U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Research in Brief

Adolescents, Neighborhoods, and Violence: 

Recent Findings From the Project on Human Development 

in Chicago Neighborhoods 

SEP. 07 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Alberto R. Gonzales 

Attorney General 

Regina B. Schofield 

Assistant Attorney General 

David W. Hagy 

Acting Principal Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice 

This and other publications and products 

of the National Institute of Justice can be 

found at: 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
SEP. 07 

Adolescents, Neighborhoods, and Violence: 

Recent Findings From the Project on Human 

Development in Chicago Neighborhoods 

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the 

author and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

NCJ 217397 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

ABOUT THIS REPORT
 

The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was designed 

to investigate the development of crime and violence 

in children and adolescents. 

The PHDCN combines a longitudinal study of more than 

6,000 Chicago children and 

adolescents with a study of 

Chicago neighborhoods. The 

longitudinal study involved 

interviews with children, 

adolescents, and primary 

caregivers conducted from 

1995 through 2001. 

This report summarizes findings from four recently published papers using the 

PHDCN longitudinal study to 

address various questions 

about adolescent violence. 

What did the 

researchers find? 

■	 Why do adolescents of 

different race and ethnicity commit violence at different rates? The research 

identified several factors: 

neighborhood factors, the 

marital status of parents, 

and the immigrant status of 

the adolescent and the parent. Rates tend to be lower 

for adolescents who live in 

neighborhoods that have 

more protective factors, 

who live with married parents, and who are immigrants or have parents who 

are immigrants. 

■	 Does witnessing or experiencing gun violence 

really increase teenagers’ 

likelihood of committing 

violence? Yes. Teens 

exposed to gun violence 

are more likely to commit 

serious violence. 

■	 Which adolescents are 

more likely to carry concealed firearms? Youth 

who live in dangerous and 

disadvantaged neighborhoods and have had more 

exposure to violence are 

more likely to carry concealed firearms. 

■	 Does early puberty affect 

adolescent girls’ violent 

behavior? Girls who 

mature early while living in 

disadvantaged neighborhoods are at increased risk 

for committing violence. 

A common factor in all the 

articles summarized in this 

Research in Brief is the 

important role of neighborhoods in increasing or controlling adolescent violence. 

ii 
ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

Akiva Liberman 

Adolescents, Neighborhoods 

and Violence: 

Recent Findings From the Project 

on Human Development in Chicago 

About the Author 

Akiva Liberman, Ph.D., 

was a Social Science 

Analyst for the National 

Institute of Justice at the 

time he wrote this report. 

He is now a Program 

Official at the National 

Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Neighborhoods 

Why are some adolescents 

more violent than others? 

Why are some neighborhoods 

more violent than others? 

How do disadvantaged neighborhoods affect the development of resident youth? And, 

what is the relationship 

between violent neighborhoods and violent teens? 

Questions such as these 

prompted the creation of the 

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). This unique 

project combined an intensive study of neighborhoods 

with a longitudinal study of 

children and adolescents 

recruited from 80 targeted 

neighborhoods. Three waves 

of interviews were conducted in the longitudinal study. 

The combination of data from 

this multilevel design allowed 

researchers to disentangle 

the effects of neighborhood 

conditions from the characteristics of adolescents. (See 

sidebar on page 2, “About the 

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods.”) 

With completion of the longitudinal study of youth in 

2002, the Project has begun 

to address elusive questions 

about the interplay between 

neighborhood, individual, and 

family conditions in producing 

or controlling violence. This 

Research in Brief summarizes 

findings on violence from four 

recently published scientific 

articles. Each article used the 

multilevel design, drawing on 

data from both the neighborhood and youth studies, as 

shown in the appendix. 

The body of research reviewed 

in the articles generally concludes that neighborhood conditions and social processes 

are important predictors of 

violence beyond the attributes of individual residents 

themselves. The findings 

suggest that neighborhoods 

are strong candidates for 

1 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

ABOUT THE PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS 

The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was launched 

with major support from the National Institute 

of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. 

MacArthur Foundation. It was led by Felton 

Earls, M.D., at the Harvard University School 

of Public Health and Medical School.1 Project 

directors represent a variety of disciplines and 

major universities. 

The project is remarkable in both its scope and 

design. It combines (1) a longitudinal study of 

youth, with repeated interviews of more than 

6,000 youth and their caregivers, with (2) a 

neighborhood study that included a survey of 

almost 9,000 neighborhood residents and systematic observation of levels of social and 

physical disorder in 80 neighborhoods. Analyzing these complex data has required using 

innovative statistical techniques. 

The neighborhood study was conducted in 

1995–96. Chicago was first divided into 343 

neighborhoods of about 8,000 residents, 

composed of contiguous census tracts. Then 

25 to 50 residents of each neighborhood were 

surveyed about neighborhood conditions and 

about their attitudes, yielding 8,782 surveys. 

Research teams also systematically observed 

and recorded conditions of physical and social 

disorder on each side of every street block in 

80 neighborhoods, yielding approximately 

27,000 observations. 

The longitudinal study of youth was launched 

at the same time in 80 neighborhoods, which 

were chosen to vary in both racial and ethnic 

composition and socioeconomic conditions. 

With enough youth from enough neighborhoods, researchers can examine similar youth 

who live in very different neighborhoods, as 

well as youth who are not similar but live in 

similar neighborhoods. 

The researchers enrolled 6,212 participants 

from 7 age cohorts (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18). 

Three waves of data collection were conducted. Each wave consisted of an interview with 

each youth who was at least 6 years old and an 

interview with a primary caregiver for youth 

younger than 18. Interviews were conducted 

about 21

/2 years apart. This design, in which 

multiple age cohorts are studied over overlapping ages, is referred to as an “accelerated 

longitudinal” design, because an age range (in 

this case, from 0 to about 25) can be studied in 

much less time than in a standard longitudinal 

study. 

Early Findings From the Neighborhood Study 

Findings from the PHDCN’s neighborhood study 

have received widespread attention in both the 

professional and general media. For example, 

in a widely cited article published in Science in 

1997 and summarized in an NIJ Research 

Review, Robert Sampson, Stephen Raudenbush, and Felton Earls found that neighborhood 

social processes had a significant impact on 

homicide and violence in the community.2 

Homicide and violent victimization rates were 

found to be lower in neighborhoods where 

residents shared values, had common expectations that neighbors would intervene in 

problem behavior, and trusted each other. The 

researchers called this combination of shared 

values, trust, and expectations for social intervention “collective efficacy” to control crime 

and deviance. The level of collective efficacy, in 

turn, was strongly influenced by neighborhood 

conditions such as the extent of poverty and the 

2 
 

ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

lack of residential stability. Collective efficacy	 1. The Project also received support from the National 

Institute of Mental Health and the Administration for Children thus seems to be a mediating link between 

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; neighborhood conditions and crime and vio­ and the U.S. Department of Education. lence. Equally important, among neighborhoods with similar conditions, those with 2. Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls, “Neighborgreater collective efficacy experienced less hoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective 

violence. 

policy interventions to reduce 

violence. 

The articles report the 

following specific findings: 

■	 Neighborhood conditions 

differ markedly for youth of 

different race and ethnicity, 

and those differing conditions in turn account for 

much of the racial and ethnic differences in youth violence rates. 

■	 Youth in disadvantaged 

and unsafe neighborhoods 

are more likely to carry 

firearms illegally; exposure 

to firearms violence 

increases the risk that 

youth will themselves 

commit violence. 

■	 Girls who mature early in 

disadvantaged neighborhoods are at greater risk 

for being involved in adolescent violence. 

Efficacy,” Science 277 (1997): 918–924. 

Article 1—Race, 

Ethnicity and Violence: 

The Influence of Family 

and Neighborhoods 

Why do African-American, 

Hispanic, and white adolescents commit violence at different rates? The disparities 

can be explained, in large 

part, because adolescents 

differ in whether their parents 

are married and how recently 

their families have immigrated, and because they live in 

different kinds of neighborhoods. 

Neighborhoods are the 

strongest of these influences. In similar neighborhoods, adolescents of 

different race or ethnicity 

behave much more similarly 

than would be suggested by 

simply aggregating behavior 

by race or ethnicity. 

3 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

These findings were reported youth ranged in age from 9 to 

by Robert Sampson, Jeffrey 25 years old. 

Morenoff, and Stephen Raudenbush in “Social Anatomy The measure of violence 

of Racial and Ethnic Dispari- was based on youth’s own 

ties in Violence,” published in reports, rather than official 

the American Journal of Pub- records of arrest or other 

lic Health in February 2005.1	 criminal justice system 

involvement. (See sidebar, 

To explore how a youth’s	 “Measuring Violent Behavior.”) 

racial and ethnic background, 

family, and neighborhood Although official records have 

contribute to violent behavior, often been used in related 

the researchers combined research, any findings of 

data from the neighborhood racial or ethnic differences in 

study 2 with data from the official records are dogged by 

study of youth. They analyzed the possibility that they were 

violent behavior from three either produced or exaggeratwaves of data collected from ed by criminal justice system 

2,974 youth. Over the three biases.3 In contrast, youth’s 

project interviews, these 

MEASURING VIOLENT BEHAVIOR 

At each of three project interviews, subjects 7. Snatched a purse or picked a pocket. 

who were at least 9 years old were asked 8. Used a weapon to rob someone. whether they had engaged in eight different 

violent behaviors over the preceding year: 	 Serious violence was relatively rare: Robbery 

and purse snatching were reported by less 1. Hit someone they did not live with. than 1 percent of subjects (0.3 percent), and 

2. Thrown objects such as rocks or bottles gang fighting by 3.9 percent. The most common 

at people. 	 item, hitting someone, was reported by 20 percent of subjects. 3. Carried a hidden weapon. 


Clearly, these eight types of violent behavior
 4. Been in a gang fight. vary in their frequency and severity. A statisti5. Attacked someone with a weapon. 	 cal technique called Rasch modeling was used 

to combine them into one measure of violence,1 

6. Maliciously set fire to a building, property, which was analyzed in the study of racial and 

or car. ethnic differences in violence. This measure 

4 
ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

gives greater weight to self-reports of more 

serious and less frequent types of violence. 

Most of the technical aspects of developing 

this measure are beyond the scope of this 

Research in Brief. Two complexities of substantive interest are briefly summarized here. 

In-Home Violence 

To be included in a Rasch scale, items must 

differ from one another only in severity on the 

underlying scale. For example, teens who 

report committing robbery are expected to 

report engaging in all less serious behaviors 

as well, including throwing objects and hitting 

others. Because the eight violence items 

included met this requirement, they seem to 

measure the same thing. “Hit someone you live 

with” did not relate to the other items in this 

way, however, which suggests that it may 

involve other dynamics. “It may be that violent 

acts committed at home constitute a different 

dimension than those committed outside the 

home,” according to the researchers.2 As a 

result, violence in the home was not included 

in the overall violence measure analyzed here. 

The Age-Crime Curve and the Crime 

Decline of the 1990s 

These data were collected during a period 

when crime and violence was declining, both 

nationally and in Chicago. That decline in 

crime also affected study participants. As a 

result, a 15-year-old interviewed in 1995 was 

more likely to report committing violent behavior than an equivalent 15-year-old interviewed 

in 2001. This is known to researchers as an 

effect of “history” or “period.” A longitudinal 

study of youth from one age cohort, such as 

12-year-olds in 1995, would be unable to disentangle the developmental effects of age from 

the influences of historical change. With the 

crime rate declining just as these teens went 

through their most crime-prone years, the agecrime curve would be distorted. 

In the PHDCN data, statistical models of the 

effect of age that ignored the effect of history 

seemed to show that a propensity to violence 

peaked around age 13—which is surprisingly 

early relative to prior research.3 The PHDCN’s 

design allowed the effects of history and age to 

be distinguished. 

As noted, the PHDCN’s study of youth used 

an accelerated longitudinal design that interviewed different cohorts over overlapping 

ages. This means that youth of the same age 

(e.g., 18) were interviewed at three periods 

(1995–1996, 1997–1998, 2000–2001), and youth of 

different ages were interviewed at each period. 

As a result, the age-crime curve can be disentangled from period effects with these data. 

When age and period were disentangled, the 

age-crime curve showed the typical form, with 

violent behavior increasing from age 9 to 13 

and peaking in the late teens. However, those 

who reached their late teens during later 

years—when crime was lower—showed 

smaller increases in violence from age 13 

onward, and their violence peaked somewhat 

earlier. 

1. Raudenbush S.W., C. Johnson, and R.J. Sampson. “A 

Multivariate, Multilevel Rasch Model With Application to 

Self-Reported Criminal Behavior,” Sociological Methodology 

33 (1) (2003): 169–211; Johnson, C., and S.W. Raudenbush. “A 

Repeated-Measures, Multilevel Rasch Model With Application to Self-Reported Criminal Behavior,” in C.S. Bergeman 

and S.M. Boker, eds., Methodological Issues in Aging 

Research, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 

2006: 131–164. 

2. Johnson and Raudenbush, 2006, p. 188. 

3. Ibid, p. 180. 

5 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

own reports of violent behavior cannot be affected by system biases. Prior research 

suggests youth reports are 

valid across racial groups.4 

Youth from different racial 

and ethnic groups reported 

committing violence at different rates. African-American 

youth reported the most violence; Mexican-American 

youth reported the least violence, slightly below whites. 

Puerto Rican and “other” 

youth reported rates in 

between. Involvement in selfreported violence showed the 

familiar age-crime curve for all 

groups, peaking at about age 

17. The age-crime curve is 

shown in exhibit 1. 

The study found expected 

racial and ethnic patterns in 

immigrant status and family 

structure: compared with 

whites, Mexican-American 

youth were more likely to be 

first- and second-generation 

immigrants and to live with 

their biological, married 

parents. 

Compared with whites, more 

African-American youth lived 

Exhibit 1. Male Age-Violence Curves by Race/Ethnicity: PHDCN Waves 1–3, Cohorts 9–18 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

Estimated 0.4 

Probability 

of Violence 0.3 

African-American 

0.2 Puerto Rican/ 

other Hispanic

Other 0.1 White 

Mexican-American 

0.0 

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Age 

Note: From Sampson, R.J., J.D. Morenoff, and S. Raudenbush, “Social Anatomy of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Violence,” American 

Journal of Public Health 95 (2) (2005): 224–232 (Fig. 1). Reprinted with permission of American Public Health Association. 

6 
ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

with a single, unmarried parent, and more often lived in 

highly segregated areas with 

significant disadvantage and 

low collective efficacy. 

African-Americans were the 

least likely to be immigrants. 

Whites had the highest 

socioeconomic status, and 

they and Mexican-Americans 

lived in areas that were ethnically mixed but predominantly non-African-American. 

Why did youth of different 

ethnic groups commit more 

or less violence? Their neighborhood conditions, parents’ 

marital status, and immigrant 

generation accounted for 

most of the difference. These 

factors accounted for more 

than 60 percent of the gap 

between African-American 

and white violence, and the 

entire gap between MexicanAmericans and whites. 

Among these factors, neighborhood conditions had the 

strongest influence on youth 

violence, accounting for 

about 30 percent of the difference in violence between 

African-Americans and 

whites. Less violence was 

committed by youth living in 

neighborhoods with more 

first-generation immigrants 

and where more residents 

were employed in professional 

and managerial occupations. 

Youth living in neighborhoods 

where adult residents were 

more cynical about the law 

also reported more violence. 

Once these factors were 

accounted for, the neighborhoods’ racial composition did 

not matter. 

It is important to note that 

individual characteristics may 

be associated with violence 

but fail to account for racial 

and ethnic differences in 

violence. Two well-known 

individual characteristics fit 

this pattern: more impulsive 

youth and youth with lower 

verbal and reading abilities 

were more likely to be violent, but these factors did not 

account for much of the racial 

and ethnic differences in 

violence beyond the effects 

of family structure and immigrant generation. 

Policy implications. The 

authors conclude that racial 

disparities in violence are 

“. . . largely social in nature 

and therefore amenable to 

change.” They suggest that 

policies such as housing 

vouchers to help poor families move to more stable 

neighborhoods and other 

neighborhood improvements 

are perhaps the most effective options for reducing 

longstanding racial disparities 

in violence. The authors also 

7 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

emphasize that families matter, too, as evidenced by the 

lower risk for children living 

with married parents. The 

researchers urge greater 

emphasis on improving 

employment opportunities 

to help poor people achieve 

stable marriages. 

Article 2—Does 

Exposure to Firearms 

Violence Increase 

Serious Violent 

Behavior? 

Does violence beget violence? 

Research has pointed to the 

implications of childhood 

abuse for criminal behavior 

later in life.5 What is the 

effect of experiencing gun 

violence? In “Firearm Violence Exposure and Serious 

Violent Behavior,” published 

in Science in 2005, Jeffrey 

Bingenheimer, Robert Brennan, and Felton Earls explore 

the ramifications of exposure 

to firearms violence—either 

as a victim or witness—for 

the development of subsequent aggressive or violent 

behavior.6 

During their second interview, 1,239 adolescents ages 

14 to 17 were asked if they 

had been shot, shot at, or 

seen someone shot during 

the previous year. About a 

quarter (23 percent) reported 

firearms violence exposure. 

About 2 years later at their 

third project interview, 978 of 

these youth were asked 

about their own aggression 

and violent behavior in the 

past 12 months. Twelve percent reported committing 

serious violence—defined as 

attacking someone with a 

weapon, shooting someone 

or at someone, carrying a hidden weapon, or being in a 

gang fight. Teens who had 

been exposed to firearms 

violence reported committing 

more serious violence during 

the subsequent 2 years than 

teens who had not been 

exposed. 

The research challenge. 

The best way to measure 

the effect of exposure to 

violence would be to conduct 

a randomized experiment. 

Researchers, of course, 

cannot expose some teens 

to gun violence to see its 

effect. So, research must 

compare the behavior of 

teens exposed to gun violence to teens who are not. 

Such comparisons are problematic, however, because 

teens exposed to gun violence differ from teens who 

are not exposed. Exposure to 

gun violence also is much 

8 
ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

more likely in some neighborhoods than others. 

The researchers used the 

Project’s rich data to understand what differentiated 

teens exposed to gun 

violence from those not 

exposed. They examined 153 

variables, including 14 neighborhood characteristics. 

Results showed that exposed 

teens differed from nonexposed teens on 37 of 

these factors, including 6 

neighborhood characteristics. 

On average, exposed teens 

were more aggressive and 

impulsive than nonexposed 

teens even before they were 

exposed to gun violence. Their 

families used more physical 

abuse and corporal punishment and more often had 

legal problems and criminal 

records. Their peers were 

also more aggressive and 

more involved in property and 

drug crimes. Exposed teens 

also lived in neighborhoods 

with greater disadvantage 

and social disorder and less 

informal social control. In 

addition, residents in these 

neighborhoods were more 

cynical about the law and 

expressed less satisfaction 

with the police. 

How, then, can the effects of exposure to gun violence be 

assessed? The researchers 

used a method called propensity score stratification. This 

method capitalizes on the fact 

that not all teens at high risk 

for exposure to gun violence 

are actually exposed, and that 

even some teens at low risk 

do get exposed. The researchers first determined what 

individual, family, peer, and 

neighborhood factors increase the risk of exposure. 

They then grouped teens into 

12 strata of risk for exposure 

to gun violence, and comparisons were made only within 

these strata of risk. This 

method generates “apples to 

apples” comparisons of teens 

with similar risk of exposure, 

only some of whom were 

actually exposed. 

An important caveat is that 

this comparison could not be 

made reliably for those teens 

with the highest or lowest 

risk of exposure to firearms 

violence. Among the 1.6 

percent of youth with the 

most extreme risk of exposure, too few were not 

exposed to generate a 

comparison group. Similarly, 

among the 24 percent least 

likely to be exposed to 

firearms violence, too few 

were exposed. These extremes of the sample were 

therefore excluded from the 

analyses. 

9 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

Statistical comparisons within the remaining strata— 

about three-quarters of the 

participants—showed that 

exposure to firearm violence 

approximately doubled the 

probability that an adolescent 

would commit serious violence over the subsequent 

2 years. As noted above, 

however, this finding cannot 

be generalized to teens at 

little risk of exposure or those 

with extremely high exposure 

risk. 

Article 3—Youth 

Carrying Concealed 

Firearms 

Why do adolescents carry 

firearms? Most prior research 

on this question has examined 

individual characteristics, and 

findings suggest that a major 

reason that adolescents carry 

firearms is self-protection.7 

The context in which these 

youth live may be a major 

factor in their decision to carry 

firearms and deserves more 

direct examination. 

Beth Molnar, Matthew Miller, 

Deborah Azrael, and Stephen 

Buka used the multilevel 

design of the PHDCN to 

examine why youth carried 

concealed weapons. Their 

findings were reported in 

“Neighborhood Predictors of 

Concealed Firearm Carrying 

Among Children and Adolescents,” published in 2004 in 

the Archives of Pediatric and 

Adolescent Medicine.8 The 

researchers combined data 

from the study of neighborhoods with self-reports from 

teens in the youth study 

about carrying concealed 

firearms. These reports were 

given at the teens’ second 

project interview. At the time 

of this interview, they were 

between 12 and 19 years old. 

Although they were originally 

recruited from 80 Chicago 

neighborhoods, by the time 

of the interview, 1,752 participants lived in 218 different 

neighborhoods. 

Fifty-six of these teens (3 percent) reported carrying a concealed firearm. Most of those 

carrying concealed firearms 

were male (82 percent) and 

among the older study participants (71 percent were 16 or 

older). 

At the individual level, most 

of the risk factors concerned 

exposure to firearms or 

violence. 

Living in a home where a gun 

was kept was associated with 

carrying a concealed weapon, 

although only two subjects 

reported actually carrying a 

gun taken from home. Most 

10 
ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

had received or borrowed 

guns from friends (64 percent), and about one-quarter 

(23 percent) had bought the 

gun themselves. 

Of teens carrying concealed 

firearms, more than 90 percent had been victimized, 

more than 90 percent had 

witnessed violence, and 

almost three-quarters had 

a family member who had 

been shot (73 percent). 

Although these experiences 

with violence increased the 

risk that teens would carry 

a concealed firearm, the vast 

majority of teens who had 

witnessed violence, been 

victimized, or had a family 

member shot did not carry 

a concealed weapon. 

Youth carrying concealed 

firearms had also previously 

engaged in more aggressive 

and delinquent behavior than 

others. 

Does the neighborhood context itself affect concealed 

gun carrying, beyond individual experiences with violence? Researchers used 

multilevel statistical models 

to find out. The strongest 

predictor of concealed gun 

carrying was whether the 

neighborhood was safe or 

unsafe for children, as rated 

by survey respondents in the 

neighborhood study.9 

Other neighborhood characteristics associated with carrying weapons included low 

levels of collective efficacy 

and greater social and physical disorder.10 (For an explanation of collective efficacy, see 

sidebar on page 2, “About the 

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods.”) Neighborhood 

poverty did not predict concealed gun carrying. 

The researchers suggest that 

policymakers who are looking 

for effective interventions to 

reduce youth violence and 

illegal gun carrying focus on 

neighborhoods and neighborhood social dynamics. 

Article 4—The Role 

of Early Puberty and 

Neighborhood Factors 

in Girls’ Violent 

Behavior 

Girls who reach puberty at 

a younger age than others 

are more likely to be delinquent and behave antisocially, 

according to previous 

research. Dawn Obeidallah, 

Robert T. Brennan, Jeanne 

Brooks-Gunn, and Felton 

Earls explored the joint effect 

of the timing of puberty and 

neighborhood factors in their 

2004 article, “Links Between 

11 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

Pubertal Timing and Neighborhood Contexts: Implications 

for Girls’ Violent Behavior,” 

published in the Journal of the 

American Academy of Child 

and Adolescent Psychiatry.11 

They found that girls who 

mature early are more likely 

to commit violence, but that 

this effect seems limited to 

girls from disadvantaged 

neighborhoods. 

The researchers combined 

data from the first 2 project 

interviews of 501 girls with 

data about their neighborhoods. The girls were about 

12 to 15 years old at the time 

they enrolled in the study, 

and most were from minority 

families. The average age of 

puberty for the sample was 

11.7 years. One-fifth of the 

sample matured early (defined 

as menarche before age 11). 

Girls report violent behavior. 

At their first interview, about 

one-third of girls reported 

engaging in violence. This 

declined to about one-quarter 

at their second interview, 

which likely reflects the 

overall drop in violent crime 

in Chicago between these 

interviews (1995 to 1998). 

The researchers examined 

how changes in violence 

between these interviews 

differed as a function of 

puberty and the characteristics 

of their neighborhoods. 

Three neighborhood characteristics were examined: 

concentrated disadvantage, 

residential instability, and 

immigrant concentration. 

Neighborhood factors alone 

were not reliably associated 

with changes in girls’ violence; neither was early maturation. When examined 

together, girls who matured 

early and who also lived in 

very disadvantaged neighborhoods became relatively more 

violent than others. The 

authors suggest that earlymaturing girls in disadvantaged neighborhoods may 

suffer a “double vulnerability 

that may overwhelm girls’ 

capacity to act in a developmentally optimal manner, forging their path to increased 

violence.” 

Limitations. This study 

examined neighborhood 

conditions but did not explore 

the neighborhood social 

processes that might make 

early-maturing girls more 

violent. This is clearly a task 

for further research. Likewise, because the girls selfreported both the timing of 

their puberty and their violent 

behavior, the researchers 

suggest that future research 

could be strengthened by 

12 
ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

medical assessments of 

the onset of puberty. Such 

screening, if part of a routine 

clinical visit, could also provide 

an opportunity to offer support to vulnerable girls. 

Conclusions 

The findings from the PHDCN 

indicate that neighborhood 

conditions and social processes play an important role in 

influencing adolescent violence, beyond the attributes 

of individuals in those neighborhoods. In the articles 

reviewed here, this general 

conclusion relates to illegal 

firearms carrying, exposure 

to firearms violence, the 

observed racial and ethnic 

differences in offending, and 

the relationship between 

early puberty and violent 

behavior in girls. 

None of these findings on 

neighborhood influences 

contradict the many robust 

findings about the effects 

of individual, family, and peer 

factors in producing violence. 

Although not the primary 

focus of this Research in 

Brief, the articles reviewed 

report many such effects, 

including the role of married 

parents, youth impulsiveness, 

individual experiences with 

violence and victimization, 

and association with deviant 

peers. These findings are 

consistent with many other 

studies of the development 

of delinquency. 

The PHDCN has the rare 

ability to focus on the interplay among neighborhoods, 

families, and individual characteristics on the development of children and 

adolescents. Research that 

lacks the Project’s multilevel 

design is hard pressed to 

disentangle neighborhood 

effects from individual 

effects. Each study reviewed 

in this Research in Brief finds 

that neighborhoods affect 

development in a way that 

cannot be reduced to characteristics of study participants 

themselves, their peers, or 

families. 

Neighborhoods offer much 

potential for policy interventions to reduce violence. 

Considerable work will be 

required, however, to identify 

and test effective interventions 

to bolster protective neighborhood social processes. 

Future Directions 

The complexity of the 

PHDCN required great care 

in design and execution and 

in organizing and managing 

13 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

data. Over the course of a 

decade, data have been collected on more than 6,000 

children and adolescents 

ranging from age 0 to 25, and 

integrated with a community 

survey of almost 9,000 adults 

across Chicago neighborhoods. The neighborhood 

study also included “systematic social observation” of 

social and physical disorder in 

80 targeted neighborhoods. 

The articles reviewed in this 

Research in Brief illustrate 

the interdisciplinary nature 

of the PHDCN; findings with 

direct relevance to criminal 

justice policy are published 

in a variety of disciplines. 

Project data have also illuminated a host of other issues 

in psychology, sociology, 

psychiatry, and public health. 

Numerous other publications 

have focused on the Project’s 

methodological and statistical 

innovations, which have been 

central to the Project’s development. Additional papers on 

many of these topics are 

expected in the coming years. 

A second wave of the neighborhood study was conducted 

in 2002 and 2003. A shortened community survey was 

administered to more than 

3,000 participants across all 

Chicago neighborhoods in 

collaboration with the Chicago 

Community Adult Health 

Study. A smaller second 

wave of systematic social 

observation also was conducted in collaboration with 

the Mind-Body Study of the 

University of Michigan. 

These new data will allow 

researchers to examine the 

extent of neighborhood 

change, and how such change 

relates to violence and crime. 

The Data Archive 

Much of the data from both 

the neighborhood and youth 

studies are now archived at 

the Inter-university Consortium of Political and Social 

Research at the University 

of Michigan (ICPSR). The 

data archive allows other 

researchers to conduct additional analyses. In 2005 and 

2006, two summer workshops were held at ICPSR on 

the use of these data. Information about the archive is 

available at www.icpsr. 

umich.edu/PHDCN. The 

archive also maintains a list 

of related publications. 

14 
ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

Notes 

1. Sampson, R., J. Morenoff, and S. 

Raudenbush, “Social Anatomy of 

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in 

Violence,” American Journal of 

Public Health 95 (2) (February 2005): 

224–232. 

2. This article used census tracts as 

“neighborhoods,” which are smaller 

than the neighborhoods used for 

analysis in the other articles summarized here. 

3. McCord J., C.S. Widom, and N.A. 

Crowell, eds. Juvenile Crime, 

Juvenile Justice. Panel on Juvenile 

Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and 

Control. Committee on Law and 

Justice and Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families: Commission on 

Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education, National Research Council 

and Institute on Medicine. 

Washington, DC: National Academies 

Press. 2001. 

4. Farrington, D.P., R. Loeber, M. 

Stouthamer-Loeber, W.B. Van 

Kammen, and L. Schmidt, “SelfReported Delinquency and a 

Combined Delinquency Seriousness 

Scale Based on Boys, Mothers, and 

Teachers: Concurrent and Predictive 

Validity for African-Americans and 

Caucasians,“Criminology 34 (4) 

(1996): 493–517; Thornberry, T.P., 

and M.D. Krohn, “Comparison of 

Self-Report and Official Data for 

Measuring Crime,” in Measurement 

Problems in Criminal Justice 

Research: Workshop Summary, J.V. 

Pepper and C.V. Petrie, eds. 

Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press, 2002: 43–94. 

5. Widom, Cathy S., “Childhood 

Victimization: Early Adversity, Later 

Psychopathology,” NIJ Journal 242 

(January 2000): 2–9, Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 

181864. 

6. Bingenheimer, J. B., R. T. Brennan, 

and F.J. Earls, “Firearm Violence 

Exposure and Serious Violent 

Behavior,” Science 308 (May 27, 

2005): 1323–1326. 

7. Arria, A.M., G. Borges, and J.C. 

Anthony, “Fears and Other 

Suspected Risk Factors for Carrying 

Lethal Weapons Among Urban 

Youths of Middle-School Age,” 

Archives of Pediatrics and 

Adolescent Medicine 151 (1997): 

555–560. Kingery, P.M., B.E. Pruitt, 

and G. Heuberger, “A Profile of Rural 

Texas Adolescents Who Carry 

Handguns to School,” Journal of 

School Health 66 (1996): 18–22. 

Martin, S.L., L.S. Sadowski, N.U. 

Cotton, and D.R. McCarraher, 

“Response of African-American 

Adolescents in North Carolina to Gun 

Carrying by School Mates,” Journal 

of School Health 66 (1996): 23–26. 

Meilman, P.W., and J.R. Cashin, 

“Weapons Carrying and Substance 

Abuse Among College 

Students,”Journal of American 

College Health 46 (1997): 3–8. 

8. Molnar, B., M. Miller, D. Azrael, 

and S. Buka, “Neighborhood 

Predictors of Concealed Firearm 

Carrying Among Children and 

Adolescents: Results From the 

Project on Human Development in 

Chicago Neighborhoods,” Archives of 

Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 

158 (July 2004): 657–664. 

9. A change in neighborhood safety of 

one standard deviation increased the 

odds of concealed gun carrying by a 

ratio of 5.8. The neighborhood safety 

measure was based on neighborhood 

15 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

residents’ rated agreement with five 

statements: (1) You can count on 

adults in this neighborhood to watch 

out that children are safe and don’t 

get into trouble. (2) Children around 

here have no place to play but the 

street. (3) Equipment and buildings 

in the park or playground nearby are 

well kept. (4) The park or playground 

nearby is safe during the day. (5) The 

park or playground nearby is safe at 

night. 

10. The contributions of these neighborhood characteristics could not be 

disentangled from the effect of 

neighborhood safety, because they 

were too intertwined. Instead, each 

was examined separately, controlling 

for individual characteristics. 

11. Obeidallah, D., R.T. Brennan, J. 

Brooks-Gunn, and F.J. Earls, “Links 

Between Pubertal Timing and 

Neighborhood Contexts: Implications 

for Girls’ Violent Behavior,” Journal of 

the American Academy of Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry 43 (12) 

(December 2004): 1460–1468. 

Additional reading 

The following NIJ publications discuss the Project’s 

key early results: 

Adolescent Girls: The Role 

of Depression in Development of Delinquency. NIJ 

Research Preview, by Dawn 

A. Obeidallah and Felton J. 

Earls, July 1999. NCJ 

184349. FS 000244. 

Assessing the Exposure of 

Urban Youth to Violence. NIJ 

Research Preview, by Mary 

Beth Selner-O’Hagan, Daniel 

J. Kindlon, Stephen L. Buka, 

Stephen W. Raudenbush, and 

Felton J. Earls, November 

1996. NCJ 184414. 

Attitudes Toward Crime, 

Police, and the Law: Individual 

and Neighborhood Differences. NIJ Research Preview, 

by Robert J. Sampson and 

Dawn Jeglum Bartusch, June 

1999. NCJ 184200. FS 

000240. 

Breaking the Cycle: Predicting and Preventing Crime, 

NIJ Research Report, by Felton J. Earls and Albert J. 

Reiss, Jr., 1994. NCJ 140541. 

Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods: Does It Lead to 

Crime? NIJ Research in Brief, 

by Robert J. Sampson and 

Stephen W. Raudenbush, 

February 2001. NCJ 186049. 

Linking Community Factors 

and Individual Development. 

NIJ Research Preview, by 

Felton J. Earls, September 

1998. NCJ 184348. FS 

000230. 

16 
ADOLESCENTS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND VIOLENCE 

“Men and Fathers in the 

Community.” Perspectives 

on Crime and Justice: 

1998–1999 Lecture Series, 

Vol. III, November 1999. 

Lecture by Felton J. Earls, 

February 1999. NCJ 178244. 

Neighborhood Collective Efficacy: Does It Help Reduce 

Violence? NIJ Research Preview, by Robert J. Sampson, 

Steven W. Raudenbush, and 

Felton J. Earls, April 1998. 

NCJ 184377. FS 000203. 

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Technical Report I, NIJ 

Research Report, by Felton J. 

Earls and Stephen L. Buka 

(eds.), March 1997. NCJ 

163495. 

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: A Research Update, 

NIJ Research in Brief, by 

Felton J. Earls and Christy A. 

Visher, February 1997. NCJ 

163603. 

Copies of these publications 

are available at NIJ’s Web 

site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ 

nij, or e-mail NCJRS at 

puborder@ncjrs.org, 

1–800–851–3420, P.O. Box 

6000, Rockville, MD 20849– 

6000. Please refer to the 

documents’ NCJ numbers 

when ordering. 

17 
R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / S E P. 0 7 

Appendix. Data Used in the Articles Reviewed 

Article Youth Study Data Neighborhood Study Data 

Outcome N 

Cohorts 

(Age at first 

interview) 

Wave of 

interviews 

used 

U.S. Census 

Data on 

Neighborhood 

Conditions 

PHDCN 

Community 

Survey Data on 

Neighborhood 

Social 

Processes 

Social Anatomy of Racial 

and Ethnic Disparities in 

Violence1 

Self-reported 

violence 

2,925 9, 12, 15, 

and 18 

1, 2, and 3 Yes Yes 

Firearm Violence Exposure 

and Serious Violent 

Behavior2 

Self-reported 

violence 

978 12 and 15 2 and 3 Yes Yes 

Neighborhood Predictors of Self-reported 1,842 9, 12, 15, 2 Yes Yes 

Concealed Firearm Carrying 

Among Children and 

Adolescents: Results From 

the PHDCN3 

concealed 

firearm 

carrying 

and 18 

Links Between Pubertal 

Timing and Neighborhood 

Contexts: Implications for 

Girls’ Violent Behavior4 

Self-reported 

violence 

501 

girls 

12 and 15 1 and 2 Yes No 

1. Sampson, R.J., J.D. Morenoff, and S. Raudenbush, “Social Anatomy of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Violence,” American 

Journal of Public Health 95 (2) (February 2005): 224–232. 

2. Bingenheimer, J.B., R.T. Brennan, and F.J. Earls, “Firearm Violence Exposure and Serious Violent Behavior,” Science 308 (May 

27, 2005): 1323–1326. 

3. Molnar, B.E., M.J. Miller, D. Azrael, and S.L. Buka, “Neighborhood Predictors of Concealed Firearm Carrying Among Children 

and Adolescents,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 158 (July 2004):657–664. 

4. Obeidallah, D., R.T. Brennan, J. Brooks-Gunn, and F.J. Earls, “Links Between Pubertal Timing and Neighborhood Contexts: 

Implications for Girls’ Violent Behavior,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43 (12) (December 

2004): 1460–1468. 

18 
The National Institute of Justice is the 

research, development, and evaluation 

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

NIJ's mission is to advance scientific research, 

development, and evaluation to enhance the 

administration of justice and public safety. 

The National Institute of Justice is a 

component of the Office of Justice Programs, 

which also includes the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; 

the Community Capacity Development Office; 

the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 

and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking (SMART). 
USE ONLY FOR 6” X 9” PUBLICATIONS

1/4” TO 3/4” THICK.

SEP. 07 

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of JusticeWashington, DC 20531Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

PERMIT NO. G–91 

MAILING LABEL AREA (5” x 2”)

DO NOT PRINT THIS AREA

(INK NOR VARNISH) 

*NCJ~217397*