Effects of the Your Family, Your Neighborhood Intervention on Neighborhood Social Processes

Individual poverty and living in a low-income neighborhood erect major barriers to the health and well-being of families (Jargowsky, 2013). Forty-seven million people in the United States live in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016), and these individuals and families struggle to find housing in thriving neighborhoods (Aurand et al., 2018). Only about 25% of those eligible for a housing subsidy receive one (Fischer & Sard, 2016). A housing subsidy adds real income to a low-income family’s household budget; however, even with a housing subsidy many individuals and families struggling with poverty are clustered in communities of concentrated disadvantage (Jargowsky, 2013). Estimates suggest that over 50% of low-income families live in a neighborhood of concentrated disadvantage (Jargowsky, 2013). Living in a neighborhood of concentrated disadvantage has been linked to a number of detrimental outcomes (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997) including a lower life expectancy (Swain, 2016), a greater risk of attending poorly performing schools (Evans, 2004), and an increased exposure to violence (Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001).

There are a number of interventions (Aha Process Inc., 2017) and benefit programs, such as food stamps and housing subsidies, that are designed to assist families living in poverty. These interventions and programs typically address a single poverty-related challenge but do not tackle the complex, ecological barriers families encounter while living in a low-income neighborhood (Berger & Font, 2015). In contrast, the Your Family, Your Neighborhood (YFYN) intervention uses a prevention-oriented approach to address individual, family, school, and neighborhood barriers encountered by families living in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage.

YFYN is a dual-generation, manualized intervention delivered in participant families’ neighborhoods over the course of 10 weekly sessions. The skills-based curriculum focuses on fostering family health and well-being, strengthening the parent–child bond, promoting parental attachment to schools, improving children’s academic outcomes, and establishing cohesive community relationships. This article offers the results of a quasi-experimental study, which tested the effects of YFYN on perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control. Perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control have strong support in the extant literature as key mediating mechanisms for health and well-being. YFYN, with its community-based delivery model and focus on relationships in a neighborhood cohort setting, has an explicit focus on improving perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control.

Concentrated Disadvantage as an Ecological Barrier

Neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage are complex ecological contexts that present many community- and family-level challenges. Challenges in these ecological contexts include crime (Morenoff et al., 2001), poorly performing schools (Evans, 2004; Fram, Miller-Cribbs, & Van Horn, 2007), and poor health (Marmot & Wilkinson, 2006). Other challenges include inadequately nutritious food options (Raja, Ma, & Yadav, 2008), limited health care access (Kirby & Kaneda, 2005), and compromised employment opportunities (Elliott, 1999). Neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage are often associated with lower levels of social cohesion, community trust, and informal social control (that is, the belief that one has power or control over their environment) (Brisson & Walker, 2019).

Ecological systems theory provides a lens through which to view the challenges that low-income families living in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage encounter and the interventions that may address them (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The theory suggests that individual outcomes result from interactions across ecological systems, including individual, family, connecting, organizational, and institutional systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Considering the influence of ecological systems, interventions designed to address poverty within low-income neighborhoods must look beyond individual and family-level challenges to school, neighborhood, and institutional systems. Despite the many challenges they face, families have the power to build relationships (that is, social cohesion) and take action (that is, informal social control), which can be important mediators to influence the ecological context of a neighborhood (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Building on these theories, Figure 1 is a conceptual framework that shows how the YFYN intervention positions neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control as key mediators for family health and well-being.

Interventions That Use an Ecological Framework

Social workers, community psychologists, prevention scientists, public health professionals, and other actors in similar fields have worked for many decades to identify and implement practice approaches that provide low-income families living in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage with the resources and support necessary to address the community- and family-level challenges described earlier (Bryan & Davis, 1990). These interventions target the systemic factors that influence individual-level outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988). The extant literature is replete with evidence from rigorous evaluations of community-level, public health interventions designed to prevent negative health and social outcomes, such as HIV/AIDS (Kalichman et al., 2014; Martinez, Roth, Kelle, Downs, & Rhodes, 2014; Woelk et al.,2016), obesity (Cheadle, Rauzon, & Schwartz, 2014), diabetes (Ahmad & Tsang, 2013; Albright & Gregg, 2013), incidents of violence (Morrel-Samuels, Zimmerman, & Reischl, 2013), and drug use (Rhew, Brown, Hawkins, & Briney, 2013).

Government agencies, foundations, and other funding entities have invested substantially in the development, implementation, and evaluation of large-scale, community-level initiatives. Several of these investments have been in initiatives designed to prevent obesity (Cheadle et al., 2014). One such initiative, Shape Up Somerville, used a participatory approach to influence all aspects of the community, from educating parents, medical professionals, and local restaurants, to revising after-school program curricula and expanding local, environmental policies (Economos et al., 2007). The initiative was successful in significantly reducing the body mass index of children in first, second, and third grade, one year following program implementation (Cheadle et al., 2014). Kaiser Permanente’s Healthy Eating, Active, Living–Community Health Initiative (also known as HEAL-CHI) emphasized policy and environmental changes for preventing obesity in three neighborhoods in northern California. Policy changes were made at the organizational level to increase healthy food and physical activity in schools and at worksites. Changes were also made to urban-planning policies to improve the built environment for physical activity promotion. This initiative was effective in significantly increasing daily physical activity from 61% to 67% for youths in four of the nine “high-dose” strategy sites, where a combination of after-school programming, physical activities, and a new physical education curriculum were implemented (Cheadle et al., 2014).

The Communities That Care (CTC) program uses a comprehensive approach to mobilize communities to transform their prevention systems to reduce youth problem behaviors such as drug use and delinquent actions (Rhew et al., 2013). CTC provides consultation, training, and evidence-based tools to all stakeholders invested in promoting positive youth development in their community (Hawkins & Catalano, 2005). To ensure that efforts are locally relevant and sustainable, all new programs are developed collaboratively by community stakeholders, and are implemented with support from the CTC coalition (Hawkins et al., 2009). Evidence from the Community Youth Development Study, a randomized trial of CTC, demonstrated a significant reduction in incidences of drug use and delinquent behavior among a panel of 4,407 students in grades 5 through 8 across seven states (Hawkins et al., 2009). Another CTC study evaluated the program’s effectiveness at changing community norms around youths’ drug use and antisocial behavior by surveying 928 community leaders across 24 towns, half of which were assigned to the intervention and half to the control condition. Findings revealed that 1.5 years after funding ended CTC communities reported higher levels of adoption of evidence-based approaches to prevention and more significant increases in community norms opposing adolescent drug use, compared with control communities (Rhew et al., 2013).

Another comprehensive community-level intervention that has proven to be effective is the Michigan Youth Violence Prevention Center (MI-YVPC). MI-YVPC, located in Flint, Michigan, offers six programs designed to strengthen relationships, increase social cohesion, and improve the physical aspects of the environment. Through these programs, adolescents are connected to positive role models and community engagement activities to reduce injury and assault among youths (Morrel-Samuels et al., 2013). A recent evaluation of MI-YVPC compared counts of reported assault offenses and injuries between the intervention area and a matched comparison area over the six years prior to and 30 months post-intervention (Heinze et al., 2015). Findings revealed that the overall numbers of assaults and assault injuries per month were lower in the intervention area post-intervention, suggesting that MI-YVPC is successful in reducing youth violence (Heinze et al., 2015).

The YFYN intervention is also an intervention that builds on social ecological theory. YFYN is different than other community interventions as it has an explicit focus on the key mediators of neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control to improve family well-being outcomes. Neighborhood social cohesion is the shared trust, common values and connections in a neighborhood, and informal social control is the feeling that one can take action to affect the neighborhood. YFYN follows prevention strategies identified by Nation et al. (2003), such as using varied teaching methods, following a guiding theory, and providing opportunities for positive relationships. Despite the evidence showing the important role of these two neighborhood variables (Sampson, 2001), there are, to our knowledge, no community-based interventions that have improved both neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control.

Summary

Neighborhood concentrated disadvantage is a potential obstacle to family health and well-being. Although some community-level interventions have demonstrated positive effects using an ecological lens, more work can be done. This study tests how an innovative intervention, YFYN, affects the development of neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control, two key social processes that have proven to mediate the negative impact of concentrated disadvantage (Sampson, 2001). The following research questions are addressed: (a) Does YFYN affect perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion? (b) Does YFYN affect perceptions of informal neighborhood socialcontrol?

Method

The YFYN intervention study was conducted in three low-income neighborhoods with a high percentage of affordable housing in a city in the western United States. Families in two neighborhoods received the YFYN intervention, and families in one neighborhood did not. The neighborhood where families did not receive YFYN was purposefully chosen because of its similarities to intervention neighborhoods. All neighborhoods had a high percentage of affordable housing, and the nontreatment neighborhood is adjacent to one of the intervention neighborhoods—but separated by a major boulevard and public park.

YFYN was delivered at community-based sites immediately after school or in the evenings to nine treatment cohorts consisting of three to 10 families each. Families were eligible for YFYN if they resided in the neighborhood where the intervention was delivered and if they had at least one child between the ages of seven and 12. Families were recruited for the intervention by YFYN staff and staff at the community-based sites where the intervention was being delivered. A range of community-based sites hosted YFYN and included two schools, one community center, and one subsidized housing complex. For two of the nine treatment cohorts YFYN was delivered in Spanish to monolingual Spanish-speaking families.

The YFYN intervention consists of 10 two-hour curriculum sessions. Curriculum sessions that were delivered after school began with a snack. Following the snack, parents met in a parent-only group, and children met in a child-only group for 45 minutes. After the parent and child groups, the families shared a group meal provided by YFYN, and parents and children gathered to share what they had learned during the session. Each group was led by a trained facilitator. Substantive curriculum content for the parent and child groups were matched. For example, in one session, the parent group discussion is focused on the parents’ hopes and dreams for their child’s education, and the child group activity is focused on the children’s hopes and dreams for their own education. The following content topics were included in the 10-week curriculum: week 1: introductions and the parent--child bond; week 2: your family and education; week 3: emotional communication; week 4: systemic oppression in education; week 5: promoting positive youth development; week 6: promoting leadership in my family, school, and community; week 7: neighborhood strengths; week 8: planning a community celebration; week 9: planning a community celebration; and week 10: celebrating your family and your neighborhood.

The structure and the content of the YFYN curriculum are designed to increase opportunities for neighborhood engagement and facilitate critical neighborhood conversations. Through increased engagement and critical conversations, participation in YFYN leads to a common understanding of neighborhood issues and shared neighborhood values and norms. The structure of the YFYN curriculum offers two distinct opportunities for the development of shared neighborhood norms and values. First, the common meal provides an informal opportunity for families to meet and build relationships. Sharing a meal is a commonly understood community bonding activity. The facilitated parent group offers a second structural opportunity to develop shared understanding of neighborhood issues and values. The facilitated parent group sessions ask parents to think critically about themselves, their children, their schools, their health, and their neighborhood. These critical discussions are designed to bond neighborhood parents.

In addition to the curriculum structure, the curriculum content—specifically the final four curriculum sessions—is designed to engage parents and their children in a critical dialogue about their neighborhood. In the final four facilitated group sessions, parents and their children are asked to reflect and share about the issues they feel are important in the neighborhood. Parents and children are given the opportunity and informal support to take a leadership role on issues in the neighborhood. Then, the YFYN group is asked to plan a neighborhood celebration. Planning and carrying out the neighborhood celebration provides families with skill building on neighborhood planning and an action step of engaging in a dialogue with neighbors to achieve a positive outcome (the neighborhood celebration).

Study Design

The study used a quasi-experimental design to compare changes in treatment families’ perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood control from pre- to posttest with changes in control families’ perceptions from pre- to posttest. The YFYN survey consists of previously validated items and takes 30 minutes to complete. For treatment families the survey was administered before the first YFYN session and at the conclusion of the 10th and final YFYN session. For nontreatment families the pretest survey was administered at community events; families were then contacted approximately 10 weeks later to complete the posttest. Families received a $50 gift card after completing the posttest. Figure 2 is a decision tree for inclusion in the study.

Sample

A total of 52 families were included in the study: 37 families completed the YFYN intervention and 15 families were in the nontreatment group. Recruitment of nontreatment group families for the study proved difficult and is the reason for differences in sample sizes between the two groups. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the full sample, the treatment group, and the comparison group. As indicated in Table 1, almost all the respondents were women who had lived in their respective neighborhoods for an average of 5.1 years. Respondents were on average 36 years old, and the average age of their participating child was 8.8 years. Seventy-four percent of respondents were born in the United States, and respondents represent various races and ethnicities. Forty-one percent reported cohabiting with a partner. Descriptive statistics for the treatment and comparison groups showed that the groups were comparable, and bivariate analyses indicated no statistical differences between groups. (P values for differences between cohabitating partners were assessed using Yates continuity correction to address the small sample size. The p value for differences between the treatment and control group was .08.)

Measures

Perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control are the study outcomes. Measures for both outcomes were taken from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, and they are considered standard measures for these concepts (Sampson et al., 1997). The neighborhood social cohesion measure consists of four items: (1) “This neighborhood is a good place to raise children”; (2) “People around here are willing to help neighbors”; (3) “This is a close-knit neighborhood”; and (4) “People in this neighborhood can be trusted.” These items are measured using a Likert-type scale, and response options range from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. The informal neighborhood social control measure consists of five items: (1) “How likely is it that your neighbors would do something about children who were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner?” (2) “How likely is it that your neighbors would do something about children who were spray painting graffiti on a local building?” (3) “How likely is that your neighbors would do something about children who were showing disrespect to an adult?” (4) “How likely is it that your neighbors would do something about a fight that broke out in front of their house?” and (5) “How likely is it that your neighbors would do something if the fire station closest to their house was threatened with budget cuts?” These items are assessed using a Likert-type scale, with the following response options: 1 = very unlikely; 2 = somewhat unlikely; 3 = a 50–50 chance; 4 = somewhat likely; and 5 = very likely. The informal neighborhood social control score is the average of the five items. Descriptive statistics for perceived neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control can be found in Table 1.

As Table 1 illustrates, the mean neighborhood social cohesion score at pretest was 2.44 (SD = 0.72) and the mean informal neighborhood social control score at pretest was 2.72 (SD = 1.17). Neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control scores increased from pre- to posttest for both treatment and control groups.

Analysis

T tests, using Levene’s unequal variances test, were used to assess changes in neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control scores from pre- to posttest for the treatment group. Change scores were then created for the treatment and control groups’ scores on the outcome measures. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences in change scores between treatment and control groups. Then, holding pretest scores constant, regression analysis was used to assess differences in the treatment and control groups’ posttest scores.

Results

Table 2 outlines the full set of results. T tests of pre–post neighborhood social cohesion scores for treatment families were statistically significant: t(37) = 2.09, p < .05. Families reported a 0.18 point increase in perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion from pretest to posttest. The results of the ANOVA, which compared differences in neighborhood social cohesion change scores for treatment and control families were not significant. Although not significant, changes in the neighborhood social cohesion score were greater for treatment families (.18) than for control families (.08). Figure 3 depicts the change in neighborhood social cohesion for treatment and control families. The results of posttest neighborhood social cohesion scores using regression analysis did not indicate a statistically significant difference between treatment and control families. However, regression analysis parameter estimates trend in the direction of YFYN treatment families having higher posttest neighborhood social cohesion scores compared with control families while holding pretest scores constant.

Results did not provide evidence that participation in YFYN led to improved perceptions of informal neighborhood social control. Table 2 outlines the full set of results for this outcome. The results of each statistical test indicate that informal neighborhood social control improved after completing YFYN. However, none of the results were statistically significant. Figure 4 depicts the increased change in informal neighborhood social control for treatment families compared with comparison families.

Discussion

The study is an important test of an innovative intervention designed to build neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control. Neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control are critical mediators for individual and family health and well-being. We used three different models to test the impact of YFYN on each of these two neighborhood mechanisms. Results of the impact of YFYN on neighborhood social cohesion are mixed. Results fail to show that YFYN has a significant impact on perceptions of informal neighborhood social control.

Despite the mixed results, the findings are important as there are no tested interventions available that have been able to show an improvement on perceived neighborhood social cohesion. Neighborhood social cohesion is a key program component in many community-based practice approaches, and it has been shown to mediate crime, safety, health, and economic well-being. The availability of a 10-week manualized intervention that can potentially build neighborhood social cohesion will be of great interest to social work and public health practitioners working in low-income neighborhoods. However, considering the mixed results YFYN should be tested in other practice settings using rigorous research designs.

YFYN was not associated with improved informal neighborhood social control, an important community-level mediator, particularly for neighborhood safety. Although the differences in informal neighborhood social control from pre- to posttest for treatment families were larger than differences in neighborhood social cohesion, the differences were not statistically significant. Comparisons between the treatment and control groups revealed that treatment families experienced larger gains in informal neighborhood social control. However, these gains were not statistically significant. Further testing of YFYN’s relationship to informal social control with a larger sample is necessary.

Limitations

The major limitation of this study is statistical power. One potential explanation for the lack of statistical significance on key variables is the relatively small sample size. It is likely that the sample size was not adequate to reveal all potentially statistically significant relationships. Effect size estimates from this study provide the information necessary to conduct a power analysis for future YFYN research designs. Power analysis should be used in future tests of YFYN to ensure that an adequate sample is available to detect statistically significant relationships between participation in YFYN and perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control.

The sample size also prevented the researchers from assessing implementation effects (for example, whether main effects differed by partner site, race or ethnicity, or participants’ spoken language) and from testing dosage, as measured by the number of sessions that families attended. Despite the modest sample size, the researchers were able to detect some treatment effects. Statistical modeling was also limited to bivariate analysis due to the small sample. One regression model was run but did not include covariates. Future research on YFYN should include larger samples that can account for covarying conditions such as race and ethnicity, age, years in the neighborhood, and others.

The quasi-experimental design is another limitation. The study used a control group composed of families that are similar to treatment families on key characteristics (see Table 1). However, selection bias cannot be eliminated as a possible explanation for treatment effects because families were not randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Future testing of YFYN should prioritize an experimental design that relies on probability sampling in the treatment condition.

Also, at this early stage of testing, there is no way of knowing which elements of the intervention can be attributed to changes in neighborhood social cohesion from pretest to posttest. The curriculum is the main element of the intervention. However, a shared meal with family and community members, respite for parents away from their children during the adult group, and skill building in a community setting at the end of each session are also aspects of the intervention that may increase perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion. Future testing of YFYN should attempt to discern which aspects of the intervention contribute to changes in perceived neighborhood social cohesion.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

This study has several important implications for social work practice, policy, and research. Two practice-oriented implications are particularly salient. Stakeholders engaged with YFYN from health care, early childhood, housing, child welfare, and school sectors understand the positive mediating effects that neighborhood social cohesion has on family outcomes. They have, however, required guidance on how to cultivate this important resource. Practitioners in low-income neighborhoods around the country are working to build social cohesion in low-income neighborhoods. These practitioners will benefit from the availability of a manualized intervention that is proven to improve neighborhood social cohesion. As a curriculum-based practice intervention, YFYN is potentially an important asset for practitioners who mobilize community resources to improve the well-being of families living in low-income neighborhoods.

Moreover, many interventions administered in low-income neighborhoods only address a single issue. For example, an intervention may only focus on school readiness, early childhood health, bullying, or family attachment. Although these interventions are valuable, the single-issue approach fails to directly address relationship building across the neighborhood that can lead to sustainable solutionsto for families navigating the complex community- and family-level challenges that often characterize low-income neighborhoods. Results from this study demonstrate the importance of taking an ecological approach to prevention intervention. Indeed, this approach seems particularly important when practicing in low-income neighborhoods, where challenges are often complex and involve multiple systems.

Results from the study also have important implications for policy. YFYN was developed from an assessment that affordable housing communities often lack family-level services. Policy largely drives affordable housing practices, and current policies focus on mixed-income housing, housing choice vouchers, and low-income housing tax-credit developments. Each of these housing policies can benefit from embedded services for low-income and market-rate residents alike. YFYN can easily be attached to these current affordable housing policies. Families in low-income neighborhoods would benefit if affordable housing providers can attach YFYN to their community-based service approach.

Results from the study also have several implications for research. First, although the results are promising, testing the effects of YFYN with a cluster-randomized design with adequate power will be critical. In addition, future research needs to consider the importance of partner sites and external validity. YFYN has been delivered at various partner sites, including subsidized housing developments, community centers, and schools. The intervention would benefit greatly from a directed approach to assessing effects across different partner sites.

Considering how unique neighborhoods are, tests of YFYN can assess variations in dosage to address presenting issues of specific neighborhoods. More specifically, additional curriculum sessions can be designed and either added or removed from the 10-week YFYN delivery depending on neighborhood-specific challenges and strengths. Other community interventions, such as CTC, have used a similar modular approach.

In addition to testing YFYN with a cluster-randomized trial, continued intervention testing should focus on effects related to implementation partners. It is likely that the theoretical mechanisms for change will have a different impact depending on factors specific to partner sites. Delivery of YFYN at schools, for example, may compromise intervention effects if participating families have low school attachment due to issues related to trust. Conversely, delivery at mixed-income housing developments may enhance intervention effects as the YFYN mediating mechanisms address challenges, such as micro-segregation, that have been identified in the extant literature (Chaskin & Joseph, 2015).

In conclusion, this early-phase study of YFYN offers some encouraging results. Practitioners and administrators working on developing neighborhood relationships may have a particular interest in YFYN. Although more testing needs to be done, in the future YFYN may be an important approach for building neighborhood social cohesion and informal neighborhood social control.

Daniel Brisson, PhD, MSW, is professor and executive director, Burnes Center on Poverty and Homelessness, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, 2148 South High Street, Denver, CO 80208-7100; e-mail: [email protected]. Stephanie Lechuga Peña, PhD, MSW, is assistant professor, School of Social Work, Arizona State University, Phoenix. Nicole Mattocks, MSW, is a PhD candidate and research assistant, School of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore. Mark Plassmeyer, PhD, MSW, is assistant professor, School of Social Work, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Sarah McCune, MSW, is a graduate student, Graduate School of Professional Psychology, University of Denver.

References