“It Seems Like No One Cares”: Youth Perspectives on Housing Abandonment and Urban Blight
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“It seems like no one cares”: Youth Perspectives on Housing Abandonment and Urban Blight by Samantha Nicole Teixeira Bachelor of Arts in Social Work, University of New Hampshire, 2005 Master of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, 2009 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The School of Social Work in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2014 *- UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH School of Social Work This dissertation was presented by Samantha Nicole Teixeira It was defended with distinction on April 1, 2014 and approved by Catherine Greeno, PhD, Associate Dean for Research, School of Social Work Daniel Rosen, PhD, Associate Professor, School of Social Work Michael Yonas, DrPH, Director of Research, Evaluation, and Engagement, Allegheny County Department of Human Services Dissertation Advisor: John Wallace, Jr., PhD, Professor, Philip Hallen Chair in Community Health and Social Justice, School of Social Work ii Copyright © by Samantha Nicole Teixeira 2014 iii “It seems like no one cares”: Youth Perspectives on Housing Abandonment and Urban Blight Samantha Nicole Teixeira, MSW, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2014 A large body of research suggests that environmental health hazards, specifically, abandoned properties, are a growing problem that disproportionately affects low-income communities of color. Youth in affected neighborhoods are at particularly high risk for exposure to outdoor hazards due to their increased likelihood to use active means of travel in their daily activities. Living in a community characterized by housing abandonment has been associated with myriad negative physical and mental health outcomes among youth. Though there is a large body of work demonstrating that various features of neighborhoods have salient effects on outcomes for youth, fewer studies have documented how youth experience abandoned properties in neighborhoods. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by learning what meaning youth ascribe to abandoned properties in a community with high levels of vacancy. I used a mixed methods community based participatory research approach that included participatory photo mapping, a method that combines photography, youth-led neighborhood tours, and advocacy; in depth interviews with youth; and spatial analysis. The study aimed to extend existing theory, specifically broken windows theory, from the perspective of youth in a neighborhood with high levels of housing vacancy. Youth described their own version of broken windows theory, a process through which abandoned properties exert their impact on young people and their community. This multi-step iv process includes: 1) unrepaired signs of incivility signal that no one cares; 2) residents withdraw, become more fearful; 3) untended property becomes “fair game” leading to more crime and incivilities; and finally, 4) a breakdown of community control and individual and community vulnerability. This study suggests that abandoned properties are a visual cue that no one cares about the neighborhood. Youth reported that vacant properties facilitate delinquency and play a role in a complex web of community decline. They also conveyed that the solution may rest in the hands of youth and described making meaningful changes through small efforts like community beautification. These findings provide the impetus for a number of social work practice, research, and policy implications and suggest the need for future youth-engaged intervention research. v TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION.......................................................................................................................... XIV 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................. 4 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .......................................................................... 9 1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ................................................................. 11 1.4 RELEVANCE TO SOCIAL WORK ............................................................... 13 1.5 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 15 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 16 2.1 THE EFFECTS OF VACANT PROPERTIES ON YOUTH ........................ 17 2.1.1 Psychosocial and Mental Health: Externalizing and Delinquency ............ 18 2.1.2 Psychosocial and Mental Health: Internalizing and Fear .......................... 22 2.1.3 Physical health ................................................................................................ 27 2.1.4 A Note on Measurement Issues ..................................................................... 30 2.1.5 Summary of the Empirical Findings ............................................................ 32 2.2 THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS ................................................................... 33 2.2.1 Social and Physical Disorder: Setting the Context for a Theoretical Explanation ................................................................................................................. 34 2.2.2 Social Disorganization Theory ...................................................................... 35 vi 2.2.3 Broken Windows Theory ............................................................................... 38 2.2.4 SUMMARY OF THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS ................................... 44 2.3 HISTORICAL AND CURRENT POLICY CHALLENGES ........................ 45 2.3.1 Obstacles to transition, acquisition, and maintenance. .............................. 46 2.4 MITIGATION INTERVENTIONS: CODE ENFORCEMENT AND TAX SALE 47 2.5 ADAPTIVE INTERVENTIONS ...................................................................... 49 2.6 YOUTH PARTICIPATION: WHY ADOLESCENTS? ................................ 51 2.6.1 Barriers to youth involvement ...................................................................... 52 2.6.2 Argument for Inclusion of Youth Voices and Advocacy ............................ 53 2.7 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 54 3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................. 56 3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................... 57 3.2 COMMUNITY BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH........................... 58 3.2.1 Participatory GIS ........................................................................................... 59 3.3 SITE FOR DATA COLLECTION .................................................................. 60 3.3.1 CBPR with Operation Better Block, Inc. ..................................................... 63 3.3.2 Positionality .................................................................................................... 65 3.4 DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................... 67 3.5 STUDY 1: GIS ANALYSIS OF PREVALENCE OF HOUSING VACANCY 68 3.5.1 Sample Description ........................................................................................ 69 3.5.1.1 Data Sources ........................................................................................ 69 vii 3.5.2 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 72 3.5.3 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 74 3.5.3.1 Chloropleth maps ................................................................................ 75 3.5.3.2 Kernel density maps............................................................................ 76 3.6 STUDY 2: PARTICIPATORY PHOTO MAPPING ..................................... 77 3.6.1 Sample Description ........................................................................................ 78 3.6.2 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 79 3.6.3 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 81 3.7 STUDY 3: IN DEPTH INTERVIEWS ............................................................ 82 3.7.1 Sample Description ........................................................................................ 83 3.7.2 Procedures ...................................................................................................... 85 3.7.3 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 85 3.7.3.1 Coding .................................................................................................. 86 3.7.3.2 Memo Writing ..................................................................................... 87 3.7.3.3 Establishing Trustworthiness............................................................. 88 3.8 INTEGRATION OF THREE STUDIES ......................................................... 89 3.8.1 Grounded Visualization ................................................................................. 89 3.8.1.1 Grounded Visualization Procedures and Analysis .......................... 92 4.0 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................