Post on 11-May-2023
Article
Protecting Youth AgainstExposure to Violence:Intersections of Race/Ethnicity, Neighborhood,Family, and Friends
Maria Joao Lobo Antunes1,and Eileen M. Ahlin2
AbstractYouths’ exposure to violence (ETV) can have damaging effects especially in relation tothe development of problem behaviors and psychological functioning. The devastatingeffects of exposure have also been found to vary by race and ethnicity. Thoughaffirmative parenting can protect against ETV, researchers have yet to focus on thevalue of assessing different family management strategies and how these parentingpractices may differ by race or ethnicity. Further, there is scant research on the nexusbetween protective family management strategies, peer relationships, and neighbor-hood characteristics, all of which influence ETV. In the current study, we account forthese various contexts and youth covariates of ETV and examine how they worktogether in predicting ETV. Using data from the Project on Human Development inChicago Neighborhoods, we employ hierarchical linear modeling to test the pro-tective effects of various parenting strategies against ETV among African American,Hispanic, and White youth aged 9–19.
Keywordssocialdisorganization,criminological theories, delinquency prevention, race and juvenilejustice, juvenile delinquency, juvenile victimization, Latino/Hispanic Americans, race/ethnicity
1 Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA2 School of Public Affairs, Criminal Justice, Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Maria Joao Lobo Antunes, Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice, Towson
University, Towson, MD, USA.
Email: mantunes@towson.edu
Race and Justice2015, Vol. 5(3) 208-234ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2153368714550879raj.sagepub.com
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Introduction
Community exposure to violence (ETV) moves beyond direct victimization by
including witnessing violence directed against someone else and/or hearing about
someone’s victimization. The short- and long-term implications for youth who expe-
rience ETV in their community are serious. ETV can impact mental health status
(Fowler, Tompsett, Braciszewski, Jacques-Tiura, & Baltes, 2009; Zona & Milan,
2011), is related to externalizing behaviors (Cooley-Quille, Turner, & Beidel,
1995), as well as internalizing behaviors such as anxiety (Hurt, Malmud, Brodsky,
& Giannetta, 2001) and depression (Fitzpatrick, Piko, Wright, & LaGory, 2005).
Higher rates of ETV are also associated with an external locus of control, indicating
youth experiencing ETV perceive themselves to have limited control over their envi-
ronment and the events that occur there (Farver, Ghosh, & Garcia, 2000). Experien-
cing violence in one’s neighborhood also leads to increased distrust of police (Farver
et al., 2000) and can contribute to a youth’s own involvement in violent and aggressive
behaviors (Brady, Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2008; Flannery, Singer, & Wester,
2003; Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Spano, Rivera, & Bolland, 2006).
The higher prevalence of ETV among racial and ethnic minorities has been
extensively detailed in the literature. Using the Project on Human Development in
Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) data, Zimmerman and Messner (2013) determined
that, compared to Whites, the risk of ETV was significantly higher among African
American and Hispanic youth. Moreover, scholars have explored the relationship
between race and ethnicity and types of ETV (e.g., direct victimization and witnessing
violence perpetrated against someone else) finding for example, that African Amer-
icans and Hispanics are more likely to witness acts of violence than Whites (Crouch,
Hanson, Saunders, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 2000; Gibson, Morris, & Beaver, 2009;
Gladstein, Rusonis, & Heald, 1992; Martin, Gordon, & Kupersmidt, 1995) and that
African Americans experience the highest rate of direct victimization from violent
crime (Truman, Langton, & Planty, 2013). The repercussions of experiencing vio-
lence are strongly felt by minorities who in general have higher levels of overall
psychological distress than White youth exposed to community violence (McGruder-
Johnson, Davidson, Gleaves, Stock, & Finch, 2000). Moreover, African American
youth are more likely than youth in other racial and ethnic groups to experience inter-
nalizing disorders (Chen, 2010) and posttraumatic stress disorder (Duckworth, Hale,
Clair, & Adams, 2000; Norris, 1992).
These racial and ethnic discrepancies of ETV in the community and the deleterious
effects ETV has on minority youth demonstrate that there are significant differences in
the way youth experience violence and suggest there may be variation in how youth
are protected against it. Recent research highlights the role of the family as a pro-
tective factor against ETV and specifically demonstrates the protective effects family
management practices can confer against ETV (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, under review;
Lobo Antunes, 2012). On the other hand, youths’ interactions and association with
their peers can contribute to ETV (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, under review). It is clear
that both family management strategies and peer interactions affect ETV; however, as
Antunes and Ahlin 209
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
we investigate in this study, these factors may operate differently for minority youth.
Before presenting the research questions and hypotheses for the current study, we
examine the extant literature on family management strategies and peer situational
factors—particularly in terms of race and ethnicity—their relationship to ETV, and
how they may influence ETV differently for minority youth.
Family Management Strategies
Family management strategies encompass parenting practices that serve to structure
children’s experience while at home (Eccles, 1992) but also, and more importantly, as
children mature and venture outside the home. Family management includes but also
moves beyond the traditionally used parenting measures of monitoring and discipline
(Eccles et al., 1993; Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, & Sameroff, 1999; Tobler,
Komro, & Maldonado-Molina, 2009). Parents actively seek opportunities that engage
children and youth in productive activities like sports and church groups while pro-
tecting them from the potential harms neighborhoods can harbor. Family management
beyond household walls is especially important in reducing youth ETV in the commu-
nity. Protective practices for when youth are not at home or methods that focus on
keeping the youth away from the neighborhood unsupervised, via rule enforcement
or strict curfews, can have significant consequences for youth behavior and situational
dangers like ETV.
Families matter and how parents choose to manage their children’s time and
protect them from noxious neighborhood environments matters, too. Choices parents
make are shaped by a variety of social, contextual, and even demographic charac-
teristics. In relation to race and ethnicity, the scholarly literature describes various
racial and ethnic variations in parenting practices, particularly in terms of Baumrind’s
general parenting styles. Baumrind (1966) suggests that parents tend to adopt an
authoritative, authoritarian, or indulgent/permissive style of parenting; each with
varying levels of responsiveness to their child’s needs and demandingness for beha-
vioral expectations.1 Compared to White parents, African American and Hispanic
parents are often more authoritarian or restrictive (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman,
Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Furstenberg et al., 1999), while White parents are more
authoritative than any other ethnic group (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992).
Authoritative parents more so than authoritarian parents tend to be high in respon-
siveness to their children while also using logic and reason to communicate standards
for expected behaviors. Additionally, studies suggest that African American, Latino,
and White parents socialize their children differently (Perez & Fox, 2008; Spencer &
Dornbusch, 1990; Steinberg et al., 1992). African American parents are more likely
than White parents to underscore the importance of educational achievement, religion,
and preparedness for hardship (Pagano, Hirsch, Deutsch, & McAdams, 2003), while
Asian parents rely more on a teaching style (Chao & Kim, 2000).
Although there is some evidence to illustrate racial and ethnic differences in family
management (Furstenberg et al., 1999; Lobo Antunes, 2012), this relationship is not
fully understood. Further, if there are racial and ethnic differences in family
210 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
management strategies, these strategies may also have differential protective effects
for minority youth compared to Whites, especially when it comes to ETV. Under-
standing these differences, as well as the impact family management can have in
attenuating ETV, while also taking into account situational factors that may amplify
the likelihood a youth will experience violence in the neighborhood, provides more
tools with which to tackle the negative outcomes of ETV.
Peer Situational Factors
ETV in the neighborhood occurs because of a confluence of situational events that
lead to violence. Parental choices of both family management strategies and neigh-
borhood context contribute to exposure to community violence (Gardner & Brooks-
Gunn, 2008, 2009; Gardner, Roth, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009); however, there are also
more proximal factors such as peer deviance and unstructured socializing that can fur-
ther promote ETV (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, under review; Lobo Antunes, 2012). Just
as the relevance of parenting has been discussed throughout the criminological liter-
ature, so has the role of peer deviance (Akers, 1998; Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg,
1989; Kirk, 2006; Maimon & Browning, 2010; Osgood & Anderson, 2004; Osgood,
Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Parenting
practices and peer deviance are inextricably linked. Time spent away from home,
beyond the direct parental supervision that can keep youth from engaging in delin-
quent behaviors, means youth are freer to explore the neighborhood and form peer
relationships with other children and youth in their community.
Family management practices focused on limiting exposure to the neighborhood
and targeting peer friendships allow caregivers to keep track of with whom youth are
spending time. These protective strategies can limit opportunities for associating with
deviant peers. When parents act as gatekeepers to the neighborhood and peer rela-
tionships, they are, to an extent, minimizing the damaging effects peer interactions can
potentially have, especially when living in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Brody et al.,
2001). The context in which parenting practices are exercised as well as interactions
youth have with their peers, particularly deviant peers, can vary by race and ethnicity,
which in turn also impacts ETV in the neighborhood. For example, according to
Haynie and Payne (2006), African American youth have significantly more violent
peers than youth of other races or ethnicities (see also Browning, Leventhal, &
Brooks-Gunn, 2004), while Hispanic and White youth are similar in terms of peer
deviance.
Recent discussions on the role of peers, however, have moved beyond association
with peer deviants as the usual suspect and have looked toward the role of opportunity
and routine activities to explain how peers may negatively influence children and
teens. Earlier work by Osgood, Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, and Johnston (1996), for
example, suggests that instances of unstructured socializing with peers can lead to
increased delinquency particularly when adequate supervision is not in place.
Unstructured socializing with peers tends to take place, if not in the absence of, at the
very least under conditions of limited parental supervision and monitoring (Osgood
Antunes and Ahlin 211
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
et al., 1996; Maimon & Browning, 2010). Youth who engage in these activities are
more likely to find themselves in contexts and situations that are criminogenic and
therefore they are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors, as found by Haynie and
Osgood (2005). Similarly, Maimon and Browning (2010) more recently posited that
neighborhood characteristics affect unstructured socializing which in turn impacts
youth engagement in violent behavior. The authors submit that parents in neighbor-
hoods where disadvantage is pervasive are more likely to increase monitoring and
supervision which in turn leads to less unstructured socializing. It is interesting,
however, that scholars failed to find significant racial or ethnic differences in
unstructured socializing. Compared to Whites, minority youth are just as likely to
engage in peer associations that lacked a clear purpose or goal (Maimon & Browning,
2010; Osgood & Anderson, 2004).
Factors other than race and ethnicity may explain varying levels of unstructured
socializing. For example, parents in more affluent neighborhoods are more likely to
resort to less restrictive parenting methods that grant children and youth greater access
to their community and more opportunities for situational engagement in unsu-
pervised behaviors with peers. Even though this unstructured socialization with one’s
peers may influence ETV, the relationship between ETV and unsupervised peer
interactions has not yet been directly tested for ETV experienced by youth firsthand,
nor has its consequences been fully explored.2 As such, it is also not clear whether
various parenting strategies may influence association with deviant peers and, in turn,
various forms of ETV.
Limiting the amount of time a youth spends in unstructured socializing is an
extension of preventative parenting by reducing the amount of indiscriminate time a
youth spends with peers. If protective parenting serves as a buffer for children living in
disadvantaged communities, by restricting exposure to negative peer influences, then
inadequate parenting should encourage the opposite by enabling these associations to
take place. Ineffective family management characterized by parents’ failure to
monitor and discipline their children, to set limits on peers’ interactions, and reduce
exposure to the neighborhood can have adverse consequences for children. Parents’
knowledge of their children’s whereabouts and acquaintance with their friends can serve
to reduce the risk of problem behavior (Lahey, Van Hulle, D’Onofrio, Rodgers, &
Waldman, 2008). The value and importance of these peer situational variables in
explaining child behavior and more importantly the context in which ETV can occur,
therefore, should not be overlooked. Understanding the family and neighborhood context
in which peer deviance and unstructured socializing negatively influence behavior
among youth further contributes to our understanding of the complex mechanisms at
play between neighborhood, family, friends, and youth ETV in the community.
The Current Study
The review of literature on family management strategies and peer situational factors
establishes the relationships between each of these constructs and ETV; however,
there is a paucity of research detailing how these factors work together to explain ETV
212 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
in a multileveled framework. Further, scholars have not yet fully explored whether
race and ethnicity play a significant role in the adoption of particular family man-
agement strategies. The current study addresses these gaps in the literature by
employing a hierarchical framework to examine how neighborhood context, family
management strategies, peer situational factors, and individual characteristics,
including race and ethnicity, influence youth ETV in the neighborhood. By unco-
vering the parental management strategies that help explain the racial and ethnic
differences in ETV, we may also establish a foundation upon which future research
can grow and focus efforts on developing programs to help parents learn effective
mechanisms to provide better protection against the deleterious consequences of ETV.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
We posit that family management practices, in conjunction with peer situational
measures of ETV, can help to clarify the racial and ethnic differences in neighborhood
ETV. Our primary focus is investigating the protective effects certain parenting
strategies may have, and we expect that parents’ use of these parenting practices and
peer situational factors experienced by youth will vary by race and ethnicity and will
consequently have differential protective influences against ETV. Therefore, we
propose 4 research questions and 10 related hypotheses to explore the relationship
between race and ethnicity, family management strategies, peer situational measures,
and ETV in the neighborhood.
Research Question 1: What are the relationships between neighborhood
structural characteristics and different family management practices?
In the first research question, we examine whether neighborhood context affects
family management decisions made by primary caregivers and whether these relation-
ships are different across racial and ethnic groups. There is evidence to suggest that
parents living in disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to resort to protective
or restrictive practices (Elliott et al., 2006; Furstenberg et al., 1999). Lobo Antunes
(2012) found clear differences in parenting across neighborhoods with varying levels
of disorder and disadvantage. Therefore, we believe that primary caregivers living in
disadvantaged neighborhoods will be more likely to adopt protective family manage-
ment strategies (Hypothesis 1). Minorities are more likely to reside in neighborhoods
with higher levels of concentrated disadvantage, immigrants, and residential instabil-
ity (see Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), and there has been some evidence to
suggest that family management strategies, in particular protective practices, vary by
neighborhood (Lobo Antunes, 2012). We, therefore, anticipate there will be racial and
ethnic differences in the use of family management strategies and argue that African
American and Hispanic primary caregivers will be more likely than Whites to use pro-
tective family management strategies (Hypothesis 2).
Research Question 2: How do family management practices affect youth ETV?
Antunes and Ahlin 213
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
In our second research question, we explore how different parenting practices
affect youth ETV. Here, we also test the relationship between race and ethnicity and
ETV to determine whether minority youth are at greater risk of ETV than Whites.
Based on the literature, we expect that minority youth will experience more exposure
to community violence (Hypothesis 3). We also assess whether race and ethnicity
shape the relationship between family management practices and youth ETV. In
essence, race and ethnicity are believed to be moderators of this relationship, such that
they will impact ‘‘the direction and or strength of the relation between an independent
or predictor variable [family management] and a dependent or criterion variable
[ETV]’’ (Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. 1174). The literature suggests that minorities expe-
rience detrimental outcomes associated with ETV at a disproportionately higher rate
than Whites. Therefore, we posit that African American and Hispanic youth experiencing
more permissive family management strategies will be exposed to more violence than
White youth whose parents use similar family management strategies (Hypothesis 4).
Research Question 3: What role do situational factors of ETV play in the
relationship between race and ethnicity and youth ETV?
The third research question addresses the role of peer deviance and unstructured
socializing on youth ETV and examines whether race and ethnicity influence the rela-
tionship between these peer measures and ETV. We first test the assertion that African
American and Hispanic youth are more likely than Whites to associate with deviant
peers (Hypothesis 5), in addition to the moderating effect of race and ethnicity on the
relationship between deviant peers and ETV (Hypothesis 6). Second, we evaluate the
hypothesis that African American and Hispanic youth are more likely to engage in
unstructured socializing (Hypothesis 7) and examine whether race and ethnicity mod-
erate the relationship between unstructured socializing and ETV (Hypothesis 8).
Research Question 4: How do neighborhood structural characteristics affect
youth ETV in the neighborhood and what effects remain, if any, after family
management, peer situational measures, and youth race and ethnicity are
incorporated into the model?
We expect that youth in disadvantaged neighborhoods will experience greater ETV
in the community (Hypothesis 9). However, we contend that individual-level predic-
tors of youth ETV will have a stronger impact on ETV than neighborhood structural
characteristics (Hypothesis 10).
Data
To address the research questions and test the associated hypotheses, we use the
PHDCN data. The PHDCN encompasses a community survey (CS) of 8,782 adults
living in 343 Chicago neighborhoods between 1994 and 1995 and a three-wave long-
itudinal cohort study (LCS) of children and youth and their primary caregivers resid-
ing in 80 of the 343 neighborhood clusters participating in the CS. The CS collected
214 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
information on the conditions, composition, and relationships between residents of the
neighborhoods. The LCS is an accelerated longitudinal study of human development
of youth in cohorts corresponding to their age during Wave 1: 0 (birth), 3, 6, 9, 12, 15,
and 18. Data were collected during three time periods: 1994–1997 (Wave 1), 1997–
1999 (Wave 2), and 2000–2001 (Wave 3). The current study uses data from 78 of the
80 neighborhood clusters in the CS and the first two waves of the LCS for Cohorts 9,
12, and 15 to predict ETV at Wave 3. In the next section, we outline the variables used
to answer the research questions.
Measures
ETV
ETV was measured at Wave 3 using data from the My Exposure to Violence survey
(Buka, Selner-O’Hagan, Kindlon, & Earls, 1997; Selner-O’Hagan, Kindlon, Buka,
Raudenbush, & Earls, 1998). Youth in the LCS were asked to report on their
experiences with direct victimization and witnessing violence directed against
someone else in various locations, including the community, school, and their home.
These questions included whether the youth or someone else had been chased, hit,
attacked, shot or shot at, sexually assaulted, and witnessed someone being killed. We
created a variety score of past year ETV in the neighborhood where binary yes/no
responses were totaled (see Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). The scale reliability (a)
is equal to .73 and a higher score on the scale is synonymous with higher levels of
ETV. The count data follow a Poisson distribution with a mean of .99 and a standard
deviation of 1.54 (Table 1). Approximately 15% of the sample experienced at least
one instance of violence and over 40% witnessed someone else being victimized.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Variable N Minimum Maximum M SD
Exposure to violence 1,491 0.00 8.00 0.99 1.54Restrictiveness 1,518 0.00 1.00 0.57 0.49Supervision 1,596 1.00 16.00 13.94 2.12Discipline 1,588 0.00 3.08 0.54 0.52Knowledge of peers 1,511 0.00 1.00 0.62 0.48Youth activity involvement 1,592 0.00 5.00 1.99 1.34Peer deviance 1,601 0.00 28.00 7.77 4.73Unstructured socializing 1,591 �2.68 2.49 0.001 1.00White 1,611 0.00 1.00 0.15 0.36Hispanic 1,611 0.00 1.00 0.46 0.50African American 1,611 0.00 1.00 0.34 0.47Cohort 1,611 9 15 11.93 2.45Male 1,611 0 1 0.49 0.50Family SES 1,601 �2.03 2.51 0.00 1.00
Note. SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
Antunes and Ahlin 215
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Family Management Strategies
We examine five family management strategies that have been shown to influence
ETV (Lobo Antunes, 2012) and reduce youth involvement in violent behaviors (Lobo
Antunes & Ahlin, 2014). These five family management strategies are restrictiveness,
supervision, harsh discipline, knows peers, and youth activity involvement. The
variables represent strategies applied outside of the home (restrictiveness, familiarity
with child’s peers, and youth activity involvement) and within the home (supervision
and harsh discipline).
Restrictiveness is a dichotomous variable (0/1) measuring if primary caregivers
permit their children to spend time unsupervised in the neighborhood. Data were
collected at Wave 2. Parents who do not allow their children to spend time in the
neighborhood are categorized as restrictive and are represented by a 1, while a 0
indicates that the primary caregiver permits the child to spend time in the neighbor-
hood unsupervised. Approximately 57% of parents and primary caregivers reported
not allowing their children to spend time unsupervised in the neighborhood (Table 1).
The supervision variable is composed of 16 dichotomous items obtained from the
Home Observation Survey at Wave 1. The survey items include questions such as
establishing a regular schedule, having supervision for the children after school, and
monitoring of homework and were combined to create a scale of supervision provided
in the home (a ¼ .63). In general, parents and caregivers reported high levels of
supervision (Table 1) that resulted in a somewhat skewed distribution. In order to
avoid errors in interpreting the results and confirming the hypotheses, we use robust
standard errors.
Harsh discipline was derived from the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979)
administered at Wave 1. Questions on the CTS assess parent-to-child violence (Straus
& Hamby, 1997) by asking parents and caregivers ‘‘in the past year when there was a
problem with **** . . . how many times did you . . . ’’ where options ranged from
insult or swear at to beat up. The response categories were collapsed with respect
to the higher levels of harsh disciplining, so that the final variable was less skewed
(a ¼ .78; see Lobo Antunes & Ahlin, 2014). On average, parents and caregivers
reported only .54 instances of harsh discipline in the past 12 months (Table 1).
Knows peers is a dichotomous variable measuring whether the primary caregiver
knew his or her child’s friends by name and sight. The categories were collapsed such
that the all or most category was coded as 1 and the about half, few, and none cate-
gories were recoded as 0. Data were collected at Wave 2 and approximately 62% of
parents and caregivers reported knowing all or most of their child’s friends by name
and sight (Table 1).
Youth activity involvement is also a variety score totaling the number of activities
the child was involved in over the past 12 months (a¼ .64). The data were collected at
Wave 2 using the School Interview (see Fauth, Roth, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007; Gardner
et al., 2009) and activities included different extracurricular pursuits such as sports,
cheerleading, and arts. The number of activities is summed for each participant and
on average, youth engaged in close to two activities in the past 12 months (Table 1).
216 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Peer Situational Factors
Peer situational factors can influence ETV in the community by providing opportu-
nities and routine activities that may increase encounters with violent situations. We
include two variables, peer deviance and unstructured socializing, to examine the
influence of peers on youth ETV in the community.
Peer deviance was derived from the Deviance of Peers survey. A summative scale
was created from responses to eight questions collected at Wave 1 (a ¼ .85). These
questions asked youth about their peers and how many of those peers were involved in
deviant behaviors such as getting into trouble at school, damaging property, using
marijuana, and stealing items worth more than $5 but less than $500.
Responses to the individual questions were coded as 0 ¼ none, 1 ¼ some, and
2 ¼ all. The mean is 7.77 and standard deviation is 4.73 (Table 1).
Unstructured socializing data were collected at Wave 2 using the Routine Activities
instrument (see Maimon & Browning, 2010). Youth were asked to respond to a series
of scenarios about their interactions with peers in informal settings (e.g., riding in cars
for fun, hanging out with friends, and going to parties). A summative scale was created
from responses to the Likert-type questions and was standardized (a ¼ .67).
Youth Characteristics
Measures of youth characteristics are derived from the Wave 1 Master and Demo-
graphic File and intend to capture whether there are differences in family manage-
ment strategies across racial and ethnic categories as well as the traditional control
variables. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Race/Ethnicity is illu-
strated by three binary variables used to distinguish between African American,
Hispanic, and White youth. During the analyses, the referent category is White.
Gender is a dichotomous measure, whereby male participants were attributed a 1
and females a 0. We also include a measure of Cohort membership and do so for two
main reasons. First, some studies suggest parenting practices can change from one
developmental stage to another (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Cohort 9 represents
middle-to-late childhood, Cohort 12 depicts early adolescence, and Cohort 15 portrays
late adolescence. Second, there are distinct cohort differences in ETV as well as family
management practices, thus in order to account for cohort variations, we incorporate three
binary measures of cohort, using Cohort 9 as the referent category because ETV
increases with age and youth in Cohort 9 are the youngest of the participants in the study.
Family socioeconomic status (SES) is a composite scale provided in the Wave 1 Master
File of the PHDCN data and is the standardized principal component of the primary care-
givers’ maximum education, household income, and socioeconomic index variables.3
Neighborhood Structural Characteristics
Three community-level measures are constructed using information provided by the
CS and additional data from the 1990 Census. Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls
Antunes and Ahlin 217
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(1997) employed factor analysis with oblique rotation to create three indicators of
neighborhood structural characteristics. Concentrated disadvantage is a composite
variable consisting of the following measures: percentage of residents who were
below the poverty line, on public assistance, unemployed, less than 18 years of age,
and African American. Immigrant concentration was measured as the percentage of
Latino and foreign-born residents. Residential stability is measured as the percentage
of residents who had lived in the same house since 1985 and percentage of owner-
occupied homes. Table 2 presents information about each of these neighborhood
structural characteristics along with the factor loadings of each component. The vari-
ables in the index were standardized during factor analysis.
Analytic Plan
The 1,490 youth in the current study are nested in 78 neighborhood clusters. This
grouping of youth necessitates the exploration of multilevel modeling for data anal-
ysis. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is one method of multilevel analysis and our
choice to employ HLM is based on statistical, empirical, and theoretical grounds
(Luke, 2004). Because of their common environment, individuals will likely share
some characteristics with others who also live in their neighborhood cluster and this
lack of independence in observations can affect the standard errors in statistical
models. These correlated error terms violate the assumptions of ordinary least squares
regression and must be accounted for statistically; HLM can account for these simi-
larities in standard errors (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). This statistical justification is
adequate for employing HLM in the analyses; however, we first empirically tested the
variability of ETV and the family management strategies in the 78 neighborhood
clusters to determine whether differences were evident. The results of the fully
Table 2. Neighborhood Structural Characteristics.
Variable Factor loadings
Concentrated disadvantageBelow poverty line 0.93On public assistance 0.94Female-headed households 0.93Unemployed 0.86Less than age 18 0.94African American 0.60
Immigrant concentrationLatino 0.88Foreign born 0.70
Residential stabilitySame house as in 1985 0.77Owner-occupied house 0.70
Source. Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997).
218 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
unconditional models show that ETV in the neighborhood as well as the family man-
agement strategies significantly vary across the neighborhood clusters (see Figure 1)
and therefore support the use of HLM to examine the research questions.
Research Question 1 is assessed with a series of simple random intercept models with
the various family management practices as the outcome variable of interest. In order to
examine the effects of family management on youth ETV (Research Question 2), we run
two random intercepts models. Model 1 incorporates the family management practices
and Model 2 includes the race and ethnicity variables. Exploring the relationship
between the situational factors, race and ethnicity, and ETV required several models
(Research Question 3). Models 3 and 4 illustrate the relationship between peer deviance
and ETV, controlling for race and ethnicity. Similarly, Models 5 and 6 look at how
unstructured socializing influences ETV while also controlling for race and ethnicity.
The overall relationship between the situational factors and ETV is analyzed in Model 7.
Our final research question (Research Question 4) is also evaluated in a series of models
that build upon each other. Model 8 is the direct assessment of neighborhood charac-
teristics on youth ETV. The family management practices are added to Model 9, so that
the multilevel effects between neighborhood and family can be examined. The situa-
tional factors are incorporated into Model 10. The last two models analyze the role of
race and ethnicity and other demographic characteristics.
Results
The first research question addresses the relationship of three neighborhood structural
characteristics (concentrated disadvantage, immigrant concentration, and residential
stability) and the family management strategies of interest (restrictiveness, super-
vision, harsh discipline, knows peers, and youth activity involvement). Table 3 depicts
how these neighborhood contexts influence family management. Across the board,
immigrant concentration is the most consistent predictor of family management
practices, albeit not always in the manner predicted by Hypothesis 1. Parents living in
communities with higher concentrations of Latinos and foreign-born immigrants are
53%4 more likely to restrict their children (b ¼ .421; p < .001) by limiting their con-
tact with the neighborhood. Similarly, yet more modestly, a standard deviation
increase in concentrated disadvantage results in a 14% increased likelihood that par-
ents will curtail youths’ unsupervised time in the community (b ¼ .128; p < .100).
However, whether residents own their home or have been living at the same address
for more than 5 years was not predictive of restrictiveness.
Three of the most striking results to emerge in relation to neighborhood context and
family management is the negative relationship between higher concentrations of
immigrants in a neighborhood and supervision (b ¼ �.309; p < .001), whether the
primary caregiver knows their child’s peers by name and sight (b ¼ �.251; p < .01),
and whether the child is involved in activities outside the home (b¼�.213, p < .001).
These results suggest, contrary to our first hypothesis, that parents in neighborhoods
with higher concentrations of immigrants are less likely to know their children’s
friends and provide less in-home supervision and fewer opportunities for youth activity
Antunes and Ahlin 219
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.00
13.50
14.00
14.50
15.00
15.50
16.00
16.50
Mea
n L
evel
of
Sup
ervi
sion
.15
.35
.55
.75
.95
1.15
1.35
1.55
Mea
n L
evel
of
Har
sh D
isci
plin
e
.20
.30
.40
.50
.60
.70
.80
.90
1.00
1.10
Mea
n L
evel
of
Kn
ows
Pee
rs1.10
1.60
2.10
2.60
3.10
3.60
4.10
Mea
n L
evel
of
You
th A
ctiv
ity
Invo
lvem
ent
.00
.20
.40
.60
.80
1.00
1.20
Mea
n L
evel
of
Res
tric
tive
nes
s
0 =
0.25
7, p
< 0
.001
0 =
0.28
9, p
< 0
.001
0 =
0.02
1, p
< 0
.01
0 =
0.35
3, p
< 0
.001
0 =
0.06
2, p
< 0
.001
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Mea
n E
xpos
ure
to
Com
mu
nit
y V
iole
nce
0 =
0.14
7, p
< 0
.001
Fig
ure
1.
Var
iabili
tyofex
posu
reto
viole
nce
(ET
V)
and
fam
ilym
anag
emen
tac
ross
nei
ghborh
ood
clust
ers.
220 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le3.
Influ
ence
ofN
eigh
borh
ood
Char
acte
rist
ics
and
Rac
e,Eth
nic
ity
on
Fam
ilyM
anag
emen
tSt
rate
gies
.
Fam
ilym
anag
emen
tst
rate
gies
Res
tric
tive
nes
sSu
per
visi
on
Dis
ciplin
eK
now
spee
rsY
outh
activi
tyin
volv
emen
t
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
b(S
E)
Inte
rcep
t0.2
38**
*
(0.0
68)
0.2
6
(0.0
64)
14.0
28**
*
(0.0
78)
14.0
27**
*
(0.0
76)
�.0
607**
*
(0.0
3)
�0.6
13**
*
(0.0
3)
0.6
01**
*
(0.0
69)
0.6
00**
*
(0.0
66)
2.0
14**
*
(0.0
35)
2.0
02**
*
(0.0
34)
Conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge0.1
27y
(0.0
76)
0.1
47y
(0.0
85)
0.0
59
(0.0
82)
�0.0
57
(0.0
84)
0.0
33
(0.0
24)
�0.0
1
(0.0
28)
�0.2
51**
(0.0
89)
�0.1
48
(0.0
86)
0.0
9y
(0.0
49)
0.0
48
(0.0
56)
Imm
igra
nt
conce
ntr
atio
n0.4
21**
*
(0.0
59)
0.1
89**
(0.0
74)
�0.3
09**
*
(0.0
69)
�0.1
96*
(0.0
84)
�0.0
97**
*
(0.0
28)
�0.0
29
(0.0
34)
�0.3
75**
*
(0.0
66)
�0.2
81**
*
(0.0
73)
�0.2
13**
*
(0.0
4)
�0.0
63
(0.0
47)
Stab
ility
0.0
12
(0.0
67)
0.0
3
(.065)
�0.0
66
(0.0
69)
�0.0
97
(0.0
7)
�0.0
31
(0.0
33)
�0.0
45
(0.0
31)
�0.1
05
(0.0
75)
0.1
22y
(0.0
72)
0.0
16
(0.0
42)
�0.0
03
(0.0
44)
His
pan
ic0.8
6**
*
(0.1
75)
0.1
13
(0.1
76)
�0.0
61*
(0.0
94)
�0.9
43**
*
(.228)
�0.3
82**
*
(0.0
87)
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an0.1
04
(0.2
27)
0.5
93**
*
(0.1
78)
0.2
01
(0.1
02)
�0.7
48**
*
(0.2
17)
0.1
44
(0.1
16)
Ran
dom
effe
cts
Var
iance
(u0)
.119**
.073*
.192**
*.1
88**
*.0
15*
.012*
.156**
*.1
06*
.006
.006
w2114.9
61
96.2
92
142.4
98
140.4
51
102.0
91
94.9
90
120.6
78
101.5
05
85.5
42
84.3
26
y p<
.10.*p
<.0
5.**
p<
.01.**
*p<
.001.
221 by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
involvement. This negative association is also seen between concentrated disadvantage
and whether parents are familiar with their children’s peers. For each standard deviation
increase in concentrated disadvantage, parents were 25% less likely to know their chil-
dren’s friends by name or sight (b ¼ �.251, p < .01). Interestingly, after incorporating
the neighborhood characteristics in the analyses, mean youth activity involvement no
longer varied across the 78 neighborhood clusters. This means that differences in par-
ticipation in youth activity across the neighborhoods are explained by differences in the
neighborhood characteristics. These findings lend partial support to our first hypothesis
and demonstrate that primary caregivers living in problem neighborhoods are more
likely to adopt at least a few protective family management strategies.
Some differences were revealed upon adding the binary variables for race and eth-
nicity, which lend some support to Hypothesis 2 (Table 3). Hispanic parents are more
inclined than White or African American parents to prohibit their children from spending
time unsupervised in the neighborhood (b¼ .860, p < .001). In essence, Hispanic parents
are over 2 times more likely than other parents to restrict their children. These youth also
experience fewer instances of harsh disciplining (b¼�.061, p < .05), do not participate in
as many activities (b ¼ �.382, p < .001), and their parents are less likely to know their
friends (b ¼ �.943, p < .001). Other racial and ethnic differences emerge as Table 3
clearly illustrates, particularly with respect to African American youth and supervision
and peer familiarity. African American children are subjected to more in-home super-
vision than their White counterparts (b¼ .593, p < .001), but like Hispanic youth, African
American youth have parents who do not know their friends by name or sight (b¼�.748,
p < .001). What is particularly revealing about these results is the decrease in the
restrictiveness coefficient from one model to the next. A similar change is apparent for
harsh discipline and supervision which suggests some support for Hypothesis 2 and
demonstrates clear racial and ethnic differences in family management.
Table 4. Family Management Strategies, Race/Ethnicity, and Exposure to Violence.
Model 1 Model 2
b (SE) ERR b (SE) ERR
Intercept �0.091 (0.063) 0.912 �0.094 (0.06) 0.909Restrictiveness �0.294*** (0.079) 0.745 �0.282*** (0.084) 0.754Supervision �0.008 (0.019) 0.991 �0.019 (0.019) 0.98Discipline 0.170** (0.069) 1.185 0.140* (0.068) 1.151Knowledge of peers �0.051 (0.075) 0.949 �0.02 (0.078) 0.979Youth activity involvement 0.056y (0.031) 1.058 0.046 (0.031) 1.048Hispanic 0.258 (0.16) 1.294African American 0.577*** (0.153) 1.782Random effects
Variance .147*** .101***w2 180.921 142.739
Note. ERR ¼ event rate ratio.yp < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
222 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Turning now to the second research question, we examine the relationship between
family management strategies and ETV, controlling for race and ethnicity. Here, we
observe some significant influences of family management on ETV. It is apparent
from Table 4, that three of the five family management strategies are significant
predictors of ETV. Increased restrictiveness is associated with less ETV (b ¼ �.294;
p < .001), while harsh discipline (b ¼ .170; p < .010) and youth activity involvement
(b ¼ .057; p < .10) increase youth ETV in the community. More specifically, youth
with parents who curtail their access to the neighborhood experience 25% fewer
instances of violence in the community. Harsh discipline, on the other hand, is a risk
factor for ETV as each unit increase in this family management strategy is associated
with a 19% increase in witnessing or experiencing violence in the neighborhood. No
protective effects of supervision or peer familiarity were found.
The results in Table 4 provide partial support for our belief that minority youth are
exposed to more violence in the community (Hypothesis 3). Compared to Whites,
African American youth were significantly more likely to experience ETV (b ¼ .578;
p < .001). Essentially, for African American youth, expected ETV in the community
increased by 78%, compared to Whites or Hispanics. A similar trend is not seen,
however, for Hispanic youth as the results were not statistically significant.
The effects of peer situational factors were examined in Research Question 3. There
were notable racial and ethnic differences in youth association with peer deviants as
well as unstructured socializing (data not shown). Compared to Whites, African
American youth were more likely to have deviant friends (b¼ 1.814, p < .001). Also of
note, Hispanics, compared to Whites, were less likely to participate in unstructured
socializing (b¼�.180, p < .01). These findings support our predictions in Hypotheses 5
and 7, concerning race and ethnicity differences in peer deviance and unstructured
socializing.
The relationships of the peer situational factors, race and ethnicity, and ETV are pre-
sented in Table 5. ETV in the neighborhood was significantly predicted by association
with both deviant peers (b¼�.059, p < .001) and unstructured socializing (b¼ .346, p <
.001). These results suggest that hanging out with peers who engage in deviantbehaviors in
addition to spending time with friends in unstructured activities like going to parties or
joyriding in cars can have a detrimental effect on ETV. When incorporating race, ethnicity,
and other demographics, being African American or Hispanic was still predictive of ETV.
Although we know that African American youth are more likely to have deviant friends
and that Hispanic youth are less likely to engage in unstructured socializing, Table 5 shows
only a marginal decrease in the peer situational factors upon the addition of the race and
ethnicity variables, suggesting a modest moderating effect of race and ethnicity
(Hypotheses 6 and 8).
The multilevel relationship between neighborhood, family management strategies,
and ETV is shown in Table 6. We began by simply examining the effect of community
structural characteristics on youth ETV in the neighborhood. The findings from Model
8 support, in part, Hypothesis 9. Youth living in neighborhoods where concentrated
disadvantage is pervasive experience more ETV (b ¼ .268, p < .001). Surprisingly,
however, youth in neighborhoods characterized by higher residential stability also
Antunes and Ahlin 223
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le5.
Pee
rSi
tuat
ional
Fact
ors
,R
ace/
Eth
nic
ity,
and
Exposu
reto
Vio
lence
.
Model
3M
odel
4M
odel
5M
odel
6M
odel
7
b(S
E)
ER
Rb
(SE)
ER
Rb
(SE)
ER
Rb
(SE)
ER
Rb
(SE)
ER
R
Inte
rcep
t�
.099*
(.058)
0.9
05�
.109*
(.056)
0.8
97�
.119*
(.061)
.888�
.125*
(.058)
0.8
83�
.135*
(.057)
0.8
74
Pee
rdev
iance
.059**
*(.007)
1.0
61
.055**
*(.007)
1.0
57
.044**
*(.006)
1.0
45
Unst
ruct
ure
dso
cial
izin
g.3
46**
*(.040)
1.4
13
.341**
*(.040)
1.4
70
.294**
*(.037)
1.3
42
His
pan
ic.2
35y
(.128)
1.2
65
.313*
(.137)
1.3
68
.301*
(.128)
1.3
52
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an.5
61**
*(.135)
1.7
52
.677
(.151)
1.9
68
.606**
*(.142)
1.8
33
Ran
dom
effe
ctV
aria
nce
.123**
*.0
88**
*.1
41**
*.0
86**
*.0
86**
*w2
170.8
30
139.4
48
186.9
61
139.0
61
141.8
64
Not
e.ER
R¼
even
tra
tera
tio.
y p<
.10.*p
<.0
5.**
p<.0
1.**
*p<
.001.
224 by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le6.
Multile
velR
elat
ionsh
ipBet
wee
nN
eigh
borh
ood,Fa
mily
Man
agem
ent,
and
ET
V.
Model
8M
odel
9M
odel
10
Model
11
Model
12
b(S
E)
ER
Rb
(SE)
ER
Rb
(SE)
ER
Rb
(SE)
ER
Rb
(SE)
ER
R
Inte
rcep
t�
.108*
(.055)
0.8
97
�.1
23*
(.061)
0.8
84�
.167**
(.063)
0.8
46�
.173**
*(.064)
0.8
41�
.206**
(.064)
0.8
13
Conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge.2
68**
*(.059)
1.3
08
.251**
*(.061)
1.2
86
.246**
*(.059)
1.2
78
.185**
(.061)
1.2
03
.141*
(.062)
1.1
52
Imm
igra
nt
conce
ntr
atio
n�
.065
(.051)
0.9
37
�.0
36
(.056)
0.9
64
�.0
24
(.054)
0.9
76
.020
(.056)
1.0
20
.022
(.058)
1.0
23
Res
iden
tial
stab
ility
.084**
(.043)
1.0
87
.098*
(.046)
1.1
03
.069
(.046)
0.1
071
.053
(.048)
1.0
54
.076
(.050)
1.0
79
Res
tric
tive
nes
s�
.293**
*(.082)
0.7
46
�.0
46
(.085)
0.9
55
�.0
44
(.088)
0.9
57
�.0
77
(.090)
0.9
26
Super
visi
on
�.0
15
(.020)
0.9
85
.007
(.022)
1.0
07
.002
(.021)
1.0
02
.001
(.019)
1.0
01
Har
shdis
ciplin
e.1
58*
(.068)
1.1
71
.096
(.074)
1.1
01
.082
(.073)
1.0
85
.060
(.070)
1.0
62
Know
spee
rs�
.036
(.077)
0.9
65
�.0
28
(.071)
0.9
72
�.0
13
(.072)
0.9
87
.011
(.071)
1.0
11
Youth
activi
tyin
volv
emen
t.0
51
(.033)
1.0
52
.036
(.032)
1.0
37
.033
(.031)
1.0
33
.040
(.031)
1.0
41
Unst
ruct
ure
dso
cial
izin
g.3
00**
*(.041)
1.3
49
.301**
*(.040)
1.3
51
.311**
*(.040)
1.3
64
Pee
rdev
iance
.047**
*(.008)
1.0
48
.046**
*(.008)
1.0
47
.048**
*(.008)
1.0
49
His
pan
ic.1
54
(.147)
1.1
67
.094
(.150)
1.0
99
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an.3
68*
(.156)
1.4
45
.374*
(.154)
1.4
54
Mal
e.3
76**
(.086)
1.4
57
Cohort
12
.090
(.090)
1.0
94
Cohort
15
�.1
51
(.109)
0.8
60
Fam
ilySE
S�
.120*
(.050)
0.8
87
Ran
dom
effe
ctV
aria
nce
.084**
*.1
00**
*.0
93**
*.0
93**
*.0
96**
*w2
127.4
75
137.1
79
139.0
86
137.3
94
141.6
40
Not
e.ER
R¼
even
tra
tera
tio;SE
S¼
soci
oec
onom
icst
atus.
y p<
.10.*p
<.0
5.**
p<
.01.**
*p<
.001.
225 by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
experience greater instances of ETV (b¼ .084, p < .01). These relationships hold even
after including the family management strategies in the model, although there is a
slight decrease in magnitude of the coefficients. Of the family management variables,
restrictiveness and discipline continue to exert significant effects on a youth’s ETV in
the neighborhood.
Perhaps the most striking results in Table 6 are the appreciable decreases in the
restrictiveness and harsh discipline coefficients once the peer situational factors were
included in the analyses (Models 10–12). Prior research suggests that family man-
agement influences association with deviant peers and unstructured socializing which
in turn affect ETV (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, under review). Following a mediation
model posited by Baron and Kenny (1986), the current findings are illustrative of this
possible intervening relationship, whereby family management effects operate
through the peer situational factors instead of directly influencing ETV. Of note, is the
tremendous decrease in the restrictiveness coefficient once the race and ethnicity
variables are added to the model. The previous analyses (see Table 3) depicted racial
and ethnic differences across the family management strategies and the inclusion of
the African American and Hispanic variables suggests that the effect of the family
management practices on ETV may be moderated by race and ethnicity, supporting
our final hypothesis (Hypothesis 10). The relationship between race and ethnicity and
ETV persists even after the addition of the other demographic characteristics, of which
only being male and family SES were predictive of ETV in the community. Inter-
estingly, family SES was negatively related to ETV, suggesting that for a standard
deviation increase in family SES, youth expected ETV decreases by 11% suggesting a
protective effect related to economic factors.
Discussion
Many scholars have established that minority youth experience greater exposure to
neighborhood violence than Whites and agree that the negative impact ETV has on
human development differs for African American, Hispanic, and White youth, but
why is this so? Recent research demonstrates the protective effects of various family
management practices against the harmful influences of ETV (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes,
under review), and the current study expands on that finding by illustrating that the use
of these protective family management practices often differ for African American,
Hispanic, and White parents. Just like ETV and its effects, we find that the adoption of
various parenting practices also vary by race and ethnicity. Essentially, curbing
unfettered access to the neighborhood is a practice that is differentially implemented
by parents. Our findings show that, especially with respect to protective parenting,
African American parents appear less restrictive. Perhaps this is due to differences in
the perception of neighborhood conditions. Some research has suggested that resi-
dents become inoculated to the detrimental conditions of the neighborhoods in which
they live and thus do not perceive them as harmful (Taylor & Shumaker, 1990).
Parents who see their neighborhood as safe or perhaps not ‘‘that bad’’ may be less
inclined to engage in preventative parenting, allowing their children more freedom.
226 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
While our findings demonstrate a moderating effect of race and ethnicity on the
relationship between family management strategies and ETV, decisions about family
management style are not merely explained by race or ethnicity. Parents have a variety
of options when making choices about which parenting strategies to employ with their
children, and their selections are influenced by the various contextual environments in
which parents and youth find themselves, regardless of race or ethnicity. In particular,
our results establish that protective parenting strategies, such as increased restric-
tiveness, are more often used by parents living in areas with higher levels of con-
centrated disadvantage, a neighborhood characteristic that predicts increased ETV,
and immigrant concentration. Yet, the protective parenting practices examined here
are not employed uniformly across racial and ethnic lines. Family SES was also
related to a decrease in ETV, a finding that necessitates additional investigation.
Perhaps the promotion of youth talents and skills and their involvement in activities
may require some degree of affluence and the availability of supervision may also rely
on the financial capabilities of the family.
This study suggests that a hierarchical model and multilevel developmental per-
spective might be most appropriate for understanding the relationship between family
management strategies and ETV in the community. A framework incorporating
multiple contexts and levels is supported by developmental theory and research (see
Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Elliott et al., 2006; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989)
and provides a more complete assessment of how the mesosystem contextual influ-
ences (community, family, and peers) surrounding youth contribute to ETV. However,
the individual factors examined in this study should not be overlooked. As noted
earlier, racial and ethnic differences do exist in parenting styles, and the current study
adds support to that body of literature. What is novel in this research, however, is the
decreased influence of two family management strategies (restriction and harsh dis-
cipline) over ETV once peer situational factors are added to the model. How and with
whom youth interact significantly increases their exposure to community violence,
despite the best intentions of parents. Regardless of race or ethnicity, having deviant
peers is associated with an increase in ETV, suggesting that all parents should seek to
know their children’s peers and, more importantly, learn to recognize potentially
detrimental behavior among those peers.
In this study, we found that peer deviance and unstructured socializing mediate the
relationship between family management strategies and ETV. In other words, family
management strategies influence ETV through the peer situational factors (see Baron
& Kenny, 1986). This finding highlights the key role that peer situational factors play
not only in predicting youth behavior, a classic finding of the criminological literature
on peers, but also how parents choose to govern their children. Parents choose stra-
tegies at least in part on the behavior of their child’s peers and the interactions their
child has with other youth. Results indicate that Hispanic parents do not know their
children’s peers as much as White parents. However, because Hispanic youth are not
as likely to have deviant peers and do not engage in unstructured socializing, their
parents may not believe they need to know the child’s peers in order to protect them
against ETV. On the other hand, parents of African American youth should be more
Antunes and Ahlin 227
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
concerned about learning who their children’s peers are because compared to Whites,
African American youth are not only more likely to have deviant peers but also
significantly more likely to experience ETV in the community– a double threat.
Our hypotheses regarding neighborhood context, family management strategies,
peer situational variables, and race and ethnicity related to ETV were partially sup-
ported, but we also uncovered a few unexpected relationships. We anticipated that
deleterious neighborhood structural characteristics would result in more ETV, and for
concentrated disadvantage, this was true. However, the relationship between resi-
dential stability and ETV was surprising. We expected ETV to be lower in stable
neighborhoods, given the literature on social disorganization theory and the impor-
tance of residential stability in fostering collective efficacy and other mechanisms of
informal social control (see Sampson et al., 1997). An increase in ETV in stable
neighborhoods suggests that other neighborhood characteristics may be more
important to ETV. Residential stability was a significant positive predictor of ETV in
some models, but the magnitudes of the coefficients were reduced to insignificant
values once the peer situational factors were incorporated, again, reinforcing the
importance of peer relationships. While, we would expect a negative relationship
between residential stability and ETV, the conditions of the neighborhood and
situational determinants of the family may prohibit mobility, preventing families from
moving to safer areas. On the other hand, living in a neighborhood where there is low
population turnover, means ties between families may be fortified. It could be because
of these ties that parents resort to less protective methods that can then influence a
child’s ETV.
Limitations
This study provides useful information about racial and ethnic differences in ETV and
the use of preventive parenting practices; however, there is much we still do not know
about family management strategies and ETV and how race and ethnicity explain
these two variables. Contrary to our hypotheses, immigrant concentration was related
to a reduction in supervision, whether the parent knows their child’s peers, and youth
activity involvement. These reductions in protective parenting strategies may suggest
there are other factors explaining the relationship between immigrant concentration
and family management. In our study, Hispanic parents were more likely than other
parents to restrict their children from the neighborhood and were less likely to use
harsh discipline, know their child’s peers, or involve their children in extracurricular
activities. The similarities in parenting practices between immigrant concentration
and Hispanic ethnicity suggest a potential relationship between these variables.
Immigration status (e.g., first, second and third generation) may be one explanation of
the types of parenting practices used by Hispanic parents. Recent work by Zimmer-
man and Messner (2013) demonstrates reductions in ETV for second-generation
immigrants compared to first-generation immigrants and differences in parenting stra-
tegies may also be evident along these same lines. However, it is not currently trans-
parent why parents living in neighborhoods with higher levels of concentrated
228 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
disadvantage and more immigrants in general are less likely to use protective parent-
ing practices. Kurlycheck, Krohn, Dong, Penly-Hall, and Lizotte (2012) suggest social
integration plays a key role in protecting youth against various risks in the community,
including violence. Higher levels of immigrant concentration may reduce social
integration, but it is unclear whether this is related to parenting practices and which
family management strategies are chosen by parents living in underprivileged
neighborhoods.
Further, the theoretical explanations for some of the relationships between vari-
ables are not clear. Interestingly, and contrary to some of the underpinnings of after-
school programs, youth activity involvement increased ETV. Based on the literature,
we expected that youth activity involvement would reduce ETV even if only as a
means to reduce idle time and unstructured socializing and increase constructive beha-
vior. However, we do not know with whom the youth are engaging in these activities,
and involvement has repeatedly been established as the least robust component of
social bonding theory (Kempf, 1993), suggesting that youth activity involvement may
not be as important as other parenting mechanisms. Association with deviant peers
was a predictor of ETV and perhaps youth are involved in activities with these peers.
Future research should focus on understanding the relationship between family man-
agement practices and peer situational factors, while also taking into account neigh-
borhood conditions that may shape parental choices. It is important to move
beyond the neighborhood structural characteristics and look at community contexts
like collective efficacy and disorder which can inform parental choices with respect
to family management.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1. In 1983, Maccoby and Martin added ‘‘neglectful’’ or ‘‘uninvolved’’ as a fourth parenting
style.
2. Zimmerman, Messner, and Rees (2014) recently tested the relationship between unstruc-
tured socializing and exposure to violence (ETV). This measure of ETV did not include
direct victimization and included only secondary ETV such as the witnessing or hearing
about violent acts occurring in the community. Furthermore, family management strategies
are brought together into a single measure rather than separating out protective versus pro-
motive parenting practices.
3. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/PHDCN/imputations.jsp
4. % ¼ 100 � [(exp (b � d) � 1], where d ¼ 1.
Antunes and Ahlin 229
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
References
Ahlin, E. M., & Lobo Antunes, M. J. (under review). The role of guardianship in protecting
youth against exposure to violence in the community.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and
deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Devel-
opment, 37, 887–907.
Brady, S. S., Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2008). Adaptive coping reduces
the impact of community violence exposure on violent behavior among African American
and Latino male adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 105–115.
Brody, G. H., Conger, R., Gibbons, F. X., Ge, X., Murry, V. M., Gerrard, M., & Simons, R. L. (2001).
The influence of neighborhood disadvantage, collective socialization, and parenting on African
American children’s affiliation with deviant peers. Child Development, 72, 1231–1246.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1989). Adolescent sexual behavior. American Psy-
chologist, 44, 249–257.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Browning, C. R., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). Neighborhood context and racial
differences in early adolescent sexual activity. Demography, 41, 697–720.
Buka, S. L, Selner-O’Hagan, M. B., Kindlon, D. J., & Earls, F. J. (1997). The ‘‘My Exposure to
Violence Interviews’’; Administration and Scoring Manual, Version 3. Boston, MA: Harvard
School of Public Health.
Chao, R. K., & Kim, K. (2000). Parenting differences among immigrant Chinese fathers and
mothers in the United States. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Studies, 1, 71–91.
Chen, W.-Y. (2010). Exposure to community violence and adolescents’ internalizing behaviors
among African American and Asian American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 39, 403–413.
Cooley-Quille, M. R., Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (1995). Emotional impact of children’s
exposure to community violence: A preliminary study. Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1362–1368.
Crouch, J. L., Hanson, R. F., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Resnick, H. S. (2000).
Income, race/ethnicity, and exposure to violence in youth: Results from the National Survey
of Adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 625–641.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The rela-
tion of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.
Duckworth, M. P., Hale, D. D., Clair, S. D., & Adams, H. E. (2000). Influence of interpersonal
violence and community chaos on stress reactions in children. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 15, 806–826.
Eccles, J. S. (1992). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children’s interests, self-
perceptions and activity choice. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 40, 145–208.
230 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Iver,
D. M. (1993). Development during adolescence. The impact of stage-environment fit on
young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. The American Psychologist,
48, 90–101.
Elliott, D. S., Menard, S., Rankin, B., Elliott, A., Wilson, W. J., & Huizinga, D. (2006). Good
kids from bad neighborhoods: Successful development in social context. Cambridge, Eng-
land: Cambridge University Press.
Farver, J. M., Ghosh, C., & Garcia, C. (2000). Children’s perceptions of their neighborhoods.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 139–163.
Fauth, R. C., Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). Does the neighborhood context alter the
link between youth’s after-school time activities and developmental outcomes? A multilevel
analysis. Developmental Psychology, 43, 760–777.
Fitzpatrick, K. M., Piko, B. F., Wright, D. R., & LaGory, M. (2005). Depressive symptomatol-
ogy, exposure to violence, and the role of social capital among African American adoles-
cents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 262–274.
Flannery, D. J., Singer, M. I., & Wester, K. L. (2003). Violence, coping and mental health in a
community sample of adolescents. Violence and Victims, 18, 403–418.
Fowler, P. J., Tompsett, C. J., Braciszewski, J. M., Jacques-Tiura, A. J., & Baltes, B. B. (2009).
Community violence: A meta-analysis on the effect of exposure and mental health outcomes
of children and adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 227–259.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing
to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Gardner, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). ‘‘Exposure to community violence during childhood
and adolescence: Exploring the role of individual, family, and neighborhood-level factors.’’
St. Louis, MO: American Society of Criminology.
Gardner, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Adolescents’ exposure to community violence: Are
neighborhood youth organizations protective? Journal of Community Psychology, 37,
505–525.
Gardner, M., Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Can after-school programs help level the
academic playing field for disadvantaged youth? Equity Matters: Research Review No. 4.
New York, NY: The Campaign for Educational Equity.
Gibson, C. L., Morris, S. Z., & Beaver, K. M. (2009). Secondary exposure to violence during
childhood and adolescence: Does neighborhood context matter? Justice Quarterly, 26,
30–57.
Gladstein, J., Rusonis, E. J., & Heald, F. P. (1992). A comparison of inner-city and upper-
middle class youths’ exposure to violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13, 275–280.
Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. H. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence and
developmental problems among inner-city youth. Developmental Psychopathology, 10,
101–116.
Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers
matter? Social Forces, 84, 1109–1130.
Haynie, D. L., & Payne, D. C. (2006). Race, friendship networks, and violent delinquency.
Criminology, 44, 775–805.
Antunes and Ahlin 231
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Hurt, H., Malmud, E., Brodsky, N. L., & Giannetta, J. (2001). Exposure to violence: Psycholo-
gical and academic correlates in child witnesses. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Med-
icine, 155, 1351–1356.
Kempf, K. L. (1993). The empirical status of Hirschi’s control theory. In F. Adler & W.S.
Laufer (Eds.), New directions in criminological theory: Advances in criminological theory
(pp. 143–185). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Kirk, D. S. (2006). Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on
inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
22, 107–129.
Kurlycheck, M. C., Krohn, M. D., Dong, B., Penly-Hall, G., & Lizotte, A. J. (2012). Protection
from risk: An exploration of when and how neighborhood-level factors can reduce violent
youth outcomes. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 83–106.
Lahey, B. B., Van Hulle, C. A., D’Onofrio, B. M., Rodgers, J. L., & Waldman, I. D. (2008). Is
parental knowledge of their adolescent offspring’s whereabouts and peer associations spur-
iously associated with offspring delinquency? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36,
807–823.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126,
309–337.
Lobo Antunes, M. J. (2012). A multilevel exploration of neighborhood disorder, family manage-
ment and youth antisocial behavior. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Maryland, College Park.
Lobo Antunes, M. J., & Ahlin, E. M. (2014). Family management and youth violence: Are par-
ents or community more salient? Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 316–337.
Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child
interaction. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1–101). New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Maimon, D., & Browning, C. R. (2010). Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy and youth
violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology, 48, 443–473.
Martin, S. L., Gordon, T. E., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1995). Survey of exposure to violence among
the children of migrant and seasonal farm workers. Public Health Reports, 110, 268–276.
McGruder-Johnson, A. K., Davidson, E. S., Gleaves, D. H., Stock, W., & Finch, J. F. (2000).
Interpersonal violence and posttraumatic symptomology: The effects of ethnicity, gender,
and exposure to violent events. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 205–221.
Norris, F. H. (1992). Epidemiology of trauma: Frequency and impact of different potentially
traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 60, 409–418.
Osgood, D. W., & Anderson, A. L. (2004). Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency.
Criminology, 42, 519–550.
Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996).
Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61,
635–655.
232 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Pagano, M. E., Hirsch, B. J., Deutsch, N. L., & McAdams, D. P. (2003). The transmission of
values to school-age and young adult offspring: Race and gender differences in parenting.
Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 14, 13–36.
Patterson, G. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, R. (1989). A developmental perspective on anti-
social behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335.
Perez, M. E., & Fox, R. A. (2008). Parenting Latino toddlers and preschoolers: Clinical and
nonclinical samples. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30, 481–499.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data
analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A
multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Selner-O’Hagan, M. B., Kindlon, D., Buka, S. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. J. (1998).
Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
and Allied Disciplines, 39, 215–224.
Spano, R., Rivera, C., & Bolland, J. (2006). The impact of timing of exposure to violence on
violent behavior in a high poverty sample of inner city African American youth. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 681–692.
Spencer, M. B., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1990). Challenges in studying minority youth. In S. S. Feld-
man & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 123–146).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent
achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)
scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.
Straus, M. A., & Hamby, S. L. (1997). Measuring physical & psychological maltreatment of
children with the Conflict Tactics Scales. In G. Kaufman Kantor & J. L. Jasinski (Eds.), Out
of darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 119–135). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Taylor, R. B., & Shumaker, S. A. (1990). Local crime as a natural hazard: Implications for
understanding the relationship between disorder and fear of crime. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 18, 619–641.
Tobler, A. L., Komro, K. A., & Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2009). Relationship between neigh-
borhood context, family management practices and alcohol use among urban, multi-ethnic,
young adolescents. Prevention Science, 10, 313–324.
Truman, J., Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2013). Criminal victimization, 2012. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2013). Individual, family background, and contextual
explanations of racial and ethnic disparities in youths’ exposure to violence. American Jour-
nal of Public Health, 103, 435–442.
Zimmerman, G. M., Messner, S. F., & Rees, C. (2014). Incorporating unstructured socializing
into the study of secondary exposure to community violence: Etiological and empirical
implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1802–1833.
Antunes and Ahlin 233
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Zona, K., & Milan, S. (2011). Gender differences in the longitudinal impact of exposure to vio-
lence on mental health in urban youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1674–1690.
Author Biographies
Maria Joao Lobo Antunes is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of
Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice at Towson University. Her teaching
and research interest focus on theories of crime and deviance, macro-level effects and
community corrections. Recent publications can be seen in the Journal of Community
Psychology, Federal Probation and International Journal of Comparative and Applied
Criminal Justice.
Eileen M. Ahlin is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice in the School of Public
Affairs at Penn State Harrisburg. Her teaching and research interests include correc-
tions, criminological theory, neighborhood effects, and research methods. Her
research appears in journals such as Journal of Interpersonal Violence, American Jour-
nal of Evaluation, Journal of Community Psychology, and Federal Probation.
234 Race and Justice 5(3)
by guest on June 11, 2015raj.sagepub.comDownloaded from