Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors

AVB-01086; No of Pages 12 Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors Maria João Lobo Antunes a,⁎, Eileen M. Ahlin b a b

Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252, United States School of Public Affairs, Criminal Justice Program, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 February 2016 Received in revised form 11 October 2016 Accepted 18 January 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Exposure to violence Criminological theory Ecological framework Youth violence Routine activity theory

a b s t r a c t Exposure to community violence (ETV-C) negatively impacts youth development and is associated with many negative outcomes. Although attention has been paid to examining risk and protective factors that promote or reduce ETV-C, many of the studies in this growing body of literature do not place predictive models within a theoretical framework. In this review, we argue that the routine activity theory and lifestyles perspectives (RAT/LS) within an ecological framework is a useful strategy for examining how a series of behaviors and choices enacted by youth in their everyday lives affects their ETV-C. By focusing on the role of target suitability and capable guardianship within the neighborhood, family, peers, and individual levels of the mesosystem, we suggest scholars can examine the relative salience of these various components to determine whether they serve to increase youth's ETV-C or buffer against such experiences. We propose that the RAT/LS perspectives can not only be placed in an ecological framework, but it also provides effective tenets with which to explore ETV-C. © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents 1.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Defining exposure to violence in the community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The need for theoretical perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Rationale and utility of routine activity theory (RAT)/lifestyles (LS) perspectives . . . . 2.1. Relevance of RAT/lifestyles in the study of youth exposure to community violence 2.2. Contextualizing RAT/LS and youth ETV-C: A mesosystem approach . . . . . . . 3. Applying an ecological framework to youth exposure to community violence . . . . . . 3.1. Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Structural characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Collective efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Family and parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Family characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Parenting strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Unstructured socializing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. Peer deviance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Individual characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3. Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4. Personality characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.J.L. Antunes), [email protected] (E.M. Ahlin).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015 1359-1789/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

1. Introduction

1.1. Defining exposure to violence in the community

Violence among youth continues to be a public health problem, and despite a decrease in murder rates in the United States since 1995 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015), assault (including homicide) remains the second leading cause of death among 15- to 24-year olds (Murphy, Xu, & Kochanek, 2012). While such direct violence is undoubtedly detrimental to youth health and psychological well-being, there are also significant risks that plague the large number of youth who witness violence. Further, evidence also indicates that exposure to violence in the community (ETV-C), direct and indirect victimization outside of the home, can have devastating consequences (see Osofsky, Wewers, Hann, & Fick, 1993; Salzinger, Feldman, Stockhammer, & Hood, 2002). Unsurprisingly, the prevalence of ETV-C for 14–17 year olds, particularly among urban minority males (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001), is greater than individual experiences with direct victimization (Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, Hamby, & Kracke, 2015). Dahlberg (1998) identified key risk factors of youth violence (perpetration and victimization), and highlighted components consistent with an ecological framework: neighborhood, family, peers, and individual factors. Scholarly investigation of the multiple facets of ETV-C often embraces an ecological framework by investigating the relevance of a combination of these contexts. However, the application of an ecological model is often piecemeal, as only some, but not all, of the various contextually relevant factors are examined in empirical models. Although there is ample research on ETV-C, including several review articles, a unifying theoretical base is often lacking and there is a paucity of research that has explored the utility of certain theoretical perspectives in explaining youth experiences with neighborhood violence. Oftentimes investigations of ETV-C have included elements of particular theories like the routine activity theory/lifestyles perspective (RAT/LS), theoretical explanations of victimization, but have not specifically tested whether these theories can help explain youth experiences with neighborhood violence. We propose that the RAT/LS perspective can not only be placed within an ecological framework, we also suggest that it provides effective tenets with which to explore ETV-C. The present review covers studies that apply an ecological framework – whether explicit or implicit – to explain the role of context in youth ETV-C, as well as exploring RAT/LS as a theoretical basis for explaining youth ETV-C in multicontextual models. While not a systematic review or meta-analysis of the literature, the current piece proposes a theoretical platform upon which to place investigation into the causes of youth ETV-C. Essentially, this review summarizes research on several mesosystem layers of the ecological framework (neighborhood, family, peers, and the individual) as they pertain to youth ETV-C, and examines the current status of knowledge in this area, in addition to the relevance of RAT/LS theories within these layers. By summarizing the literature on youth ETV-C it is hoped that future studies will broaden their focus and incorporate multiple contexts to explain ETV-C and approach the study of youth ETV-C theoretically. The studies included examining exposure to violence as an outcome variable and focus on children and youth.1

The concept of exposure to violence can have a variety of interpretations and meanings depending on the experience under scrutiny (Guterman, Cameron, & Staller, 2000; Lynch, 2003; van Dulmen, Belliston, Flannery, & Singer, 2008). Exposure to violence in different contexts often results in different outcomes (see Mrug, Loosier, & Windle, 2008; Mrug & Windle, 2010; Slopen, Fitzmaurice, Williams, & Gilman, 2012), elevating the importance of concrete conceptualization. The heterogeneity surrounding the definition of ETV-C deserves attention. What is meant by ETV-C, and how it differs from other forms of violence that may be experienced by youth, is addressed prior to examining the literature on the topic. The definition of ETV-C has certainly varied across research endeavors. Guterman et al. (2000) address issues of definition and include a discussion of what constitutes “community” and “violence”. For the current review, ETV-C includes violent events (for example being shot at, robbed, beaten, threatened, assaulted) experienced in the community, that specifically locates victimization, witnessing, or hearing of such events within this particular context. We move beyond direct victimization and include secondary ETV-C as the witnessing of violence directed against someone else and/or hearing about someone's victimization. In essence, community violence, as studied here, follows definitions used by Selner-O'Hagan and colleagues (Selner-O'Hagan, Kindlon, Buka, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1998), Gardner and Brooks-Gunn (2009), and Gibson, Morris, and Beaver (2009) as violent victimization or violence that occurs in the neighborhood/community as is specifically identified by the youth as having happened within that particular context. We draw from Gibson et al. (2009) to include the “hearing of violence” in the neighborhood as a form of secondary ETV-C. However, contrary to others who have studied ETV-C, we do not include perpetration of violence (Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998) or burglary (Schwartz, HopmeyerGorman, Toblin, & Abou-ezzeddine, 2003). A key element of ETV-C is that it occurs outside of the home. By comparison, other forms of violence such as intimate partner violence, family violence, and child maltreatment are more generally cloistered behind closed doors and less accessible to the public. While these instances of violence are worthy of scientific inquiry, focusing on youth ETV-C is particularly imperative. Neighborhoods are an important factor in shaping youth development, and engagement with the community increases as youth age, become more independent from their families, and form stronger ties with their peers. This increased mobility and exposure to their neighborhood and surrounding communities increases the probability that youth will encounter environments where violence may occur, especially if they lack sufficient guardianship to protect them against ETV-C or have risk factors that inflate their target suitability for such harmful experiences (Jensen & Brownfield, 1986; Miethe & Meier, 1994; Wilcox, Land, & Hunt, 2003). Youth are more likely to experience violence in their community, either as direct victims or by witnessing or hearing about others' victimization, than in their homes (see Finkelhor et al., 2015) thereby elevating the need to focus on risk and protective factors of ETV-C among youth. 1.2. The need for theoretical perspectives

1

We place children and adolescents under the unifying term - youth. Wilson and Rosenthal (2003) suggest such practice may be problematic given developmental differences between preadolescent and adolescent youth. However, unrestricted access to the neighborhood is itself a developmental milestone marking strides in achieving autonomy. Studies that look at ETV-C (Gibson et al. (2009) for example) often use samples that capture differences in access to the community as a way of controlling for developmental differences. We recognize that particular behaviors are certainly the product of developmental pathways (e.g., friendships, unstructured socializing) and that younger children are less likely to be exposed to community violence or have deviant friends. However, the results of survey research suggest that, by the middle years of childhood, “most inner-city children have already had firsthand encounters with serious acts of violence” (Schwartz et al., 2003, p. 39).

While there has been much research devoted to studying the damaging consequences of youth exposure to violence, including community violence, there is also a growing body of literature focusing on ETV-C as an outcome variable though findings regarding what increases or attenuates risk have been mixed (Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Lobo Antunes, 2012). There is substantial depth to the literature on the consequences of youth ETV-C which highlights a multitude of negative outcomes across a variety of contexts. This in-depth focus of ETV-C as a predictor of various dependent variables overshadows the need to examine risk and protective factors that explain ETV-C as an outcome. Some scholars have begun to explore various neighborhood, family,

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

peer, and individual contextual elements as buffers or predictors of youth ETV-C (see Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Gibson et al., 2009; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998), though these studies often focus on only one or two mesosystem variables and lack a cohesive and unified theoretical framework. We propose that the lack of consistent results stems from the dearth of theoretical rationales and frameworks used in examining ETV-C. Furthermore, oftentimes variables used to predict youth victimization and ETV-C are not placed within useful theoretical perspectives which could help clarify processes and explain why some youth, compared to others, are more likely to experience violence in their community. Maybe one of the greater difficulties has been to disentangle context from consequence. The utility of understanding the consequences of ETV-C is undeniable, but in order to better comprehend the phenomena that is exposure to violence outside of the home, especially for youth, it is critical that studies explore in greater breadth and depth the causal mechanisms and pathways that predict ETV-C. Thus, while consequences matter, we need a better grasp of the processes that predict youth experiences with neighborhood violence. By focusing on the relevant risk and protective factors in addition to the application of a theoretical framework, the design and creation of policies and practices that emphasize protective strategies, and in turn minimize risk factors, can contribute to reducing not only risk but also the often-studied harmful effects of ETV-C.

2. Rationale and utility of routine activity theory (RAT)/lifestyles (LS) perspectives The scarcity of studies that have used theory to explain youth ETV-C stems, perhaps, from the overemphasis on correlates of victimization and isolated explanatory mechanisms rather than the lack of a suitable theoretical framework. We posit that the RAT/LS perspective is one of the most useful theories with which to explore ETV-C. Although this perspective has not often been directly tested within such a scenario several investigations of youth victimization and in some cases ETV-C have LS or elements from the perspective/LS or elements from the perspective (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015; Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Nofziger & Kurtz, 2005; Spano, Freilich, & Bolland, 2008; Taylor, Freng, Esbensen, & Peterson, 2008; Tillyer, Tillyer, Miller, & Pangrac, 2011). We start by highlighting the theoretical foundations of RAT/LS, beginning with the lifestyles theory of victimization. The lifestyles theory (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978) focuses on how activities in which individuals engage during the course of their everyday lives contribute to the likelihood of victimization. Such activities include going to bars, spending time away from the home, and working outside the home. Furthermore, demographics like age, marital status, race/ethnicity, and gender seem to shape these daily routine activities. For instance, Miethe and Meier (1994, p. 32) point out, that these characteristics are often associated with certain patterns of behavior and the formation of relationships that can invariably “enhance one's exposure to risky and vulnerable situations”. This exposure, therefore, translates to higher probabilities of victimization as well as witnessing of violent events. Lifestyles can, even if only to a certain extent, help explain differences in risks of ETV-C. Individuals who spend more time away from their home engage in unstructured socializing with their peers, and who interact with deviant friends, are more susceptible to ETV-C. Susceptibility is enhanced because of lowered guardianship and increased target suitability. Hindelang and colleagues emphasized the more micro-individual routine activities approach, but it was Cohen and Felson's (1979) description of how “routine activities which include formalized work as well as the provision of standard food, shelter, sexual outlet, leisure, social interaction, learning, and childrearing” (p. 593) could influence victimization rates that placed RAT on the horizon as a major theoretical explanation of victimization.

3

RAT is often distilled to its three main components - motivated offender, suitable target, and lack of capable guardianship. A classic assumption of the RAT is that motivated offenders are readily present and provided with a steady supply of victims who are suitable targets and devoid of capable guardianship. Assuming motivated offenders are ubiquitous, what makes a target suitable for experiencing direct or indirect violent victimization in the community? Suitable targets include inanimate objects such as lightweight property available for theft, the portable goods described by Cohen and Felson (1979). But individuals whose routines place them in the same environment as a motivated offender capable of violence and who view such goods as “target attractive” are equally enticing as targets to those who commit crime. What characterizes individuals as suitable or attractive targets will depend, in great part, on the intentions of the motivated offender, the levels of guardianship, and the circumstances of the crime. There is agreement throughout the literature that certain individual attributes, as suggested by lifestyles theory (Hindelang et al., 1978), make people more or less susceptible to victimization, especially when these same characteristics are considered in conjunction with guardianship (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). Target suitability is said to be diminished when capable guardians, including informal (e.g., neighbors) and formal (e.g., police, security guards) social controls and environmental deterrents (e.g., closed-circuit television), are unavailable to monitor the environment. Thus, like target suitability, guardianship can be activated at different levels, from community (Wilcox, Madensen, & Tillyer, 2007) to the individual (Zimmerman & Messner, 2013) and encompasses a wide range of behaviors like collective efficacy, parental supervision, and self-control. Guardianship is the ability, or inability, to attenuate or limit exposure to noxious environments, events, and even individuals. According to Cohen and Felson (1979, p. 590) “guardianship is implicit in everyday life and usually is marked by the absence of violations”, but could also be the active prevention and/or protection against crime and victimization. For a crime, and therefore victimization, to occur the motivated offender, suitable target, and lack of guardianship must meet within a particular time frame and geographical space (Cohen & Felson, 1979). This theoretical proposition has inspired several reformulations and may prove to be a useful foundation upon which to study youth ETV-C. We argue ETV-C which is a form of victimization, is the product of a series of behaviors and choices enacted by individuals in the pursuit of their everyday, routine existence. It is these elements of RAT/LS that can be useful as a framework for explaining ETV-C as an outcome and clarifying critical risk and protective factors that impact youth ETV-C, particularly considering the implied or assumed role of the motivated offender. 2.1. Relevance of RAT/lifestyles in the study of youth exposure to community violence The utility of the RAT/LS framework in studying youth ETV-C rests most specifically on the relevance of concepts like target suitability and guardianship. ETV-C, whether it is from direct victimization or vicarious victimization such as hearing about or witnessing of a violent event, may be clarified using a framework that incorporates an ecological perspective. Miethe, Stafford, and Long (1987, p. 185) posit that “individuals who spend more time away from home should have higher risks of victimization because of their greater suitability as a target (i.e., greater visibility and accessibility) and decreased guardianship”. Further, the capacity to exert guardianship or even minimize target suitability rests often on the actions and lifestyles of the youth themselves, who they spend their time with, and whether they are out in the neighborhood without adult supervision and monitoring. When a youth experiences direct or vicarious victimization several mechanisms operated simultaneously for the exposure to actually come to fruition. Firstly, the exposure necessitates, in most cases, a motivated offender without which there would be no incidence of violence. The very fact that the motivated offender is a given, shifts attention

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

4

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

towards target suitability and guardianship, the characteristics, and contexts related to those who are victimized and exposed to violence. Secondly, youth can enhance their target suitability by making conscious choices regarding who to spend time with and where to socialize. And finally, the idea of guardianship can be thought as having multiple levels with external capable guardians (for example the neighborhood, family, and peers) inhibiting ETV-C coupled with the youth's ability to protect themselves against victimization or witnessing of violent events. Which brings us to the question: What specifically about youth is more or less likely to put them at risk of ETV-C? One explanation is that youth are often left unsupervised during the hours between school and when parents arrive home from work. The literature on afterschool victimization is extensive (Flannery, Williams, & Vazsonyi, 1999; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Weisman, 2001; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). It is during these hours that youth are freer to associate with their friends, and are away from the protective supervision (guardianship) that parents and caregivers can provide. Their daily routine activities and their lifestyles enhance opportunities and therefore risk for ETV-C not only because of their suitability as a target and lack of capable guardianship, but also because of the relationships the youths themselves cultivate with each other. For instance, while there is much known about peer deviance and how it impacts youth engagement in crime and delinquency (Kirk, 2006; Maimon & Browning, 2010; Osgood & Anderson, 2004), we also know that these associations may place children and youth in more vulnerable situations with respect to violent events (Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015). These deviant relationships simultaneously increase occasions where youth become suitable targets while also hindering capable guardianship. In essence, opportunities for unstructured socializing (Maimon & Browning, 2010; Osgood & Anderson, 2004; Osgood, Wilson, O'Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996), time spent with friends without a set agenda or the protective monitoring and supervision of adults and caregivers, is more likely to expose these youth to motivated offenders given that “supervision is a protective factor and participation in deviant lifestyles is a risk factor for violent victimization” (Spano et al., 2008, p. 383). Just as peer relationships comfortably fit into a RAT/LS perspective and can contribute to explaining youth ETV-C, parenting plays a critical role in enhancing guardianship and reducing target suitability such that youth are protected from violent events occurring within the community. Time youth spend away from the home and beyond the watchful eyes of parents and caregivers provides them with the unregulated opportunity to explore their surroundings and forge relationships within the neighborhood. Thus, parental management strategies designed to organize a youth's activities outside the home as well as rules regarding unfettered access to the community serve to strengthen guardianship, limit access to motivated offenders, and diminish opportunities where the youth may become a suitable target in terms of victimization probability and secondary exposure to violence. Youth also have considerable control over their environments by enacting a variety of choices such as where and with whom to associate and spend time that affect their routine activities and lifestyle. These independent predictors of ETV-C demonstrate the various mesosystem factors (neighborhood, family, peers, and individual) that influence youths' risk of direct and indirect victimization in the community, while also demonstrating the utility of RAT/LS as a unifying theoretical perspective for multilevel models that integrate various risk and protective factors of ETV-C. Before examining the extant literature on ETV-C as an outcome variable, we explore the theoretical underpinnings of RAT/ LS and their fit within an ecological framework capable of explaining ETV-C. 2.2. Contextualizing RAT/LS and youth ETV-C: A mesosystem approach Traditionally, RAT has emphasized the macro-level nature and utility of guardianship, target suitability, and the presence of motivated

offenders (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Even though Hindelang et al. (1978) proposed a much more individual-level approach for explaining victimization in examining how features of one's lifestyle may place an individual at more or less risk for violence, in the end both perspectives are somewhat unidimensional and do not incorporate cross-level risk or protective factors to explain victimization. There has not been much investigation dedicated to unravelling the layers within the RAT/LS perspective, nor demonstrating that, essentially, guardianship and target suitability may be exerted at several levels in the mesosystem. The same is true of the presence of motivated offenders. Certain neighborhoods may provide more or less opportunity for these individuals, especially in neighborhoods lacking in guardianship and social control. Neighborhoods that lack informal social controls such as collective efficacy convey to motivated offenders that guardianship is absent or attenuated when physical and social disorder such as graffiti, vice, and general unkemptness remain unchecked (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Using an ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), we argue that RAT/LS can be reframed into a mesosystemic context whereby the motivated offender, guardianship, and target suitability are examined at distinct levels with respect to ETV-C. Susceptibility to ETV-C should be considered from a multifaceted lens that encompasses the multitude of contexts and situations that may influence not only the youth's activities, behaviors, and choice-driven actions but also environments which put them in direct contact with motivated offenders. An ecological framework encompasses the interconnections of various settings – such as the neighborhood, family, peers, and individual traits – that influence how individuals conduct their daily lives and respond to situations. Referred to as microsystems within this framework, together these settings comprise the larger mesosystem, or multiple contexts, in which people live (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992). This mesosystem represents the linkages between various microsystems and evidence suggests that these contexts influence youth ETV-C. Individuals are nested in social contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and their experiences and choices are situated in the environment (Hitlin & Elder, 2007). Therefore, concepts central to RAT/LS are placed within four tiered levels - the neighborhood, the family, peers, and the youth themselves. As Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017, p. 64) suggest, “individuals are nested in a variety of social contexts and their routine activities and lifestyle choices are influenced by multiple systems”. This is especially valid when examining the mechanisms that exacerbate or attenuate youth ETV-C. The very idea of capable guardianship can be extended to the neighborhood, family, peers, and even youth, beyond what has been usually thought of as individual-level characteristics. Concepts like neighborhood collective efficacy (Sampson et al., 1997), a community's willingness and ability to enforce social control and nurture social cohesion certainly serves a guardianship function in not only fostering protection and prevention but also exerting or attempting to exert control over motivated offenders. Communities high in collective efficacy will, therefore, not want for capable guardianship, which itself should impact youth ETV-C and serve to buffer youth against such exposure. Moreover, community conditions can themselves inform parents and guide choices made regarding management practices and active protection from environments deemed potentially harmful, or conversely, less restrictive parenting in community seen as less risky (Fig. 1). The family and youths' peers are present in the mesosystem layer between community and youth. Similar to communities, parenting and family management strategies act as another level of guardianship or protection, and also function to limit the target suitability of youth. Family management is the host of strategies, practices, and activities that parents engage in or organize to structure their children's daily lives in and outside the home (Eccles, 1992). Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, and Sameroff (1999) divide these practices into those that apply within the home and those outside the home. Cohen and Felson (1979, p. 594) argued that “routine activities performed within

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

5

Fig. 1. Ecological model of routine activity and lifestyles theory perspectives.

or near the home and among family members or other primary groups entail lower risk of criminal victimization because they enhance guardianship capabilities”. Of particular interest to youth ETV-C, management outside the home underscores the importance of controlling youth access to the community, monitoring practices when children are away from the home, and curtailing relationships with deviant peers. Interactions with peers can also contribute to reduced levels of guardianship and increased target suitability, particularly among youth who spend time with deviant peers and engage in unstructured socializing. Deviant peers may not serve as capable guardians to buffer against direct and vicarious victimization as they are involved in delinquent and criminal activities themselves. Such relationships and involvement in unsupervised and aimless activities can also increase target suitability by placing youth in risky environments prone to victimization (Maimon & Browning, 2010; Osgood & Anderson, 2004; Osgood et al., 1996). Finally, we suggest that youth can and often do serve as their own guardian, participating in behaviors and developing traits that can minimize ETV-C. For example, the development of self-control as a product of parenting (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) or the establishment of an internal locus of control (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2015) serve to inform choices youth make in their daily lives. Moreover, youth may also have control over their own susceptibility as a target through peer interactions and unstructured socializing. The choice of peer relationships will inevitably influence guardianship and target suitability through exposure to motivated offenders - which are often the peers themselves (Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015; Richards et al., 2004) which will, in turn, affect the likelihood of ETV-C. Moreover, family management practices themselves influence the youth and the establishment of individual guardianship mechanisms like locus of control or self-control (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2015) but may also shape the decisions youth make with regard to friends and time spent away from the home. These various layers of the mesosystem have been examined in the extant literature on youth ETV-C, often as covariates of the various adverse outcomes of ETV-C outlined earlier, though more recently as predictors of ETV-C. In the next section, we review the evidence of neighborhood, family, peers, and individual factors that fit an ecological

framework. We then conclude with suggestions for embracing RAT/LS as a theoretical framework for multilevel explanations of youth ETV-C. 3. Applying an ecological framework to youth exposure to community violence To fully explore and examine the several processes that impact youth ETV-C a multilevel, ecological approach should be employed. In recent years more attention has been given to the role neighborhoods play in youth outcomes and more studies have been dedicated to investigating youth experiences with victimization and violence in the neighborhood, especially from an ecological perspective (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Gibson et al., 2009). The very nature of ETV-C necessitates an ecological analysis that is comprised of mesosystemic levels that differentially influence ETV-C. Neighborhood context, family relations, peers, and even individual characteristics have been demonstrated to significantly predict youth ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Lobo & Ahlin Antunes, 2015; Salzinger et al., 2002). Moreover, each context makes unique contributions to explaining why some individuals are more likely to experience victimization and/or witness violence in their community. However, not many studies have sought to use an ecological framework, especially not a RAT/LS ecological perspective for examining ETV-C. To date there have been two comprehensive reviews of youth ETV (Jonson-Reid, 1998; Salzinger et al., 2002). Both use an ecological framework to review the research on youth violence, youth ETV, and/or the consequences of ETV. In her 1998 review piece, Jonson-Reid incorporated both youth violence perpetration and ETV-C. Rather than emphasize the contexts for each, the author specifically examines research on the relationship between violence perpetration and three separate domains of violence exposure: child maltreatment, domestic violence, and community violence. Interestingly, Jonson-Reid (1998) organizes the review by microsystem and macrosystem, but without considering any possible overlap between the two. For example, when discussing the literature on child maltreatment (exposure to violence within the home) she includes the role of poverty at the micro-level (parental socioeconomic status) but does not examine what effect macro-level poverty/

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

6

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

concentrated disadvantage may have on child maltreatment. Elder (1994) and Furstenberg et al. (1999) note that parenting and parentchild relationships may vary according to the economic affluence of a community above and beyond poverty at the individual level. Thus, in addition to individual-level SES, neighborhood SES itself may affect child maltreatment. With respect to community violence, Jonson-Reid (1998) looks at outcomes of ETV and how these, along with exposure itself, influence violence perpetration. Her approach to the ecological framework is unique in that she considers the contextual mesosystemic location of where exposure and violence perpetration occur rather than what mesosystemic domains influence these outcomes. The review, nonetheless, provided one of the first discussions on how youth violence, whether perpetration or exposure, should be examined within a multilevel context, even if it did not include literature on predicting or explaining ETV-C, or theories that may help scholars understand these relationships. Salzinger et al. (2002) build on the Jonson-Reid study to examine literature that predicts and explains ETV-C by considering both risk for exposure and the effects exposure has on youth within five distinct contexts - neighborhood, family, parents, peers, and youth characteristics. The authors find that there is much evidence for direct and indirect influences of these domains on youth violence and victimization. The focus on ETV-C as well as the consequences of said violence lays important foundational precedence for the current piece as Salzinger et al. (2002) adopt a multilevel, ecological framework in their review of the literature. Further, they begin at the most distal point, the neighborhood; an approach later seen in other studies of ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Gibson et al., 2009). The authors move from outside the mesosystem (macro-level) to the inside (micro-level) and conclude that “there is overwhelming evidence that the effects of exposure cannot be understood without taking into account the context - environmental and person - in which the exposure occurs” (p. 445). In the following sections, we extend this argument and update the literature, bridging a 14-year gap, by proposing that ETV-C itself must also be understood within a multilevel, ecological framework that considers how neighborhood, family, peers, and individual characteristics serve to enhance, predict, and explain youth experiences with neighborhood violence. We take this approach one step further in examining these relationships from a RAT/LS approach and placing the literature with this theoretical framework. 3.1. Community Much of the literature on youth ETV-C has investigated the predictive effects of family and individual-level characteristics. As Buka et al. (2001) among others find, less is understood about how neighborhood conditions may influence youth ETV-C, and there are several plausible explanations as to why this is less prominent in the current literature. Firstly, the paucity of data permitting a true ecological analysis of youth experiences with neighborhood violence has impeded its progress. Secondly, neighborhood research examining community effects on youth development has been inconclusive with some studies reporting a direct influence of neighborhood characteristics on youth behaviors while others show an indirect effect (Leventhal & BrooksGunn, 2000). Further, some studies have found no neighborhood effects at all (Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Brown, & Ialongo, 1998; Kupersmidt, Griesler, DeRosier, Patterson, & Davis, 1995; Lynam et al., 2000; Spencer & Dornbusch, 1990). Those studies that do incorporate neighborhood level variables focus on various structural characteristics and collective efficacy. 3.1.1. Structural characteristics There has been scant investigation, in particular studies that look specifically at youth ETV-C, extending neighborhood conditions beyond the traditional neighborhood structural characteristics. Oftentimes

indicators of poverty, concentrated disadvantage, and ethnic diversity are used (Buka et al., 2001; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998). While the literature cited here, as well as other studies, describe community risk factors that should be taken into account when studying ETV-C they do not adequately address questions of why contextual factors matter. In an urban sample of African American youth (low income and middle class) Fitzpatrick and Boldizar (1993) reported that environmental characteristics like percentage of female-headed households predicted higher levels of post-traumatic stress disorder among youth experiencing ETV-C. Relatedly, youth living in areas high in concentrated disadvantage (areas high in percentage of residents living below poverty, on public assistance, unemployed, less than 18 years of age, and African American) have a statistically significantly higher risk of ETV-C (Lobo Antunes & Ahlin, 2015). However, understanding why these contextual variables are important and why these factors increase risk for ETV-C and detrimental sequelae resulting from ETV-C remains an issue for future research. From a RAT/LS perspective we could argue that such areas are more inviting to the motivated offender and that in conditions of poverty parents are required to maintain several jobs which may hinder guardianship (Simons, Lorenz, Wu, & Conger, 1993) thus increasing target suitability. Similarly, the proportion of female-headed or monoparental households within a community can impede the formation of friendship networks and community bonds that in turn reduce, according to Zimmerman and Messner (2010) and Sampson and Lauritsen (1994), informal social control, a form of guardianship. Yet, in many of the studies that incorporate structural characteristics, the causal mechanisms and the processes that may explain why these characteristics are important are often overlooked and not placed within a specific theoretical framework. The nexus between neighborhood structural characteristics and youth ETV-C may rest on the potential influence these conditions have, therefore, on parental and community ability to exert social control, which in our view, ties in with a RAT/LS perspective and the idea that guardianship is simply another way of defining social control (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). For example, Gibson et al. (2009) expand on the ETV-C literature by investigating risk factors for secondary (hearing and witnessing) exposure to violence. Using data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) the authors examine neighborhood structural characteristics of disadvantage, immigrant concentration, and residential stability but also include collective efficacy and parenting measures. They find that youth living in communities with higher levels of poverty and immigrant concentration experienced higher incidences of secondary ETV-C. Moreover, Gibson et al. (2009) conclude that neighborhood characteristics influence ETV-C even after controlling for family and individual risk factors. Of note, was the lack of significant findings regarding parental supervision. We discuss the role of parenting further on in this review, though we posit that if parental guardianship measures like supervision are not contextualized, meaning placed within the home or outside the household, we may be missing important causal mechanisms and failing to understand how RAT/LS can be a useful theoretical perspective. Along with the same structural characteristics used by Gibson et al. (2009), Gardner and Brooks-Gunn (2009) examine how the presence of youth community organizations impact youth ETV-C. Their study controls not only for structural characteristics but also for community violence. The authors report that youth ETV-C is less frequent in neighborhoods with a greater variety of youth organizations and activities and make an interesting point concerning why this may be the case. The popular assumption is that participation in such organizations decreases youth unstructured socializing, an activity we argue could increase youth target suitability. Instead, Gardner and Brooks-Gunn (2009) suggest that neighborhood youth organizations inhibit violence at the neighborhood level which therefore decreases youth ETV-C. This is congruent with the multi-mesosystemic RAT/LS approach we advocate for here. The variety and availability of youth organizations denotes a level of investment in and commitment to the community, which we

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

contend, may also be considered a protective factor that deters crime at the neighborhood level (Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009), and serve as a type of neighborhood-level guardianship and social control. There is, as the authors point out, a limiting of opportunities for violent crime which also curbs opportunities for exposure to said violence. Gardner and Brooks-Gunn's (2009) investigation illustrates how criminal opportunity structures can occur at different levels of the mesosystem and its effects can cascade downward from community to individual. Examining how concepts of RAT/LS can shape these opportunity structures not only provides a theoretical foundation for studying youth experiences with neighborhood violence but also for establishing inter-level processes within an ecological framework. 3.1.2. Collective efficacy The macro level perspective of collective efficacy blends informal social control and social cohesion to explain reductions in crime rates in communities (see Sampson et al., 1997). Although collective efficacy is not explicitly a component of the ecological framework, it would fall under Bronfenbrenner's (1979) idea of the mesosystem and how child experiences, including ETV-C, are influenced by the community. While the use of an ecological framework is not clearly stated in research examining the influence of collective efficacy on ETV-C, coupled with the RAT/LS theoretical perspectives it does provide a community-level guardianship variable (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). Collective efficacy serves an external guardianship role in the community where neighbors watch over each other's children and provide informal social controls over their behaviors to monitor truancy, vandalism, and other delinquent acts (Kirk, 2009; Sampson, Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005; Sampson et al., 1997). Collective efficacy is theoretically a buffer against ETV-C, and is one of the most robust macro level predictors of crime (Pratt & Cullen, 2005). Sampson et al. (1997) introduce the concept of collective efficacy and demonstrate that higher levels of collective efficacy are significantly associated with less neighborhood violence. Such reductions in violent crime rates in neighborhoods with high collective efficacy may translate to fewer opportunities for youth to experience violence in their communities. Few studies examine the relationship between collective efficacy and ETV-C, and most research in support of collective efficacy suggests it is a significant predictor of violence at the macro level, but not necessarily at the micro-level. Building on the original collective efficacy study, Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush (2001) determined that homicide rates were higher in neighborhoods with lower levels of collective efficacy and high concentrated disadvantage. The authors also investigate the relationship between the availability of local organizations such as religious institutions, political groups, and community councils finding that the presence of these associations increase collective efficacy through the formation of social ties. What is missing from these cornerstone blocks upon which collective efficacy is built is an explicit theoretical framework to explain the causal mechanism between collective efficacy, neighborhood violence, and micro-level experiences. The utility of collective efficacy, a macro level variable, to reduce individual's ETV-C, a micro level variable, has yet to be established. Collective efficacy is not predictive of youth's exposure to violent peers (Zimmerman & Messner, 2011) or ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). 3.2. Family and parenting The relationship between family characteristics, parenting strategies, and youth ETV-C has been studied throughout the literature as these tend to be the most common focus of inquiries on ETV-C risk and protective factors. Undeniably, family plays a critical role in attenuating or exacerbating youth ETV-C. Often, the research has been divided into studies that examine family characteristics like marital status and SES and those that focus on parenting strategies like supervision, monitoring, and discipline (Bacchini, Miranda, & Affuso, 2011; Buka et al., 2001; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998; among others). This section begins

7

with family characteristics and is followed by a review of the parenting strategies literature. 3.2.1. Family characteristics Family characteristics have been used to evaluate youth exposure to violence (Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2004). Female headed households, living arrangements, and family SES are some of the more commonly examined variables (Buka et al., 2001; Jonson-Reid, 1998). Richters and Martinez (1993) reported that whether youth lived in houses versus apartments had a significant predictive effect on youth ETV-C, as youth who lived in houses were more likely to witness violence. From a theoretical standpoint, the RAT/LS perspective provides a basis upon which to explain these findings. Guardianship, especially informal guardianship, may be more pervasive in an apartment complex where neighbors may be more attuned to their surroundings than among single family homes which are less interdependent structurally and perhaps socially, even if only informally. Financial hardship and family SES have also been demonstrated to have a negative effect on youth witnessing of violence (Crouch, Hanson, Saunders, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 2000). Crouch et al. (2000) used family income as a measure of SES and showed that youth, especially White youth, from families with higher SES witnessed fewer incidences of violence, assault, and harsh disciplining. Bell and Jenkins (1993) demonstrated that family characteristics like parental structure impacted youth outcomes. The authors concluded that youth from homes with fewer caregivers present (i.e., female-headed households) were more likely to be involved in violence. Similarly, Esbensen and Huizinga (1991) found that youth living in two-parent households were less likely to be victimized, especially compared to those living in single-parent homes, suggesting from a RAT/LS perspective that guardianship may be reduced in monoparental homes. Like much of the literature on victimization and exposure to violence, there are studies that find no effects of family characteristics. For example, in their study of pre-teen and teen African-American and Latino males, Gorman-Smith and Tolan (1998) failed to uncover significant effects of family organization and other family characteristics on youth experiences with violence. It is possible that for these populations neighborhood social processes play a greater factor in ETV-C than family characteristics. These investigations serve to emphasize the need to establish theoretical linkages between family characteristics and processes, especially for those populations at higher risk for ETV-C. Family characteristics like SES may convey that the financial resources with which parents can actively protect their children from dangerous environments are scarce and limit, to some extent, familial ability to exert guardianship over youth. 3.2.2. Parenting strategies Parenting strategies take place within the home and beyond household walls, and limiting our studies to the traditional measures of supervision, attachment, and even discipline fails to capture the full breadth of parenting practices employed by caregivers to protect their children. Averdijk and Bernasco (2015, p. 159) conclude that “guardianship by parents is often operationalized in one of two ways - attachment to parents and parental control - the latter being the more direct measure”. However, according to Furstenberg et al. (1999), community conditions will inform parental strategies, underscoring the importance of examining a wider breadth of family management strategies that reach outside of the home. The use of protective parenting strategies at home and while youth are in the community can guard youth from negative neighborhood influences. In essence, when examining youth ETV-C it makes sense to place parenting strategies within the community context because managing the outside world and neighborhood influences is particularly important as youth mature and venture out into the community.

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

8

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

To date there has been little agreement on what role the traditional measures of parenting strategies have in explaining ETV-C. Gibson et al. (2009) find no statistically significant effect of supervision and parental warmth on youth secondary ETV-C. Interestingly, Tillyer et al. (2011) found that parental control actually increased victimization risk, validating the results of Miller, Wasserman, Neugebauer, Gorman-Smith, and Kamboukos (1999). In a replication of Gorman-Smith and Tolan (1998), Gorman-Smith et al. (2004) uncovered no influence of parental supervision, discipline, and attachment to parents on youth ETV-C. Findings regarding parental strategies have clearly been mixed. Understanding why youth differentially experience ETV-C may be a function of how parents choose to guard or limit access to the community itself rather than practices clearly limited to the home and requires additional exploration. Recent studies have expanded the use of parenting strategies to include those that reach outside of the home and assess their relationship with youth ETV-C. For example, setting limits for youth and increasing monitoring for the times when youth are not at home has been shown to decrease youth risk for ETV-C (Lobo Antunes, 2012; Dishion & McMahon, 1998). Lobo Antunes and Ahlin (2015) and Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2015, 2017) reported that youth whose parents actively restrict their unsupervised time in the neighborhood are less likely to experience ETV-C. Additionally, Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017) suggest that youth experiences with community violence should be not only examined within an ecological framework but also from a RAT/LS perspective, as parents actively engage in guardianship over their children. Parents who supervise within the home, restrict unfettered access to the community, and refrain from harsh discipline can not only attenuate instances of ETV-C, they also reduce youth unstructured socializing and association with deviant peers – leading to a reduction in target suitability and enhancement of guardianship which is significantly predictive of less youth ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2015; Lobo Antunes & Ahlin, 2015). Harsh disciplining practices, family conflict, and family violence have also been shown to increase risk for ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Osofsky et al., 1993). Perhaps indirectly, these factors influence the likelihood that youth will associate with deviant peers and spend time in unstructured activities (Richards et al., 2004; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013), both of which increase youth target suitability (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Richards et al., 2004; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002). Observing curfews and rules regarding whether children can spend time unsupervised in the neighborhood may, at least to some extent, reflect the quality of a youth's relationship with their parent/caregiver. Too much harsh discipline, or family conflict or violence, may negatively shape the choices youth make. Some evidence suggests that certain family processes can influence youth anger regulation, particularly with respect to parental support and cohesion. These in turn influence ETV-C (Houltberg, Henry, & Morris, 2012) through supervision; reinforcing the idea that guardianship itself can extend beyond supervision and monitoring. Embracing an ecological framework, youth development research has sought to examine how neighborhood characteristics can interact with parenting to explain various outcomes (Lobo Antunes, 2012; Elliott et al., 2006; Furstenberg et al., 1999). Sheidow, Gorman-Smith, Tolan, and Henry (2001, p. 347) investigated the protective effects of parenting on youth ETV-C, suggesting that “past studies have failed to consider (whether) the effect of family functioning may vary depending on neighborhood characteristics”. The authors conclude that family functioning (which included parenting practices, parent-child relationship, and clustering within neighborhoods) is especially important for youth who live in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods. Inefficient family functioning predicted greater levels of ETV-C for youth in these communities. This resonates with the argument recently made by Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017) and Lobo Antunes (2012) that when resources are particularly scarce, parenting is one of the most important protective factors in reducing youth ETV-C by increasing guardianship and diminishing youth target suitability.

3.3. Peers Using an ecological framework, Salzinger et al. (2002) identified five ETV-C risk domains – community, family, parents/caregivers, peers, and personal characteristics – and noted that much youth victimization in the neighborhood is perpetrated by peers. From a RAT/LS perspective, the role of peers in assessing victimization risk is essential. Clearly, choosing ones friends and engaging in various activities with those individuals will affect how much opportunity youth have to experience victimization while also determining the quality and quantity of guardianship over peer interactions. As such, risk of victimization may operate through peer interactions (see Schreck, Fisher, & Miller, 2004) such as unstructured socializing and association with deviant peers. From a RAT/LS perspective, these interactions with peers can impact target suitability by influencing risk of direct victimization (Maimon & Browning, 2010). Less is known, however, about whether these variables influence ETV-C. 3.3.1. Unstructured socializing Unstructured socializing, sometimes referred to as unstructured leisure time (Larson, 2001), generally consists of youth peer interactions that have no set agenda or plans (e.g., going to parties, riding in cars for fun, hanging out with friends) that lack supervision by parents or other authority figures (Osgood et al., 1996). “Unstructured activities are considered risky because they leave time available for deviant activities. Therefore, the link between unstructured time and victimization” (Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015, p. 157) may be understood through the role of peers and guardianship. By affecting routine activities, primarily through a reduction in capable guardianship, unstructured socializing also alters how much ETV-C youth experience. Parents who restrict their children's unsupervised access to the community reduce the amount of ETV-C experienced by youth (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). At the neighborhood level, poor guardianship and meager attempts at informal social control permits instances of youth unstructured socializing. The literature also suggests that youth who are unsupervised in the neighborhood and are involved in unstructured socializing with their peers are more likely to be exposed to community violence, though this relationship may differ across racial/ethnic categories (see Lobo Antunes & Ahlin, 2015; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013). For example, Richards et al. (2004) examined the influence of risk and protective situational factors over ETV-C, including measures of both direct victimization and witnessing violent acts. According to their analysis, more time spent in a risky situational context, assessed as percentage of time spent in unstructured activities with peers, increased youth ETV-C, while increased time with family or engaged in structured and supervised activities acted as protective factors which decreased ETV-C. More specifically, compared to socializing at home or school, youth who engage in public outdoor companionship in the neighborhood with older peers experience greater risk for ETV-C (Goldmann et al., 2011). 3.3.2. Peer deviance Like unstructured socializing, peer deviance also influences ETV-C and there is substantial literature to support the salience of peer deviance over youths' risk of ETV-C. Deviant peers can influence youth ETV-C in multiple ways. Most directly, having deviant peers can increase youth's own victimization (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Schreck & Fisher, 2004; Schreck et al., 2002; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013). From the RAT/LS perspective, risk of ETV-C can also be affected through the presence of deviant peers by increasing opportunity and reducing capable guardianship. Similar to the perspective adopted by Haynie and Osgood (2005; see also Miethe & Meier, 1994) who argue that delinquent behavior is influenced by opportunity resulting from time spent with delinquent peers, increased risk for victimization is also a function of opportunity which is heightened when youth associate with deviant peers. In terms of aggravating the risk of ETV-C, Averdijk

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

and Bernasco (2015) also argue that adolescent youth are reaching their peak levels of risk for engagement in crime, and thus hanging out with peers may also expose youth to a stable cadre of motivated offenders, potentially increasing ETV-C. Stepping outside the peers' direct mesosystem level and highlighting the need for an ecological approach, there are also individual characteristics that may mitigate the risk of ETV-C posed by deviant peers. While youth with low levels of self-control are at increased risk of ETV-C (Zimmerman & Messner, 2013), high levels of self-control can buffer this risk through reduced contact with deviant peers (see Schreck et al., 2002). Further, youth with higher street efficacy, defined as the ability to successfully avoid negative interactions in one's neighborhood, are less likely to associate with delinquent peers (see Sharkey, 2006), which may in turn attenuate ETV-C. These individual characteristics reduce the instances of ETV-C suggesting that youth may act as their own capable guardian (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). 3.4. Individual characteristics The RAT/LS perspectives offer a macro-level explanation of victimization risk, which often highlights the demographic factors of groups most likely to experience victimization, such as ETV-C. Such individual characteristics are the most central mesosystem level to youth within an ecological framework, and how individuals interact with their communities and structure their daily routine activities and particular lifestyle may be a function of their individual attributes. Until now, far too little attention has been paid to the relevance of individual characteristics beyond traditional demographic variables and how they may serve to attenuate or mitigate youth ETV-C. We examine the relevance of the conventional individual characteristics, race/ethnicity, gender, and age, for explaining ETV-C and also extend the discussion to personality characteristics which have more recently been explored in the literature. 3.4.1. Race/ethnicity Race and ethnicity are common correlates of victimization risk and a considerable amount of research has been dedicated to this topic. In racial comparisons, scholars have shown that Blacks are more likely than Whites to experience indirect, or secondary, ETV-C (Lobo Antunes & Ahlin, 2015; Gibson et al., 2009; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998). When examining race and ethnicity, there is consensus among social scientists that Black and Hispanic youth are more likely than Whites to experience ETV-C (Crouch et al., 2000; Martin, Gordon, & Kupersmidt, 1995). In a recent study, Zimmerman and Messner (2013) note that compared to White youth, the odds of being exposed to community violence for Hispanic and Black youth are 74% and 112% higher, respectively. These racial and ethnic disparities persist across informant types, youth, primary caregiver, or parent, though youth self-reports of ETV-C tend to be higher (Kuo, Mohler, Raudenbush, & Earls, 2000; see Buka et al., 2001). While Hispanic youth experience more ETV-C than their White peers, either as a direct victim or through witnessing or hearing about violence perpetrated against others (Crouch et al., 2000; Gibson et al., 2009; Martin et al., 1995; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013), more current attention has focused on the role immigrant generational status (e.g., first, second, third generation immigrant) has on ETV-C. Studies controlling for immigrant generational status suggest that ETV-C among Latino youth is a function of whether they (first generation), or their parents (second generation), or grandparents (third generation) are foreignborn, with second and later generation Hispanic youth experiencing more ETV-C (Eggers & Jennings, 2014; Gibson & Miller, 2010). Unlike these scholars, MacDonald and Saunders (2012) report no differences in ETV-C among Hispanics who are first-generation immigrants compared to Latinos born in the US. In fact, controlling for neighborhood structural characteristics in addition to collective efficacy and social disorder, first-generation immigrants experienced less ETV-C, suggesting

9

that situating race and ethnicity within an ecological framework may explicate its relationship to ETV-C.

3.4.2. Gender Tremendous research has been dedicated to understanding gender differences not only in delinquency but also victimization and ETV-C. Many studies have found that boys are at greater risk for ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998; Singer, Anglin, Song, & Lunghofer, 1995). Similarly, Lobo Antunes and Ahlin (2015) and Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017) show that, compared to females, males are approximately 40% more likely to experience violence in the neighborhood. However, Zimmerman and Messner (2010) demonstrate that the gender gap in violent offending narrows due to exposure to peer violence and community concentrated disadvantage. Essentially, the authors find that the negative effect of exposure to violent peers is enhanced for girls in conditions of greater neighborhood poverty, suggesting perhaps that gender interactions between peer associations and violence merit closer examination within a multilevel RAT/ LS framework. Frequently, research on the gender gap in ETV-C has argued that differences lie in variations of parental monitoring and supervision (Lobo Antunes, 2012; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999). As previously stated, in impoverished neighborhoods parents may lack the financial and social resources to effectively protect their children from neighborhood conditions and deviant peers which may lead to increased target suitability and exposure to motivated offenders (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). The gendered relationship between neighborhood poverty and differences in youth ETV-C may, just like age and race, be the result of parental and neighborhood interaction and the inability of parents to exert guardianship and attenuate youth risk for ETV-C. The gendered selection of parenting mechanisms may influence routine activities and lifestyles and thereby differentially affect target suitability and guardianship for females, depending on whether parents and caregivers can and are willing to enact capable guardianship.

3.4.3. Age At what age does ETV-C become a risk for children? This is an important question, and is perhaps best answered by considering various elements of the ecological framework that we suggest are fundamental for addressing ETV-C. For youth to experience violence in their community they must spend time there and compared to younger children, teens are much more likely to spend time in their neighborhood where they form peer relationships and engage in community activities (Lobo Antunes, 2012; Ward & Laughlin, 2003). Perhaps this is why studies have consistently established that older youth are at greater risk for experiencing and witnessing violence in their neighborhood (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Lobo Antunes & Ahlin, 2015; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998; Singer et al., 1995). From a RAT/LS perspective, increased youth engagement with their community, often without the watchful eye of a parent or caregiver, is akin to a reduction in capable guardianship and, in turn, a source of enhancement of target suitability. In a series of studies using the PHDCN data, Lobo Antunes (2012), Lobo Antunes and Ahlin (2014, 2015), and Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017) found that the older cohorts in their sample, those in their mid- to late teens reported higher risk for ETV-C. The authors demonstrate that younger youth are subjected to higher levels of parental control and guardianship, which means they are less likely to spend time unsupervised in their community and more likely to be monitored at home. Parental guardianship also translates to fewer associations with deviant peers and time spent in what Richards et al. (2004) call “risky” activities (i.e., unstructured socializing), reducing their chances of experiencing ETV-C. Guardianship and target availability can explain, therefore, why it is that younger youth are less likely to experience ETV-C.

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

10

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

3.4.4. Personality characteristics Individuals can increase their own risk of victimization through personal decision-making about where and with whom to associate (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Gibson et al., 2009; Hindelang et al., 1978; Miethe & Meier, 1994), thereby increasing risk of victimization through the selection of situations and peers (see Schreck et al., 2002). Certain personality characteristics can assist prosocial decisions to avoid ETV-C or constrain good choices and increase ETV-C inviting its detrimental effects on youth development. One much studied personality factor is low selfcontrol. Low self-control is characterized as lacking inhibitory control, being present oriented, preferring immediate gratification, sensation seeking, and a lack of persistence in tasks (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Individuals with low self-control are more likely to place themselves in precarious situations, perhaps because they fail to see the long-term consequences of ETV-C, or they are engaged in criminal behavior themselves (see Schreck, 1999). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, p. 157) suggest youth with low self-control “gravitate to the street”. As such, compared to youth with higher levels of self-control, individuals with less self-control are at a higher risk of experiencing ETV-C (Higgins, Jennings, Tewksbury, & Gibson, 2009; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013). Low self-control may also place individuals in contexts that are prone to victimization due to a lack of guardianship and increased opportunities (see Forde & Kennedy, 1997), through delinquent peer associations (Schreck et al., 2002). Compared to delinquent peers, low self-control has a stronger effect over risk of direct victimization, though high self-control has not been shown to act as a protective factor (Schreck et al., 2002). While low self-control and impulsivity appear to predict increased direct violent victimizations (Gibson, 2012), less is known about its relationship to indirect ETVC. However, impulsivity, one component of low self-control, does increase ETV-C (Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher, 2009), while having an internal locus of control (a sense of ownership over outcomes resulting from one's behaviors) is associated with a reduction in ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2015). The literature on the relevance of personality characteristics, though quickly developing, is still in its nascent period. Within an ecological framework, and by applying the RAT/LS perspective, we believe that these and other personality characteristics could be explored as explanations of ETV-C, particularly as moderators of existing known predictors of ETV-C. 4. Conclusions The current review examines the literature on youth experiences with ETV-C, placing the studies analyzed within a multileveled context while also exploring the utility of a RAT/LS perspective. We find that in order to better comprehend the mechanisms that influence the likelihood a youth will be exposed to community violence we should shy away from looking at risk and protective factors using a silo approach but rather apply an ecological framework that considers all levels of the mesosystem. This review also underscores the paucity of studies that have actively sought to incorporate theory in their analyses. ETV-C includes both victimization and witnessing of violent events in the community and we contend that the RAT/ LS perspective is well-suited to explaining why there is a greater propensity towards ETV-C for some youth (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015). The RAT/LS model is placed, here, within a mesosystemic framework and research included in this review has been evaluated using the key concepts of guardianship and target suitability. Whether intentional or not, several of the articles use these in their investigations, albeit sometimes under different conceptualizations. Oftentimes guardianship is measured as social control, supervision, and monitoring, whereas target suitability is assessed via peer relationships and “risky” activities (Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015; Richards et al., 2004). Regardless, what these studies show is that researchers should not only contextualize youth ETV-C by placing the risk and protective factors at different

mesosystem levels - neighborhood, family, peers, and youth - but should also consider applying a concrete theory to explain why youth experience violence in the community. The focus here was primarily on ETV-C as an outcome. In essence, a majority of the articles reviewed specifically investigated predictors of youth ETV-C. We have found that there seems to be more literature dedicated to the deleterious sequelae of ETV-C than explaining how youth are at differential risk for ETV-C. We also demonstrate that these studies often fail to consider the multilevel nature of ETV-C or explicitly use theory to explain these outcomes. This is certainly a direction for future research. Moreover, as van Dulmen et al. (2008) suggest, witnessing violence and being the victim of violence are conceptually different measures. It is reasonable then to argue that causal processes may also be different. Gibson et al. (2009) do explore the issue of secondary, or indirect, exposure to community violence; however, as many of the studies included here they do not propose a definitive theoretical framework. Future efforts should be directed at exploring these avenues. Lynch (2003) makes an important point regarding self-reported experiences of community violence versus rates of community violence, suggesting that rates themselves could negatively influence youth outcomes or alter guardianship. The parenting literature (Lobo Antunes, 2012; Elliott et al., 2006; Furstenberg et al., 1999) shows that neighborhood conditions shape family management practices. Communities riddled with violence may prompt parents to enhance guardianship. While this may seem the best course of action, research on adolescent development highlights the need for teens to strive for autonomy and seek the freedom to make their own choices (Roche & Leventhal, 2009; Tobler, Komro, & Maldonado-Molina, 2009) and serve as their own guardians over ETV-C (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). As youth mature, “parents will reinforce and stimulate this process of growing autonomy, self-determination, and independence” (Eccles et al., 1993, p. 97). It is conceivable then, yet unexplored, that too much guardianship can have a negative effect on youth behavior and possibly on ETV-C as youth seek to break the protective grip established by parents (see Miller et al., 1999; Tillyer et al., 2011). This in turn may lead to increased suitability as a target and ultimately an increase in the likelihood of ETV-C. In a similar vein, research may consider the differences in reporting mechanisms when examining youth ETV-C (Kuo et al., 2000). Parental, teacher, and even peer reports of violence may vary from those made by the youth themselves. Youth perceptions of neighborhood conditions and environment, perceptions that guide decisions and choices, are not necessarily the same as those held by family, peers, and neighborhood residents. Such considerations in future studies could shed light on the complex processes involved in neighborhood violence and more specifically youth ETV-C. Within a policy paradigm, gains in knowledge regarding what can be done at the community, family, peer, and youth level to ameliorate violence in the neighborhood by reducing ETV-C can also help foster positive community relations and youth development. Dahlberg (1998) examined violence prevention programs but noted that many tended to focus on only one level of the mesosystem. Tackling each level as if in a vacuum negates the multidimensional relationship that exists between community, families, peers, and youth. For instance, Gardner and Brooks-Gunn (2009) demonstrate the utility of youth organizations in deterring violence at the neighborhood level. As Eccles and Gootman (2002) argue, programs targeting youth should be implemented from a multifaceted perspective, directed at the community, family, and peers, and we suggest including the individual. Therefore, when considering the damaging consequences of youth ETV-C, the ecological RAT/LS framework within which ETV-C occurs, policymakers should take into account a multicontextual model that focuses on increasing guardianship at all levels of the mesosystem – neighborhood, family, peers, and individual – while also promoting strategies that minimize target suitability of those who live in and explore the neighborhood on a daily basis.

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

References Ahlin, E. M., & Lobo Antunes, M. J. (2015). Locus of control orientation: Parents, peers, and place. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1803–1818. Ahlin, E. M., & Lobo Antunes, M. J. (2017). Levels of guardianship in protecting youth against exposure to violence in the community. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15, 62–83. Averdijk, M., & Bernasco, W. (2015). Testing the situational explanation of victimization among adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 151–180. Bacchini, D., Miranda, M. C., & Affuso, G. (2011). Effects of parental monitoring and exposure to community violence on antisocial behavior and anxiety/depression among adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 269–292. Bell, C. C., & Jenkins, E. J. (1993). Community violence and children on Chicago's southside. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 56, 46–54. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298–310. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608. 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. Dahlberg, L. L. (1998). Youth violence in the United States: Major trends, risk factors, and prevention approaches. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 259–272. Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61–75. Eccles, J. S. (1992). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children's interests, selfperceptions and activity choice. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 40, 145–208. Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 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. Eggers, A., & Jennings, W. G. (2014). The effects of birth location and sociological influences on violent victimization among Hispanic youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12, 355–366. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4–15. 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, England: Cambridge University Press. Esbensen, F., & Huizinga, D. (1991). Juvenile victimization and delinquency. Youth and Society, 23, 202–228. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2015). 2014 Crime in the United States. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3–19. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Shattuck, A., Hamby, S., & Kracke, K. (2015). Children's exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: An update. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Fitzpatrick, K. M., & Boldizar, J. P. (1993). The prevalence and consequences of exposure to violence among African-American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 424–430. Flannery, D. J., Williams, L. L., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (1999). Who are they with and what are they doing? Delinquent behavior, substance use, and early adolescents' after-school time. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 247–253. Forde, D. R., & Kennedy, L. W. (1997). Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 265–294. Furstenberg, F. F., 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. (2009). Adolescents' exposure to community violence: Are neighborhood youth organizations protective? Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 505–525. Gibson, C. L. (2012). Unpacking the influence of neighborhood context and antisocial propensity on violent victimization of children and adolescents in Chicago. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Gibson, C. L., & Miller, H. V. (2010). Crime and victimization among Hispanic adolescents: A multilevel longitudinal study of acculturation and segmented assimilation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 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. Goldmann, E., Aiello, A., Uddin, M., Delva, J., Koenen, K., Gant, L. M., & Galea, S. (2011). Pervasive exposure to violence and posttraumatic stress disorder in a predominantly African American urban community: The detroit neighborhood health study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24, 747–751. Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 101–116. Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2004). Exposure to community violence and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 439–449.

11

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Weisman, S. A. (2001). The timing of delinquent behavior and its implications for after-school programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 61–86. Guterman, N. B., Cameron, M., & Staller, K. (2000). Definitional and measurement issues in the study of community violence among children and youths. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 571–587. Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter? Social Forces, 84, 1109–1130. Higgins, G. E., Jennings, W. G., Tewksbury, R., & Gibson, C. L. (2009). Exploring the link between low self-control and violent victimization trajectories in adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1070–1084. Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Hitlin, S., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2007). Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency. Sociological Theory, 25, 170–191. Houltberg, B. J., Henry, C. S., & Morris, A. S. (2012). Family interactions, exposure to violence, and emotion regulation: Perceptions of children and early adolescents at risk. Family Relations, 61, 283–296. Jensen, G. F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activities. Violence and Victims, 1, 85–99. Jonson-Reid, M. (1998). Youth violence and exposure to violence in childhood: An ecological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 159–179. Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior in middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165–185. 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. Kirk, D. S. (2009). Unraveling the contextual effects on student suspension and juvenile arrest: An examination of school, neighborhood, and family controls. Criminology, 47, 479–520. Kuo, M., Mohler, B., Raudenbush, S. L., & Earls, F. J. (2000). Assessing exposure to violence using multiple informants: Application of hierarchical linear model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 1049–1056. Kupersmidt, J. B., Griesler, P. C., DeRosier, M. E., Patterson, C. J., & Davis, P. W. (1995). Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and neighborhood factors. Child Development, 66, 360–375. LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41–72. Larson, R. W. (2001). How US children and adolescents spend time: What it does (and doesn't) tell us about their development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 160–164. 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 management 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 parents or community more salient? Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 316–337. Lobo Antunes, M. J., & Ahlin, E. M. (2015). Protecting youth against exposure to violence: Intersections of race/ethnicity, neighborhood, family and friends. Race & Justice: An International Journal, 5, 208–234. Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Wikström, P. O., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000). The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 563–574. Lynch, M. (2003). Consequences of children's exposure to community violence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 265–274. MacDonald, J., & Saunders, J. (2012). Are immigrant youth less violent? Specifying the reasons and mechanisms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 641, 125–147. 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. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1994). Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Long, J. S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories. American Sociological Review, 52, 184–194. Miller, L. S., Wasserman, G. A., Neugebauer, R., Gorman-Smith, D., & Kamboukos, D. (1999). Witnessed community violence and antisocial behavior in high-risk, urban boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 2–11. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517–559. Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2010). Prospective effects of violence exposure across multiple contexts on early adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 953–961. Mrug, S., Loosier, P. S., & Windle, M. (2008). Violence exposure across multiple contexts: Individual and joint effects on adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 70–84.

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015

12

M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Murphy, S. L., Xu, J., & Kochanek, K. D. (2012). Deaths: Preliminary data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports, 60, 1–52. Nofziger, S., & Kurtz, D. (2005). Violent lives: A lifestyle model linking exposure to violence to juvenile violent offending. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 3–26. 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. Osofsky, J. D., Wewers, S., Hann, D. M., & Fick, A. C. (1993). Chronic community violence: What is happening to our children? Psychiatry, 56, 36–45. Pratt, T., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373–438. Richards, M. H., Larson, R., Miller, B. V., Luo, Z., Sims, B., Parrella, D. P., & McCauley, C. (2004). Risky and protective contexts and exposure to violence in urban African American young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 138–148. Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). Violent communities, family choices, and children's chances: An algorithm for improving the odds. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 609–627. Roche, K. M., & Leventhal, T. (2009). Beyond neighborhood poverty: Family management, neighborhood disorder, and adolescents' early sexual onset. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 819–827. Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Stockhammer, T., & Hood, J. (2002). An ecological framework for understanding risk for exposure to community violence and the effects of exposure on children and adolescents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 423–451. Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1994). Violent victimization and offending: Individual-, situational-, and community level risk factors. In A. J. Reiss, & J. A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence. Vol. 3. (pp. 1–114). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Disorder in urban neighborhoods: Does it lead to crime. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 224–232. Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654. Schreck, C. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization extending routine activities and lifestyles theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1021–1041. Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159–180. Schreck, C. J., Fisher, B. S., & Miller, J. M. (2004). The social context of violent victimization: A study of the delinquent peer effect. Justice Quarterly, 21, 23–47. Schwartz, D., Hopmeyer-Gorman, A., Toblin, R. L., & Abou-ezzeddine, T. (2003). Mutual antipathies in the peer group as a moderating factor in the association between community violence exposure and psychosocial maladjustment. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 102, 39–54. Selner-O'Hagan, M. B., Kindlon, D. J., Buka, S. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. J. (1998). Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 215–224.

Sharkey, P. T. (2006). Navigating dangerous streets: The sources and consequences of street efficacy. American Sociological Review, 71, 826–846. Sheidow, A. J., Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., & Henry, D. B. (2001). Family and community characteristics: Risk factors for violence exposure in inner-city youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 345–360. Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Wu, C. I., & Conger, R. D. (1993). Social network and marital support as mediators and moderators of the impact of stress and depression on parental behavior. Developmental Psychology, 29, 368–381. Singer, M. I., Anglin, T. M., Song, L., & Lunghofer, L. (1995). Adolescents' exposure to violence and associated symptoms of psychological trauma. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 477–482. Slopen, N., Fitzmaurice, G. M., Williams, D. R., & Gilman, S. E. (2012). Common patterns of violence experiences and depression and anxiety among adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47, 1591–1605. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Spano, R., Freilich, J. D., & Bolland, J. (2008). Gang membership, gun carrying, and employment: Applying routine activities theory to explain violent victimization among inner city, minority youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Quarterly, 25, 381–410. Spencer, M. B., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1990). Challenges in studying minority youth. In S. S. Feldman, & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 123–146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Taylor, T. J., Freng, A., Esbensen, F. A., & Peterson, D. (2008). Youth gang membership and serious violent victimization: The importance of lifestyles and routine activities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1441–1464. Tillyer, M. S., Tillyer, R., Miller, H. V., & Pangrac, R. (2011). Reexamining the correlates of adolescent violent victimization: The importance of exposure, guardianship, and target characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2908–2928. Tobler, A. L., Komro, K. A., & Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2009). Relationship between neighborhood context, family management practices and alcohol use among urban, multi-ethnic, young adolescents. Prevention Science, 10, 313–324. van Dulmen, M. H., Belliston, L. M., Flannery, D. J., & Singer, M. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the recent exposure to violence scale. Children and Schools, 30, 93–102. Ward, C. L., & Laughlin, J. E. (2003). Social contexts, age and juvenile delinquency: A community perspective. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 15, 13–26. Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. A. (2003). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Tillyer, M. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology, 45, 771–803. Wilcox, P., Tillyer, M. S., & Fisher, B. S. (2009). Gendered opportunity? School-based adolescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 245–269. Wilson, W. C., & Rosenthal, B. S. (2003). The relationship between exposure to community violence and psychological distress among adolescents: A meta-analysis. Violence and Victims, 18, 335–352. Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2010). Neighborhood context and the gender gap in adolescent violent crime. American Sociological Review, 75, 958–980. Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2011). Neighborhood context and nonlinear peer effects on adolescent violent crime. Criminology, 49, 873–903. Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2013). Individual, family background, and contextual explanations of racial and ethnic disparities in youths' exposure to violence. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 435–442.

Please cite this article as: Antunes, M.J.L., & Ahlin, E.M., Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical framework for explaining risk and protective factors, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015