characteristics, % | disability Household member |
16.4% | 16.3% | 16.7% | 16.2% | 0.895 |
| victimized in past 6 months Moved > 3 times in past 5 | 41.9% | 42.0% | 42.6% | 41.2% | 0.851 | |
| Neighborhood/mobility variables, % | years Very dissatisfied with |
9.1% | 8.0% | 9.0% | 10.6% | 0.258 |
| neighborhood Streets near home very | 46.4% | 46.2% | 46.9% | 46.3% | 0.983 | |
| unsafe at night | 48.8% | 48.3% | 49.1% | 49.2% | 0.951 | |
| Very sure would find a new apartment in different part of the city | 45.7% | 44.8% | 48.1% | 44.6% | 0.372 | |
AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children; GED, general equivalency diploma.
Notes: All variables range between 0 and 1 except baseline age (17–87), so means represent proportions. Analysis weighted for varying treatment random assignment ratios across time and for attrition. Missing baseline covariate data were imputed to site-specific means. P value for test of treatment group differences calculated from Wald Chi-squared tests outputted from logistic regression for dichotomous baseline characteristics. F tests were used with linear regression for continuous variables. The null hypothesis is that none of the treatment group proportions or means differ.