Protecting Youth Against Exposure to Violence: Intersections of Race/Ethnicity, Neighborhood,...

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: [email protected]

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

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://raj.sagepub.com

http://raj.sagepub.com/

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



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)



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




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




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?




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




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.




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).




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




(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).




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




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.




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.




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




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.



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.



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.




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




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




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.



http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/PHDCN/imputations.jsp


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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




Protecting Youth Against Exposure to Violence: Intersections of Race/Ethnicity, Neighborhood,...

Documents

Transcript of Protecting Youth Against Exposure to Violence: Intersections of Race/Ethnicity, Neighborhood,...