Levels of Guardianship in Protecting Youth Against Exposure to Violence in the Community

• Author: Eileen M. Ahlin,Maria João Lobo Antunes
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204015590000
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Date: 01 January 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Levels of Guardianship in

Protecting Youth Against

Exposure to Violence in

the Community

Eileen M. Ahlin

1

and Maria Joa

˜o Lobo Antunes

2

Abstract

Using hierarchical generalized linear modeling and the Project on Human Development in Chicago

Neighborhoods data, the authors examine whether different types of guardianship protect youth

against exposure to violence in the neighborhood while controlling for situations where exposure is

most likely to occur. Protective family management practices and internal locus of control signifi-

cantly reduce exposure to community violence. Contrary to expectations, however, neighborhood

collective efficacy exerted no effect. The findings emphasize the importance of considering family

management practices and individual characteristics as protective factors against harmful environ-

ments. Further, guardianship is not restricted to external informal agents of control.

Keywords

exposure to violence, routine activity, family management, peers, lifestyle theory

Introduction

The damaging consequences of individual experiences with exposure to community violence (ETV)

are far reaching. Whether resulting from direct victimization or witnessing violence against others,

the short- and long-term effects on youth behavior and psychological functioning can be devastating.

Youth exposed to community violence are at increased risk for internalizing disorders such as

depression (Curry, Latkin, & Davey-Rothwell, 2008; Fitzpatrick, Piko, Wright, & LaGory, 2005)

and anxiety (Hurt, Malmud, Brodsky, & Giannetta, 2001), as well as aggression (Benhorin &

McMahon, 2008), violence (Brady, Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2008; Flannery, Singer, &

Wester, 2003; Spano, Rivera, & Bolland, 2006), and other externalizing behaviors (for a review, see

1

School of Public Affairs, Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA, USA

2

Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:

Eileen M. Ahlin, School of Public Affairs, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, USA.

Email: ema105@psu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2017, Vol. 15(1) 62-83

ªThe Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204015590000

yvj.sagepub.com

Fowler, Tompsett, Braciszewski, & Jacques-Tiura, 2009; Lynch, 2003). Further, according to

Murphy, Xu, and Kochanek (2012), violence is the fifth cause of death among 5- to 14-year-olds

and increases to the second cause of death in 15- to 24-year-olds. It is critical, then, to understand

what can be done to protect youth against such exposure. From this perspective, routine activity and

lifestyle theories become a useful platform. Neighborhood contexts, family relationships, and indi-

vidual behaviors significantly influence both routine activities and lifestyles and when appropriately

exercised can act as guardians to provide a buffer against ETV (see Bursik, 1988; Schreck & Fisher,

2004). Systems at multiple levels help establish a hierarchy of guardianship that can safeguard youth

against potentially harmful situations and reduce target suitability, while also limiting their encoun-

ters with motivated offenders.

Much research has been devoted to uncovering why some individuals are more likely than others

to be exposed to neighborhood violence. For example, exposure to violence outside the home is

much more prevalent in areas where poverty and disadvantage are widespread (Aber, 1994). More

recently, Gibson, Morris, and Beaver (2009) showed that youth who live in poor neighborhoods with

higher levels of immigrant concentration are more likely to experience secondary exposure to vio-

lence (e.g., witnessing and/or hearing of violent events). Some studies have also reported that offer-

ings of neighborhood youth organizations can have a protective effect on youth ETV, perhaps by

curtailing youth opportunities for engaging in and experiencing violence (Gardner & Brooks-

Gunn, 2009). At a more individual level, research suggests that parents also play a part in limiting

both youth exposure to violence in the neighborhood and behavioral problems that may follow

(Franke, 2000; Laird, Petit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003; Lobo Antunes, 2012; Loeber & Dishion,

1983; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998).

While there is evidence supporting how neighborhood and parenting factors can attenuate or even

exacerbate exposure to violence, there is a paucity of research focusing on how neighborhood and

family practices come together to impact exposure to violence. Situational perspectives, in particu-

lar, routine activity and lifestyles theories, offer a useful framework through which to examine youth

exposure to neighborhood violence because the interplay between the motivated offender, suitable

target, and guardianship is key to explaining victimization at the community level (Cohen & Felson,

1979). Indeed, guardianship can be enacted at several levels and although traditional routine activity

theory as posited by Cohen and Felson (1979) focuses on more macro-level definitions of guardian-

ship, a more microlevel individual view is offered by lifestyles theory (Hindelang, Gottfredson, &

Garofalo, 1978). Essentially, exposure to violence, and more specifically, direct victimization is

more likely to occur because of everyday behaviors and activities in which an individual engages.

As Miethe and Meier (1994) argue ‘‘lifestyles and associations with others are expected to enhance

one’s exposure to risky or vulnerable situations’’ (p. 32). For youth, this suggests that minimizing

neighborhood interactions and association with deviant others, while instilling in them a sense of

responsibility and control over their own actions, may constrain exposure to these ‘‘risky and vul-

nerable situations.’’

The current study examines the linkages between multiple levels of guardianship and ETV in the

community. Specifically, we seek to extend the established routine activity and lifestyles perspec-

tives by emphasizing the ways in which neighborhood characteristics and family management stra-

tegies may provide external guardianship and protection against ETV, while exploring the potential

implications of internal guardianship and the extent to which particular traits may be protective

against ETV. Finally, we also investigate the influence peer interactions have on external and inter-

nal guardianship. Unstructured socializing and associations with deviant peers can simultaneously

influence target suitability, attenuate capable external guardianship (see Schreck, Wright, & Miller,

2002), and potentially temper internal guardianship, all of which may exacerbate ETV in the com-

munity. Our framework addresses what Cohen and Felson (1979) so aptly remarked is an understu-

died area of research, ‘‘Though guardianship is implicit in everyday life, it usually is marked by the

Ahlin and Lobo Antunes 63