ConclusionAdolescents who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods

are exposed to violence and danger that can negatively impact their ability to navigate their external environments (Sharkey, 2006). Neighborhood characteristics did not predict adolescents’ academic self-efficacy. Perhaps, adolescents’ academic self-efficacy is more affected by their interactions in schools and with parents who may protect their adolescents from the disorganization of the neighborhood. However, parents who thought neighborhood youth had high chances of success had adolescents who had high GPAs and high sense of school belonging. In addition, youth in neighborhoods with more institutional resources had higher school belonging. These resources may keep youth from getting involved with negative activities and peers and provide other sources of supervision beyond parents.

Adolescents with high academic self-efficacy also tended to have high GPAs and a high sense of school belonging. When adolescents are confident in their academic abilities they are more likely to enjoy school and engage in academic behaviors that promote academic success.

There were a few limitations to the study. Neighborhood quality was only based off of the primary caregiver’s perceptions. The participants were only in 7th grade, classifying them in the early stages of their adolescence. Their views about neighborhood might differ if they were in another grade.

For future research it would be important to assess if adolescents’ perceptions of neighborhood quality impacted their academic self-efficacy. Another future direction would be examining if there is a relationship between adolescents’ perception of neighborhood quality and their primary caregivers’ assessment.

Deborah O. Adewale and Fatima Varner, PhDFordham University

Literature cited

• Byrnes, H., Miller, B., Chen, M., & Grube, J. (2011). The Roles of Mothers' Neighborhood Perceptions and Specific Monitoring Strategies in Youths' Problem Behavior. Journal Of Youth & Adolescence, 40(3), 347-360. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9538-1

• Eccles, J.S. & Roeser, R.W. (2009). Schools, Academic Motivation, and Stage-Environment Fit. In R.M. Lerner and L. Steinber (Eds.) Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (3rd ed.), 404-434.

• Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309-337. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.309

• Sharkey, P. T. (2006). Navigating Dangerous Streets: The Sources and Consequences of Street Efficacy. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 826-846. doi:10.1177/000312240607100506

• Snedker, K. A., & Hooven, C. (2013). Neighborhood perceptions and emotional well‐being in young adulthood. Journal Of Child And Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 26(1), 62-73. doi:10.1111/jcap.12016

• Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

From the Streets to the Classroom: The Relationship Between Neighborhood Quality and Adolescent Academic Outcomes

AbstractThe purpose of this research is to explore how neighborhood

quality is related to early adolescents’ self-efficacy and how these contribute to adolescent’s academic outcomes. Understanding the relationship between neighborhood quality and adolescents’ outcomes can show how perceived neighborhood problems can negatively impact student performance in school. The study uses data collected from wave one of the Maryland Adolescent Development In Context Study (MADICS). Neighborhood variables did not predict academic self-efficacy. Neighborhood success and academic self-efficacy positively predicted final 7th grade GPA and school belonging. The study findings can be used as a stepping stone to develop programs that can be used address neighborhood-school connections. IntroductionDisorganized neighborhoods (i.e, unsatisfactory, unsafe, unstable, and/or unsupportive neighborhoods) have been found to negatively relate to mental health (Snedker and Hooven, 2013), self-efficacy, and academic outcomes (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Neighborhood problems and negative neighborhood peers can distract adolescents from academic performance. However, resources within a neighborhood such as recreation centers and positive older role models help protect adolescents from getting involved in the disorganization of the neighborhood and aid in the positive growth of adolescents (Sharkey, 2006).When parents perceive their neighborhood to be disorganized (i.e. violent, dangerous, visible gang activity), they may engage in more monitoring of their child (Byrnes, Miller, Chen, & Grube, 2011). With very high levels of monitoring, adolescents may feel restricted in their freedom and personal growth, which may undermine self-efficacy. The level of adolescents’ self-efficacy determines how much adolescents can handle what comes to them (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Adolescents with positive views of their neighborhood tend to have high self-efficacy (Sharkey, 2006). Self-efficacy has been found to relate to academic achievement (Eccles & Roeser, 2009)HypothesisNeighborhood quality will positively predict adolescents’ academic self-efficacy.Neighborhood quality will be positively related to adolescent academic performance and school belonging.Adolescents’ academic self-efficacy will be positively related to adolescent academic performance and school belonging.Method

Sample: 1,158 adolescents and their families were assessed. The primary caregivers (PCG) were mainly female (92.7%). The adolescents were 7th grade males (49.8%) and females (50.2%).

MeasuresNeighborhood Hazards: 14 items, α = .96; e.g. Do you think the following is a problem: prostitution; sexual assault or rape; gang; 1(not a problem) to 3 (big problem); PCG reportNeighborhood Success: 3 items, α = .86; e.g., Teens in neighborhood have a chance to go to college; Teens in neighborhood have a chance of finding a stable job; 1 (very unlikely) to 4 (very likely); PCG reportInstitutional Resources: 6 items, α = .71; e.g., Do you have after-school programs in your community?; PCG reportAdolescent Self-Efficacy: 8 items, α = .80; e.g. How good are you in math?, How good are you in other school subjects?; adolescent reportAcademic Self-Efficacy: 4 items, α = .79; e.g. How well do you so in school?; adolescent report7th grade GPA: Scale: 0-4; school record dataSchool Belonging: 10 items, α = .77; e.g., You don’t feel like you belong at school; Classes are a waste of time; You look forward to going to school every day (reversed); 1(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree); adolescent report African American: Dummy Variable with European Americans as comparison groupFirst Born: Is the target child the oldest?; PCG reportPrimary Caregiver’s Income: Less than $5,000 to More than $75,000; PCG reportPrimary Caregiver’s Education: number of years of education (min: 5, max: 26); PCG report

Results Descriptive Analyses African American adolescents report more school belonging than European AmericansThe average income of primary caregivers is $45,000 to $49,999European American primary caregivers, on average, earned more income than African Americans and reported more successful adolescents within their neighborhoodGirls had higher GPAs and sense of school belonging than boys

Table 2. Effects of Neighborhood Quality, Academic Self-Efficacy, and Demographic Variables on Academic Outcomes

Table 1. Effect of neighborhood qualities on Academic Self-Efficacy

Regression AnalysesNeighborhood variables did not predict academic self-efficacy Academic Self-Efficacy in adolescents is significantly correlated with positive GPA in 7th gradersAdolescents who have high GPA and report high sense of school belonging have caregivers who report more success among adolescents in the neighborhood.

  7th GPA School BelongingB SE B t B SE B t

Intercept 4.10 .05 89.87 -.05 .06 -.77Female .52 .04 12.55** .20 .05 3.73**

First-born .04 .04 .91 .01 .06 .23African American -.33 .04 -7.37** .24 .06 4.17**

Primary Caregiver Educational Attainment

.05 .01 5.55** -.02 .01 -1.88

Primary Caregiver Income .02 .01 4.35** -.01 .01 -.88Institutional Resources  .02  .08 .27 .22 .10 2.20*Neighborhood Success  .10  .03  3.29* .14 .04 3.58**Neighborhood Hazards  -.04  .04  -1.03  -.08  .05  -1.62Academic Self-Efficacy  .31  .02  15.90**  .35  .03  13.73**

           R2     .384     .174

  Academic Self-Efficacyβ SE B B

African American .006 .067 .014Female .007 .063 .015

First-born -.004 .064 -.008Primary Caregiver Educational Attainment .091** .015 .041

Primary Caregiver Income  .068 .009  .018Neighborhood Hazards  -.016  .057 -.030Neighborhood Success  -.006  .046  -.008Neighborhood Efficacy  -.004  .116 -.016