DOI: 10.3886/icpsr22661.v1
title: Family, Peer and Neighborhood-level Protective Factors within the Developmental Assets Framework: A Longitudinal Analysis of Behavioral Adaptation for Urban Youth Exposed to Community Violence in Chicago, 1994-2002
title: Version 1

description: This study used longitudinal data from 1,114 youth ages 11-16 and their neighborhoods from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine whether baseline interpersonal and neighborhood protective factors predicted behavioral adjustment at waves 2 and 3 among youth who were victims of, witnesses of, or unexposed to violence, controlling for individual and neighborhood-level risks.
description: The main goal of this study was to examine the protective effects of developmental assets for behavioral adaptation for high-risk youth exposed to violence using the PHDCN longitudinal study sample.
description: This study utilized data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), which collected both community and individual level data over three waves during adolescence and young adulthood. The sample of 1,114 youths was composed of all youth with non-missing data at baseline in cohorts 12 and 15 from the PHDCN's Longitudinal Cohort Study of Adolescents (LCS), neighborhood data from community-based surveys, and Census and Police homicide data for additional neighborhood variables. The outcome variable of interest was behavioral adaptation, which was operationalized as an externalizing problem score, which was a sum of 14 items from a reduced version of Achenbach's (1991) Youth or Young Adult Self-Report scale. This instrument was composed of nine items on aggression and five items on delinquency. This study considered the moderating effect of caring relationships and support on the association between exposure to community violence, which was measured based on the My Exposure To Violence (My ETV) scale and behavioral resilience. Subject's exposure to 18 different violent events in the community in the past year was measured using the My ETV scale at wave 2, the earliest wave for which exposure to violence was available. Socio-demographic variables of the youth that were controlled for in the analyses were age, gender, family socioeconomic position (composite of parental income, education and occupational code), family structure, and race/ethnicity. Neighborhood-level factors that were controlled in the analyses included concentrated poverty and perceived violence in the community. The protective factors of interest were both interpersonal and neighborhood-based. Interpersonal items from the PHDCN that corroborated with Search Institute external assets of support, opportunities, boundaries and expectations, and empowerment, and the California Healthy Kids Survey Resilience module (WestEd) were identified at all waves, and scales were developed accordingly. Neighborhood-level protective factors that were identified included social cohesion, neighborhood social capital, and collective efficacy, as well as an index of organizations and services in the neighborhood.Using SAS version 9.0, the final sample of 1,114 youth was studied for differences in protective factors by exposure to community violence group using chi-square tests and t-tests. Bivariate Pearson correlations were examined to assess the magnitude and significance of the correlations between the primary outcome, risk of ETV, and protective factors. Systematic differences between respondents and non-respondents were also examined. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logit function were estimated regressing intercept at wave 2 and slope from wave 2 to wave 3 onto individual and neighborhood-level predictors at baseline. Multilevel models were sequentially built starting with a null model that included no predictors, then adding time (age), the primary risk variable (ETV group), level 2 controls (sex, race, socioeconomic position, family structure), and level 3 controls (neighborhood perceived violence, and concentrated poverty).
description: Variables used in the study analyses include outcome variables, risk exposure variables, protective factor variables, neighborhood-level crime and socioeconomic status data, and demographic variables. The outcome variable of interest was behavioral adaptation, it was measured using nine items on aggression and five items on delinquency. Risk exposure variables include exposure to 18 different violent events in the community in the past year. Protective factor variables include family support, friend support, other adult support, neighborhood support, positive peer influence, family boundaries and expectations, and structured opportunities for meaningful participation at school or community. Neighborhood-level crime and socioeconomic status data variables include concentrated poverty and perceived violence in the community. Demographic variables include family socioeconomic position, family structure, gender, age, and race.
description: none
description: Presence of Common Scales: A reduced version of Achenbach's (1991) Youth or Young Adult Self-Report scale was used to measure behavioral adaptation, specifically on aggression and delinquency. The My Exposure To Violence (My ETV) scale comprised of 3 sub scales (witnessing, victimization, and head of) was used to measure the moderating effects of caring relationships and support on the association between exposure to community violence. The Achenbach's (1991) Youth or Young Adult Self-Report Scale was used to measure behavioral adjustment/resilience. The Family boundaries and expectations scale was used to measure parental monitoring, and having clear rules and consequences at home. A Caring Relationships/Support scale was used which contained four subscales; Friend Support (8 items), Family Support (6 items), Other Adult Support (4 items), and Neighborhood Social Cohesion (5 items). An Opportunities scale containing three items was used to measure time spend in structured activities. A High Expectations and Boundaries scale was used which contained three subscales; Positive Peer Influence (10 items), Neighborhood Control (5 items), and Family Boundaries and Expectations (13 items).
description: Response Rates: Users should consult the original PHDCN Longitudinal Cohort studies and Community Survey studies for response rate information.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS1: Dataset
description: In order to use the SAS system files provided in this collection, users must first obtain the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) Longitudinal Cohort Study of Adolescents (LCS) and the PHDCN Community Survey data available from the ICPSR PHDCN Web site.To protect respondent privacy, the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods data are restricted from general dissemination. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete an Agreement for the Use of Confidential Data, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research. Apply for access to these data through the ICPSR Restricted Data Contract Portal, which can be accessed via the study home page. Researchers are encouraged to also consult the NACJD Restricted Data page for additional information about restricted data.
description: All youth with non-missing data at baseline in cohorts 12 and 15 from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) Longitudinal Cohort Study of Adolescents (LCS).
description: This study utilized data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), which collected both community and individual level data over multiple time points during adolescence and young adulthood. In particular, the sample of 1,114 youths was composed of all youths with non-missing data at baseline in cohorts 12 and 15 from the PHDCN's Longitudinal Cohort Study of Adolescents (LCS). Cohort 18 could not be used, because the My ETV scale was not collected at wave 2 for cohort 18. For LCS, a random sample of 6,226 children and youth within 6 months of ages 0 (in utero), 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years were selected from a random sample of 80 neighborhood clusters (NCs) at baseline using a multistage probability design. About 25 youth per NC were interviewed 3 times. The neighborhood-level data was aggregated from the wave 1 community survey which assessed residents' perceptions of their neighborhood quality, safety and sense of community. Approximately, 8,872 residents ages 18 years and older were randomly selected to be surveyed from 343 total Chicago NCs. The 1990 census and Police Homicide data from 1995 provided information about the crime rate and neighborhood structural variables.The final sample included subjects with non-missing data at baseline, and assuming data were missing at random, the longitudinal models estimated values for the missing responses in subsequent waves. Values were imputed only if one wave was missing data. If more than one wave was missing data, then no imputation was done. Of the total 1,517 youth who participated in cohorts 12 and 15 at wave 1, 1,238 had complete data on ETV at wave 2, 100 had missing data on outcome at either wave 2 or 3, and 39 were missing data on at least one covariate. Thus, the final sample included 1,114 youth in 78 neighborhoods for analysis. Subjects dropped from the analysis were more likely to be black, from single parent families, and have fewer assets (e.g., family boundaries, collective efficacy, or other adult support) but they had similar externalizing problem scores and ETV compared to the included respondents.