29-06-2007

Most research, at least most American research, focuses on social pathologies of the poor. In these research programmes, neighbourhood ecology (crime rates, poverty rates, quality of the physical environment – EUKN) is considered to determine young people’s future success or failure in society. The basic assumption seems to be that being raised on the ‘wrong side of the tracks’ automatically leads to failure in adult life. That kind of designation is something that we wanted to question.

When we started we were not sure how many youth would succeed in these neighbourhoods, we wanted to understand how is was that those who did succeed managed to overcome those types of adversity that exist in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. If we could figure out how successful kids, even if there were not many of them, made it, we could help others also make it.

Our study included the full range of neighbourhoods, not just disadvantaged ones. We were very surprised by the fact that the rate of successful youth development did not differ that much between advantaged and disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In the disadvantaged neighbourhoods 52 per cent appeared to be on track for a successful adulthood; the success rate was 60 per cent in advantaged neighbourhoods. The success rate for all kids in study neighbourhoods was between these two rates, approximately 56 per cent. The se small differences were surprising. You have to realise that the disadvantaged neighbourhoods we researched are truly poor, with over 30 percent of their households having an income below the poverty line.

What we consider successful youth development is of course a moderate rate of success. In our research, you do not have to make it to Harvard in order to be considered successful. A successful youth development outcome in our research is when someone: 

Based on the fact that there is only an 8 percent difference between the success rates of highly disadvantaged and advantaged neighbourhoods one can conclude that neighbourhood ecology is not as strongly correlated with successful youth development as is often suggested.

The quality of parenting was often very high in disadvantaged neighbourhoods – as good or better as in advantaged neighbourhoods. However, this is only the case if there is that strong social organisational structure and informal network in that neighbourhood.

Another finding was that single parenthood appears to have a very negative influence on youth development processes. Surprisingly, this only holds true in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In more prosperous neighbourhoods single parenthood does not have this negative influence. We have not yet looked into the mechanisms behind this difference. I expect that is has to do with the fact that in order to survive, single parents in poor neighbourhoods often hold more than one job and thus are not present to keep an eye on their kids. Surveillance and monitoring by parents has proven to be a critical factor in successful youth development. Furthermore, holding two jobs and raising kids at the same time puts a lot of stress on a parent. This will influence a kid’s development as well. The head of a single parent household has less time to participate in social networks in the neighbourhood, leading to even less surveillance and monitoring for his or her children.

Again, the fact that if you grow up in a poor neighbourhood this does not mean that you can not lead a successful life. Interestingly, however, is that the neighbourhood effects appear to become stronger in late adolescence. At this point in time, the children get more freedom – a negative social environment will then be of greater influence.

All our findings lead us to a hopeful conclusion: Being born on the wrong sides of the tracks does not determine development outcomes. While reducing poverty levels in the neighbourhood remains an important long-term goal, this means that we can intervene without completely solving the poverty problem. There are so many measures that will have a more direct effect and that are more efficient.

What would be your advice to local officials that seek to improve the chances and living conditions of the residents of deprived urban areas?

Do not focus solely on interventions in the physical environment. The social environment is of bigger importance. Interaction between neighbours, a shared culture and shared norms make a disadvantaged neighbourhood a strong neighbourhood for raising children. We should be careful not to implement measures that lead to high residential mobility. High mobility is detrimental to these very important social networks. The worst thing that can happen is that a neighbourhood becomes high crime, transient neighbourhood. If kids get caught up in that, they get caught for life. Very often there is no turning back.

We have not yet made a significant enough investment in our disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We now have some intervention strategies that are effective, but to date our investment has been quite limited.

For example, projects that have proven to be effective in the long run are parenting effectiveness training programmes. These programmes have run for years in small scale pilot project settings. The positive effects of such programmes are quite dramatic. The number of cases of child abuse drop, as does the number of parents that abuse drugs or alcohol. Employment under participating parents increases significantly. These programmes have a very positive influence on youth development, even after a period of 15 years. These kind of findings should lead to the development and implementation of more universal parenting training programmes that target the parents of all kids in all neighbourhoods.

Finally, it will be programmes that adopt a multicontextual approach to youth development that will prove to be most successful. Programmes that target parenting quality, the quality of schools and social networks will be the programmes that lead to better opportunities for youth in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. These sort of programmes will prove to be more efficient and more effective than programmes that solely focus on neighbourhood ecology.