Table 2.

Intent to Treat Estimates of Moving to Opportunity Random Assignment Voucher Treatment Effects on Neighborhood Context.

Neighborhood Context	B	SE	LCI	UCI	P
MTO Head of Household^a Self-Report
Social & Physical Disorder Scale	−0.199	0.036	−0.270	−0.128	< 0.001
Social Disorder Subscale	−0.252	0.040	−0.331	−0.173	< 0.001
Physical Disorder Subscale	−0.136	0.037	−0.208	−0.065	< 0.001
Informal Social Control Scale	0.370	0.089	0.196	0.544	< 0.001
Violent Victimization	−0.450	0.147	−0.737	−0.163	0.002
Safety Scale	0.303	0.051	0.203	0.403	< 0.001
Saw Drug Use/Selling	−0.584	0.132	−0.842	−0.325	< 0.001
MTO Youth^a Self Report
Heard Gun Shots	−0.575	0.167	−0.902	−0.248	0.001
Saw Drug Use/Selling	−0.305	0.115	−0.530	−0.079	0.008
Violent Victimization	−0.023	0.117	−0.252	0.207	0.847
External Community Survey^b Measures
Collective Efficacy Scale	0.411	0.066	0.281	0.541	< 0.001
Social Cohesion Scale	0.443	0.065	0.315	0.572	< 0.001
Informal Social Control Scale	0.382	0.068	0.249	0.516	< 0.001

The analysis was weighted for varying intervention random assignment ratios across time and for attrition. All tests were adjusted for youth age, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, gender, site, and clustering at the family level. Dichotomous neighborhood context variables tested with logistic regression models, continuous variables tested with linear regression models. LCI= Lower 95% Confidence Interval; UCI = Upper 95% Confidence Interval.

Sample size varies with missingness on the neighborhood variable, which varies from 3–10%: N=1426 girls, N=1403 boys

Data sources: Boston Neighborhoods Survey (2000); Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (1994–1995); New York Social Environment Survey (2005). N=878 girls, N=828 boys