Discussion 4

Neighborhood Adversity, Child Health, and the Role for Community Development

abstract Despite medical advances, childhood health and well-being have not been broadly achieved due to rising chronic diseases and conditions related to child poverty. Family and neighborhood living conditions can have lasting consequences for health, with community adversity affect- ing health outcomes in significant part through stress response and increased allostatic load. Exposure to this “toxic stress” influences gene expression and brain development with direct and indirect neg- ative consequences for health. Ensuring healthy child development requires improving conditions in distressed, high-poverty neighbor- hoods by reducing children’s exposure to neighborhood stressors and supporting good family and caregiver functioning. The community development industry invests more than $200 billion annually in low- income neighborhoods, with the goal of improving living conditions for residents. The most impactful investments have transformed neighbor- hoods by integrating across sectors to address both the built environ- ment and the social and service environment. By addressing many facets of the social determinants of health at once, these efforts suggest substantial results for children, but health outcomes generally have not been considered or evaluated. Increased partnership between the health sector and community development can bring health outcomes explicitly into focus for community development investments, help opti- mize intervention strategies for health, and provide natural experiments to build the evidence base for holistic interventions for disadvantaged children. The problems and potential solutions are beyond the scope of practicing pediatricians, but the community development sector stands ready to engage in shared efforts to improve the health and develop- ment of our most at-risk children. Pediatrics 2015;135:S48–S57

AUTHORS: Douglas P. Jutte, MD, MPH,a,b,c Jennifer L. Miller, PhD,b,c and David J. Erickson, PhDd

aUC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program, University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, Berkeley, California; bBuild Healthy Places Network, San Francisco, California; cPublic Health Institute, Oakland, California; and dFederal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, San Francisco, California

KEY WORDS allostatic load, community, community development, intervention, neighborhood, public health, social determinants of health, toxic stress

All authors conceptualized and designed the article, drafted and revised the manuscript, and approved the manuscript as submitted.

The views expressed here are the authors’ and do not represent the Federal Reserve Bank.

www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2014-3549F

doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3549F

Accepted for publication Dec 19, 2014

Address correspondence to Douglas P. Jutte, MD, MPH, Build Healthy Places Network, 870 Market Street, Suite 1255, San Francisco, CA 94102. E-mail: dpjutte@berkeley.edu

PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).

Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

FUNDING: Drs Jutte and Miller were supported by funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

S48 JUTTE et al by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

On many fronts, pediatrics has been successful in improving the health of children. Medical advances and public health measures have reduced the oc- currence of acute life-threatening dis- eases that were once the predominant cause of childhood mortality and mor- bidity. According to measures other than acute illness, however, children are not faring as well. Chronic and noncom- municable diseases are on the rise,1 and racial and socioeconomic disparities continue to widen, not only in standard measures of health but also across the range of life circumstances that contrib- ute to well-being such as education and employment. More than 1 in 5 US children live in poverty; among Latino and African- American children, it is ∼1 in 3.2

These social disparities have the same sort of impact on poor children as does bullying of the weak by the strong. So- cial inequality is the population equiv- alent of the social hierarchies that exist among schoolchildren on the play- ground. Pediatricians are uniquely po- sitioned to see the effects of these growing threats to child development and well-being. At the same time, we pediatriciansmay feelpoorlyequipped, inthecontextofourclinicalpractices,to address the biggest health challenges our patients face.3

What can pediatricians do to address the community-level social hierarchies so prevalent in our society? We know that the family and neighborhood living conditions that our patients face can have lifelong consequences for their health. Recent advances from across fields of science reveal that exposure to adversity (particularly the sustained, unmediated adversity producing “toxic stress”) becomes biologically embed- ded, influencing gene expression and brain development. It has both direct health consequences as well as indirect health effects due to the resultant lower educational attainment, lower economic status, and poorer health behaviors.4–7

The effect of these latter factors is mul- tiplied because they place children into higher risk environments as they move through adolescence and adulthood. The result is significant differences in life expectancy and health outcomes throughout the life span and multigen- erational disadvantage. Simply put, one’s body is the sum record of the challenges and opportunities faced throughout life.

Too many neighborhoods have too few opportunitiesandtoomanychallenges. This fact is hurting the health of many Americans, and children bear the brunt because so many live in poverty. By un- derstanding the developmental mecha- nismsbywhichadversitygets“under the skin,”8,9 we are better able to design interventions to improve child develop- mental and health outcomes. Pedia- tricians witness the effects of these disparities. We are in a unique position, therefore, to advocate for change.

To address health disparities, we can- not simply intervene with medical care, even medical care in early childhood.10

We will also not be successful in ame- liorating the effects of poverty by pro- viding single-focus interventions, such as pre-K education. Such interventions are extremely important but do not— in isolation—overcome the deeper effects of sustained adversity.11 In- stead, a critical strategy requires im- provement in the overall neighborhood conditions and life circumstances into which children are born and spend their early childhood years.12

The tools to improve neighborhood conditions are beyond the means or capabilitiesofmedicalcareprovidersor even public health practitioners. How- ever,thefieldofcommunitydevelopment has been building the expertise to allow us to transform neighborhoods in ways that will have a profound effect on children’s health, both during childhood and throughout life.

The community development industry has a growing number of examples in

which disordered, high-poverty neigh- borhoods have been transformed to profoundly improve the trajectories and life chances of the children living in them.13 These efforts have brought multiple elements together, often utiliz- ing many funding streams and facilitat- ing collaboration among partners from different sectors of society. For example, they unite affordable housing, better education, functional transportation, and reliable public safety. These suc- cessful efforts are a great public policy success story. It is a success story, however, that is not well known.

Communitydevelopmentimproveschild health outcomes but, generally speak- ing, improving health has only rarely beenanexplicit goal ofthese projects. In fact, in most cases, there has been no research on health outcomes. These efforts may represent solutions to the biggest child developmental challenge we face today: entrenched, multigener- ational poverty and the impact of growing up in high-poverty neighbor- hoods. The present article proposes the next steps for taking this approach to scale and maps out the critical role that thehealthsectorcanplaytobringhealth outcomes more explicitly into focus in these projects, to optimize intervention strategies, and to use these natural experiments to build the evidence base for what works.

EVIDENCE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT AND CHILD HEALTH

Neighborhood Matters to Health Outcomes

Relationships with parents and care- givers form an emotionally protective environment for early childhood de- velopment. Communities or neighbor- hoods, similarly, are an influential environment, positive or negative, for adolescents,14 adults, and families.15,16

Neighborhood disadvantage, therefore, harms young children in part through its impact on family functioning.17–19

SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S49 by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

Research into the mechanisms and the impact of neighborhood conditions on health has now been underway for .2 decades.20 Key neighborhood factors affecting individual and family well- being include social integration, per- ceived control, financial strain,21 social capital, residential stability, and safety or exposure to violence.20 Although a handful of studies have suggested caution regarding the nuance of these links,22–24 a substantial body of re- search now supports this connection: neighborhood conditions have an im- portant and independent impact on long-term health outcomes.

Living in high-poverty, distressed neigh- borhoods, such as those that undermine social ties and threaten safety through conflict, abuse, or violence, negatively affects health status into middle and old age.12,25 Indeed,studieshavedrawnlinks between neighborhood disadvantage and cardiovascular disease,26–28 can- cer,28 obesity,20,26,27 depression,20,27,28

self-reported health status,21,27,29,30 and risk behaviors such as smoking,26,27

risky or early sex,27,31 and alcohol use.27,28

Disparities in life expectancy of up to 25 years between neighborhoods just a few miles apart have been highlighted in citiessuch as Oakland, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana.32,33 A child’s zip code is more important than his or her genetic code in determining future health and life chances.34

Mediators of Neighborhood Impact

Neighborhoodadversityseemstoaffect health outcomes to some degree by affecting health behaviors26 and sig- nificantly through the impact of toxic stress and associated increases in “allostatic load” (eg, stress and fear in response to the perception of neigh- borhood danger).29

Gustafsson et al studied the relationship between neighborhood features and allostatic load. They determined allostatic loadbyusinganumberofmeasurements,

including blood pressure, blood lipids and glucose, and cortisol levels at ages 16, 21, 30, and 43 years, studying the cumulative effects on subjects across ∼3 decades. Social and material adver- sity were determined and cumulative neighborhood adversity was calculated with indicators including the percentage of residents considered low-income, un- employed, living in single-parent house- holds, and with low occupational status or low educational attainment. Cumula- tive neighborhood disadvantage was sig- nificantly related to higher allostatic load, suggesting that biological dysregulation (or wear-and-tear) accrued over the life course as a result of neighborhood disadvantage.35 These recent findings are consistent with the few other stud- ies available examining the long-term impact of neighborhood exposure. For example, Vartanian and Houser30 used 38 years of longitudinal data from the PSID (Panel Study of Income Dynamics) and a sibling fixed effects model to show that living in more advantaged neigh- borhoods as a child was associated with improved self-report of health in adult- hood. Remarkably, the relative affluence of adult neighborhood residence had little or no effect. This finding suggests that intervention in residential condi- tions during childhood represents a critical period for effective impact. Using NHANES data, Theall et al36 reached similar conclusions. They, too, found that teenagers living in higher risk neigh- borhoods had abnormal biological mea- sures that have been associated with increased allostatic load.

One of the biggest challenges in studies on the health impact of neighborhood disadvantage has been to disentangle and determine the effects of neighbor- hoodadversity,independentofindividual- level adversity. Ross and Mirowsky29

found that neighborhood adversity results in worse self-reported health, even when controlling for individual levels of poverty. Hurd et al14 found

similar outcomes with regard to adoles- cent mental health. The research of Theallet al36 and Schulz et al37 demon- strated the impact of neighborhood pov- erty on allostatic load in teenagers and adults, respectively. Both accounted for individual and/or family poverty and found that neighborhood was an inde- pendent predictor. Similarly, Gustafsson et al35 linked cumulative neighborhood disadvantage through adolescence to higher allostatic load later in life, in- dependent of individual social adversity or current neighborhood of residence. The longitudinal study of Johnson et al25

examined the long-term effects of neighborhood exposure in young adults (ages 20–30 years) followed up for 38 years. After accounting for in- dividual and family factors, living in low-income neighborhoods early in life was strongly associated with poor adult health. Their findings suggest that fully one-fourth of differences in health in mid- to late-life can be at- tributed to neighborhood differences during young adulthood.

From Neighborhood Impact to Neighborhood Intervention

Public health’s response to the role of neighborhood on health often assumes that the key mechanism of neighbor- hood impact is lack of access to ser- vices and resources. Examples include work on obesity prevention that fo- cuses on introducing grocery stores or farmers’ markets in “food deserts” or work to bring health services to commu- nities lacking clinics. Although these op- tions are important, access to healthier food and medical services is not enough. We must transform neighborhoods into cohesive, stable, and appealing envi- ronments for the well-being of families and the healthy development of chil- dren. It is good fortune that health has a partner in the field of community de- velopment, which has been doing pre- cisely that since its establishment in the 1960s.

S50 JUTTE et al by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HISTORY AND SCALE

The term “community development” de- scribes a largely nonprofit sector of the economy that provides interventions to improve low-income communities and the lives of the people who live in them. The interventions are primarily invest- ments allowing individuals and families to build wealth and help communities provide service-enriched affordable hous- ing, clinics, schools, grocery stores, and other facilities to make neighborhoods more viable. In addition, community de- velopment fosters small businesses as a means of developing local entrepre- neurs; more small businesses in low- income neighborhoods provide local jobs and can create a powerful, positive ripple effect that improves the local econ- omy for all.

The dollars invested are substantial. The federal government has several in- vestment tax credit and block grant pro- grams that amount to nearly $16 billion annually.38 Those subsidy dollars, along with funds from state and local govern- ments and foundations, provide the seed capital that allows community develop- ment to attract additional market-rate capital from insurance companies, pen- sion funds, and especially banks. Banks are motivated by the anti-“redlining” Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 requiring banks to demonstrate invest- ment in low-income neighborhoods. To- tal funds invested as a result of this act are hard to measure, but according to 1 count from federal bank regulators, it was more than $200 billion in 2009 alone.39

The achievements of this community development investment have been substantial. Community developers have built .3 million homes housing some 10 million low-income individuals and families since the late 1980s, using the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. This housing is a far cry from the common image of government housing projects

as instant slums.40 Instead, as we de- scribe later, community development dollars have ledtohigh-quality housing in vibrant communities. When high-quality housing is coupled with integrated so- cial services, it can serve as an anchor investment in neighborhoods that have experienced decades of disinvestment. People begin to care about neighbor- hoods they can be proud of, where they feel connected and involved.

A Brief History of Community Development

Perhaps the earliest efforts at commu- nity development occurred in the late 19th century when US cities grew ex- plosively, with new arrivals from rural areas or immigrants from other coun- tries. These newcomers crowded into cities looking for work. Competition for jobs pushed wages down, and compe- tition for shelter pushed rents up. As a result, the new urban working poor oftenfoundhomesinslums,ghettos,and barrios.Weseethispatternacrossmany cities and many times: in Chicago in the 1880s, Rio de Janeiro in the 1960s, and Shanghai in the 1990s. Erickson,38 in The Housing Policy Revolution: Networks and Neighborhoods, provides a history of community development.

People living in these neighborhoods werepoorbuthadmanyintangibleassets, asenseofcommunity,andentrepreneurial spirit. Community development was born in that liminal space between great need and great opportunity. The settlement houses of the late 19th and early 20th centuries responded by providing com- prehensive education, job training, and skills. Immigrants took advantage of the opportunities and built a better life for themselves and their children.

Modern community development has its roots in the War on Poverty initiative begun under the Johnson administra- tion in the 1960s. Federal programs sought “maximum feasible participa- tion” of low-income communitiesto help

themselves. Part of that process required community organizations to create a strategy for improving community con- ditions, which were called community action plans. Many of the plans morphed into institutions, called community action agencies, which evolved over time to be- come community development corpo- rations (CDCs). Senator Robert Kennedy championed the first CDC, the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation in New York, in the mid-1960s. Today, there are .4600 CDCs across the country.41

CDCs are primarily real estate devel- opers. They are joined in the community development network by community de- velopment financial institutions (CDFIs) thatoperatelikenonprofitbankscreating tailored financial transactions for com- plexdeals.CDFIsstartedoutassmall-loan funds, many originating with the re- tirement savings of Catholic religious orders. Today, in the United States alone, there are .800 CDFIs with more than $30 billion under management, many of them large and sophisticated. The Low Income Investment Fund, for example, has deployed more than $1.5 billion benefitting 1.7 million low-income indi- viduals.42 CDCs and CDFIs also work with banks, for-profit real estate developers, state and local governments, and other nonprofits in true public–private part- nerships to improve neighborhoods.

Health and Community Development

Untilrecently,communitydevelopersdid not consider health to be among their responsibilities. More recently, com- munity developers and public health visionaries who recognize that zip code has more influence over health than one’s genetic code have realized that a partnership between industries con- cernedwithhealthand thoseconcerned with neighborhood development could be fruitful. Indeed, Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation’s largest health

SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S51 by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

foundation, wrote recently that “we are likely to look back at this time and wonder why community develop- ment and health were ever separate industries.”13

Examples of Community Development’s Impact on Children and Families

The community development sector offerssignificantresourcesearmarked for addressing what the medical and public health fields consider the social determinants of health.43 The key ques- tion is whether neighborhoods can ac- tually be improved enough and in the right ways to make a difference in children’s lives. Can they be transformed to provide families the environments they need to support healthy child de- velopment and end the cycle of poverty?

Over the past several years, the Federal ReserveSystem,inpartnershipwiththe Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, has led a series of meetings around the United States to explore how commu- nity development and the health sector can partner to create meaningful changes in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and to do so at scale.10 Although rigorous evaluation data on health outcomes have not yet been gathered, there are a number of neighborhood transfor- mation projects with results that are powerfully suggestive.10,40 The most successful projects tackle neighborhood distress and dysfunction on numerous fronts simultaneously, addressing mul- tiple social determinants of health (al- though those in community development would generally not have used that term). By addressing both place and people (ie, physical infrastructure and human capital/community processes), these projects achieve results that are more than just the additive benefit of separate component parts. Each project is also tailored to its community, in- volvingresidentsandutilizingtheunique assets of each neighborhood. There are

commonalities across these projects, however, that could be replicated to “routinize the extraordinary.”40 A key common feature is that each project has had a “community quarterback,” usually a single organization often led by a dy- namic individual, that holds the vision for the project, convenes stakeholders and potential partners, coordinates partners’ activities across sectors and funding streams, provides staffing, and tracks results.44 Recognizing the impor- tance of community quarterbacks in catalyzing and coordinating transfor- mational change, the Citi Foundation through its Partners in Progress pro- gram recently awarded more than $3.25 million to 13 organizations across the United States to play such a role.45

The present article describes 3 such projects that have dramatically improved neighborhoods: East Lake in Atlanta, transformed by what subsequently be- came Purpose Built Communities; the Magnolia Community Initiative in Los Angeles, a multisector network in part- nership with residents; and Neighborhood CentersInc,responsiblefor transforming several neighborhoods in the greater Houston area.

Purpose-Built Communities/ Eastlake

In the early 1990s, the East Lake neigh- borhood of Atlanta grappled with ex- treme poverty, high crime rates and violent crime, poor educational attain- ment, and high unemployment. The neighborhood was called “Little Vietnam,” not because it was home to Vietnamese immigrants, but because it was like a war zone.46,47 Prompted by a study link- ing neighborhood to the likelihood of resident incarceration in the New York state prison system, Atlanta philanthro- pist Tom Cousins devoted the resources of his family foundation to transforming East Lake.48 Using both community de- velopment and private funding, the East Lake Foundation built mixed-income hous- ing in place of the existing substandard

public housing, built a charter school, and brought in shops and the YMCA.47

The effort of this public–private part- nership took ∼10 years, with a lead or- ganization dedicated solely to ensuring that all elements were properly se- quenced and coordinated (ie, a commu- nity quarterback), but the results are impressive. There was a 73% reduction in crime and a 90% reduction in violent crime. The estimated economic benefit of reduced crime (including reduced costs to victims and savings from esti- matedreducedlifetimecriminality ofthe student body) was $10 to $14 million in 2007 dollars.49 The employment rate rose from 13% to 70%. Although some of the original residents did not return to the reconstructed East Lake neighbor- hood, most did. The neighborhood also attracted many new middle-income neigh- bors. The new Drew Charter School is now 1 of the top-performing schools in thecity,whilestillservingpredominantly low-income children (80% of the students receive free and reduced-cost lunch). In- creased lifetime earnings as a result of higher educational attainment were pro- jected to be $14 million (in 2007 dollars) per graduating class of 85 students or nearly $165 000 per child over the course of his or her life.

The project was successful because it used a coherent and integrated strat- egy.50,51 As the Robert Wood Johnson Commission to Build a Healthy America noted, “Instead of attacking poverty, urban blight, and failing schools piece- meal, a group of community activists and philanthropists in Atlanta took on all of these issues at once.”52 Inter- estingly, in the early stages of this effort, neither health nor health care was identifiedas key components, although a health-related focus has been incorpo- rated more recently. The approach used in the East Lake neighborhood has become the basis for multiple efforts across the country, including New Orleans, Indianapolis, and Omaha.

S52 JUTTE et al by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

Magnolia Community Initiative

The Magnolia Community Initiative fo- cuses on a 5-square-mile area, com- prising 4 zip codes and 500 square blocks south of downtown Los Angeles; this neighborhood is home to 35 000 children. The Magnolia Community Ini- tiative was launched with the goal of reducing child abuse and neglect. In- stead of focusing on identifying in- dividual at-risk children and providing individual services, the initiative took a population-based approach, seeking to improve conditions within the neigh- borhood so as to provide robust improvements in conditions for all children. The initiative supports resi- dents within neighborhoods to take personal actions that improve the well- being of their own family and their neighbors. Moreover, the network of organizations that comprise the initia- tive set aspirational goals for itself: that the childrenliving inthe catchment area “will break all records of success in theireducation, healthand the qualityof nurturing care they receive from their families and communities.” Four goals that are recognized contributors to lifetime outcomes for children were identified: “educational success, good health, economic stability and safe and nurturing parenting.”53

The initiative established the Magnolia Place Family Center, a community hub offering colocated services related to all 4 of the core goals and bringing together agencies and service pro- viders offering medical care, parenting classes, legal services, access to af- fordable financial services at a bank, and mental health services. The state- of-the-art center, opened in 2008, also offers spaces for family activities and parent/child activities. More than 70 city,county,andnonprofitorganizations that comprise the network operate at the center and throughout the larger community.54 An explicit feature of the multisector partnership is that new

partners (organizations or individuals) are asked to bring to the community the contributions that enable them to fulfill their goals. The initiative does not incentivize or compensate partners; instead, they participate in the initia- tive as part of fulfilling their own mis- sions. They focus on working together as a system using linkage, empathy, and holistic elicitation of client and resident assets and needs to support achieving the 4 core goals. The network utilizes the expertise in diverse service sectors on how to mitigate toxic stress and optimize well-being. Progress is rigorously tracked by using a commu- nity dashboard (Fig 1) that follows outcomes on a population basis.55

Neighborhood Centers Inc.

The focus for Neighborhood Centers Inc (NCI), based in Houston, Texas, is smoothing the way for immigrants and other newcomers to succeed, thrive, and contribute as they integrate into life in Houston and other Texas communities.56

Using an asset-based approach,57 the goal of NCI, which operates 74 centers in 60 Texas counties, is to change lives. They start not from what is “broken” in com- munities, says CEO Angela Blanchard, but from what is working.58 This method involves facilitating residents and social service partners in the community to define a vision, needs, and existing re- sources; bringing the appropriate part- ners to the table; securing funding and other resources; and coordinating a com- plex collaborative process that melds these elements into a transformative whole.59

In many neighborhoods, this goal in- volves building or revitalizing a neigh- borhood center. These centers then become community hubs,60 offering an array of services that community mem- bers requested, including everything from tax preparation61,62 and affordable banking services, jobs assistance, and fitness classes, to help with citizenship

applications, English classes, and char- ter schools. Community residents re- ceive services and support, but they also have the chance to give back to their community, becoming leaders, entre- preneurs, and volunteers.63

Core areas of focus for the NCI model are:economicdevelopment;citizenship andimmigrationservices;familyhealth and education; civic engagement; and programs for youth and seniors.64 NCI serves a sustained coordinating role and also works to build the community infrastructure and organizational ca- pacity to manage this complexity.59 NCI is 1 of 21 recipients of the US Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods planninggrants65 andis, inmanyways,the quintessential community quarterback.

WHAT’S NEXT

By bringing the health care and public healthfieldstogetherwiththecommunity development and social investment sec- tors,wecanresistsocialhierarchiesand create communities that help children grow up healthier. Combined, these sec- tors spend trillions of dollars to improve people’s lives, their health, and their economic well-being. Such endeavors may be the best way to address those features of urban life in the United States thathaveledwholeneighborhoodstoget stuck in seemingly intractable poverty and disarray. The fields of community development and health, when engaged together, can positively alter the social determinants of health.

The Build Healthy Places Network has beenestablishedtoengageandconnect those working in the health and com- munitydevelopment sectors to catalyze the spread of neighborhood-transforming projects such as those described earlier.66

Thenetworkwillestablishaninstitutional home for the new partnerships and knowledge from health and community development collaborations. It will de- velop the health metrics critical to pro- viding community developers with tools

SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S53 by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

th- ey n-

FIGURE 1 Sample of the Magnolia Community Initiative data dashboard (November 2013). Information derived from the Early Development Index assessed in schools, a biannual community survey, and regular parent and organizational surveys. IEP, Individualized Education Program; orgs, organizations.

S54 JUTTE et al by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

eed to incorporate health into their work and will explore new financing strategies to help take this approach to scale (eg, social impact bonds).

Build the Evidence Base

Todate,withafewexceptions,thehealth outcomes that result from community development investment, even in the dynamic,multifacetedprojectsdescribed here, have not been systematically mea- sured.Healthand public health expertise and research can provide the evidence base to determine which investments and what kinds of projects have the biggest impact, with the goal of guiding project decision-making and design. Further- more, on a scale not otherwise possible, health researchers can use large-scale community development projects plan- ned or already in progress to answer critical questions about the impact of community-level interventions on child development. Evidence from the “natural experiments” in neighborhood development can deepen and extend our understanding of child cognitive, psychosocial, and physical develop- ment. The cost savings that accrue in health care, education, criminal justice, and other arenas as a result of com- munity development investments are not currently assessed in a systematic way. Health researchers can help deter- mine how best to measure and monetize these “social returns on investment.” Finally, evidence for improved health outcomes and reduced social costs has the potential to attract substantial new dollars from private capital, in- cluding health-focused investors, health foundation mission–driven investing, social impact bonds, and social impact investors.

Connect Partners

As we have seen, projects to transform distressedneighborhoodsrequirebroad, cross-sector collaboration at the local level. At the national level, those already

doing this work need the opportunity to learn from one another, both together andacrosssectors.Thenewnetworkwill connect newly formed initiatives with more experienced peers, try to overcome challenges such as sectoral language barriers, and find new ways to manage the complexities of multiple funding streams. The network will work to bringtheseinitiativestoscale,extending themintodisadvantagedneighborhoods around the country by linking new partners armed with new knowledge.

Make Child and Family Health a More Explicit Focus of Community Development

The key to unlocking the immense po- tential for health in the community de- velopmentsectorliesinmakingchildand family health more explicitly the focus. The new frameworks and concepts emerging from work on toxic stress and braindevelopmentandonneighborhood adversity mark a new path for addres- sing disparities in childhood develop- ment and long-term health, but it is also a powerful new organizing paradigm for community development. Increasingly, community developers consider impro- ving the social determinants of health as the way to improve local economies. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation CommissiontoBuildaHealthierAmerica is trying to accelerate this evolution by making the full integration of health into community development 1 of its 3 rec- ommendations to improve the health of the nation.60

SUMMARY AND CALL TO ACTION: ENDING THE BULLYING SOCIETY

What role does the field of pediatrics have in addressing the types of community-level social hierarchies described here? If we take to heart new understandings of childhood develop- ment,allostaticload,andtheindependent impact of neighborhood on health, if we accept that the vast percentage of health

outcomes are not the product of health care,and,moreover, ifweconceiveofour work as that of ensuring healthy child development,rather thansimplytreating childrenoncethey becomeunhealthy,we must extend the scope of our practices beyond the clinic or hospital walls. Al- though we cannot directly address some of the factors that are most important to children’s healthy development, we can partner with others who do. The impact of neighborhood adversity on health, in- dependent of individual- or family-level socioeconomic factors, requires that interventions move beyond addressing individual adversity alone. Our involve- ment as physicians can help focus and direct intervention goals so that they provide the conditions for healthy early childhood development across the cog- nitive, physical, andpsychosocial realms. These multifaceted interventions must foster bothfamily andcommunity health, providing children the right milieu in which to grow. Inside the examination room, we can work with children in the context of their family environment, screening for healthy and stable family functioning and for stressors on caregivers. Outside of the exami- nation room, we can work within the community to ensure that family functioning is supported with both place- and people-oriented resources and advocate for those resources when not available.

The stakes for successinthispartnership could not be higher. We are failing our patients—our children—if we do not provide them the best possible start in life. Reaching this goal means ensuring that they live in neighborhoods that promote opportunity and reduce life’s challenges. By bringing together health sector evidence, research skills and ex- pertiseinchildhooddevelopmentwiththe business and finance skills, resources, and capacity to rebuild neighborhoods of those in community development, we have a real chance to do so.

SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S55 by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

REFERENCES

1. Palfrey JS, Tonniges TF, Green M, Richmond J. Introduction: Addressing the millennial morbidity—the context of community pe- diatrics. Pediatrics. 2005;115(suppl 4):1121– 1123

2. Macartney S. Child poverty in the United States 2009 and 2010: selected race groups and Hispanic origin. US Census Bureau. Available at: www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/ acsbr10-05.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2014

3. Lantos JD, Ward NA. A new pediatrics for a new century. Pediatrics. 2013;131(suppl 2): S121–S126

4. Shonkoff JP, Garner AS; Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health; Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care; Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. The lifelong effects of early childhood ad- versity and toxic stress. Pediatrics. 2012; 129(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/ cgi/content/full/129/1/e232

5. Diez-Roux AV, Nieto FJ, Muntaner C, et al. Neighborhood environments and coronary heart disease: a multilevel analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146(1):48–63

6. Shonkoff JP. From neurons to neighbor- hoods: old and new challenges for de- velopmental and behavioral pediatrics. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2003;24(1):70–76

7. Hertzman C. The biological embedding of early experience and its effects on health in adulthood. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896:85–95

8. Hertzman C, Boyce T. How experience gets under the skin to create gradients in de- velopmental health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31(1):329–347, 3p, 347

9. Taylor SE, Repetti RL, Seeman T. Health psychology: what is an unhealthy environ- ment and how does it get under the skin? Annu Rev Psychol. 1997;48:411–447

10. Braunstein S, Lavizzo-Mourey R. How the health and community development sectors are combining forces to improve health and well-being. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(11): 2042–2051

11. Puma M, Bell S, Cook R, et al. Head Start impact study. final report. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507845. pdf. Accessed June 12, 2014

12. Komro KA, Flay BR, Biglan A; Promise Neighborhoods Research Consortium. Cre- ating nurturing environments: a science- based framework for promoting child health and development within high-poverty neighborhoods. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2011;14(2):111–134

13. Andrews NO, Erickson DJ, eds. Investing in What Works for America’s Communities:

Essays on People, Place & Purpose. San Francisco, CA: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco; Low Income Investment Fund; 2012

14. Hurd NM, Stoddard SA, Zimmerman MA. Neighborhoods, social support, and African American adolescents’ mental health out- comes: a multilevel path analysis. Child Dev. 2013;84(3):858–874

15. Fan Y, Chen Q. Family functioning as a me- diator between neighborhood conditions and children’s health: evidence from a na- tional survey in the United States. Soc Sci Med 2012;74(12):1939–1947

16. Mannon SE, Brooks WT. Neighborhood family-friendliness and its effect on family relations: evidence from Utah. Sociol Spectr. 2006;26(4):405–421

17. Kohen DE, Leventhal T, Dahinten VS, McIntosh CN. Neighborhood disadvantage: pathways of effects for young children. Child Dev. 2008; 79(1):156–169

18. Fitzgerald HE, McKelvey LM, Schiffman RF, Montañez M. Exposure of low-income fam- ilies and their children to neighborhood violence and paternal antisocial behavior. Parent Sci Pract. 2006;6(2–3):243–258

19. Jaffee SR, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Polo-Tomás M, Taylor A. Individual, family, and neighbor- hood factors distinguish resilient from non- resilient maltreated children: a cumulative stressors model. Child Abuse Negl. 2007;31 (3):231–253

20. Diez Roux AV, Mair C. Neighborhoods and health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1186(1):125– 145

21. Feldman PJ, Steptoe A. How neighborhoods and physical functioning are related: the roles of neighborhood socioeconomic sta- tus, perceived neighborhood strain, and individual health risk factors. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(2):91–99

22. Cubbin C, Egerter S, Braveman P, Pedregon V. Where we live matters for our health: neighborhoods and health. Available at: https:// folio.iupui.edu/handle/10244/638. Accessed June 12, 2014

23. Lee RE, Cubbin C. Neighborhood context and youth cardiovascular health behaviors. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(3):428–436

24. Wallace M, Harville E, Theall K, Webber L, Chen W, Berenson G. Neighborhood poverty, allostatic load, and birth outcomes in Af- rican American and white women: findings from the Bogalusa Heart Study. Health Place. 2013;24:260–266

25. Johnson RC, Schoeni RF, Rogowski JA. Health disparities in mid-to-late life: the role of earlier life family and neighborhood

socioeconomic conditions. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(4):625–636

26. Cubbin C, Sundquist K, Ahlén H, Johansson S- E, Winkleby MA, Sundquist J. Neighborhood deprivation and cardiovascular disease risk factors: protective and harmful effects. Scand J Public Health. 2006;34(3):228–237

27. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and house- hold dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(4):245–258

28. Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC. The effects of childhood stress on health across the life- span. Available at: http://www,cdc,gov/ncipc/ pub-res/pdf/Childhood_Stress.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2014

29. Ross CE, Mirowsky J. Neighborhood disad- vantage, disorder, and health. J Health Soc Behav. 2001;42(3):258–276

30. Vartanian TP, Houser L. The effects of childhood neighborhood conditions on self- reports of adult health. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51(3):291–306

31. Dupéré V, Lacourse E, Willms JD, Leventhal T, Tremblay RE. Neighborhood poverty and early transition to sexual activity in young adolescents: a developmental ecological approach. Child Dev. 2008;79(5):1463–1476

32. Haley A, Zimmerman E, Woolf S, Evans B. Neighborhood-Level Determinants of Life Expectancy in Oakland, CA. Richmond, VA: Center on Human Needs, Virginia Com- monwealth University; 2012. Available at: www.societyhealth.vcu.edu/DownFile.ashb? fileid=1501. Accessed June 13, 2014

33. Evans B, Zimmerman E, Woolf S, Haley A. Social Determinants of Health and Crime in Post-Katrina Orleans Parish. Richmond, VA: Center on Human Needs, Virginia Com- monwealth University; 2012. Available at: www.societyhealth.vcu.edu/DownFile.ashx? fileid=1287. Accessed June 13, 2014

34. Lavizzo-Mourey R. Why health, poverty, and community development are inseparable. Available at: www.buncombecountry.org/ common/humanServices/Board/attachments/ whyHealth_RWJ_Report.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2014

35. Gustafsson PE, San Sebastian M, Janlert U, Theorell T, Westerlund H, Hammarström A. Life-course accumulation of neighborhood disadvantage and allostatic load: empirical integration of three social determinants of health frameworks. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(5):904–910

36. Theall KP, Drury SS, Shirtcliff EA. Cumulative neighborhood risk of psychosocial stress

S56 JUTTE et al by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

and allostatic load in adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(suppl 7):S164–S174

37. Schulz AJ, Mentz G, Lachance L, Johnson J, Gaines C, Israel BA. Associations between socioeconomic status and allostatic load: effects of neighborhood poverty and tests of mediating pathways. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(9):1706–1714

38. Erickson DJ. The Housing Policy Revolution: Networks and Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press; 2009

39. Findings from Analysis of Nationwide Sum- mary Statistics for 2009 Community Re- investment Act Data Fact Sheet. Available at: www.ffiec.gov/hmcrpr/cra_fs09.htm. Accessed June 28, 2014

40. Erickson D, Andrews N. Partnerships among community development, public health, and health care could improve the well-being of low-income people. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011; 30(11):2056–2063

41. Von Hoffman A. The past, present, and future of community development in the United States. In: Investing in What Works for America’s Communities. San Francisco, CA: Low Income Investment Fund; 2012. Available at: www.whatworksforamerica.org/pdf/von% 20hoffman.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2014

42. About LIIF: Our Impact. Available at: http:// www.liifund.org/about-liif/our-impact-2/. Accessed January 15, 2015

43. Jutte DP, LeWinn KZ, Hutson MA, Dare R, Falk J. Bringing researchers and commu- nity developers together to revitalize a public housing project and improve health. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(11): 2072–2078

44. Erickson D. Linking Community Develop- ment and Health. Testimony prepared for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Com- mission to Build a Healthier America – June 2013. Avaliable at: www.rwjf.org/content/dam/ farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf406408. Accessed January 14, 2015

45. Partners in Progress. About the project. Available at: http://partnersinprogressproject. org/about. Accessed June 13, 2014.

46. Rice A. A purposeful strategy transforms Atlanta neighborhood and schools. Educ Week. 2011;31(3):12–13

47. Seldon W, Jolin M, Schmitz P. Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives Case Study: East Lake, Atlanta. The Bridgespan Group; 2012. Available at: www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/ 9db0fc5e-231e-4904-bd28-9df134b70ef1/ Community-Collaboratives-CaseStudy-Atlanta. pdf.aspx. Accessed June 28, 2014

48. Dorman L. A rebuilt golf course renews a neighborhood. The New York Times. Avail- able at: http://nytimes.com/2008/09/28/sports/ golf/28course.html. Accessed June 13, 2014

49. Humphreys J, Akioka L, Kochut B, Armit I. A Chance to Succeed: Economic Revitalization of Atlanta’s East Lake Community. Athens, GA: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry Col- lege of Business, University of Georgia; 2008

50. Lavizzo-Mourey R. Routinizing the extraor- dinary. Available at: www.huffingtonpost. com/risa-lavizzomourey-md/routinizing-the- extraordi_b_2237095.html. Accessed June 13, 2014

51. Erickson D, Andrews NO. Spotlight on pov- erty and opportunity. Available at: http:// spotlightonpoverty.org/users/spotlight_on_ poverty/documents/Erickson%20Andrews_ Spotlight_10042012%20to%20post.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2014

52. Time to Act. Investing in the health of our children and communities, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Commission to Build a Healthier America. Available at: www.rwjf. org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2014/ rwjf409002. Accessed June 13, 2014

53. Bowie P. Getting to Scale: The Elusive Goal. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs; 2011. Available at: www.casey.org/Resources/ Publications/pdg/GettingToScale_Magnolia- Place.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2014

54. David Geffen School of Medicine. Magnolia Place Project. Available at: http://community. medschool.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=69. Accessed June 13, 2014

55. Inkelas M, Bowie P, Kahn RS, Margolis P, Provost L. Measurement to improve out- comes for a community population. APA Quality Improvement Special Interest Group. Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting, May 5, 2013; Washington, DC

56. NationSwell. Neighborhood centers provide new immigrants an instant community.

Available at: http://nationswell.com/texas- neighborhood-centers-help-immigrants-give- assistance. Accessed June 8, 2014

57. Kretzmann J, McKnight JP. Assets-based community development. Natl Civ Rev. 1996; 85(4):23–29

58. TEDxHouston 2011.Angela Blanchard. Avail- able at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaX5- DUGC1CU&feature=youtube_gdata_player. Accessed June 13, 2014.

59. Blanchard A. People transforming commu- nities. For good. In: Andrews NO, Erickson DJ, Galloway IJ, Seidman ES, eds. Investing in What Works for America’s Communities. San Francisco, CA: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco; 2012:140–149

60. Beeson A. Not Rick Perry’s Texas. Available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-beeson/not- righ-perrys-texas_b_1126699.html. Accessed June 13, 2014

61. ABC13 Eyewitness News. United Way neigh- borhood tax centers offering free tax help for low-income residents. Available at: http:// abc13.com/archive/8524859. Accessed June 8, 2014

62. Houston Public Media. Free tax help. Available at: http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/1326838081- Free-Tax-Help.html. Accessed June 13, 2014

63. Houston Chronicle. Neighborhood center helps Gulfton area find its way. Available at: www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/ Neighborhood-center-helps-Gulfton-area-find- its-1585590.php#src=fb. Accessed June 13, 2014

64. Alliance for Strong Families and Commu- nities. Center for Engagement and Neigh- borhood Building. Civic engagement at Neighborhood Centers Inc. Available at: http://alliance1.org/ce/civic-engagement- neighborhood-centers-inc. Accessed June 8, 2014.

65. US Department of Education. US Department of Education awards Promise Neighbor- hoods planning grants. Available at: www.ed. gov/news/press-releases/us-department- education-awards-promise-neighborhoods- planning-grants. Accessed June 13, 2014

66. Build Healthy Places. Available at: www. buildhealthyplaces.org/about-the-network/. Accessed June 16, 2014

SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S57 by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-3549F 2015;135;S48Pediatrics

Douglas P. Jutte, Jennifer L. Miller and David J. Erickson Development

Neighborhood Adversity, Child Health, and the Role for Community

Services Updated Information &

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/Supplement_2/S48 including high resolution figures, can be found at:

References

BIBL http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/Supplement_2/S48# This article cites 31 articles, 5 of which you can access for free at:

Permissions & Licensing

http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml in its entirety can be found online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or

Reprints http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml Information about ordering reprints can be found online:

by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-3549F 2015;135;S48Pediatrics

Douglas P. Jutte, Jennifer L. Miller and David J. Erickson Development

Neighborhood Adversity, Child Health, and the Role for Community

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/Supplement_2/S48 located on the World Wide Web at:

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is

by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397. the American Academy of Pediatrics, 345 Park Avenue, Itasca, Illinois, 60143. Copyright © 2015 has been published continuously since 1948. Pediatrics is owned, published, and trademarked by Pediatrics is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly publication, it

by guest on August 31, 2021www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from