Table 1.
Moving to Opportunity Baseline Variables (1994–1997) among Boys 10–16 Years Old at Baseline, Overall and by Treatment Group
| Treatment Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construct | Variable | Overall | Treatment | Controls | pa |
| Total in Interim Survey in 2002 | N | 750 | 534 | 216 | |
| Baseline mean poverty rate | Percent poverty rate in the 1990 census tract | 50.8% | 50.7% | 51.0% | |
| Family Characteristics | |||||
| Victimization | Household member victimized by crime during past 6 months | 45.9% | 44.9% | 48.1% | |
| Site | Baltimore | 11.2% | 12.1% | 9.1% | |
| Boston | 15.5% | 14.5% | 18.0% | ||
| Chicago | 24.5% | 26.5% | 19.4% | ||
| Los Angeles | 21.8% | 20.2% | 25.6% | ||
| New York | 27.0% | 26.6% | 27.8% | ||
| Household size | 2 people | 5.8% | 5.3% | 7.2% | |
| 3 people | 19.2% | 18.8% | 20.1% | ||
| 4 people | 24.4% | 25.1% | 22.6% | ||
| 5 or more people | 50.6% | 50.8% | 50.1% | ||
| Youth Characteristics | |||||
| Age (in years) | 11.8 | 11.9 | 11.7 | ||
| Race/ethnicity | African American | 59.3% | 61.2% | 54.8% | |
| Hispanic ethnicity, any race | 33.9% | 34.1% | 33.5% | ||
| White | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | ||
| Other race | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | ||
| Missing race | 6.7% | 4.7% | 11.7% | ||
| Gifted | Special class for gifted students or did advanced work | 18.4% | 15.2% | 26.4% | * |
| Developmental Problems | Special school, class, or help for learning problem in past 2 years | 27.0% | 27.1% | 26.7% | |
| Special school, class, or help for behavioral or emotional problems in past 2 years | 12.2% | 13.9% | 7.8% | ||
| Problems that made it difficult to get to school and/or to play active games | 8.0% | 9.6% | 3.8% | * | |
| Problems that required special medicine and/or equipment | 11.7% | 12.9% | 8.8% | ||
| School asked to talk about problems child having with schoolwork or behavior in past 2 years | 36.7% | 38.8% | 31.4% | ||
| Household Head Characteristics | |||||
| Family Structure | Never married | 53.2% | 52.2% | 55.5% | |
| Teen parent | 25.8% | 25.8% | 25.7% | ||
| Socioeconomic Status | Employed | 29.7% | 32.0% | 24.2% | |
| On AFDC (welfare) | 74.3% | 73.3% | 76.8% | ||
| Education | Less than high school | 50.8% | 51.0% | 50.5% | |
| High school diploma | 14.5% | 14.7% | 14.1% | ||
| GED | 34.6% | 34.3% | 35.5% | ||
| In School | 12.0% | 12.3% | 11.1% | ||
| Neighborhood/Mobility Variables | Lived in neighborhood 5 or more years | 69.0% | 69.4% | 68.1% | |
| No family living in neigh | 62.9% | 62.0% | 65.3% | ||
| No friends living in neigh | 34.2% | 34.0% | 34.6% | ||
| Had applied for section 8 voucher before | 43.6% | 44.3% | 42.0% | ||
| Neighbor Relationships | Chats with neighbors at least once a week | 51.2% | 50.8% | 52.1% | |
| Respondent very likely to tell neighbor if saw neighbor’s child getting into trouble | 56.0% | 56.1% | 55.6% | ||
p<.05
P-value from test of treatment group differences calculated from Wald chi-square tests outputted from logistic regression for dichotomous baseline characteristics and multinomial logistic regression for categorical characteristics. F-tests were used with linear regression for continuous variables. The null hypothesis is that the treatment and control group proportions or means did not differ. NOTES: All variables range between 0 & 1 except baseline age (5–16) and mean poverty rate, so means represent proportions. Analysis weighted for varying treatment random assignment ratios across time, and for attrition. All tests were adjusted for clustering at the family level. Regression analyses were adjusted for site.