Effects of Adolescent Neighbour Hood Poverty On Adult Employment (Holloway & Mulherin 2004)

THE EFFECT OF ADOLESCENT NEIGHBORHOOD
POVERTY ON ADULT EMPLOYMENT

STEVEN R. HOLLOWAY
University of Georgia
STEPHEN MULHERIN
California State University, Los Angeles
ABSTRACT: Neighborhood environments affect the long-term labor market success of Amer-
ica’s urban youth. Urban poverty grew more spatially concentrated during the 1970s and 1980s
as industrial economies dramatically restructured. Some policies attempted to address the
problems of impoverished neighborhoods by stimulating in-situ economic development, while
others sought to geographically disperse the poor. Poverty grew less concentrated during the
1990s because of robust national economic growth and dispersal-oriented federal policies.
Before celebrating, however, the long term effects of growing up in poor neighborhoods need
to be considered. We used National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) data, geocoded to
census tracts, to examine the effects of neighborhood poverty rates encountered during adoles-
cence on adult employment. Living in poor neighborhoods during adolescence carries a long-
term labor market disadvantage, caused at least in part by the limited ability to accumulate
early work experience. Males appear to be more sensitive to these neighborhood effects than
females.
T he geographic concentration of poverty in distressed urban neighborhoods increased

dramatically during the 1970s and 1980s, especially in the manufacturing-based cities of
the Midwest and Northeast. These remarkable changes took place at the same time that
metropolitan populations rapidly decentralized, spawning widespread suburbanization.
These geographic shifts stimulated popular concern and motivated policy efforts to reduce
the spatial concentration of poverty. Increased concentration marked the poverty of both
black and white populations—the rate of increase was greater among blacks during the
1970s and greater among whites during the 1980s. Many observers came to hold a deep
suspicion that growing up in poor, especially extremely poor, neighborhoods imposes a
negative impact, perhaps even a lasting impact. Social science research has demonstrated
growing interest in the impacts of neighborhood contexts on residents’ social and eco-
nomic experiences. Despite the growing cottage industry that now examines these issues,
however, there is much that we still do not know (Duncan & Raudenbush, 2001).
*Direct correspondence to: Steven R. Holloway, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 204 GG
Building, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: Holloway@uga.edu
JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 427–454.

Copyright # 2004 Urban Affairs Association
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0735-2166.
428 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
Census 2000 data documenting trends in poverty concentration during the 1990s are
being analyzed as we write this article. Early results indicate that the rapid economic
growth of the 1990s produced dramatic reductions in the number of high poverty areas
and in the proportion of the poor that live in these areas (Jargowsky, 2003). These reports
have been accompanied by optimistic assessments of federal policy’s efficacy: ‘‘The decline
in concentrated poverty represents, in part, the triumph of smart federal policies that
demolished failed public housing, rewarded work and overhauled welfare’’ (Bruce Katz,
director of the Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy at the Brookings Institution,
quoted in Pear, 2003). Before dismissing spatially concentrated urban poverty as no longer
problematic, however, close inspection reveals dark linings to the bright clouds. Note that
the 2000 Census was taken at the peak of the economic expansion before the stock market
bubble burst. Even in the context of expanding prosperity, Jargowsky (2003) reports that
reductions in poverty concentration marked the South and Midwest regions, but not the
Northeast. Moreover, urban areas in the West experienced, on average, increases in
poverty concentration. Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno, Riverside, and Washington,
DC, were among the large metropolitan regions that witnessed increased numbers of
poor people living in concentrated poverty. Jargowsky (2003) also notes that suburban
areas across the country, especially older inner-ring suburbs, did not experience the same
reduction in concentrated poverty that central cities experienced. Overall, approximately
2,500 very poor neighborhoods remain home to almost 8 million residents.
An additional issue plaguing the current debate centers on the impacts that concen-
trated poverty has on residents of impoverished neighborhoods. A robust neighborhood
effects literature has shown the impact of neighborhood contexts on a variety of social and
behavioral outcomes. One of the main deficiencies in the current literature, however, is the
issue of how long neighborhood effects might last: most research explores concurrent links
between neighborhood contexts and individual social and economic outcomes. Indeed,
most policy prescriptions seem to rest on simplistic and perhaps problematic assumptions
that relocation out of, or in-situ improvement in impoverished neighborhoods will alle-
viate the main troubles. We explore the possibility that disadvantages imposed by living
and growing up in impoverished neighborhoods may persist into adulthood, even for
individuals who are able to move out. We use longitudinal data to examine the temporally
lagged effects of living in areas of geographically concentrated urban poverty during
adolescence on adult labor market attachment. Our focus on the persistence of neighbor-
hood effects on labor market disadvantages seems especially relevant given the recent
declines in concentrated poverty. Before celebrating too vigorously, we need to consider
the possibility that adverse neighborhood effects imposed during previous decades may
linger into the present.
The empirical analysis presented in this article addresses several weaknesses in the
current research literature. First, with the exception of the spatial mismatch literature
discussed below, not enough research has focused on the complex linkages between
impoverished neighborhoods and the labor market experiences of children and adoles-
cents who grow up and live in them. While the impacts of neighborhood contexts on labor
market experiences are of considerable conceptual and policy concern (e.g., Galster &
Killen, 1995), research is just beginning to address their importance empirically (see
O’Regan & Quigley, 1996). The research that highlights the importance of labor markets
for the social, political, and economic fate of inner-city communities (notably the work of
Wilson 1987, 1996) focuses inadequate empirical attention on adolescents. Empirical
research on neighborhood contextual effects has emphasized an array of cognitive and
social development measures, schooling decisions, and sexual behavior (e.g., Brewster,
| Neighborhood Poverty and Adult Employment | 429
1994a, 1994b; Brewster, Billy, & Grady, 1993; Crane, 1991; Duncan, 1994; Orfield, 1992;
see especially the edited collection of papers in Brooks-Gunn, Duncan & Aber, 1997a,
1997b). Given the importance of employment in alleviating poverty at individual and
family levels, we argue for greater attention to neighborhood effects in adolescent employ-
ment relations.
Second, the research reported here explores long-term effects. Most of the neighbor-
hood-effects literature examines the cross-sectional impacts of neighborhood location on
concurrent behaviors and outcomes. Very little of the existing literature has addressed the
lasting impacts of neighborhood contexts, even though we are often motivated by such
suspicions. We focus on whether and to what extent living in poor neighborhoods during
adolescence may impose labor market disadvantages that last into adulthood, perhaps
even for individuals who leave poverty neighborhoods. By focusing on accumulated work
experience as a potential link between adolescent neighborhood contexts and adult labor
market outcomes, this analysis also informs policy on potential ways to minimize the long-
term impacts of geographically concentrated urban poverty.
BACKGROUND—GEOGRAPHICALLY CONCENTRATED URBAN POVERTY

The project reported in this article is motivated broadly by the stream of research
flowing from Wilson’s (1987, 1996) arguments that deteriorating neighborhoods are
occupied by the most disadvantaged minorities and that urban poverty is becoming
spatially concentrated. This research has provocatively focused more on describing and
explaining urban poverty’s increasing concentration than it has on examining its effects.
Moreover, while sometimes only implicit, much of this research has been concerned with
the growing geographic concentration of black poverty. Jargowsky and Bane (1990, 1991),
for example, found large increases in concentrated urban poverty during the 1970s in the
largest metropolitan areas. More recent work addressed race more explicitly and found
that while black poverty is much more concentrated than white poverty in absolute terms
and increased rapidly during the 1970s (Jargowsky, 1994), the concentration of white
poverty increased more rapidly during the 1980s (Galster & Mincy, 1993; Mulherin 2000).
Indeed, Galster and Mincy (1993) found that the greatest increases in poverty concentra-
tion during the 1980s took place in smaller metropolitan areas and that the relative growth
of poverty among whites during the 1980s was almost three times the rate of growth
among blacks. Massey, Gross, and Shibuya (1994) examined relations between the con-
centration of poverty and racial residential segregation. Housing market discrimination
limits blacks’ residential mobility and spatially concentrates their poverty. Poor whites
increasingly tend to live in racially mixed poor areas. Jargowsky (1997) linked increased
poverty concentration to metropolitan-scale economic restructuring: poverty is spatially
concentrating within metropolitan areas because metropolitan labor demand has shifted
in ways that disadvantage the low end of the labor market (see Strait, 2001).
We recognize that our examination of impoverished neighborhoods’ potential impact
on labor market outcomes highlights only one aspect of concentrated poverty’s potentially
multi-faceted impacts. Yet we contend that labor market outcomes deserve greater atten-
tion. To develop our argument, we focus our subsequent discussion on (1) reviewing
literature that maps out linkages between neighborhood contexts and adolescent labor
market outcomes, and (2) critically developing one possible mechanism that may link
adolescent neighborhood poverty with adult labor market outcomes. Note that neighbor-
hood contextual processes that generate initial impacts on adolescents may differ from the
processes that sustain or transform these impacts into adult years.
Impoverished Neighborhoods and Adolescent Labor Market Experiences

Studies of youth labor markets (e.g., Freeman & Holzer, 1986) long have debated the
relative importance of structural versus individualistic explanations. Individualistic expla-
nations attribute youth employment problems to traditional accounts of human capital
deficiencies (Becker, 1975), the importance of families (Freeman, 1986; O’Regan & Quigley,
1993), and the inherent instability of youth labor supply (e.g., Leighton & Mincer, 1982).
Structural perspectives contend that labor demand is inadequate in nature and level to
absorb youth labor supply (Clark & Summers, 1982; Freeman, 1991). Some further argue
that the demand for youth labor is necessarily structured geographically (e.g., Holloway,
1998), though typically focusing on regional or inter-metropolitan scales. The links between
neighborhood residence and adolescent labor market outcomes have been conceptualized
mostly in terms of spatial mismatch (i.e., what we think of as the spatial position of a
neighborhood vis-à-vis surrounding neighborhoods and the broader landscape of
employment opportunities). Nonetheless, we follow O’Regan and Quigley (1996) and
Bauder (2001) in exploring relationships between neighborhoods and adolescent labor
market outcomes not limited to spatial mismatch, emphasizing as well social and cultural
factors. Figure 1 represents a guide to our thinking.
Adolescent Neighborhood Contexts:

Spatial Mismatch
Neighborhood Effects
Spatial Statistical Discrimination
Youth Labor Market Other Youth Behavior:

Behavior: Criminal Activity
Job Search Childbearing
Informal Workplace Skills General Attitudes/Aspirations
Youth Labor
Market Success
Accumulated
Accumulated Human Capital
Work Experience
Adult Labor
Market Success
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Framework Linking Adolescent Neighborhood Contexts with Adult Labor Market
Outcomes
Spatial Accessibility to Employment

The predominant strand of thinking that links residential location with adolescent labor
market experiences has focused on issues of spatial accessibility. The familiar spatial
mismatch hypothesis (Kain, 1968) continues to enjoy considerable popularity among
scholars and policy makers and receives ample attention in the many review papers already
in the literature (e.g., Holzer, 1991; Jencks & Mayer, 1990a; Preston & McLafferty, 1999).
Spatial accessibility to blue-collar employment decreased dramatically in central city neigh-
borhoods as manufacturing shifted from older sites to the suburban fringe of metropolitan
areas. As the 1970s and 1980s unfolded, the literature broadened its conception to reflect severe
overall manufacturing job losses throughout North America, in addition to geographic shifts at
other scales (i.e., assembly was shifted overseas or to non-metropolitan areas). The literature
also came to address the increasing suburban dominance of most sectors (manufacturing and
non-manufacturing) within the urban economic structure.
Minorities historically located in central-city neighborhoods were unable to take advant-
age of the increasingly suburban-biased labor demand because of racially segmented hous-
ing markets marked by prejudice and institutional discrimination (Kain, 1968; Massey &
Denton, 1993; Yinger, 1995). Spatial inaccessibility to job opportunities increases job search
costs (direct and indirect), limits the informal flow of useful job information, and raises
applicants’ reservation wages in anticipation of longer and costlier commutes (Holzer,
Ihlanfeldt, & Sjoquist, 1994). To the extent that poor neighborhoods are more likely to be
close to the center of cities, spatial inaccessibility to employment may account for labor
market problems. A significant segment of the spatial mismatch literature has focused on
youth labor market outcomes, in part motivated to avoid sample selection bias that arises
for adults (see Ellwood, 1986). Empirical work by several scholars (typified by Ihlanfeldt,
1992) supports the basic spatial mismatch argument that accessibility to employment
matters, even though Holloway (1996) found that the positive employment benefit of job
proximity appeared to have weakened for male youths through the 1980s.
The spatial mismatch hypothesis as typically portrayed is fairly limited in scope. None-
theless, it retains relevance as a component of a larger story; there are additional ways that
youth employment may be impacted adversely by the deepening spatial segmentation of
urban labor and housing markets. As suburban labor markets developed and diversified in
the post World War II decades, complex patterns emerged. For example, large-box
suburban retailers often have difficulty finding workers in part because surrounding
residential areas do not house the desired kind of labor supply. At the same time, youths
living in central city areas may face increased supply-side competition from immigration
and additional opportunity costs associated with place-based illicit or informal economic
activities.
Neighborhood Social Context

The spatial mismatch hypothesis reduces the importance of a neighborhood to its
geographic location vis-à-vis the broader metropolitan space economy thus ignoring
other neighborhood characteristics as well as social and cultural mechanisms. The area
of research that has paid the greatest attention to neighborhood effects examines links
between neighborhoods and youth behavior by prioritizing social networks (i.e., the
impacts of the social relations that take place within the neighborhood). This branch of
research was invigorated by Wilson’s (1987) arguments that neighborhood deterioration
caused by economic restructuring was partly responsible for the emergences of an urban
underclass. Much of the resultant research takes seriously the potentially devastating
impact of impoverished neighborhood contexts, yet has focused more on deviant social
behavior and human development (see Bauder, 2002 for an ideological critique) than labor
market experiences. For example, Brewster (1994a, 1994b), Brewster, Billy, and Grady
(1993), and Crane (1991) examined teenage sexual behavior, and Duncan (1994) and
Crane examined schooling decisions (see Jencks & Mayer, 1990b, for an early review of
this literature). The empirical works reported in Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, and Aber (1997a,
1997b) focus on a variety of developmental and school achievement indicators in different
developmental stages.
Theoretically, most of this section emphasizes neighborhood-level social factors that
may influence youths’ behavior and thus the quantity and nature of their labor supply
(Figure 1). Some youth behaviors have direct impacts on labor market success, such as job
search strategies and soft work-place skills gained from previous jobs. Other behaviors
also affect youth labor market outcomes indirectly, including adolescent child bearing,
criminal activity, and general attitudes and aspirations. Each of these behaviors poten-
tially bears the imprint of adolescent neighborhood contexts, though in a variety of ways.
Some hypothesize that ‘bad’ or poor neighborhoods negatively impact youth labor market
behavior. According to the peer-pressure hypothesis (sometimes pejoratively labeled as the
contagion or epidemic model—see Crane, 1991), individuals are influenced directly by
observing the behavior of their age peers. When a greater percentage of the residents of a
neighborhood engage in behavior not productive for or supportive of work, there is a
greater potential for an individual to observe and thus be influenced by those behaviors.
According to collective socialization arguments (Duncan, 1994; Jencks & Mayer, 1990b),
the problem with disadvantaged neighborhoods is that there are fewer adult healthy role
models to demonstrate successful informal labor market behavior and fewer stable adults
to monitor youth behavior. Social capital arguments (Green, Tigges, & Brown, 1995)
contend that the social networks developed in disadvantaged neighborhoods are lacking in
significant ways because fewer individuals can provide effective contacts and job informa-
tion that derive from stable employment.
Most of the social and policy concerns are derived from the potentially detrimental
impacts of living in disadvantaged neighborhoods (and the presumed positive impacts of
having prosperous neighbors). Yet there are potential advantages derived from living
amongst poor neighbors—or more to the point, disadvantages that may confront individ-
uals in poor families living amongst prosperous neighbors (Duncan & Raudenbush, 2001;
Jencks & Mayer, 1990b). Relative deprivation is a variant of collective socialization models
that suggests the opposite impact of affluent neighbors: poor residents suffer in affluent
neighborhoods because they negatively evaluate their resources and opportunities relative
to their more prosperous neighbors (see also Jencks & Mayer, 1990b). Finally, competition
models suggest that poor individuals suffer in affluent contexts (primarily though not
exclusively schools) because the affluent out-compete the poor for limited local resources.
A pair of volumes edited by Brooks-Gunn, et al. (1997a, 1997b) report research on
neighborhood effects conducted by a multi-disciplinary team sponsored by the Social
Science Research Council (SSRC). Chapters by Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Leventhal, &
Aber, (1997) and Lehman & Smeeding (1997) provide useful summaries. These volumes
report empirical findings that generally confirm the importance of neighborhood contex-
tual characteristics for a variety of child and adolescent development and achievement
indicators. These factors, however, are generally less important than familial context (see
Duncan, 1994; Duncan & Raudenbush, 2001) and present complex implications for both
theory and policy (Lehman & Smeeding, 1997). Contrary to expectations, yet supportive
of our arguments, neighborhoods seem to exert their greatest impact during early child-
hood and adolescence. Affluent neighbors seem to exert a greater positive influence than
poor neighbors exert a negative influence. Most of the neighborhood effects examined
show complex variations by race and gender.
O’Regan and Quigley (1996) compared the relative strength of spatial mismatch factors
with neighborhood social factors in a cross-sectional study of youth labor market experi-
ences in New Jersey metropolitan areas. They found that neighborhood social character-
istics had a greater impact than accessibility measures, concluding ‘‘quite clearly that the
constellation of factors that distinguish ‘good’ from ‘bad’ neighborhoods affects teenage
employment in profound ways’’ (p. 52). Even so, they could not definitively distinguish
between the spatial economic and the social effects of neighborhood on employment.
Neighborhood Stigma
In addition to spatial accessibility factors and neighborhood social context, a third
hypothesis also links residential location with adolescent labor market outcomes.
Wacquant (1993) and Kirschenman and Neckerman (1991) argued that residents of
poor neighborhoods, especially those disproportionately occupied by minorities, suffer
from a form of territorial, or spatial, statistical discrimination. Job applicants listing
addresses in the worst neighborhoods are less likely to find a job because employers
screen them out based on perceptions that they will not be productive employees or will
introduce problems to the work place. This territorial stigma may be a form of geo-
graphically contingent racial prejudice or may function as spatial statistical discrimination
because residence is correlated with race due to high levels of residential racial segregation
(Massey & Denton, 1993). Either way, it can be an important link between neighborhood
residence and labor market outcomes.
Bauder (2001, 2002) extends this notion by arguing that places take on cultural mean-
ings through complex interactions between residents, institutions and other stakeholders
in local communities. These cultural meanings shape values and influence behaviors,
including those that affect labor market outcomes. These cultural meanings also play
into the ways that employers and other institutional actors (i.e., social workers, teachers,
job training counselors, etc.) behave towards neighborhood residents. In his recent
critique, Bauder (2002) suggests that typical neighborhood effects research grossly under-
estimates the impact of, and thus contributes to the further extension of, territorial stigma.
We have discussed various ways that neighborhoods may impact adolescent employ-
ment prospects as if they operate independently of one another. Of course, there are many
ways these factors interact and intersect. For example, employers that practice spatial
statistical discrimination may make illicit economic activities more attractive and rational
by denying employment opportunities to youths from poor neighborhoods. Stereotypes
leading to stigma and spatially targeted discrimination may be strengthened by such
activities. The social and economic characteristics of neighborhood peers and adults will
also be influenced by employers practicing spatial statistical discrimination.
Institutional Effects
Finally, geographic variations in the institutional landscape may also play an important
role. Most obviously, school quality exhibits wide variability based on the racial, ethnic,
and poverty status of surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, there may be wide
variations across neighborhoods in recreational and informal educational opportunities,

which may factor into youth behavior (see Bauder, 2001).
Adolescent Neighborhood Context and Adult Labor Market Outcomes

The research literature that attempts to link neighborhood context with adolescent
labor market outcomes over time is limited yet provocative. Rosenbaum’s (1995) analysis
of Chicago’s Gatreaux program (see also Rosenbaum & Popkin, 1991) perhaps gives us
our best evidence to date. As court-required redress for discriminatory public housing
policies, residents were quasi-randomly assigned to new housing in two different loca-
tions—one in central city neighborhoods much like those they left, and the other in
suburban neighborhoods. The suburban neighborhoods were much less segregated and
disadvantaged; they largely offered the stereotypical middle-class suburban ideal. Rosenbaum’s
research followed the families that were relocated over a period of time. Focusing on
the longer-term patterns for children in these families, Rosenbaum reports that sub-
urban movers are much more likely than central city movers to be employed (75 versus
41%), earn higher wages (21 versus 5% earned more than $6.50 an hour), and to work
in jobs with benefits (55 versus 23%). Suburban movers were also less likely to drop out
of school and were more likely to be in a college track or in college.
Moving-to-Opportunity (MTO) is a relatively recent federal program modeled on the
presumed success of the Gatreaux program (Popkin, Buron, Levy, & Cunningham, 2000).
Implemented in 1993, MTO offers Section 8 housing vouchers and housing counseling to
public and assisted housing residents currently living in high poverty neighborhoods
(greater than 40% poor). Participants must meet basic eligibility requirements (e.g.,
must have children) and agree to relocate to a low-poverty neighborhood (less than
10% poor) for at least a year. Program evaluation was a major component of the
program’s design. Comparisons are made between three groups. In addition to the
MTO treatment group, some participating families received Section 8 housing vouchers
without the requirement that they relocate to a low-poverty neighborhood, and some
families received no change in benefits. Assignment to the three groups was made ran-
domly from among the families that qualified and were willing to participate in the
program. Goering, Feins and Richardson (2002) summarized some of the still emerging
evaluation studies. Significant improvements due to program participation were experi-
enced by children and adults, though the benefits did not generally extend to labor market
outcomes.
While the quasi- and fully-experimental nature of the Gatreaux and MTO programs
provide evidence for the benefits of relocation to residents of impoverished neighbor-
hoods, they do not fully address the problem explored in this article. First, there are
methodological weaknesses in studies of both programs that prevent conclusive interpre-
tations of their findings (Popkin et al., 2000). Second, they have not yet followed parti-
cipants from adolescence through to adulthood in the same way that we do. Third, these
experiments focus by design only on residents of public housing and recipients of govern-
mental housing subsidies. In order to address the temporal lag questions we pose, we need
(1) to compare respondents who lived during adolescence in high poverty neighborhoods
with respondents who lived during adolescence in low poverty neighborhoods, (2) to
include respondents who did not live in public or assisted housing, and (3) to follow
respondents for a longer period into adulthood.
In addition to summarizing existing wisdom regarding neighborhood effects on current
adolescent residents, Figure 1 also illustrates possible ways that former residential context
can impact adult outcomes. It serves as a visual guide to the conceptual framework that
informs the exploratory empirical work we present. Note first that we do not seek to
present an exhaustive framework that identifies all of the possible links between adoles-
cent residence and adult labor market outcomes; we present and explore the potential of a
cumulative labor market process to account for the basic patterns we observe. We depict
these linkages with thicker lines in the diagram. Accordingly, a central feature of our
thinking is that the impacts of impoverished neighborhood contexts on labor market
experiences during adolescence affect labor market outcomes later in life. Specifically,
problematic and limited exposure to work as a youth, shaped initially by adolescent
neighborhood contexts according to the mechanisms outlined above (i.e., spatial mis-
match, neighborhood social impacts, and territorial stigma), will accumulate in the form
of limited work experience. Since work experience is a central form of human capital
(Becker, 1975), forces that limit its accumulation will adversely affect downstream labor
market outcomes. In other words, we explore the extent to which adolescent neighbor-
hood poverty is important because it prevents the early accumulation of work experience,
which then limits adult labor market success.
We focus our attention on accumulated work experience as a potential mechanism
linking adolescent residence with adult labor market outcomes for several reasons. It is
perhaps the most commonsense place to start given that little research has yet addressed
the temporally lagged effect of impoverished neighborhood contexts. Human capital
theory stills dominates academic and policy discourse surrounding labor markets. More-
over, human capital deficiencies may be more effectively addressed by policy intervention
than other mediating mechanisms.
Theoretically, we do not argue that accumulated work experience necessarily is the only
or even most important factor producing persistent labor market disadvantages. Potential
links between living in impoverished neighborhoods during adolescence and adult labor
market problems include limited acquisition of other forms of human capital, including
educational attainment. More troubling, however, are the potential links that do not
function through human capital. For example, youths living in impoverished neighbor-
hoods may adopt oppositional attitudes towards work and employers in response to early
difficulties in finding work (or possibly due to observing adults having difficulty finding
employment): these attitudes, if not altered by subsequent experiences, may persist and
limit later labor market success even in the face of a residential relocation to a ‘better’
neighborhood. Similarly, early involvement in criminal activity associated with living in
impoverished neighborhoods during adolescence may impose a lingering effect on adult
labor market outcomes, regardless of the kind of neighborhood inhabited during adult-
hood. The policy implications of alternative linkages are quite important. According to
Lehman and Smeeding (1997), ‘‘we realize that it is not enough to know, as a general
proposition, that neighborhoods matter. It matters how neighborhoods matter’’ (p. 259).
Nonetheless, at this early exploratory stage of research we do not directly investigate
alternative mediating mechanisms. We anticipate that future research will explore the
relative importance of multiple pathways that connect early residential contexts with adult
experiences.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The research reported here takes advantage of a unique and confidential data set that
matches individuals to their neighborhoods and follows the respondents over many years.
The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) selected a nationally representative
sample of young people between ages 14 and 22 in 1979, and has conducted follow-up
interviews on a regular basis. The questions asked of these individuals reveal information
about ascriptive characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and gender, as well as a wide range
of other personal information such as family structure, education levels, occupational
history, and poverty status. These data have proved especially useful in studies of labor
market behavior and employment experiences. The research we report takes advantage of
a recent initiative that matched NLSY respondents to their geographic (census tract)
locations. The Social Science Research Council (SSRC)-sponsored initiative to study
neighborhood effects reported in Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, and Aber (1997a, 1997b) used
a single year of address-matched information for the children of the NLSY sample. Our
analysis required address-matching all possible respondents for all survey years. We used
census tract data for 1980 to represent each respondent’s adolescent neighborhood context
based on their 1979 address, and census tract data for 1990 to represent each respondent’s
adult neighborhood context based on their 1990 address. Given the increasing geographic
concentration of poverty within cities that motivates this project, we restricted our atten-
tion to the subset of NLSY respondents who lived in a metropolitan area of the US in
1980. Individual-level attributes for the sample used in subsequent analyses are shown in
Table 1.
The geocoding process was conducted in several stages. The first stage recovered
residential addresses provided by NLSY respondents at each interview from archived
storage and transformed them into an appropriate digital format. The second stage
identified the census tract location of each address via address matching (i.e., comparing
each address against TIGER [Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing] files created by the U.S. Census Bureau] that contain the majority of streets
and address ranges in the country) (see Clarke, 1990). Initial matches were handled easily.
Addresses that could not be matched due to typographical errors, inconsistent use of
abbreviations, or road and place name changes were hand checked using detailed print
atlases. The final successful match rate for the entire set of addresses was approximately
90%. We chose to exclude respondents who reported a zip code but no address, despite the
possibility of using the geographic centroid of zip code areas: zip codes are too large to
adequately represent neighborhoods. The third stage of the data preparation process
merged 1980 and 1990 census tract data with the individual-level NLSY data using the
census tract identifier.
Several problems impacted the preparation of the address-matched data. First, only half
of the addresses for the initial (1979) NLSY respondents were readable due to physical
degradation of the archived computer tape. We could not recover this information even
from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), which conducted the initial survey
and archived the original paper survey forms. Second, because the NLSY project was not
designed initially to provide the level of geographic detail needed for the type of study we
conducted, address information was not asked of every respondent at each interview.
Addresses were typically recorded only for respondents who moved since the previous
survey, or incidentally at the discretion of the interviewer.
These two problems, combined with natural sample atrophy, limited the number of
usable respondents. We expanded the number of respondents with usable address
information by taking advantage of other questions in the survey that asked whether
respondents had moved since the previous survey. For example, for a respondent with a
valid address in 1981, but not for 1980 or 1979 (due the degradation of the tape), we
imputed the 1981 address back to 1979 if the surveys for 1981 and 1980 indicated that the
respondent had not moved during the previous year. Other respondents were matched to
TABLE 1
Characteristics of the NLSY sample
1980 Tract Poverty Rate
Variable Geocoded Sample <20% 20 to 40% >40%
Age at first interview 17.37 17.40 17.33 17.24

(2.23) (2.25) (2.19) (2.18)
Highest grade completed 12.97 13.29 12.25 12.14
(2.41) (2.44) (2.18) (2.23)
No earned degree? .16 .11 .23 .32
High school degree? .56 .55 .58 .53
Accumulated years of work experience 7.48 7.96 6.53 5.70
(3.16) (2.93) (3.35) (3.43)
Ever held government job? .17 .12 .29 .32
Ever received vocational training? .38 .40 .36 .29
High school curriculum vocational? .20 .19 .23 .27
High school curriculum college prep.? .41 .43 .37 .36
Work-limiting disability? .02 .02 .03 .02
Union member? .11 .11 .12 .13
Non-Hispanic black? .27 .15 .48 .68
Hispanic? .18 .14 .30 .26
Female? .50 .50 .49 .51
Independent household in 1979? .13 .15 .09 .09
Lived with both parents until 18? .60 .65 .52 .38
Family below poverty line in 1979? .20 .13 .32 .50
Family poverty not reported in 1979? .08 .07 .10 .09
Anyone in household received welfare in 1979? .16 .09 .27 .46
In jail in 1979? .00 .00 .01 .00
In jail in 1990? .01 .01 .01 .03
Lived with parents in 1990? .15 .12 .20 .25
Never married? .37 .33 .44 .57
Children younger than 6 at home? .40 .39 .42 .40
Children older than 6 at home? .09 .08 .13 .13
1980 Neighborhood poverty rate for 1979 residence .16 .08 .29 .50
(.13) (.05) (.06) (.08)
N 5978 4165 1464 349
Note. Values are means, with standard deviations in parentheses for continuously measured variables. All nominal
variables are coded 1 for the positive response and 0 otherwise.
their parents’ address (parental addresses were kept in a separate file) if the respondent
indicated in the 1979 or 1980 survey that they lived with their parents. Addresses in 1990
could be identified for respondents without a reported address if they had a valid address
at some point since 1979 and survey questions indicated that they had not moved during
any of the intervening years. For example, the 1987 address was imputed to 1990 if the
respondent reported a new address in the 1987 survey, no address in the 1988 through
1990 surveys, and that they had not moved during the previous years in each of the 1988
through 1990 surveys.
The sample used in subsequent analysis includes 5,978 respondents (58.3% of the 10,253
respondents to the 1990 survey) who lived in a metropolitan area in 1980 and did not live
on a military base in 1980. The full NLSY sample includes 12,686 respondents. We
compared the sample used in this analysis with the sample we would have used had we
been able to successfully identify the census tract location of all respondents in order to
examine the impact of sample selection procedures (Table 2). Our sample is generally very
similar to the full sample—differences noted should not substantively affect our analysis.
The geocoded sample is slightly more likely to be male, minority, and living at home in a
non-poor family than the full sample. Respondents in our sub-sample are also slightly
more likely to have never married and less likely to have children at home.
To explore the extent to which adolescent neighborhood poverty affects adult employ-
ment, we combine descriptive tabular and graphic analysis with multivariate statistical
modeling. To address the basic question of the lasting impact of adolescent neighborhood
poverty on adult labor market activities, we grouped adult activities into four mutually
exclusive categories: employed, unemployed, out of the labor force, and in the military.
Our descriptive measures focus on the percentage of respondents in each activity state
cross-classified by adolescent neighborhood poverty rate category. We utilize three pov-
erty rate categories: non-poor census tracts with poverty rates less than 20%, poor census
tracts with poverty rates between 20 and 40%, and extremely poor census tracts with
poverty rates greater than 40%. This scheme has been used in many studies of the
increasing concentration of poverty (Jargowsky, 1994, 1997; Jargowsky & Bane, 1990).
We also examine the differential impact of adolescent neighborhood poverty rate on adult
activities for respondents who moved out of their initial neighborhood versus respondents
TABLE 2
Characteristics of Full and Geocoded NLSY Samples
Variable Full Sample Geocoded Sample
Age at first interview 17.61 17.37

Highest grade completed 12.79 12.97
No earned degree? .18 .16
High school degree? .55 .56
Accumulated years of work experience 7.38 7.48
Ever held government job? .17 .17
Ever received vocational training? .37 .38
High school curriculum vocational? .20 .20
High school curriculum college prep.? .37 .41
Work-limiting disability? .03 .02
Union member? .10 .11
Non-Hispanic black? .25 .27
Hispanic? .16 .18
Female? .58 .50
Independent household in 1979? .21 .13
Lived with both parents until 18? .58 .60
Family below poverty line in 1979? .22 .20
Family poverty not reported in 1979? .08 .08
Anyone in household received welfare in 1979? .16 .16
In jail in 1979? .00 .00
In jail in 1990? .01 .01
Lived with parents in 1990? .12 .15
Never married? .33 .37
Children younger than 6 at home? .42 .40
Children older than 6 at home? .11 .09
1980 Neighborhood poverty rate for 1979 residence N/A .16
N 10,253 5,978
Note. The full sample excludes NLSY respondents living on military bases and in non-metropolitan areas in 1980.
who did not move, and for respondents based on both their 1980 and 1990 poverty rate
categories.
In order to assess more rigorously the relationship between adolescent neighborhood
poverty and adult labor market activities, we estimated a series of multivariate statistical
models (linear and logistic regression) based on the individual-level information in the
data. These models predict adult activities and labor market outcomes with standard sets
of predictive variables augmented by the poverty rate of the neighborhood respondents
lived in during adolescence. By controlling for individual- and family-level labor market
predictors, we are able to isolate the unique and lasting impact of adolescent neighbor-
hood poverty on adult labor market outcomes.
Does Adolescent Neighborhood Poverty Affect Adult Employment Outcomes?

The basic question posed by this research is whether living in poor neighborhoods
during adolescence implies long-term consequences for adult labor market activity.
Figure 2 illustrates that for the sample of NLSY respondents included in the analysis,
individuals living in non-poor census tracts in 1980 (poverty rate < 20%) were much
more likely to be employed and less likely to be either unemployed or out of the labor
force in 1990 than individuals that lived in either moderately poor (20 to 40% poor)
or extremely poor neighborhoods (poverty rate exceeded 40%) in 1980. Individuals
living in moderately poor neighborhoods in 1980 were worse off than individuals from
non-poor neighborhoods, but better off than individuals living in extremely poor
neighborhoods in 1980.
Figures 3 and 4 suggest that some of the effect of adolescent neighborhood poverty on adult
labor market experiences is conditioned by whether individuals moved out of the neighbor-
100%
14.12
18.37
27.51
3.51
80%
8.06
10.89
60%
40% 81.03
71.65
60.46
20%
Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Military
0%
Tract < 20% Poor Tract 20% – 40% Poor Tract > 40% Poor
1980 Census Tract Poverty Rate
FIGURE 2
1990 Labor Force Activity by Census Tract Poverty Rate in 1980

Moved from Tract

<20%
Remained in Same Tract
Moved from Tract

20% – 40%
Moved from Tract

>40%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FIGURE 3
1990 Labor Force Activity by Mobility Status and Census Tract Poverty Rate in 1980
hood. Individuals who remained in extremely poor neighborhoods had a substantially lower
adult employment rate than individuals who moved out of such neighborhoods (Figure 3).
There is no substantial difference between movers and stayers living in non-poor and moder-
ately poor neighborhoods in 1980. Whether this implies residential self-selection on the part of
< 20% (1990)

< 20% (1980) 20% – 40% (1990)
> 40% (1990)
Census Tract Poverty Rate
< 20% (1990)

20% – 40% (1980) 20% – 40% (1990)
> 40% (1990)
< 20% (1990)

> 40% (1980) 20% – 40% (1990)
> 40% (1990)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FIGURE 4
1990 Labor Force Activity by Census Tract Poverty Rate in 1980 and Census Tract Poverty Rate in 1990
the residents of extremely poor neighborhoods is not known. Individuals who moved to better
neighborhoods were more likely to be employed (and less likely to be unemployed)
than individuals who moved to neighborhoods with poverty rates similar to their
adolescent neighborhoods (or actually did not move out) or individuals who moved
to neighborhoods with higher poverty rates (Figure 4). Figure 4 thus provides support
for the argument that living in poor neighborhoods during adolescence has lasting
impacts; individuals starting out in the poorest neighborhoods always have the lowest
adult employment rates. Even among respondents living in non-poor neighborhoods
in 1990, employment rates are lowest (and unemployment rates highest) among those
who started out in extremely poor neighborhoods, followed by those who started out
in moderately poor neighborhoods.
These descriptive patterns do not allow us to directly assess the reasons that living
in poor neighborhoods during adolescence seems to predict adult labor market
difficulties. Any or several of the theories we reviewed above may be operative. If
adolescent residents of poor neighborhoods find available jobs inaccessible due to
broader geographic patterns of urban economic expansion, they will have difficulties
in securing employment. As Hughes (1995) reminds us, however, the problem of
accessibility is one of labor demand as well as labor supply. In addition, theories
that accentuate accessibility often imply that improving accessibility will solve
employment problems. Our findings suggest that early disadvantages do not com-
pletely disappear even for individuals who move to much better neighborhoods that
presumably enjoy better access to jobs. Other neighborhood factors accounting for
the patterns we observe may be related to human capital and insufficient quantities
and/or poor quality of schooling, for example. Poor neighborhoods may also sur-
round adolescents with social contexts that adversely affect their labor market
experiences. Some suggest that youths internalize values and attitudes that limit
their labor market success because of peer networks, inadequate role modeling,
and/or inadequate supervision. Others suggest that youths do not internalize poor
values and attitudes; rather they suffer from the weak and ineffective social capital
contained in poor neighborhoods. Some observers argue that we should focus more
attention on the values, attitudes, and behavior of employers. Demand for the labor
of youth who live in or come from poor neighborhoods may be limited because
employers hold racial stereotypes that stigmatize potential workers based on where
they live. Each of the notions provides plausible mechanisms that our empirical
analysis cannot directly distinguish. Yet our analysis can determine the degree to
which the patterns depicted in Figures 2 through 4 result from the respondents’
measurable characteristics, including several important human capital attributes. In
the following sections, we present the results of multivariate models that include a
broad array of individual- and family-level measures that have been shown in
previous research to affect labor market outcomes.
Multivariate Models
The evidence presented so far does not take into consideration differences between
individuals in characteristics that might predict adult employment outcomes—individuals
living in poor neighborhoods during adolescence may show lower employment rates as
adults because they completed fewer years of education, for example. We also do not
know if the effect of adolescent neighborhood poverty is distinct from that of adolescent
family poverty. The logistic regression models presented in Tables 3 and 4 address these
TABLE 3
Logistic Regression Models Predicting the Probability of Being Employed or in the Military in 1990
Males Females
w/o Experience w/Experience w/o Experience w/Experience
Variable bk ebk bk ebk bk ebk bk ebk
Age at first interview .036 1.037 .115** .891 .005 .995 .167** .846
Highest grade completed .007 .993 .016 1.016 .066* 1.068 .018 1.019
No earned degree? .765** .465 .627* .534 .885** .413 .172 .842
High school degree? .275 .760 .278 .757 .318** .727 .320 .726
Accumulated years of .338** 1.402 .467** 1.595
work experience
Ever held government job? .227 .797 .178 .837 .165 .848 .237* .789
Ever received vocational .039 1.039 .120 1.128 .168* 1.183 .077 .926
training?
High school curriculum .298* 1.347 .216 1.241 .089 1.093 .075 1.078
vocational?
High school curriculum .424** 1.528 .375** 1.456 .126 1.134 .061 1.062
college prep.?
Work-limiting disability? 1.252** .286 .769** .464 .072 1.074 .601 1.823
Union member? .855** 2.351 .480** 1.617 1.536** 4.647 1.289** 3.631
Non-Hispanic black? .682** .506 .435** .647 .230* 1.259 .565** 1.759
Hispanic? .076 .927 .050 .952 .185 1.203 .500** 1.648
Independent household .233 .792 .227 .797 .012 1.012 .403** 1.46
in 1979?
In jail in 1979? .551 .576 .345 1.411
Lived with both parents .115 1.122 .015 .986 .008 .992 .146 .864
until 18?
Family below poverty .502** .605 .232 .793 .272** .762 .007 .993
line in 1979?
Family poverty not reported .552** .576 .518** .596 .380** .684 .132 .877
in 1979?
Welfare receipt in 1979? .138 1.148 .406** 1.501 .420** .657 .007 .993
In jail in 1990? 3.958** .019 3.638** .026
Lived with parents in 1990? .831* .436 .710** .492 .008 1.008 .153 1.165
Never married? .638** .528 .463** .629 .287** .750 .008 .992
Children younger than 6 at .110 .895 .306* .737 1.239** .290 .954** .385
home?
Children older than 6 at .148 .862 .134 .874 .485** .616 .098 1.102
home?
1980 Neighborhood 1.494** .224 1.275** .279 .882** .414 .140 1.151
poverty rate
Constant 2.861** 2.583** 1.299** 1.048
2LL 1777.20 1586.36 3109.87 2439.43
2 versus Intercept-only 525.71** 716.55** 477.97** 1148.42**
Model
Note. ebk is the exponentiated parameter estimate and represents the factor change in the odds of the outcome produced
by a one unit increase in the value of the independent variable.
*p < .10. **p < .05.
concerns by statistically controlling for a wide range of human capital and other factors
that have been found in previous research to affect employment outcomes. We estimate
two sets of individual-level logistic regression models predicting adult labor market
activities (see Tables 3 and 4 for estimates).
TABLE 4
Logistic Regression Models Predicting the Probability of Being Out of the Labor Force in 1990
Males Females
w/o Experience w/Experience w/o Experience w/Experience
Variable bk ebk bk ebk bk ebk bk ebk
Age at first interview .038 .962 .127** 1.135 .010 .990 .126** 1.135
Highest grade completed .052 1.053 .035 1.036 .063* .939 .013 .987
No earned degree? .955** 2.599 .836** 2.308 .718** 2.050 .015 1.015
High school degree? .499* 1.647 .557 1.746 .209 1.232 .161 1.174
Accumulated years of .391** .677 .438** .645
work experience
Ever held government job? .061 1.062 .011 1.011 .119 1.127 .161 1.174
Ever received vocational .250 .779 .360* .697 .130 .878 .135* 1.145
training?
High school curriculum .327 .721 .186 .831 .087 .917 .077 .926
vocational?
High school curriculum college .331* .718 .263 .769 .133 .876 .085 .919
prep.?
Work-limiting disability? 1.499** 4.478 .889** 2.432 .207 1.230 .220 .802
Union member? 1.381** .251 .878** .416 1.717** .180 1.439** .237
Non-Hispanic black? .305 1.357 .027 .974 .527** .590 .889** .411
Hispanic? .097 1.102 .121 1.128 .224* .799 .536** .585
Independent household in 1979? .438 1.550 .422 1.526 .118 1.125 .202 .817
In jail in 1979? 1.238 3.448 .427 1.532
Lived with both parents .319* .727 .206** .814 .090 1.094 .229** 1.257
until 18?
Family below poverty line .129 1.138 .243 .784 .282** 1.326 .045 1.046
in 1979?
Family poverty not reported .382 1.465 .315** 1.371 .567** 1.762 .381** 1.464
in 1979?
Welfare receipt in 1979? .148 1.159 .143 .867 .374** 1.453 .028 .973
In jail in 1990? 4.567** 96.232 4.353** 77.692
Lived with parents in 1990? .614** 1.849 .437** 1.548 .094 .910 .244 .783
Never married? .745** 2.106 .491** 1.633 .292** 1.339 .011 1.011
Children younger than 6 .009 1.009 .233 1.263 1.353** 3.869 1.079** 2.941
at home?
Children older than 6 at .338 1.402 .369 1.446 .440** 1.553 .142 .867
home?
1980 Neighborhood poverty 1.205* 3.337 .826 2.284 .816* 2.261 .225 .798
rate
Constant 3.829** 3.540** 1.320* .903
2LL 1204.57 1044.05 2852.93 2304.08
2 versus Intercept-only Model 443.82* 604.35** 430.25** 979.10**
Note. ebk is the exponentiated parameter estimate and represents the factor change in the odds of the outcome produced
by a one unit increase in the value of the independent variable.
*p < .10. **p < .05.

PA¼1
ln ¼ b0 þ bHC HC þ bF F þ bPR PRj þ ei ðEquation 1Þ
PA¼0
In each of the models reported in Tables 2 and 3, HC is a vector of human capital

characteristics (bHC is a row vector of parameter estimates), and F is a vector of additional
individual- and family-level attributes (bF is a row vector of parameter estimates) attached
to individual-level records (i indexes individuals in the sample, j indexes census tracts). See
Table 1 for a description of these variables. We chose not to include current (adult) school
enrollment as a variable in our models as only 5% of the full sample was enrolled in school
at the time of the 1990 survey, and only 10% (including most of the 5% already
mentioned) had been enrolled in school at any time during 1989 or 1990. Educational
attainment is already controlled for in the models. We measure neighborhood poverty
(PRj) continuously as the 1980 poverty rate of census tract j associated with the respond-
ent’s 1979 residence. To explore the impact of accumulated work experience on the
neighborhood poverty-adult activity relationship, we display estimates of the models
both including and excluding the work experience variable.
In the models reported in Table 3, A ¼ 1 for respondents who are employed or in the
military in 1990 (versus A ¼ 0 for respondents out of the labor force or unemployed). In
the models reported in Table 4, A ¼ 1 for respondents who are out of the labor force
(versus A ¼ 0 for respondents who are employed, unemployed, or in the military). The
second set of models rests on the well-recognized difference between unemployment and
non-employment. Unemployed workers are considered to be active members of the labor
force due to the pursuit of employment required for benefits eligibility; survey respondents
not employed, not in the military, and not classified as unemployed may be discouraged
workers. Respondents who voluntarily withhold their labor from the labor market (e.g.,
for child-rearing) are controlled for with additional variables in the model. Note that we
expect the sign of the parameter estimates in the second set of models to be opposite those
in the first set of model. We estimate each set of models separately for males and females.
To aid in the interpretation of results, we report exponentiated parameter estimates (ebk)
as a measure of the factor change in the odds of the outcome produced by a one unit
increase in the value of the independent variable. Percentage changes in the odds of the
outcome are easily computed ([(ebk 1)*100]). Recall that the units implied by the raw
coefficients of a logistic regression model (log-odds) are not intuitively interpretable (see
Long, 1997). The factor change measure of effect on odds has the additional benefit of
being independent from the settings of the independent variables, unlike predicted prob-
abilities and most marginal effects measures.
The basic patterns depicted by the models reported in Tables 3 and 4 follow findings of
common labor market research. The probability of being employed or in the military
(Table 3) is higher for respondents who have more work experience (in the models that
include the variable), attended a college-preparatory high school (males only), are mem-
bers of a union, and have lived in an independent household at an early age (females only).
Employment (or military) probabilities are reduced by age at first interview in the models
that control for work experience, not having a high school degree (for males: relative to
having an advanced degree) and having a high school degree (for females: relative to
having an advanced degree), and having children younger than six years old at home.
There are some interesting differences between males and females, including the opposite
impact of race (relative to white women, black women are more likely to be employed
while black men are less likely to be employed than white men). Also, living with parents
as an adult and having never married are associated with lower employment probabilities
for men but not for women (though the causal ordering of these variables is difficult to
determine). Results of the models predicting the probability of being out of the labor force
(Table 4) largely mirror those for employment (with reversed signs as expected) with a few
differences.
The parameter estimates that most concern us here, given our conceptual framework,
are those associated with adolescent neighborhood poverty rate and accumulated work
experience. In both Table 3 and Table 4, the models that exclude the work experience
variable represent reduced form estimates of the total effect (direct effects plus indirect
effects as mediated through work experience) of adolescent neighborhood poverty. Put
another way, excluding work experience is appropriate if we view accumulated work
experience and adult labor market outcomes as jointly determined by neighborhood
poverty. Toward that end, we explore the effect of neighborhood poverty on accumulated
work experience later in this article. Despite the set of control variables included in the
models (including family poverty status), adolescent neighborhood poverty rates have a
statistically significant impact on adult labor market outcomes (though only marginally
for the out-of-the labor-force models). Based on exponentiated parameter estimates, a
female respondent coming from an extremely poor neighborhood with a 50% poverty rate
has 16% lower odds of being employed or in the military than a respondent from a
moderately poor neighborhood with a 30% poverty rate, and 30% lower odds than a
respondent from a non-poor neighborhood with a 10% poverty rate, net of human capital
and other individual- and family-level predictors. Females from moderately poor neigh-
borhoods (30% poor) have 16% lower odds of employment than females from non-poor
neighborhoods (10% poor). Adolescent neighborhood poverty has even greater impact on
males. A male respondent from an extremely poor neighborhood (50% poor) has 26%
lower odds of being employed or in the military than a respondent from a moderately
poor neighborhood (30% poor), and 45% lower odds than a respondent from a non-poor
neighborhood (10% poor), net of the other variables in the model. Males from moderately
poor neighborhoods (30% poor) have 26% lower odds of being employed or in the
military than males from non-poor neighborhoods (10% poor).
The relationship between a continuous variable and the probability of an outcome, as
captured by logistic regression, is inherently non-linear and depends on the settings of the
independent variables (Liao, 1994, Long, 1997). To aid in interpreting the relationship
between adolescent neighborhood poverty and adult employment probabilities, we con-
structed predicted probability plots (Figure 5) using the parameter estimates reported in
Table 3 (model for males that excludes the work experience variable). We set the values of
the independent variables to represent four hypothetical respondents: a black male and a
white male from non-poor families, and a black male and a white male from poor families.
Each of these hypothetical males was 17 years old at the beginning of the survey,
completed 13 years of schooling, obtained a high school degree in a school with a
college-preparatory curriculum, lived with both parents until they were 18 years old,
had never married, and did not have children living with them in 1990. Amongst males,
black respondents from poor families are the most sensitive to adolescent neighborhood
poverty, indicated by the steepness of the predicted probability line.
How Important is Accumulated Work Experience?

The second set of models (second and fourth pairs of columns in Tables 3 and 4) add the
accumulated work experience variable. The parameter estimate associated with this vari-
able represents the direct effect of past work experience on adult labor market activity, net
of neighborhood context. This model specification is appropriate if we view accumulated
work experience primarily as a human capital attribute not jointly determined by adoles-
cent neighborhood poverty. Accumulated work experience has a strong effect on labor
market outcomes, slightly more pronounced for women than men. Each additional year of
work experience increases the odds of employment by almost 60% for women and 40%
1
Predicted Employment (or Military)
0.9
Probability in 1990
0.8
0.7
0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Non-Poor White Non-Poor Black Poor White Poor Black
FIGURE 5
Effect of 1980 Tract Poverty Rate on the Predicted Probability of Being Employed or in the Military in
1990, for Black and White Males, by Race and Family Poverty Level
for men. Slightly smaller effects are noted for the out-of-the-labor-force model (odds are
reduced by 35% for females and 32% for males).
The two model specifications that we present are based on alternative conceptions of
the role of accumulated work experience; the models excluding the variable treat past
experience and current activity as jointly determined by adolescent neighborhood context.
The total reduced-form effect of adolescent neighborhood poverty is captured by its
coefficient in the first pair of models in Tables 3 and 4. In contrast, the direct, non-
reduced form, effect of adolescent neighborhood poverty is captured by its coefficient in
the second pair of models in Tables 3 and 4. The second set of models (including work
experience) allow us (1) to assess the degree to which work experience functions as an
intermediate mechanism by examining how the neighborhood poverty coefficient changes
between the two models, and (2) to assess the degree to which adolescent neighborhood
poverty exerts influence over adult labor market outcomes net of its impact on work
experience. As suspected, the effect of neighborhood poverty depends strongly on whether
the model includes the accumulated work experience variable. The magnitude of the
estimate is reduced in each model and remains statistically significant only for males in
the employment model. Note that no other variable included in the models affected the
estimate of the neighborhood poverty variable to this extent. For males, this second set of
models suggests that adolescent neighborhood poverty has important effects on adult
activities not transmitted through the attenuation of work experience. This finding sug-
gests that for males, the social and institutional explanations we reviewed earlier in the
article are important.
Work experience’s effect on the parameter estimates associated with adolescent neigh-
borhood poverty in the adult activity models suggests that adolescent neighborhood
context may have important effects on accumulated work experience. We explore this
possibility by regressing accumulated work experience on a set of individual- and family-

level variables in addition to adolescent neighborhood poverty (Table 5). For males and
females, living in poor neighborhoods during adolescence statistically associates with
attenuated work experience, net of other important predictors such as living in a poor
family and educational attainment. The relationship is stronger for females than males.
We see this as consistent with our finding that neighborhood poverty remains significant
in the male employment model that controls for work experience. The association between
adolescent neighborhood poverty and work experience, while statistically significant and
substantively meaningful, is not large enough to create problematic multicollinearity in the
logistic regression models (the maximum bivariate correlation between neighborhood
poverty and work experience is .57, which is a value not typically considered problema-
tically large).
Our segmented models reflect our understanding of labor market process as deeply
gendered: substantial research documents that men and women have fundamentally
different experiences in the labor market. While some argue that supply-side differences
(most notably, child-bearing) create these differences, structural and feminist research
argues that women are segmented into gender-typed occupations and industries (Hanson
& Pratt, 1995; Nelson, 1986) and experience lower returns on human capital investments.
Estimating our models separately for male and female respondents allowed us to account
for gender differences in sensitivity to the poverty of adolescent neighborhood contexts.
On one hand, some literature suggests that more disadvantaged groups are more sensitive
TABLE 5
Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models of Accumulated Years of Work Experience
Females Males
Variable bk bk bk bk
Age at first interview .349** .236 .506** .383

Highest grade completed .089* .061 .133** .115
No earned degree? 2.249 .226 .876** .115
High school degree? .216 .032 .086 .015
Ever held government job? .028 .003 .266* .034
Ever received vocational training? .556** .083 .029 .005
High school curriculum vocational? .135 .016 .255* .036
High school curriculum college prep.? .165 .024 .096 .016
Work-limiting disability? .770* .038 1.495** .074
Union member? .858** .076 .922** .108
Non-Hispanic black? .710** .095 1.140** .171
Hispanic? .464** .054 .111 .015
Independent household in 1979? .743** .084 .271 .026
In jail in 1979? 3.937** .098
Lived with both parents until 18? .292** .043 .316** .053
Family below poverty line in 1979? .711** .087 .966** .131
Family poverty not reported in 1979? .743** .059 .366* .033
Welfare receipt in 1979? 1.331** .148 .758** .094
1980 Neighborhood poverty rate 2.858** .117 1.372** .062
Constant .878** 1.712**
R2 .321 .313
F versus Intercept-only Model 78.03** 70.81**
Note. bk is the standardized parameter estimate.

*p < .05. **p < .01.
to their contexts. If we view females as disadvantaged in the labor market because of

gender discrimination, we might expect them to be more sensitive than males to their
neighborhood contexts. Women face complex life-course decisions (e.g., child-bearing and
care giving) that sometimes have a greater labor supply effect than for men. On the other
hand, neighborhoods’ effects on youth employment prospects may be stronger for males,
perhaps because of greater peer-group orientation. Our models suggest that the effect of
adolescent neighborhood poverty adult labor market activities is weaker overall for
females than males. Moreover, accumulated work experience is a stronger mediating
intervening mechanism between adolescent neighborhood and adult labor market out-
comes for women than men. This finding probably reflects a combination of greater
weight that employers may place on work experience as a signal of on-going commitment
to work and productivity for women because of the complex decisions they face and the
self-selection of women out of the labor market for reasons not reflected completely in the
models. The stronger neighborhood poverty effect on males, combined with the weaker
role of accumulated work experience as an intervening factor, lead us to consider their
position more vulnerable in ways that we discuss in greater detail in the next section.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this article was to explore the degree to which the adverse labor market
effects of living in impoverished neighborhoods during adolescence are still present years
later and expressed in subsequent adult employment difficulties. Using longitudinal data
from the NLSY augmented with 1980 and 1990 census tract information, we found that
living in poor neighborhoods during adolescence reduces adults’ chances of being
employed (or in the military) and increases their chances of being out of the labor force.
Our analysis suggests that this neighborhood effect is present even for individuals who
moved into more affluent neighborhoods. Moreover, we observed the effect of adolescent
neighborhood poverty in a series of multivariate statistical models that controlled for a
broad range of individual- and family-level factors, including the poverty status of the
adolescent’s family. The adolescent neighborhood poverty effect is larger for males than
females, especially for black males in poor families. Accumulated years of work experience
was the only variable that substantially reduced the estimated magnitude of the adolescent
neighborhood poverty effect in the logistic regression models. Living in a poor neighbor-
hood during adolescence appears to limit the degree to which respondents, especially
females, can accumulate work experience over the life course. To summarize, adolescent
neighborhood poverty appears to have an independent and lasting effect on adult labor mar-
ket experiences—an effect that is greater for males than females, yet one that appears to be
transmitted through limited accumulation of work experience more for females than for males.
We turn in our last section of this article to a discussion of the implications of our
findings. We do so at two scales. We first discuss the potential of interventions to improve
the chances of adult labor market success for adolescents that grow up in poor neighbor-
hood contexts. Second, we consider broader debates about poverty and place in America’s
cities. In both discussions, we consider policy and research issues.
Part of our motivation for considering the role of accumulated work experience in
mediating long-lasting neighborhood effects stems from the possibility that interventions
designed to strengthen adolescent workforce connections can effectively enhance adult
labor market experiences. Such interventions will be effective only to the extent that
neighborhood poverty exerts its lasting effects through the attenuated accumulation of
work experience. Several strategies might enhance and strengthen youths’ attachments to
the labor force, thus providing the work experience needed to mitigate the adverse effects
of poor neighborhoods. General efforts that focus on youth labor supply might include
job training programs designed to provide both the skills needed to accomplish work tasks
and the more intangible soft skills needed for effective relationships with employers, other
employees, and perhaps clients and/or customers. Social mentoring might stem the gap in
role models. Job information programs might redress weaknesses in job information
circuits that often follow personal contacts.
Other efforts to facilitate early and sustained labor market success might focus more
broadly on the demand side of labor markets. These efforts can enhance adolescents’ labor
market experiences and may aid in achieving a positive downstream employment outcome
even if the programs are not targeted for inner-city youth. For example, the promotion of
a living wage through minimum wage legislation might entice at-risk youths into the labor
market as teens, drawing them away from alternatives such as criminal activity. Expand-
ing the Earned Income Tax Credit may help as well, but the significant lag time between
initial earnings and the reward of an increased tax return in the following year might limit
the effectiveness of this option. Union organization may help draw youths into the
workforce and strengthen their connection to the labor market, but its effectiveness
could vary widely by geographic area. In an era of decreasing union jobs and increasing
part time and temporary work, the impact of union organization could be minimal.
Our analysis, while suggesting the effectiveness of work-enhancing interventions, also
leaves us with a certain degree of caution. First, males are more sensitive than females to
the poverty of their adolescent neighborhood contexts at the same time that work
experience accounts for a smaller share of that effect. Thus, interventions designed to
enhance adolescent workforce attachments hold less promise for males than females.
Second, even to the degree that enhancing workforce attachments can successfully miti-
gate the negative consequences of living in poor neighborhoods during adolescence, there
may be important interactions with the mechanisms through which early labor market
disadvantages are transmitted. For example, if the main culprit is the spatial mismatch
between poor inner-city neighborhoods and suburban employment opportunities, then we
need policies and programs that address this geographic imbalance. Hughes (1995) sug-
gests that three program elements are needed: facilitating the flow of information between
suburban employers and inner-city job seekers, facilitating the mobility of workers
through targeted commutes, and strengthening support services for suburban workers
living in inner-city neighborhoods. The main culprit, however, may involve employers
using racial/spatial stereotypes about values, attitudes, and behaviors to limit employment
opportunities for minority youth living in poor neighborhoods. In such cases, reverse
commute and job information program will have little impact. Stronger anti-discrimina-
tionpolicy may be warranted.
We shift our discussion now to consider broader debates about poverty, its geographies,
and the city. Crafting appropriate policy responses to concentrated urban poverty has
long been a point of considerable debate, both in and out of the academy. Some have
stressed the development of in-situ new economic opportunities for the urban poor.
Examples of the development strategy include enterprise and empowerment zones and
spatially targeted job creation programs. Critics suggest that developing jobs in the ghetto
deepens racial segregation and ultimately will fail to counter the seemingly inexorable
decentralization of metropolitan space economies. The result will be to anchor the urban
poor to inner city neighborhoods that ultimately are not economically viable. Hughes’
(1995) mobility strategy is an approach that attempts to focus attention on linking the
urban poor to suburban job opportunities. This strategy does not attempt to change the
economic landscape by bringing jobs back into the center, or the social landscape by
facilitating the movement of poor minorities into the suburbs.
The current dominant alternative to the development strategy is dispersal—a strategy
designed to enable relocation of the urban poor to parts of the city where they can take
advantage of better economic and social opportunities. Some policies focus on overcom-
ing barriers to housing the poor in suburban communities, including anti-discrimination
efforts. Other policies attempt to increase the supply of affordable housing in the suburbs
by removing land use barriers and by developing incentives and requirements that devel-
opers provide affordable housing. Finally, some policies focus directly on relocating the
poor by subsidizing private market housing (e.g., Section 8 vouchers) or requiring that
new public housing be built in suburban or scattered sites. Over the last decade, the focus
of the dispersal strategy has locked onto redeveloping the worst existing public housing
projects (through HOPE VI), which have been shown to spatially anchor urban poverty
(Holloway, Bryan, Chabot, Rogers, & Rulli, 1998; Massey & Kanaiaupuni, 1993), and
increasing the ability of public housing tenants to relocate to the suburbs through the
Gautreaux-inspired Moving-To-Opportunity (MTO) program. Goetz (2002) contends
that HOPE VI constitutes a forced relocation program, while MTO constitutes a program
of voluntary mobility. Critics argue that dispersal undermines minority political power
and in the current urban space economy serves to remove the poor from land now
valuable and attractive to middle- and upper class whites (Crump, 2002).
Emerging analyses of Census 2000 data suggest that the dispersal strategy has finally
worked—the spatial concentration of poverty has declined. According to the assumptions
of the dispersal strategy, this signals better days for the urban poor as they enjoy better
social contexts and better accessibility to employment opportunities. Before celebrating,
however, we should recall the implications of existing studies, including the results we
present in this article. The generally optimistic reports on the impacts of dispersal through
the Gautreaux and MTO programs (Goering, Feins, & Richardson, 2002; Rosenbaum,
1995; Rosenbaum & Popkin, 1991) do not extend as fully to employment—residents that
relocated to the suburbs showed somewhat fewer employment improvements (see also
Galster & Zobel, 1998, which provides a slightly more optimistic assessment of employ-
ment outcomes). Goetz (2002) reports few employment benefits associated with dispersal
from an inner-city public housing site. Our results suggest that the labor market problems
initiated by residence in a poor neighborhood during adolescence do not disappear upon
relocating to a better neighborhood. Moreover, firming up workforce attachments will not
remove the effect of neighborhood poverty for males.
Our focus on the links between poverty concentration and the labor market are not
unique. Recall Katz’ claim that it was the combination of public housing policy with new
work requirements instituted as part of welfare reform that deconcentrated urban poverty
in the 1990s. Moreover, Crump (2003) reminds us that federal policy explicitly linked the
deconcentration of poverty (through public housing redevelopment) and work through
the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA). He argues that
public housing redevelopment and restructuring of the low end of the labor market were
linked goals of the Clinton administration’s neo-liberal agenda to spatially restructure
urban labor markets. The structure of urban labor markets has clearly changed over the
last 20 years with increased polarization between high- and low-end service jobs and the
continued loss of manufacturing employment overlain by welfare reform and renewed
immigration. We do not know how a new sample of adolescents living in poor neighbor-
hoods in the late 1990s would fare in a future study similar to the one we report here, but
we are not optimistic that their adult labor market experiences will be much better than in
the NLSY respondents that constitute our sample.
This conclusion echoes the cautionary note sounded by Popkin et al. (2000) in their
evaluation of Chicago Housing Authority’s (CHA) Henry Horner Homes redevelopment
and efforts to relocate distressed public housing residents into better neighborhoods
through Section 8 vouchers. They conclude
The legacy of the landmark Gautreaux case . . . has meant that mixed-income and dis-
persal strategies now dominate federal housing policy . . . as our preliminary studies of
public housing transformation in Chicago show, these new strategies seem to offer
benefits for distressed public housing communities but also bring with them the risk
of leaving the most vulnerable current tenants worse off than they were (Popkin et al.,
2000, p. 937).
Similarly pessimistic themes are sounded by Goetz (2002) and Galster and Zobel (1998).
Thus as we reflect on the emerging analysis of Census 2000 data (Jargowsky, 2003), our
evaluation remains cautious. While the reduction in poverty concentration undoubtedly
reflects improvements in the neighborhood conditions faced by many residents, there is no
guarantee that better neighborhoods will result in better lives, especially for those resi-
dents who are relocated out of poor neighborhoods.
The research presented in this article is exploratory; there are several areas that future
work should consider. First, our analysis has not considered fully enough the role of racial
segregation and racial discrimination. The territorial stigma hypothesized by Wacquant
(1993) and Kirschenman and Neckerman (1991) appears to be generally problematic for
youths who grow up in poor neighborhoods; yet this stigma may be magnified by racial
segregation. We might ask, for example, whether equally poor black, white or Hispanic
neighborhoods produce different levels of labor market disadvantage. Adding a neighbor-
hood segregation index and a measure of neighborhood racial and ethnic composition to
the analysis could aid in the further understanding of territorial stigma as it impacts a
youth’s adult labor market experience. We might also productively investigate interactions
between the racial/ethnic identities of NLSY respondents and the racial/ethnic composi-
tion of their adolescent neighborhoods.
Second, we have not yet adequately considered the role that criminal activity and
interactions with the justice system might play in transmitting the adolescent neighbor-
hood poverty effect into adulthood. For example, black male youth have been targets of
racial profiling by law enforcement officials—their incarceration rates are unusually high.
We also know that a criminal record affects future employment prospects regardless of the
neighborhood of current residence. The impact may well last through the life course: a
criminal record remains a hinderance to employment even if the individual no longer lives
in the neighborhood. We suspect, therefore, that multiple forces increase the probability
that black male youth living in poor neighborhoods encounter the criminal justice system
and that these encounters will adversely affect adult labor market experiences even for
those who successfully move to less impoverished neighborhoods. Future research is
needed to explore the degree to which a criminal record functions as the link between
adolescent neighborhood context and adult labor market outcomes.
Finally, empirical analysis needs to utilize more of the longitudinal information avail-
able in the NLSY data. Given that detailed information on work histories is available,
future research can examine the timing of events related to neighborhood residence and
work experience using techniques such as event history analysis. The problem with this
approach, however, is that sample sizes will be attenuated to a greater degree than in this
analysis if we include only respondents with valid addresses in each year of the survey. A second
NLSY cohort, begun in 1997, holds the promise of greater findings for future research. Unlike
the 1979 cohort, this data set was initiated with the awareness of the importance of residential
location information, and future studies should benefit from this awareness.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The Center for Labor Research and the Department of Geography at Ohio State
University generously provided financial support for this research. We gratefully acknowledge the Bureau
of Labor Statistics and Randy Olson, director of the Center of Human Resource Research, for permission
to geo-coded the confidential NLSY data. Randy Olson also provided office space at the CHRR. Pat
Regan provided useful advice, feedback, and computer code when we structured the geocoded data and
supervised Steve Mulherin during most of the time he was employed at the CHRR. Elvin Wyly provided
helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Responsibility remains with the authors.
REFERENCES
Bauder, H. (2001). Culture in the labor market: Segmentation theory and perspectives of place. Progress in
Human Geography, 25(1), 37–52.
Bauder, H. (2002). Neighborhood effects and cultural exclusion. Urban Studies, 39(1), 85–93.
Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education
(2nd ed.). New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Brewster, K. L. (1994a). Neighborhood context and the transition to sexual activity among young black
women. Demography, 31, 603–614.
Brewster, K. L. (1994b). Race differences in sexual activity among adolescent women: The role of
neighborhood characteristics. American Sociological Review, 59, 408–424.
Brewster, K., Billy, J. O. G., & Grady, W. R. (1993). Social context and adolescent behavior: The impact
of community on the transition to sexual activity. Social Forces, 71, 713–740.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (Eds.). (1997a). Neighborhood poverty: Volume I context
and consequence for children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (Eds.). (1997b). Neighborhood poverty: Volume II policy
implications in studying neighborhoods. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Leventhal, T., & Aber, J. L. (1997). Lessons learned and future directions
for research on the neighborhoods in which children live. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan &
J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Volume I context and consequence for children (pp. 279–297).
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Clark, K. B., & Summers, L. H. (1982). The dynamics of youth unemployment. In R. B. Freeman &
D. A. Wise (Eds.), The youth labor market problem: Its nature, causes, and consequences (pp. 199–230).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Clarke, K. (1990). Analytical and computer cartography. New York: Prentice Hall
Crane, J. (1991). The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out and teenage
childbearing. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1226–1259.
Crump, J. (2002). Deconcentration by demolition: Public housing, poverty, and urban policy. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(5), 581–596.
Crump, J. (2003). The end of public housing as we know it: Public housing policy, labor regulation and the
US city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 179–187.
Duncan, G. J. (1994). Families and neighbors as sources of disadvantage in schooling decisions of white
and black adolescents. American Journal of Education, 103, 20–53.
Duncan, G. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhoods and adolescent development: How can we
determine the links? In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Does it take a village? Community effects
on children, adolescents, and families (pp. 105–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellwood, D. T. (1986). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Are there teenage jobs missing in the ghetto? In
R. B. Freeman & H. J. Holzer (Eds.), The black youth employment crisis (pp. 147–185). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Freeman, R. B. (1986). Who escapes? The relation of churchgoing and other background factors to the socio-
economic performance of black male youths from inner-city tracts. In R. B. Freeman & H. J. Holzer
(Eds.), The black youth employment crisis (pp. 353–376). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Freeman, R. B. (1991). Employment and earnings of disadvantaged young men in a labor shortage
economy. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 103–121). Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institute.
Freeman, R. B., & Holzer, H. J. (Eds.). (1986). The black youth employment crisis. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Galster, G. C., & Killen, S. P. (1995). The geography of opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual
framework. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 7–43.
Galster, G., & Mincy, R. (1993). Understanding the changing fortunes of metropolitan neighborhoods:
1980 to 1990. Housing Policy Debate, 4(2), 303–352.
Galster, G., & Zobel, A. (1998). Will dispersed housing programmes reduce social problems in the US?
Housing Studies, 13, 605–622.
Goering, J., Feins, J. D., & Richardson, T. M. (2002). A cross-site analysis of initial moving to oppor-
tunity demonstration results. Journal of Housing Research, 13(1), 1–30.
Goetz, E. G. (2002). Forced relocation vs. voluntary mobility: The effects of dispersal programmes on
households. Housing Studies, 17, 107–123.
Green, G. P., Tigges, L. M., & Brown, I. (1995). Social resources, job search, and poverty in Atlanta.
Research in Community Sociology, 5, 161–182.
Hanson, S. G., & Pratt, G. (1995). Gender, work, and space. London and New York: Routledge.
Holloway, S. R. (1996). Job accessibility and male teenage employment, 1980–1990: The declining
significance of space? The Professional Geographer, 48(4), 445–58.
Holloway, S. R. (1998). Male youth activities and metropolitan context. Environment and Planning A,
30(3), 385–399.
Holloway, S. R., Bryan, D., Chabot, R., Rogers, D. M., & Rulli, J. (1998). Exploring the effect of public
housing on the concentration of poverty in Columbus, Ohio. Urban Affairs Review, 33(6), 767–789.
Holzer, H. J. (1991). The spatial mismatch: What has the evidence shown? Urban Studies, 28, 105–122.
Holzer, H. J., Ihlanfeldt, K. R., & Sjoquist, D. S. (1994). Work, search, and travel among white and black
youth. Journal of Urban Economics, 35, 320–345.
Hughes, M. A. (1995). A mobility strategy for improving opportunity. Housing Policy Debate, 6, 271–297.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (1992). Job accessibility and the employment and school enrollment of teenagers.
Kalamazoo, MI: W. W. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Jargowsky, P. A. (1994). Ghetto poverty among blacks in the 1980s. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 13, 288–310.
Jargowsky, P. A. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos, barrios, and the American city. New York: The
Russell Sage Foundation.
Jargowsky, P. A. (2003). Stunning progress, hidden problems: The dramatic decline of concentrated poverty
in the 1990s. The Living Cities Census Series. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, Center
on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Jargowsky, P. A., & Bane, M. J. (1990). Ghetto poverty: Basic questions. In L. E. Lynn, Jr. & M. G. H. McGeary
(Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States (pp. 16–67). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jargowsky, P. A., & Bane, M. J. (1991). Ghetto poverty in the United States, 1970–1980. In C. Jencks
& P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 235–273). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990a). Residential segregation, job proximity, and black job Opportunities.
In L. E. Lynn & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner city poverty in the United States (pp. 187–222).
Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990b). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In
L. E. Lynn, Jr. & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner city poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kain, J. F. (1968). Housing segregation, Negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 82, 175–197.
Kirschenman, J., & Neckerman, K. M. (1991). We’d love to hire them, but . . . The meaning of race for
employers. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 203–232). Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.
Lehman, J. S., & Smeeding, T. M. (1997). Neighborhood effects and federal policy. In J. Brooks-Gunn,
G. J. Duncan & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Volume I context and consequence for
children (pp. 251–278). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Leighton, L., & Mincer, J (1982). Labor turnover and youth unemployment. In R. B. Freeman &
D. A. Wise (Eds.), The youth labor market problem: Its nature, causes, and consequences (pp. 235–267).
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Liao, T. F. (1994). Interpreting probability models: Logit, probit, and other generalized linear models.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables, Advanced Quantita-
tive Techniques in the Social Science Series #7. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Massey, D. S., Gross, A. B., & Shibuya, K. (1994). Migration, segregation, and the geographic
concentration of poverty. American Sociological Review, 59, 425–445.
Massey, D. S., & Kanaiaupuni, S. M. (1993). Public housing and the concentration of poverty. Social
Science Quarterly, 74, 109–121.
Mulherin, S. (2000). Affordable housing and white poverty concentration. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(2), 139–156.
Nelson, K. (1986). Labor demand, labor supply and the suburbanization of low-wage office work. In
A. J. Scott & M. Storper (Eds.), Production, work, territory: The geographical anatomy of industrial
Capitalism (pp. 149–171). Boston: Allen & Unwin.
O’Regan, K. M., & Quigley, J. M. (1993). Family networks and youth access to jobs. Journal of Urban
Economics, 34, 230–248.
O’Regan, K. M., & Quigley, J. M. (1996). Spatial effects upon employment outcomes: The case of New
Jersey teenagers. New England Economic Review, May/June, 41–58.
Orfield, G. (1992). Urban schooling and the perpetuation of job inequality in metropolitan Chicago. In
G. E. Peterson & W. Vroman (Eds.), Urban labor markets and economic opportunity (pp. 1–29).
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Pear, R. (2003, May 18). Study shows poverty in U.S. less concentrated. New York Times. Available:
www.nytimes.com [August 2004].
Popkin, S. J., Buron, L. F., Levy, D. K., & Cunningham, M. K. (2000). The Gautreaux legacy: What
might mixed-income and dispersal strategies mean for the poorest public housing tenants? Housing
Policy Debate, 11(4), 911–942.
Preston, V., & McLafferty, S. (1999). Spatial mismatch research in the 1990s: Progress and potential.
Papers in Regional Science, 78, 387–402.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1995). Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice:
Lessons from the Gatreaux program. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 231–269.
Rosenbaum, J. E., & Popkin, S. J. (1991). Employment and earnings of low-income blacks who move to
middle-class suburbs. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 342–356).
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Strait, J. B. (2001). The disparate impact of metropolitan economic change: The growth of extreme
poverty neighborhoods, 1970–1990. Economic Geography, 77(3), 272–305.
Wacquant, L. J. D. (1993). Urban outcasts: Stigma and division in the black American ghetto and
the French urban periphery. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 17, 366–383.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner-city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, Alfred A. Knopf.
Yinger, J. (1995). Closed doors, opportunities lost: The continuing costs of housing discrimination.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Effects of Adolescent Neighbour Hood Poverty On Adult Employment (Holloway & Mulherin 2004)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of Adolescent Neighbour Hood Poverty On Adult Employment (Holloway & Mulherin 2004)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECT OF ADOLESCENT NEIGHBORHOOD

POVERTY ON ADULT EMPLOYMENT

T he geographic concentration of poverty in distressed urban neighborhoods increased

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 427–454.

BACKGROUND—GEOGRAPHICALLY CONCENTRATED URBAN POVERTY

Impoverished Neighborhoods and Adolescent Labor Market Experiences

Adolescent Neighborhood Contexts:

Youth Labor Market Other Youth Behavior:

Spatial Accessibility to Employment

Neighborhood Social Context

variations across neighborhoods in recreational and informal educational opportunities,

Adolescent Neighborhood Context and Adult Labor Market Outcomes

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Characteristics of the NLSY sample

1980 Tract Poverty Rate

Variable Geocoded Sample <20% 20 to 40% >40%

Age at first interview 17.37 17.40 17.33 17.24

Characteristics of Full and Geocoded NLSY Samples

Variable Full Sample Geocoded Sample

Age at first interview 17.61 17.37

Does Adolescent Neighborhood Poverty Affect Adult Employment Outcomes?

1990 Labor Force Activity by Census Tract Poverty Rate in 1980

Moved from Tract

Moved from Tract

Moved from Tract

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Military

< 20% (1990)

< 20% (1990)

> 40% (1990)

< 20% (1990)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Military

w/o Experience w/Experience w/o Experience w/Experience

Variable bk ebk bk ebk bk ebk bk ebk

w/o Experience w/Experience w/o Experience w/Experience

Variable bk ebk bk ebk bk ebk bk ebk

In each of the models reported in Tables 2 and 3, HC is a vector of human capital

How Important is Accumulated Work Experience?

Non-Poor White Non-Poor Black Poor White Poor Black

possibility by regressing accumulated work experience on a set of individual- and family-

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models of Accumulated Years of Work Experience

Variable bk bk bk bk

Age at first interview .349** .236 .506** .383

Note. bk is the standardized parameter estimate.

to their contexts. If we view females as disadvantaged in the labor market because of

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

You might also like

Age at first interview .349 .236 .506 .383