A Note on "Sequential Neighborhood Effects" by Hicks et al. (2018)

We revisit a novel causal model published in Demography by Hicks et al. (2018), designed to assess whether exposure to neighborhood disadvantage over time affects children's reading and math skills. Here, we provide corrected and new results. Reconsideration of the model in the original article raised concerns about bias due to exposure-induced confounding (i.e., past exposures directly affecting future exposures) and true state dependence (i.e., past exposures affecting confounders of future exposures). Through simulation, we show that our originally proposed propensity function approach displays modest bias due to exposure-induced confounding but no bias from true state dependence. We suggest a correction based on residualized values and show that this new approach corrects for the observed bias. We contrast this revised method with other causal modeling approaches using simulation. Finally, we reproduce the substantive models from Hicks et al. (2018) using the new residuals-based adjustment procedure. With the correction, our findings are essentially identical to those reported originally. We end with some conclusions regarding approaches to causal modeling.

Sequential Neighborhood Effects: The Effect of Long-Term Exposure to Concentrated Disadvantage on Children's Reading and Math Test Scores

Prior research has suggested that children living in a disadvantaged neighborhood have lower achievement test scores, but these studies typically have not estimated causal effects that account for neighborhood choice. Recent studies used propensity score methods to account for the endogeneity of neighborhood exposures, comparing disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged neighborhoods. We develop an alternative propensity function approach in which cumulative neighborhood effects are modeled as a continuous treatment variable. This approach offers several advantages. We use our approach to examine the cumulative effects of neighborhood disadvantage on reading and math test scores in Los Angeles. Our substantive results indicate that recency of exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods may be more important than average exposure for children's test scores. We conclude that studies of child development should consider both average cumulative neighborhood exposure and the timing of this exposure.