This study is provided by ICPSR. ICPSR provides leadership and training in data access, curation, and methods of analysis for a diverse and expanding social science research community.
Public Use Data (2008-10) on Neighborhood Effects on Obesity and Diabetes Among Low-Income Adults from the All Five Sites of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment (ICPSR 34974)
Principal Investigator(s): Ludwig, Jens, University of Chicago. Harris School of Public Policy, and National Bureau of Economic Research; Sanbonmatsu, Lisa, National Bureau of Economic Research; Gennetian, Lisa A., New York University. Institute of Human Development and Social Change, and National Bureau of Economic Research; Adam, Emma, Northwestern University. Institute for Policy Research; Duncan, Greg J., University of California-Irvine. School of Education; Katz, Lawrence F., Harvard University. Department of Economics, and National Bureau of Economic Research; Kessler, Ronald C., Harvard University. Harvard Medical School. Department of Health Care Policy; Kling, Jeffrey R., National Bureau of Economic Research; Tessler Lindau, Stacy, University of Chicago. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Whitaker, Robert C., Temple University. Department of Public Health; McDade, Thomas W., Northwestern University. Institute for Policy Research
Nearly 9 million Americans live in extreme-poverty neighborhoods, places that also tend to be racially segregated and dangerous. Yet, the effects on the well-being of residents of moving out of such communities into less distressed areas remain uncertain. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas in five cities the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. Families were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) the low-poverty voucher (LPV) group (also called the experimental group) received Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers that they could use only in census tracts with 1990 poverty rates below 10 percent. The families received mobility counseling and help in leasing a new unit. One year after relocating, families could use their voucher to move again if they wished, without any special constraints on location; (2) the traditional voucher (TRV) group (also called the Section 8 group) received regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers that they could use anywhere; these families received no special mobility counseling; (3) the control group received no certificates or vouchers through MTO, but continued to be eligible for project-based housing assistance and whatever other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled. Families were tracked from baseline (1994-1998) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-2010) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families. This data collection includes data from the 3,273 adult interviews completed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation. Using data from the long-term evaluation, the associated article reports that moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood was associated in the long-term (10 to 15 years) with modest, but potentially important, reductions in the prevalence of extreme obesity and diabetes. The data contain all outcomes and mediators analyzed for the associated article (with the exception of a few mediator variables from the interim MTO evaluation) as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis.
These data are flagged as replication datasets and are distributed exactly as they arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.
These data are freely available.
Ludwig, Jens, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Lisa A. Gennetian, Emma Adam, Greg J. Duncan, Lawrence F. Katz, Ronald C. Kessler, Jeffrey R. Kling, Stacy Tessler Lindau, Robert C. Whitaker, and Thomas W. McDade. Public Use Data (2008-10) on Neighborhood Effects on Obesity and Diabetes Among Low-Income Adults from the All Five Sites of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. ICPSR34974-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research[distributor], 2014-01-17. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34974.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34974.v1
This study was funded by:
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R49CE000906)
- United States Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences (R305U070006)
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Aging (P30AG012810, R01AG031259, P01AG005842-22S1)
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health (5P30 AG012857, 1K23AG032870-01A1)
- National Opinion Research Center. Population Research Center (R24HD051152-04)
- National Science Foundation (SES-0527615)
- United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (contract #C-CHI-00808)
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH077026)
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD040404, R01HD040444)
- University of Chicago. Center for Health Administration Studies
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- Russell Sage Foundation
- Smith Richardson Foundation
- Spencer Foundation
- Annie E. Casey Foundation
Scope of Study
Subject Terms: diabetes, living conditions, neighborhood characteristics, neighborhood conditions, neighborhoods, obesity, physical condition, poverty, poverty programs, public housing, quality of life
Unit of Observation: individual
Universe: Adult participants in the Moving to Opportunity program.
Data Types: experimental data, survey data
Data Collection Notes:
The zipped package contains Stata data files and PDF documentation which includes information used in the associated article.
The datasets included are limited to the data needed to roughly replicate the findings in the associated article on obesity and diabetes.
Sample: The sampling frame for selection into the long-term survey sample was one adult from each of the 4,604 households who were randomized through the MTO program between 1994 and 1998. One "sample adult" was identified from each household by giving priority to female adults who were more likely to be caretakers of the children. The priority order for selecting both the MTO interim and final evaluation samples was: female heads of the core household, female spouses of the core household head, female baseline heads, female spouses of the baseline head, and finally, non-female heads of the core households. Note that the baseline head is often but not always the same person as the sample adult. For the long-term survey, the sample adults from all low-poverty voucher and control group households were selected for interview and, for budgetary reasons, the sample adults from only a random two-thirds of the traditional voucher group households were selected for interview. Youth ages 10 to 20 in the households were also interviewed, however, the data used for the associated article only include adult respondents.
Time Method: Longitudinal: Cohort/ Event-based
Weight: All analysis of the data should be weighted using the total survey weight. The cell-level file includes a separate weight for each outcome and mediator measure that is the sum of weights for all observations in the cell with valid data for the measure (for example, wt_f_db_hba1c_diab_final is the weight for the glycated hemoglobin measure, mn_f_db_hba1c_diab_final). In the pseudo-individual file, mn_f_wt_totsvy is the average of the total survey weight variable for all observations in the cell. In the original individual-level file, the total survey weight (f_wt_totsvy) is calculated as the product of three component weights: (1) Randomization ratio weight -- At the start of the MTO program, random assignment (RA) ratios were set to produce equal numbers of leased-up families in the low-poverty and traditional voucher groups based on expected leased-up rates. The initial ratios were "8 to 3 to 5": eight low-poverty voucher group families to three traditional voucher families to five control families. During the demonstration program, these RA ratios were adjusted to accommodate higher than anticipated leased-up rates among low-poverty voucher group families. This weight ensures that the proportion of families in a given site is the same across all three treatment groups. This component weight value ranges from 0.59 to 2.09. (2) Survey sample selection weight -- For budgetary reasons, adults from only a random two-thirds of traditional voucher group households were selected for the long-term survey interview sample (while adults from all low-poverty voucher and control group families were selected), so this component weights up the selected traditional voucher group adults so that they are representative of all traditional voucher group adults. This weight component is equal to the inverse probability of selection into the subsample (~1.52). (3) Phase 2 subsample weight -- The long-term survey data collection was completed as a two-phase process. In the first phase, we sought to interview all selected respondents. Phase 2 of fielding was triggered when the response rate reached approximately 74 percent. In the second phase, we subsampled a random 35 percent of the remaining sample and only sought interviews with the selected subsample of respondents. This weight component is equal to the inverse probability of selection into the subsample (~2.86).
Mode of Data Collection: audio computer-assisted self interview (ACASI), computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI), face-to-face interview, telephone interview
Response Rates: The overall effective response rate (ERR) for the adult survey was 89.6 percent, and the ERRs by MTO treatment group were similar: 90.8 percent for the low-poverty voucher group, 86.6 percent for the traditional voucher group, and 90.0 percent for the control group.
Presence of Common Scales: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) assays were used to measure diabetes.
Original ICPSR Release: 2014-01-17
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)