The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is
to develop and disseminate new ideas that
foster greater economic choice and
individual responsibility.

CRRUCS Report
2001


A Better Kind of High: How Religious Commitment Reduces Drug Use Among Poor Urban Teens

Table 1. Estimated Models of Neighborhood Disorder, Individual Religious Commitment (Religiosity), and Illicit Drug Use for Total Sample (n = 1,087)

 

Marijuana Use

Fixed Effect

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Intercept,g 0,0

1.77 (1.56)

2.72* (1.56)

2.27(1.49)

2.39 (1.49)

2.13 (1.49)

Neighbor. disorder, g0,1

.48* (.18)

.35*(.17)

.33* (.13)

.30* (.13)

.54* (.18)

Underclass,g 0,2

-.03 (.18)

-.04 (.17)

.08 (.12)

.08 (.12)

.08 (.12)

Intact family,g 0,3

-.53* (.14)

-.46* (.13)

-.33* (.10)

-.32* (.10)

-.32* (.10)

Num. of children,g0,4

-.03 (.04)

-.02 (.04)

-.02 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

Male,g 0,5

.39* (.11)

.32* (.11)

.23* (.08)

.22* (.08)

.21* (.08)

White,g 0,6

.29* (.15)

.23 (.15)

-.19 (.11)

-.18 (.11)

-.18 (.11)

Cohort 12,g 0,7

-.22 (1.73)

-.35 (1.73)

-.36 (1.65)

-.30 (1.65)

-.35 (1.65)

Cohort 13,g 0,8

.37 (1.57)

.43 (1.56)

.41 (1.49)

.54 (1.49)

.51 (1.49)

Cohort 14,g 0,9

.26 (1.54)

.26 (1.53)

.48 (1.46)

.59 (1.46)

.56 (1.46)

Cohort 15,g 0,10

.59 (1.54)

.52 (1.54)

.48 (1.46)

.58 (1.46)

.55 (1.46)

Cohort 16,g 0,11

.39 (1.54)

.36 (1.54)

.07 (1.47)

.19 (1.46)

.16 (1.46)

Cohort 17,g 0,12

.41 (1.69)

.50 (1.68)

-.04 (1.60)

.14 (1.60)

.09 (1.60)

Age, g1,0

.06 (.80)

.11 (.80)

-.26 (.77)

-.32 (.77)

-.30 (.77)

Cohort 12,g 1,1

-.30 (1.00)

-.38 (1.00)

-.38 (.95)

-.35 (.95)

-.39 (.95)

Cohort 13,g 1,2

.17 (.89)

.24 (.89)

.19 (.85)

.28 (.85)

.26 (.85)

Cohort 14,g 1,3

.13 (.83)

.10 (.83)

.23 (.79)

.29 (.79)

.28 (.79)

Cohort 15,g 1,4

.11 (.81)

.09 (.81)

.25 (.77)

.31 (.77)

.30 (.77)

Cohort 16,g 1,5

.33 (.86)

.20 (.86)

.60 (.82)

.63 (.82)

.63 (.82)

Cohort 17,g 1,6

.21 (1.09)

.18 (1.09)

.77 (1.04)

.81 (1.04)

.82 (1.04)

Age2,g 2,0

-.03 (.10)

-.06 (.10)

-.03 (.10)

-.06 (.10)

-.06 (.10)

Cohort 12,g 2,1

-.06 (.14)

-.07 (.14)

-.08 (.14)

-.08 (.14)

-.08 (.14)

Cohort 13,g 2,2

.03 (.14)

.05 (.14)

.00 (.14)

.02 (.14)

.02 (.14)

Cohort 14,g 2,3

.08 (.15)

.08 (.15)

.04 (.14)

.05 (.14)

.05 (.14)

Cohort 15, 2,4

-.07 (.15)

-.05 (.15)

-.06 (.15)

-.04 (.15)

-.04 (.15)

Cohort 16,g 2,5

-.12 (.17)

-.06 (.17)

-.12 (.16)

-.09 (.16)

-.10 (.16)

Cohort 17,g 2,6

-.05 (.20)

-.04 (.20)

-.10 (.19)

-.08 (.19)

-.08 (.19)

Religiosity,g 3,0

 

-.07* (.01)

 

-.02* (.01)

.01 (.02)

Neighbor. disorder,g3,1

 

 

 

 

-.02* (.01)

Age x Religiosity, g 4,0

 

-.01* (.00)

 

-.00 (.00)

-.00 (.00)

Age2 x Religiosity,g 5,0

 

.00* (.00)

 

.00* (.00)

.00* (.00)

Family bonding,g 6,0

 

 

-.04* (.02)

-.03 (.02)

-.03 (.02)

School bonding,g 7,0

 

 

-.05* (.02)

-.05* (.02)

-.04* (.02)

Drug-using peers, 8,0

 

 

.68* (.04)

.66* (.04)

.66* (.04)

Pro-drug attitude, g9,0

 

 

.76* (.05)

.73* (.06)

.73* (.06)

Random Effect

 

 

 

 

 

Intercept,u0,i

 

 

 

 

 

Variance component

2.90

2.60

1.28

1.27

1.27

df

1074

1074

1074

1074

1074

2

8111.19

7395.15

4455.35

4465.10

4448.04

p-value

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

Level-1 effect, ri,t

 

 

 

 

 

Variance component

1.33

1.32

1.21

1.21

1.21

Note. Standard errors of coefficients are presented in parentheses.

* p < .05 (one-tailed test)

 

Hard Drug Use

Fixed Effect

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Intercept,g 0,0

1.02* (.34)

1.14* (.34)

1.09* (.34)

1.10* (.34)

1.05*(.34)

Neighbor. disorder, g0,1

.06* (.03)

.04 (.03)

.05* (.03)

.04* (.02)

.09*(.04)

Underclass,g 0,2

-.02 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

-.01 (.02)

-.01 (.02)

-.01 (.02)

Intact family,g 0,3

-.08* (.02)

-.07* (.02)

-.05* (.02)

-.05* (.02)

-.05*(.02)

Num. of children,g0,4

-.00 (.01)

.00 (.01)

-.00 (.01)

-.00 (.00)

-.00 (.00)

Male,g 0,5

.04* (.02)

.03* (.02)

.01 (.02)

.01 (.02)

.01 (.02)

White,g 0,6

.08* (.02)

.08* (.02)

.03 (.02)

.04 (.02)

.04 (.02)

Cohort 12,g 0,7

-.06 (.38)

-.07 (.38)

-.07 (.37)

-.05 (.37)

-.06 (.37)

Cohort 13,g 0,8

-.04 (.34)

-.04 (.34)

-.04 (.34)

-.02 (.34)

-.02 (.34)

Cohort 14,g 0,9

.01 (.34)

.01 (.33)

.03 (.33)

.05 (.33)

.05 (.33)

Cohort 15,g 0,10

.05 (.34)

.04 (.33)

.04 (.33)

.06 (.33)

.05 (.33)

Cohort 16,g 0,11

-.00 (.34)

-.01 (.34)

-.03 (.33)

-.01 (.33)

-.01 (.33)

Cohort 17,g 0,12

-.06 (.37)

-.05 (.37)

-.09 (.36)

-.06 (.36)

-.07 (.36)

Age, g1,0

-.01 (.18)

.01 (.18)

-.04 (.17)

-.03 (.17)

-.03 (.17)

Cohort 12,g 1,1

-.02 (.22)

-.02 (.22)

-.02 (.22)

-.02 (.22)

-.02 (.22)

Cohort 13,g 1,2

-.04 (.19)

-.04 (.19)

-.04 (.19)

-.03 (.19)

-.03 (.19)

Cohort 14,g 1,3

-.01 (.18)

-.01 (.18)

-.00 (.18)

.01 (.18)

.01 (.18)

Cohort 15,g 1,4

.09 (.18)

.09 (.18)

.10 (.18)

.12 (.17)

.11 (.17)

Cohort 16,g 1,5

.12 (.19)

.09 (.19)

.14 (.18)

.14 (.18)

.14 (.18)

Cohort 17,g 1,6

.10 (.24)

.10 (.24)

.14 (.24)

.16 (.24)

.16 (.24)

Age2,g 2,0

-.01 (.02)

-.01 (.02)

-.01 (.02)

-.01 (.02)

-.01 (.02)

Cohort 12,g 2,1

-.00 (.03)

-.00 (.03)

-.00 (.03)

-.00 (.03)

-.00 (.03)

Cohort 13,g 2,2

-.02 (.03)

-.01 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

Cohort 14,g 2,3

-.02 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

-.03 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

-.02 (.03)

Cohort 15, 2,4

-.01 (.03)

-.01 (.03)

-.01 (.03)

-.01 (.03)

-.01 (.03)

Cohort 16,g 2,5

-.02 (.04)

-.02 (.04)

-.02 (.04)

-.02 (.04)

-.02 (.04)

Cohort 17,g 2,6

-.01 (.04)

-.01 (.04)

-.01 (.04)

-.01 (.04)

-.01 (.04)

Religiosity,g 3,0

 

-.01* (.00)

 

-.00* (.00)

.00(.00)

Neighbor. disorder,g3,1

 

 

 

 

-.00*(.00)

Age x Religiosity, g 4,0

 

-.00* (.00)

 

-.00* (.00)

-.00*(.00)

Age2 x Religiosity,g 5,0

 

-.00 (.00)

 

-.00 (.00)

-.00(.00)

Family bonding,g 6,0

 

 

.00 (.00)

.00 (.00)

.00 (.00)

School bonding,g 7,0

 

 

-.02* (.00)

-.02* (.00)

-.02*(.00)

Drug-using peers, 8,0

 

 

.07* (.01)

.06* (.01)

.06*(.01)

Pro-drug attitude, g9,0

 

 

.08* (.01)

.08* (.01)

.08*(.01)

Random Effect

 

 

 

 

 

Intercept,u0,i

 

 

 

 

 

Variance component

.07

.07

.05

.05

.05

df

1074

1074

1074

1074

1074

2

4684.21

4498.93

3730.72

3736.11

3720.94

p-value

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

Level-1 effect, ri,t

 

 

 

 

 

Variance component

.06

.06

.06

.06

.06

Note. Standard errors of coefficients are presented in parentheses.

* p < .05 (one-tailed test)

 

 


Center for Civic Innovation.

University of Penn.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society
SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
John J. DiIulio, Jr., Founding Director

EMAIL THIS | PRINTER FRIENDLY

WHAT THE PRESS SAID:

Keeping the Faith The Wall Street Journal, August 2, 2000
Faith-based organizations: A promise still untested by Jane Eisner, The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 1, 2000
Uncle Shrub's Cabin Black Church Backers Sing Hosannahs by James Ridgeway, The Village Voice, August 1, 2000
To combat drug use among teens, religion is a proven, powerful tool by Byron R. Johnson The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 30, 2000

SUMMARY:
Dr. Byron Johnsonís important analysis demonstrates that religious commitment among inner city teens dramatically reduces their likelihood to take illegal drugs. In fact, he finds that religious low-income urban teenagers are much less likely to use drugs than non-religious youths living in middle class neighborhoods.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Foreword

Report

Why Neighborhood Conditions Affect Teen Drug Use

Why Individual Religious Commitment Matters

Study Design

Key Study Variables

Analytic Strategy

Summary of Findings

Conclusion

Appendix A: Study Details

Appendix B: Variable Operationalization

Appendix C: Analytic Model

Appendix D: Table 1

Appendix D: Tables 2 & 3

Appendix E: Figures 1-2

Endnotes

About CRRUCS

 


Home | About MI | Scholars | Publications | Books | Links | Contact MI
City Journal | CAU | CCI | CEPE | CLP | CMP | CRD | ECNY
Thank you for visiting us.
To receive a General Information Packet, please email support@manhattan-institute.org
and include your name and address in your e-mail message.
Copyright © 2009 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494