Protective Factors for Youth Exposed to Violence

• Author: Beth E. Molnar,Stephen L. Buka,S. V. Subramanian,Sonia Jain
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204011424735
• Published date: 01 January 2012
• Date: 01 January 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
10(1) 107-129
Protective Factors for Youth
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Exposed to Violence: Role of
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204011424735
http://yvj.sagepub.com
Developmental Assets in
Building Emotional Resilience
Sonia Jain1, Stephen L. Buka2,
S. V. Subramanian3, and Beth E. Molnar3
Abstract
There is compelling evidence that many youth exposed to community violence manage to adapt
successfully over time. Developmental assets have been deemed salient for positive youth
development, though limited longitudinal studies have examined their relevance for high-risk
youth. Using the Developmental Assets framework, the authors test whether supportive rela-
tionships, high expectations, and opportunities build emotional resilience directly or indirectly
via interaction with risk. Further, the authors examine the effect of neighborhood collective
efficacy on resilience. The authors use multiwave data from 1,166 youth aged 11–16 years and
data about their neighborhoods from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighbor-
hoods (PHDCN). Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to examine whether base-
line protective factors in subjects’ home, peer, and neighborhood environments predicted log
odds of emotional resilience at Waves 2 and 3 among youth ETV. Over 7 years, 60–85% were
emotionally resilient. Positive peers and supportive relationships with parents and other adults
had significant main effects. Positive peers and family support were particularly protective for wit-
nesses and victims. Structured activities and collective efficacy influenced change in resilience dif-
ferentially among ETV groups. Strengths-based policies and systems should focus on building
developmental assets within the family, peer, and community environments for high-risk youth
who have been exposed to violence (ETV).
Keywords
resilience, developmental assets, violence prevention, protective factors, mental health
1 Health and Human Development Program, WestEd, Oakland, CA, USA
2 Center for Population Health and Clinical Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
3 Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sonia Jain, Health and Human Development, WestEd, 300 Lakeside Drive, 25th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, USA
Email: sjain@wested.org

---

108
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10(1)
Introduction
Over the last three decades, a substantial body of research has focused on the increased risk of
psychosocial problems or deviant behaviors among youth who grow up in violent communities.
Indeed, exposure to community violence (ETV) increases one’s risk of psychosocial, behavioral,
and academic problems (Kliewer, Lepore, Oskin, & Johnson, 1998; Osofsky, 1995); however, it
is not deterministic (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 2003). In fact, the majority of youth witnesses and vic-
tims of violence subsequently develop into healthy, caring, and confident adults (Benard, 2004;
Werner & Smith, 2001). The impetus of this multidisciplinary study was that there must be devel-
opmentally appropriate protective factors that youth are able to tap into, to tip the balance from vul-
nerability in favor of resilience. Few longitudinal studies have empirically examined the
significance of developmental assets, that is, stage-salient protective factors that have shown to
be fundamental for positive youth development, in building resilience among at or high-risk youth
(Taylor et al., 2002; Werner, 2005).
Need for a ‘‘Resilience’’ Perspective to Combat Community Violence
Psychological health outcomes have been the most common sequelae of violence exposure
observed, that is, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, or anxiety (Gorman-Smith & Tolan,
1998; Lynch, 2003; Overstreet & Braun, 1999). A resilience perspective suggests that being resilient
does not mean a person is invulnerable to stress, but rather that youth may bounce back, cope, and
recover constructively toward ‘‘normal’’ health in a few years (Luthar, 1993). Resilience researchers
have consistently shown that 50–70% of children under adverse conditions generally fare well
(Benard, 2004; Rhodes & Brown, 1991; Vigil, 1990; Werner & Smith, 2001). Traditional deficit-
focused research tends to focus on predicting negative outcomes, revealing that approximately
30% (20–49%) of the youth do not fare well (Rutter, 1987, 2000; Werner & Smith, 2001), rather
than predicting positive outcomes among a greater percentage of youth who are ‘‘successful’’
(40–80%, Benard, 2004) within the same environment. A resilience perspective suggests a shift
in perspective of the researcher to hone in on elements of positive development that also occurs over
time among youth who may have been ETV. In fact, researchers have hypothesized that protective
factors are more predictive of positive development than risks are to negative outcomes (Rutter,
1987; Werner & Smith, 2001). And the ecologically-based protective factors are equally amenable
to intervention, as risk is, and may contribute to reducing risk exposure as well.
Selection of Protective Factors: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations
Since resilience researchers have generally been critiqued for testing a sundry list of protective fac-
tors (Luthar & Zelano, 2003), we explicitly identified the most robust factors that have been concep-
tually and empirically shown to be robust across disciplines for resilient and nonresilient youth.
Also, we found that few studies have explored protective factors relevant to late adolescent through
early adulthood years; hence, we also relied on developmental theory and youth development liter-
ature to guide our selection. Further, we focused on extrapolating factors at the ecological levels that
are amenable to change.
Previous studies. Resilience research within the context of community violence is in its beginning
stages. Although numerous longitudinal studies have been undertaken in the last 30 years to better
understand resilient trajectories of children exposed to chronic poverty (Garmezy, 1985), parental
psychopathology (Rutter, 1985; Werner & Smith, 1992), and child abuse and neglect (Garbarino,
Dubrow, Kostelny, & Pardo, 1992), little has been done to document resilience in the face of com-
munity violence—despite its high prevalence, persistence, and magnitude.

---

Jain et al.
109
Recently, several investigators have examined protective factors relevant for emotional and
behavioral health in the face of community violence (Bowen & Chapman, 1996; Gorman-Smith,
Henry, & Tolan, 2004; Hammack, Richards, Luo, Edlynn, & Roy, 2004; Kliewer et al., 2004; Lynch
& Cicchetti, 1998). The majority have focused on different dimensions of family structure and func-
tioning, finding that parental support (Bowen & Chapman, 1996; Kliewer et al., 1998; Kuther &
Fisher, 1998), family cohesion (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; 2003), parental attachment (Lynch
& Cicchetti, 1998), or simply presence of a parent (Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Overstreet &
Braun, 1999) are protective against adverse outcomes—suggesting that resilience-based interven-
tions should focus on improving quality of parent–child relationships and other family-level factors.
However, growing evidence suggests that parents may not be able to compensate for the negative
effects of ETV beyond a certain threshold level of risk (Hammack et al., 2004; Kliewer et al., 2004;
Luthar & Goldstein, 2004; Sullivan, Kung, & Farrell, 2004), partly because family functioning may
also be compromised in most dangerous neighborhoods or those exposed to high rates of community
violence over time (Krenichyn, Saegert, & Evans, 2001; Osofsky, 1995; Richters & Martinez,
1993). Others have suggested that parent–adolescent relationships are generally at their worst dur-
ing teen years and that families become of lesser importance as children develop into adolescents
(O’Donnell, Schwab-Stone, & Muyeed, 2002). This suggests that other external sources of support
and resources such as in schools, peer groups, and neighborhoods in parallel deserve greater con-
sideration. However, scarce evidence exists documenting the salience of community, schools, and
peers to mitigate the effects of violence (Schwartz & Proctor, 2000).
Studies that have examined protective factors for ETV have (a) lacked a clear conceptual frame-
work to guide their selection of protective factors. For example, taking an ecological perspective, a
focus solely on relationships would miss resources and opportunities in the schools and/or commu-
nities that may be equally relevant to overcome obstacles for at-risk youth; (b) focused largely on
earlier development years absent consideration of expanding exposures postadolescence; (c) relied
on cross-sectional or short longitudinal data, not measuring long-term impacts of protective factors;
and (d) have not accounted for neighborhood-level differences in crime to explicitly account for the
individual risk of ETV.
The Developmental Assets and Ecological Framework
This strengths-based study is guided by several interdisciplinary individual and ecological level
frameworks. Many researchers concur that to fully examine the issues related to youth ETV, an
ecological–transactional framework is required (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993; Dawes & Donald,
2000), which places the developing child within the dynamic distal context of their families, com-
munities, and societies at large. The Developmental Assets framework (Lerner,...