SM ENGLISH

Austin Nguyen

Ms. Gemmel

English 161

23 October 2016

Literature Review: The Power of Place-Based Solutions

Poverty is a social issue surrounded by contentious debates. Scholars have thoroughly

examined its causes, its persistence, and its potential solutions, but have yet to reach any

consensus regarding those solutions. One of the most troublesome issues for scholars working in

this field is that children raised in poor neighborhoods rarely make it out to better living

conditions; research has shown that they typically end up in the same economic situation as their

families. This results in an ongoing process of generational poverty with no upward mobility.

This review of literature from academic and governmental sources will examine the generational

poverty that exists in low-income neighborhoods and examine potential solutions. While all of

the sources reviewed agree that the lack of upward mobility in low-income neighborhoods is an

urgent problem, they differ on how to solve that problem.

As illustrated by each individual author, there are clear drawbacks to being raised in poor

neighborhoods. First off, in Patrick Sharkey’s book Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and

the End of Progress toward Racial Equality, he explains that neighborhoods are classified as

“poor” if twenty percent or more of families living in the neighborhood had incomes below the

poverty line (28). Although this seems like a small percentage of an entire area, almost every

member of the neighborhood is affected, an idea that is explored in more depth in Keri-Nicole

Dillman and Laura Peck’s “Tensions and Opportunities in Evaluating Place-based

Interventions.” Dillman and Peck tell us that the problems in a poor community not only affect

Commented [GG1]: Throughout this literature review, templates that can be used in your literature review have been highlighted in pink.

Commented [GG2]: Definition of specific topic.

Commented [GG3]: Introduction of reviewed sources.

Commented [GG4]: Thesis statement about disagreement regarding solutions to the commonly agreed-upon problem.

Commented [GG5]: This paragraph introduces three sources that all agree that there is little mobility for children born into poor neighborhoods. Sources discussed: Sharkey, Dillman and Peck, and Sandel et al.

Nguyen 2

the specific person, but the family and the surrounding community system as well (15). Megan

Sandel et al. parallel Dillman and Peck’s analysis in their journal article “Neighborhood-Level

Interventions to Improve Childhood Opportunity and Lift Children Out of Poverty.” When

looking at the neighborhood, even if only twenty percent of the population may be living below

the poverty line, Sandel et al. explain that these poor neighborhoods collectively have fewer

opportunities and are associated with adverse health effects. These setbacks in opportunity and

health hinder upward mobility and show a trend that children raised in poverty will continue to

stay in poverty, even as adults (Sandel et al. S128).

The sources surveyed thus far would all agree that it is difficult to prevent children from

getting stuck in poverty because there are so many factors to consider. For instance, not only are

there few employment opportunities and poor healthcare, as mentioned by Sandel et al., but the

children are also behind in their education, something that all the sources touch upon. Sandel et

al.’s point is further illustrated in Sharkey’s study, where he uses a similar IQ measure to gauge

the academic performance of children from poor neighborhoods compared to non-poor

neighborhoods. In his study, he shows that the mean score from children in poor neighborhoods

is about eight to nine points less than the mean score of middle-class children. To put this into

perspective, Sharkey explains that these eight to nine points are “equivalent to missing about two

to four years of schooling” (120). With such a significant impediment to education coupled with

the previously stated obstacles, it makes sense as to why the vicious cycle of poverty has

continued for so long.

Though they agree on the problem, the ideal solution to neighborhood poverty is different

for each author. There are two main types of solution: a mobility assistance program or a place-

based initiative program. According to the Office of Policy Development and Research’s

Commented [GG6]: This paragraph elaborates on some of the factors that contribute to the lack of upward mobility for children born into poor neighborhoods. Sources discussed: Sandel et al. and Sharkey

Commented [GG7]: This paragraph introduces the point of disagreement within the broad agreement between these authors: they agree on the problem, but they disagree on the solution. This paragraph begins by discussing one potential solution: mobility assistance programs. Sources discussed: PD&R, Sandel et al.

Nguyen 3

(PD&R) report “Understanding Neighborhood Effects of Concentrated Poverty,” a mobility

assistance program such as “Moving to Opportunity” (MTO), has proven effective in battling the

effects of neighborhood poverty. This MTO program moves low-income families out of

concentrated poverty areas and into better middle-class neighborhoods. Compared to control

groups that only received the normal place-based assistances, the groups that were moved into

better neighborhoods experienced better physical and mental health (PD&R). To further support

mobility assistance programs, Sandel et al. also give positive feedback regarding the MTO

program. They noted that “every year of childhood spent in a higher-opportunity neighborhood

was associated with an increased benefit,” such as higher lifetime earnings or, for female

participants, the lower likelihood of being single parents (S129). However, both Sandel et al. and

PD&R recognize certain flaws in the MTO program. They both identified strange mixed effects

of the program such as an increase in mental illnesses for boys moved out of poverty (PD&R;

Sandel et al. S129). Regardless of this issue, mobility assistance programs have undeniable

benefits and are solutions worth mentioning.

While PD&R and Sandel et al. both identify the benefits of mobility assistance programs

despite their drawbacks, Sharkey and even Sandel et al. both challenge the idea that such

programs are the only way to address neighborhood poverty. Both authors argue in favor of

place-based initiatives, which make changes within the area of concentrated poverty as opposed

to just moving people into better neighborhoods. Dillman and Peck define place-based initiatives

as “efforts to change public systems and policies to address the health and social problems

affecting poor communities” (15). To provide a better understanding of what these initiatives

might look like, Sharkey touches upon several examples of place-based initiative programs such

as the Harlem Children’s Zone (191). This zone is an area that provides countless benefits to

Commented [GG8]: This paragraph identifies an alternative to mobility assistant programs: place-based initiatives. Sources discussed: PD&R, Sandel et al., and Dillman and Peck

Nguyen 4

children beginning from early-childhood and guiding them through college. Using charter

schools, parent education, and health services, the zone has been found to be effective in

positively influencing entire neighborhoods (Sharkey 192). One aspect of the Harlem Children’s

Zone that makes it so successful is its multifaceted approach in supporting education along with

health. In a similar vein, Sandel et al. identify other successful place-based initiative programs,

like Healthy Neighborhoods Healthy Families (HNHF) and Vital Village Network. Both, like the

Harlem Children’s Zone, focus on the many issues that arise within an area of concentrated

poverty and aim to make positive impacts (Sandel et al. S130).

When enacting place-based initiatives, the entire community is affected. With the

community encompassing each person in the neighborhood, there must be some profound effects

that the community can have on neighborhood poverty. In fact, Sandel et al. venture to say that

community engagement has one of the most prominent roles within place-based interventions,

being able to create “greater equity and potential for success” in the neighborhood (S130). The

effect of the community is so prominent in successful interventions because of the usual absence

of a strong collective efficacy in poor regions. Sandel et al. define collective efficacy as “the

linkage of mutual trust and willingness to intervene for the common good” (S129). An example

of a neighborhood with high collective efficacy would be an area where people can feel

comfortable asking to borrow a small amount of money from a neighbor or having a neighbor

watch over their kids. Although this may be seen as just a small favor, these little things promote

collective efficacy and build stronger communities. This idea is further supported by the PD&R,

which recognizes that when communities work together whether formally or even just informally

as seen in the twenty-dollar example, the strong ties that form within the neighborhood allow the

community to “accomplish important tasks, such as preventing crime and delinquency.” Sandel

Commented [GG9]: This paragraph discusses the agreed- upon benefits to place-based initiatives. Sources discussed: Sandel et al. and PD&R

Nguyen 5

et al. would agree on these benefits and add the following positive outcomes: decreasing

residential instability and improving health (S129). Clearly, Sandel et al. would argue that the

presence of a strong community can make the difference between neighborhoods that begin to

flourish through interventions and those that end up stuck in continual poverty. As they put it,

neighborhood poverty must not just be a “top-down approach” with only the help of outside aid,

but to engage in “bottom-up methods” through the community. They argue, “Interventions must

focus on a community-identified problem with a community-driven solution” (S130).

These programs, however, are by no means without faults. Even though Dillman and

Peck agree that place-based initiatives can be advantageous, they draw attention to flaws in our

methods for evaluating these programs. Unlike the prior two scholars, Dillman and Peck argue

that place-based initiative programs are too broad and wide to accurately measure. To counteract

this concern, Dillman and Peck simply suggest a new perspective on the evaluation of the

initiatives. They emphasize that there are too many factors to consider in combination with

control and treatment variables and that you cannot always see the direct impacts of any certain

program when an entire community is being considered (15). They encourage that we not just

categorize the effects of the initiatives into one big picture, but to offset this broad view with

more specific evaluations to ensure we accurately measure the positive impacts of place-based

initiatives (17). For example, they point out that none of these programs have been evaluated

with Randomly Controlled Trials (RCTs), which would isolate other factors that may affect the

results of the program (15). RCTs randomly select multiple communities to implement a

program so that if the program does indeed render positive results, these results can be seen

across all the tested communities (Dillman and Peck 16). Dillman and Peck’s argument does not

completely undermine the program evaluations mentioned by Sharkey and Sandel et al., where

Commented [GG10]: This paragraph introduces a disagreement: there is a scholar who feels that place-based initiatives have difficult to measure outcomes. Sources discussed: Dillman and Peck, Sharkey, Sandel

Nguyen 6

only one specific region was considered, but it does call into question the results of these

programs because it’s not certain whether the program indeed produced the results or if it was

due to another factor specific to that area.

As seen in this review of literature, each author identifies disadvantages to being born in

low-income neighborhoods and communicates that we must take action to mitigate these

disadvantages. They do not, however, agree on the best method for doing so. While some

authors advocate for place-based initiatives, other either support mobility assistance programs or

question the stated efficacy of place-based initiatives thus far. Because studies have

demonstrated problems with mobility assistance programs, we must conclude based on the

literature that further study using RCTs needs to be done on place-based initiatives to determine

if they can overcome these limitations. This review has been limited to sources that compared

two specific types of programs for mitigating generational poverty in low-income

neighborhoods. Further study may uncover entirely new solutions unexamined here due to

limitations in the number of sources reviewed.

Commented [GG11]: Restatement of thesis with more detail from the subtopics covered in the review.

Commented [GG12]: Conclusion drawn from the sources reviewed.

Commented [GG13]: Identifications of limitations to the review.

Nguyen 7

Works Cited

Dillman, Keri-Nicole, and Laura R. Peck. "Tensions and Opportunities in Evaluating Place-

based Interventions." Community Investments, vol. 24, no. 1, 2012, pp. 14-17.

Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). "Evidence Matters: Understanding

Neighborhood Effects of Concentrated Poverty." HUD USER, Winter 2011, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development,

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/winter11/highlight2.html. Accessed 13

Oct. 2016.

Sandel, Megan, et al. "Neighborhood-Level Interventions to Improve Childhood Opportunity and

Lift Children Out of Poverty." Academic Pediatrics, vol. 16, no. 3S, 2016, pp. S128-135,

Science Direct, doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.013. Accessed 13 Oct. 2016

Sharkey, Patrick. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial

Equality. U of Chicago P, 2013.