Root Shock Revisited: Perspectives of Early Head Start Mothers on Community and Policy Environments and Their Effects on Child Health, Development, and School Readiness

McAllister, Carol L.; Thomas, Tammy; Wilson, Patrick C.; Green, Beth L.

doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.068569

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those residing in supportive housing programs were 4.5 times and those who received subsidized housing were 9.3 times as likely to report living near to social services. However, those who received subsidized or supportive housing who also reported using more drugs in the last 30 days were less likely to report living next to social services that they needed, unlike previous studies [ 16 ]. This may be because heavy drug users were less able to access services that they needed, regardless of where they lived.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

The relationship between housing subsidies and supportive housing on neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction: does drug use make a difference?

Dickson‐Gómez

McAuliffe

Obidoa

et al. 2016

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSince the 1970s, the dominant model for U.S. federal housing policy has shifted from unit-based programs to tenant-based vouchers and certificates. Because housing vouchers allow recipients to move to apartments and neighborhoods of their choice, such programs were designed to improve the ability of poor families to move into neighborhoods with less concentrated poverty. However, little research has examined whether housing voucher recipients live in less distressed neighborhoods than those without housing vouchers. There is much reason to believe that drug users may not be able to access or keep federal housing subsidies due to difficulties drug users, many of whom may have criminal histories and poor credit records, may have in obtaining free market rental housing. In response to these difficulties, permanent supportive housing was designed for those who are chronically homeless with one or more disabling condition, including substance use disorders. Little research has examined whether residents of permanent supportive housing units live in more or less economically distressed neighborhoods compared to low-income renters.MethodsThis paper uses survey data from 337 low-income residents of Hartford, CT and geospatial analysis to determine whether low-income residents who receive housing subsidies and supportive housing live in neighborhoods with less concentrated poverty than those who do not. We also examine the relationships between receiving housing subsidies or supportive housing and housing satisfaction. Finally, we look at the moderating effects of drug use and race on level of neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction.ResultsResults show that low-income residents who receive housing subsidies or supportive housing were not more or less likely to live in neighborhoods with high levels of distress, although Black residents with housing subsidies lived in more distressed neighborhoods. Regarding housing satisfaction, those with housing subsidies perceived significantly more choice in where they were living while those in supportive housing perceived less choice. In addition, those with rental subsidies or supportive housing reported living closer to needed services, unless they also reported heavy drug use.ConclusionsHousing subsidies and supportive housing have little impact on the level of neighborhood distress in which recipients live, but some effects on housing satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

The relationship between housing subsidies and supportive housing on neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction: does drug use make a difference?

Dickson‐Gómez

McAuliffe

Obidoa

et al. 2016

Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vivero and Jenkins (1999) suggest that children in such situations may have strengthened cognitive and social capacities due to their immersion in many different cultures, though the potential for emotional and social instability remains a possibility. For instance, marginalization, racial discrimination, and poverty, rather than race or ethnicity, have been shown to impact disparities in children's health and school readiness between minority and majority groups (McAllister et al 2009). Indeed, research suggests that it is not solely family and socioeconomic conditions which influence the development of children, but also the social, historical, and political environments surrounding them (Reading and Wein 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the EDI Equivalently Measure Facets of School Readiness for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal children?

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An agenda for future research on family leadership programs should include assessment of community‐level effects, especially whether policies have been enacted that are attributable to family leaders' influence, and whether community health indicators—including health disparities—improve subsequent to implementation of programs that empower family leaders (e.g., Douglas et al., ; McAllister, Thomas, Wilson & Green, ). Also, one precept of NPLI () is that parenting is a form of leadership.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promotion of Civic Engagement with the Family Leadership Training Institute

MacPhee

Forlenza

Christensen

et al. 2017

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this efficacy study, both quantitative and qualitative data were used to gauge the effects of the Family Leadership Training Institute (FLTI) on civic knowledge and empowerment, civic engagement, and community health. The sample of 847 FLTI participants and 166 comparison adults completed pretest and posttest surveys. Medium to very large short-term effects were observed in civic literacy, empowerment, and engagement. Results mapping interviews were conducted with a stratified random sample of FLTI graduates (n = 52) to assess long-term (M = 2.73 years) program impact. Most FLTI graduates (86%) sustained meaningful, sometimes transformative, levels of civic engagement after program completion. This engagement involved multiple forms of leadership, most often advocacy, program implementation, and media campaigns; 63% of graduates directed at least some of their activities to marginalized populations. Content analyses of graduates' civic (capstone) projects and results mapping story maps indicated that 81-90% of community activities aligned with public health priorities. Thus, one promising means to promote community health is to empower families to develop leadership skills, become engaged in civic life, and forge connections with diverse constituents.

show abstract

Root Shock Revisited: Perspectives of Early Head Start Mothers on Community and Policy Environments and Their Effects on Child Health, Development, and School Readiness

Cited by 16 publications

References 30 publications

The relationship between housing subsidies and supportive housing on neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction: does drug use make a difference?

The relationship between housing subsidies and supportive housing on neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction: does drug use make a difference?

Does the EDI Equivalently Measure Facets of School Readiness for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal children?

Promotion of Civic Engagement with the Family Leadership Training Institute

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About