The primary goal of this dissertation has been to explain why neighborhood social inter- action either does or does not occur between residents relocated from public housing and their new neighbors, despite possible opportunities and incentives to interact. The impetus for this re- search has been and continues to be the ongoing demolition and removal of the nations’ public housing stock, and the displacement of low income, predominantly African American, and fe- male residents. Public housing relocation began as an early attempt at desegregation through the Gautreaux Program, but has continued under many fronts, most recently the dismantling of con- centrated poverty (Goering 2003a). Under the conceptual heading of poverty deconcentration, key desegregation ideas still govern the project of relocating thousands of impoverished individ- uals. Chief amongst these ideas is the belief that relocation will promote better outcomes for res- idents (Goering 2003a). Theoretically, resident relocation has the potential to provide new and better housing and better lifestyle options to thousands of individuals and families in cities across the nation (Goering 2003a). These theorized ideal outcomes have not been manifested unani- mously for all residents, however, and this fact remains the center of housing policy debate (Goering 2003b).
Polarized sentiments emerge between housing policy research camps causing the reloca- tion of public housing residents to be cast either as the silver bullet solution to the housing prob- lems of the nation or as the widespread destroyer of poor black communities and homes (Boston 2005; Joseph 2006; Sampson et al. 2002). Embedded in the schism, is the underlying argument of whether or not relocation provides residents with 1) safer neighborhoods, 2) economically ad- vantaged neighbors and 3) connections with resources to benefit themselves and their families.
While no way unanimous, the majority of residents relocated from family or mixed-unit projects into voucher housing are undoubtedly safer having been removed from a locale where gun vio- lence was prevalent; yet, the provision of safety has not necessarily manifested the other desired outcomes of beneficial neighborhood interaction, better jobs, better education, and access to re- sources in the community (Rosenbuam et al. 2003; Ladd and Ludwig 2003; Goering 2003b). This study’s aim has been to further the goal of establishing better outcomes for residents, by adding to decades of research geared towards understanding and guiding what happens to indi- viduals relocated from public housing communities.
KEY FINDINGS
Using the survey data, I was able to determine that for the residents relocated from Atlan- ta’s public housing social interaction patterns did shift after relocation. Looking first at the key variables in question using means comparison, I examined that after relocation significant de- clines occurred in the mean scores for residents reporting giving help to neighbors and in the amount of friends from public housing living in the neighborhood; simultaneously significant increases occurred in the mean scores for residents’ reported social cohesion and community at- tachment. These findings raised the question, why would interaction decline if reported social cohesion and community attachment increase?
Completing the bivariate analyses provided a more detailed understanding about how particular groups of residents experienced changes in relocation. I examined categorical group differences in age, tenure, attainment of high school diploma or GED, presence of children, and place attachment to prior residence for the two dependent variables under observation: giving help to neighbors and receiving help from neighbors. Age, tenure, education, and place attach- ment revealed no significant differences between categories; I had expected residents in these
categories to have unique experiences in relocation, but this was not supported in the data. The variable presence of children did reveal significant differences between categories however. Presence of children revealed significant categorical differences for both of the dependent varia- bles, where respondents with children reported giving and receiving help more as compared to respondents without children. The findings in the bivariate analyses aided directly in the interpre- tation of the regression results, which were completed as the final part in the quantitative study.
In terms of giving help to neighbors two variables held significant associations. The first finding from the regression analysis, which is supported in the bivariate analysis, is the presence of children has a significant association with both giving help to neighbors. Residents with chil- dren are more likely to report increases in giving help to neighbors after relocation compared to residents without children. Second, as I hypothesized, the change in amount of friends living in the neighborhood has a positive association with the dependent variable of giving help to neigh- bors. As the amount of friends in the neighborhood declines, reports of giving help to neighbors also declines. While I was correct in this hypothesis, I was incorrect in others. The amount of friends living in the neighborhood is not associated with receiving help from neighbors.
Looking at receiving help, three variables held significant associations. Again, as the bi- variate analysis predicted, presence of children has a significant association with receiving help from neighbors. Residents with children are more likely to report increases in receiving help from neighbors after relocation compared to residents without children. As hypothesized, change in community attachment has a positive significant association with receiving help from neigh- bors however it bears no significant association with residents’ reports of giving help to neigh- bors. As reports of community attachment increase, reports of receiving help from neighbors also increase. In line with my hypothesis, but differing from the bivariate analysis, the age category
was significantly associated with receiving help from neighbors. Seniors were more likely to re- port receiving help from neighbors after relocation as compared to non-seniors.
Several of my hypotheses were not supported however. The individual-level characteris- tics of education had no association with the change in social support variables after relocation. Likewise, tenure and place attachment to prior residence held no associations with post-move reports of giving help to neighbors or receiving help from neighbors. Community-level variable change in social cohesion also had no significant association with residents’ reports of either giv- ing help to or receiving help from neighbors. The change in amount of friends held no significant association with receiving help from neighbors, and the change in community attachment held no significant association with giving help to neighbors. As with the significant findings, these non- findings offer important information to the research question of why relocated public housing residents either do or do not interact with their new neighbors.
Another important finding with regards to the regression analyses is the amount of signif- icant change the independent variables causes in the dependent variables. While my hypotheses were correct to assume that presence of children, the loss in amount of friends living in the neighborhood, age, and community attachment would be associated with changes in the social interactions of giving help to and receiving help from neighbors, these variables only account for approximately 5% of the changes occurring in the dependent variables. This finding suggests that some other variable or variables are significantly associated with the change in giving and re- ceiving help to neighbors. Unfortunately, the survey instrument had limitations concerning fac- tors affecting social interaction with neighbors, and returning to the pre-move period to add new questions is not possible. Despite these limitations, the findings provided through this quantita- tive analysis do provide valuable insight into the research question.