Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 55, Issue 8, October 2002, Pages 1457-1470
Social Science & Medicine

Neighborhood structural characteristics and mental disorder: Faris and Dunham revisited

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00266-0Get rights and content

Abstract

We examined the relationship between neighborhood structural characteristics and mental disorder using data from the National Institute of Mental Health's Epidemiological Catchment (ECA) surveys (n=11,686). After controlling for individual-level characteristics, we found that neighborhood disadvantage was associated with higher rates of major depression and substance abuse disorder, and that neighborhood residential mobility was associated with higher rates of schizophrenia, major depression, and substance abuse disorder. Implications for future research on the social ecology of mental disorder are discussed.

Introduction

More than 60 years ago, Chicago School researchers Faris and Dunham (1939) examined the pre-admission neighborhood locations of over 30,000 psychiatric patients treated in Chicago's public and private psychiatric hospitals. Faris and Dunham (p. 35) found high rates of schizophrenia and substance abuse disorder “in the deteriorated regions in and surrounding the center of the city, no matter what race or nationality inhabited that region,” but found no discernable pattern across neighborhoods in the distribution of affective disorders (including depression, mania, and bipolar disorder). Faris and Dunham argued that the lack of social integration in socially disorganized communities—in addition to individual-level characteristics and pathologies—contributed to the “confused, frustrated, and chaotic” behaviors that characterized mental disorders. Residents of disorganized communities, they argued, found it difficult to develop and maintain positive affiliations with family members, neighbors, and local institutions, thus increasing their sense of social isolation—a variable Faris and Dunham argued was important to the onset and course of mental disorder. In addition, Faris and Dunham suggested that residents of disorganized communities were more likely to come into contact with illicit drug suppliers and drug users, thereby increasing their opportunities to develop substance abuse problems that led to disorder.

Faris and Dunham's methodology was limited, however, because they only had access to aggregate level data. Therefore, they could not control for individual-level characteristics when estimating the effects of neighborhood conditions. Nonetheless, Faris and Dunham's pioneering analysis stimulated considerable sociological interest in the relationship between social class and mental disorder (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958; Srole, Langer, Michael, Opler, & Rennie., 1961; Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1969) and grew into what today is the dominant analytic model in the sociology of mental disorder: the social stress model. The social stress model posits that stressful life events and chronic life difficulties cause psychological stress and that psychological stress contributes to mental health problems, particularly among individuals who do not have access to adequate social supports (Pearlin, 1989; Turner, Wheaton, & Lloyd, 1995). Social stress research reveals consistently that mental health problems covary with measures of social status, including socioeconomic status, marital status, gender, and race/ethnicity (for reviews, see Turner & Lloyd (1990), Dohrenwend, 1 (2000); Turner & Lloyd, 1999).

Given the origins of the social stress model in the work of Faris and Dunham, it is surprising that social stress researchers have not paid more attention to the effects of neighborhood characteristics on the social distribution of mental disorder. Instead, social stress researchers have tended to treat the socioeconomic status of individuals as a proxy for the neighborhood contexts in which they live (Turner & Lloyd (1990), Dohrenwend, 1 (2000)). However, although individual SES and neighborhood SES are correlated, research on residential attainment suggests that the social conditions of an individual's neighborhood cannot be determined solely from his or her socioeconomic status (South & Crowder, 1997; Logan, Alba, McNulty, & Fisher, 1996; South & Baumer (2000a), Silver (2000b)).

Moreover, a large number of studies find that, net of the effect of individual SES, persons who live in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods are significantly more likely to experience negative outcomes, such as bearing children out of wedlock, achieving lower levels of education and economic success, engaging in criminal or delinquent behavior, and becoming the victims of crime or violence (Silver, forthcoming; South & Crowder, 1999; South & Baumer, 2000; Sucoff & Upchurch, 1998; Corcoran, Gordon, Laren, & Solon, 1992; Duncan, 1994; Elliot et al., 1996; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Lauritsen, 2000; Miethe & McDowall, 1993). These studies underscore the importance of distinguishing between the effects of individual and neighborhood SES on behavioral outcomes and life experiences.

Understanding the effects of neighborhood conditions on the psychological well-being of individuals is perhaps more relevant today than it was earlier in this century when Faris and Dunham did their work. Prior to the 1960's individuals with mental health problems had access to, and were likely to be treated in “total institutions” that removed them from communities. Since that time, however, deinstitutionalization policies have reduced significantly the number of persons who could be admitted long-term to state and county psychiatric hospitals in the US (US Surgeon General, 2000). As a result, individuals with mental health problems currently reside in communities where psychiatric care is provided—as needed (and when available) - by acute care, community-based mental health facilities (South & Baumer (2000a), Silver (2001)). Despite this dramatic change in the social ecology of mental health treatment, the vast majority of studies of mental disorder conducted since the 1960s do not include measures of the neighborhood context (but, see Ross, 2000; Ross, Reynolds, & Geis, 2000; Goldsmith, Holzer, & Manderscheid, 1998).

In this paper, we examine individual- and community-level risk factors for schizophrenia, major depression, and substance abuse disorder using data from the Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) project, a large-scale, general population survey conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health in five cities between 1981 and 1983. We augmented respondent records from four of the five cities (New Haven, CT, Baltimore, MD, Durham, NC, and Los Angeles, CA, see below) with data on the census tracts where respondents lived at the time they were interviewed. The augmented ECA data set enabled us to analyze the degree to which residents’ mental health depends on the conditions of life in their neighborhoods, net of the effects of their individual characteristics. Our purpose in conducting this analysis was to update and extend Faris and Dunham's (1939) work by examining whether neighborhood structural characteristics made an independent contribution to the prevalence of mental disorders among individual respondents, net of the effects of their individual characteristics.

Section snippets

Multilevel studies of adult mental disorder

We know of only three recent US studies that have combined individual- and community-level data to test the proposition that adult mental disorders vary across neighborhoods (Ross, 2000; Ross et al., 2000; Goldsmith et al., 1998). Using data from the 1995 Community, Crime, and Health survey, Ross (2000) found that residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods in Illinois were more likely to report symptoms indicative of depressed mood than residents of less disadvantaged

The epidemiological catchment area (ECA) data

We use data from the first wave of the Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) project, a large community mental health survey sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health in five locations: New Haven, CT, Baltimore, MD, St. Louis, MO, Durham, NC, and Los Angeles, CA (see Robins & Regier, 1991 for a description of the goals and scope of the ECA project). A primary goal of the ECA project was to ascertain the prevalence and incidence of specific psychiatric disorders across a broad segment

Sample description

Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 96 years old with an average of 42 years. The mean education level was 12 years. The median household income was between $17,500 and $19,999. Fifty-three percent of respondents were female, 68% were white, 16% were African American, 13% were Hispanic, and 58% were cohabiting with a significant other or spouse. The level of poverty in respondents’ neighborhoods ranged from 1% to 68% with a mean of 16%, the level of residential mobility ranged from 14% to 94%

Discussion

Do the structural characteristics of neighborhoods affect the prevalence of mental disorders, net of the effects of individual characteristics? Using a large community survey, we found that the answer to this question is yes. Specifically, we found that neighborhood disadvantage was associated with higher rates of major depression and substance abuse disorder, and that neighborhood residential mobility was associated with higher rates of schizophrenia, major depression, and substance abuse

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation's National Consortium on Violence Research. Special thanks go to Eric Baumer, John Monahan, and Bruce Link for commenting on earlier versions of this paper; to D. Wayne Osgood for helpful statistical advice; and to Maureen Outlaw for expert handling of a large and complex data base.

References (52)

  • H.F. Goldsmith et al.

    Neighborhood characteristics and mental illness

    Evaluation and Program Planning

    (1998)
  • R. Agnew

    A general strain theory of community differences in crime rates

    Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

    (1999)
  • American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.). Washington...
  • J.C. Anthony et al.

    Comparison of lay diagnostic interview schedule and a standardized psychiatric diagnosis

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1985)
  • A.S. Bryk et al.

    Hierarchical linear modelsApplications and data analysis methods

    (1992)
  • M. Corcoran et al.

    The association between men's economic status and their family and community origins

    Journal of Human Resources

    (1992)
  • B.P. Dohrenwend

    Socioeconomic status (SES) and psychiatric disorders

    Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

    (1990)
  • B.P. Dohrenwend

    The role of adversity and stress in psychopathologySome evidence and its implications for theory and research

    Health and Social Behavior

    (2000)
  • B.P. Dohrenwend et al.

    Social status and psychological disorderA causal inquiry.

    (1969)
  • G.J. Duncan

    Families and neighbors as sources of disadvantage in the schooling decisions of white and black adolescents

    American Journal of Education

    (1994)
  • D.S. Elliot et al.

    The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development

    Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

    (1996)
  • R.E. Faris et al.

    Mental disorders in urban areasAn ecological study of schizophrenia and other psychoses

    (1939)
  • J.E. Helzer et al.

    The diagnostic interview scheduleIts development, evolution, and use

    Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

    (1988)
  • J.E. Helzer et al.

    A comparison of clinical and DIS diagnosesPhysician reexamination of lay interviewed cases in the general population

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1985)
  • J.E. Helzer et al.

    The predictive validity of lay DIS daignoses in the general populationA comparison with physician examiners

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1987)
  • A.B. Hollingshead et al.

    Social class and mental illnessA community study.

    (1958)
  • C.E. Holzer et al.

    Sampling the household population

  • Jencks, C. & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In: Laurence E. Lynn...
  • R. Kornhauser

    Social sources of delinquency

    (1978)
  • K.C. Land et al.

    Structural covariates of homicide ratesAre there any invariances across time and social space

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1990)
  • R. Landerman et al.

    Alternative models of the stress buffering hypothesis

    American Journal of Community Psychology

    (1989)
  • Lauritsen, J. L. (2000). The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS....
  • P.J. Leaf et al.

    Procedures used in the epidemiological catchment area study

  • J.R. Logan et al.

    Making a place in the metropolisLocational attainment in cities and suburbs

    Demography

    (1996)
  • D.S. Massey

    Back to the futureThe rediscovery of neighborhood context

    Contemporary Sociology

    (1998)
  • T.D. Miethe et al.

    Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization

    Social Forces

    (1993)
  • Cited by (346)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text