Investigators: Deborah Gorman-Smith, Ph.D., Sean F. Reardon, Ph.D.
Funded By: William T. Grant Foundation

Purpose and Aims
The purpose of the proposed study is to evaluate if and how the effects of preventive interventions vary as a function of neighborhood context.  Specifically, we intend to analyze data from experimental evaluations of four state-of-the-art preventive interventions, each of which was designed to promote positive youth outcomes (particularly academic achievement and social competence) and decrease problem behavior.  These interventions are: 1) Coping Power (Lochman & Wells, in press); 2) Fast Track (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1992; 2002); 3) SAFE Children (Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Henry et al., in press); and 4) SEPI/Familias Unidas (Coatsworth, Pantin & Szapocznik, 2002).

Building from a developmental-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 1987; Tolan, Guerra and Kendall, 1995) and the theoretical and empirical literature on community and neighborhood influences on youth development (Sampson, 1997; Sampson et al., 1997), we will conduct a series of analyses to evaluate differences in program impact across neighborhoods and for different outcomes (i.e., academic achievement, social competence, aggression, family functioning). The specific aims of the proposal are to conduct analyses using existing data from these four prevention trials to address the following broad questions:

1. Do the impacts of interventions aimed at promoting positive youth and family outcomes and preventing problem behavior vary across neighborhoods?

2. If intervention impacts differ among neighborhoods, to what extent is this variation a function of differences in the economic characteristics of neighborhoods, the social processes within neighborhoods, or both?  Previous research has suggested that two aspects of neighborhood are important in understanding neighborhood impact on youth development: neighborhood structural characteristics (e.g., disadvantage) and neighborhood social organization (social processes among residents living in a neighborhood).  If neighborhood moderates intervention effects, what aspect of neighborhood context account for these differences?

3. Do the associations between neighborhood conditions and intervention impacts differ across outcomes (i.e., academic achievement, social competence, aggression, family functioning)?  Does neighborhood moderate the effect of interventions on all outcomes?  Is there consistency in influence across outcomes?  What is the relative importance of neighborhood disadvantage and neighborhood social organization for specific types of outcomes?