Youth violence, a serious public health problem, is the intentional use of physical force or power (with the likelihood of physical or psychological harm) by a young person aged 10 to 24 years against another person, group, or community (Mercy, Butchart, Farrington, & Cerda, 2002). In 2009, physical fighting during the past 12 months was reported by 31.5% of high school students, and 17.5% reported carrying a weapon (gun, knife or club) in the past 30 days (CDC, 2010). Youth who perpetrate and are victimized by violence are at increased risk for poor health outcomes, including mental health disorders, substance use, and high risk sexual behavior (Arseneault et al., 2006; Menard, 2002; Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 1995).

Fortunately, violence prevention can be achieved through public health etiologic research to identify factors that increase or decrease risk for violence. To inform the factors that can be targeted for primary prevention efforts (that is, efforts to stop violence before it starts) we use a developmental, social-ecological approach to investigate factors across individual, relationship, and community levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Dahlberg & Krug, 2002; Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Henry, 2000). This approach emphasizes the importance of relationships among social settings and acknowledges that contexts and propensity for violence change over adolescence (Loeber & Hay, 1997).

For many years prevention researchers examined factors that increase the likelihood of violence (risk factors). More recently there has been a greater emphasis on positive youth development (Catalano, Hawkins, Berglund, Pollard, & Arthur, 2002); specifically, on the skills, competencies, relationships, and opportunities that help youth to overcome challenges and successfully transition through developmental stages into adulthood, termed “assets” by Oman and colleagues (2010). When a factor directly decreases the likelihood of violence (a direct protective effect) or when a factor decreases the likelihood of violence in the presence of risk (a buffering protective effect; Lösel & Farrington, 2012), it can be considered to be an asset. Understanding when and under what conditions some factors can moderate the detrimental effects of others leading to resilience is critical to the development of prevention efforts (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Identification of social processes that serve as assets is particularly important as such factors are modifiable and can be promoted within prevention efforts, perhaps more easily than reducing structural risks that exist in a community.

Family structure and the relationships formed between caregivers and their children early in life influence whether youth can negotiate relationships successfully with others, or resort to violent behavior. Youth living in single-parent households are significantly more likely to engage in fighting and weapon carrying and experience violent injuries (Oman, Vesely, & Aspy, 2005; Orpinas, Murray, & Kelder, 1999). Monitoring and supervision (the degree to which parents supervise their children’s behavior, know where their children are throughout the day and evening, and know their children’s friends) reduces risk for physical fighting and weapon carrying (Luster & Oh, 2001; Orpinas et al., 1999). The mechanisms of influence underlying these practices include the promotion of youths’ self-control, facilitation of anger control skills, and reduction of frequency with which youth affiliate with violent peers (Cantillon, 2006; Griffin et al., 1999; Henry, Tolan, & Gorman-Smith, 2001), as seen through the effects of family behavioral and therapeutic intervention approaches. Through participation in Multisystemic Therapy (MST), parents enhance their parental monitoring, supervision, and discipline skills; these changes are associated with youth’s decreased association with delinquent peers, as well as perpetration of serious offending (e.g., Huey, Henggeler, Brondino, & Pickrel et al., 2000). Family communication also reduces propensity for fighting and weapon carrying (Aspy et al., 2004; Resnick, Ireland, and Borowsky, 2004), and when improved through family strengthening interventions, such as in the Iowa Strengthening Families Program, it can result in reductions in youths’ aggressive behavior (Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 2000).

Youth who experience consistently good family management practices or improvements in positive family management practices over time are less likely to engage in violence over the course of adolescence (Herrenkohl, Hill, Hawkins, Chung, & Nagin, al., 2006; Henry, Tolan, & Gorman-Smith, 2001). The effects of high quality parenting on violent behavior begin in middle childhood (Brody et al., 2003), and can interrupt the progression of violence, particularly for youth who hold high aggressive beliefs in childhood (Andreas & Watson, 2009; Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Lavoie, 2001).

Neighborhood structural characteristics such as concentrated disadvantage, typically defined by low socio-economic status, single-mother households, residential instability, unemployment, and low rates of home ownership, have emerged as some of the most reliable predictors of violence, including homicide (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Fagan & Davies, 2004). In the Community Survey of the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, al., 2001), a one standard deviation increase in concentrated disadvantage was associated with a 40% increase in the homicide rate per police data, and a 25% increase per vital statistics data.

Researchers have long recognized that the effects of neighborhood structural factors on violence might best be explained by the social processes that accompany these structural conditions, such as social ties, collective efficacy, institutional resources, and routine activities (see Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson et al., 2002 for reviews). Social disorganization theory suggests that neighborhood characteristics such as poverty and residential instability weaken the social controls that residents have over youth, thereby increasing rates of crime (Shaw and McKay, 1942; 1969). Collective efficacy, a combination of social cohesion and trust among members of a neighborhood along with informal social control, mediates the relationship between residential instability and concentrated disadvantage and violence, including homicide and self-reports of violent crime and victimization (Sampson et al., 1997; Morenoff et al., 2001). The critical mechanism underlying this effect goes beyond strong social ties between neighbors: Social ties assist in fostering social control, but it is the expectations, willingness, and working trust among residents to take action and intervene in problem situations to stem social disorder that predicts the occurrence of violence.

Inferior city services such as poor police and fire protection and trash removal may signal a lack of value in public safety and civility in residents, and contribute to social and physical disorder (e.g., abandoned buildings and drug and gang activity), affecting levels of violence in turn. Residents perceive urban decay, such as vacant housing, trash mismanagement, and inadequate street lighting as having a direct impact on youth violence rates by offering opportunity for illicit drug selling and hiding firearms, thereby increasing opportunities for offending and leading to a devaluing of people in the neighborhood (Yonas, O’Campo, Burke, & Gielen, 2007). Youth have been found to be more likely to carry a weapon in public housing spaces and disordered areas characterized by higher levels of neighborhood violence and where illicit drugs are sold; however, effects of disorder have varied across studies or have disappeared once other community factors have been taken into account (Patchin, Huebner, McCluskey, Varano, & Bynum, 2006; Luster & Oh, 2001; Watkins, 2008). Perceived neighborhood risk (including presence of gangs and danger of getting in trouble in the neighborhood) has also been associated with higher levels of risk taking behavior, and in turn, physical aggression (Griffin et al., 1999).

Gaps in knowledge about neighborhood-level assets result from an insufficient utilization of transactional models to investigate how neighborhood processes interact with individual characteristics and family-level processes. Prior research that has investigated neighborhood factors has often been risk-focused, cross-sectional, examining only temporal relationships, in isolated domains of influence, using only self-report instruments and census data, with small samples. Hence, our understanding of whether and how neighborhood matters over the course of adolescence in the context of individual and family characteristics is in its infancy, especially compared to our understanding of individual, peer, and family effects on violence. Also, previous research has often focused on only one type of violence-related behavior, such as physical fighting or weapon-carrying, but not both, limiting our understanding of how families and neighborhoods may have similar or differential effects on multiple forms of violence. Some youth engage only in physical fighting, others carry weapons, and some are involved in both (Spano & Bolland, 2010). Fighting and weapon carrying have been found to have some risk factors and assets in common, but not others (e.g., Aspy et al., 2004; Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010). For example, Aspy and colleagues (2004) found that assets such as family communication and friends that stay out of trouble influenced fighting and weapon carrying similarly, while good grades and ability to communicate thoughts and feelings to others uniquely contributed to a lower likelihood of weapon carrying, but not fighting. Thus, understanding which factors influence multiple forms of violence allows for the targeting of primary prevention strategies toward the factors that can have the greatest population-level impact on violence.

The current study fills in these gaps by assessing family and neighborhood structures as well as social processes, employing a longitudinal study design, and utilizing objective measures of neighborhood factors with self-reports and census data in a large diverse sample. Longitudinal models advance cross-sectional studies and allow for an understanding of what predicts violence and how processes may differ over time and across developmental periods (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Examining both family and neighborhood processes in the same model enables investigation of interaction effects to determine possible moderating, protective influences (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Roosa, Jones, Tein, & Cree, 2003). Innovative measurement strategies such as systematic observations allows for a less biased test of the association between neighborhood factors and violence.

We examine the predictive influence of parenting practices, family processes, and neighborhood processes on fighting and weapon carrying over the course of adolescence, controlling for structural characteristics of families and communities to isolate the effects of social processes. We hypothesize that supportive family and neighborhood social processes decrease the likelihood of violence over time, whereas neighborhood concerns and disorganization increase the likelihood of violence over time. We also explore whether family assets interact with, or moderate, neighborhood risks.

We investigate these hypotheses in an analysis of data from the Youth Asset Study (YAS), funded by the CDC to prospectively investigate relationships among neighborhood factors, youth assets, and sexual and related risk behaviors (e.g., violence). Five waves of data were collected annually from youth and parent participants beginning with the baseline survey conducted in 2003/2004 and concluding in 2007/2008. The project was approved and reviewed annually by the IRB at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center.

The results support the proposition that family and neighborhood social processes predict youth violence across adolescence, even after controlling for structural factors such as single-parent household and concentrated disadvantage. Family and neighborhood assets and risks are not just concurrent with violence; they are predictive of violence over time.

Strong parental relationships and effective monitoring reduces the likelihood that youth will fight or carry a weapon. Youth who had strong relationships with their father or were effectively monitored were 32% and 42% less likely, respectively, to be involved in a fight in subsequent years of the study. This highlights the protective influence of the involvement of fathers, and parents’ understanding of where their children are, who their children are with, and what activities they are engaging in. Given the nature of the self-report youth measures, however, monitoring and supervision may be a proxy for the honesty between youth and their parents. Although family communication was predictive in the initial models, this variable was less influential once parental relationships were included in the analysis. The warm relationship between a parent and child might account for the positive communication effects.

Unexpectedly different neighborhood processes were predictive of fighting and weapon carrying. For each unit increase in willingness of neighborhood residents to stem social disorder, there was a 17% decrease in the likelihood of youth engaging in physical fighting over time. For youth in one-parent households, for each unit increase in neighborhood support, there was a 27% decrease in the likelihood of fighting. It appears that keeping watch over the neighborhood and actively monitoring community youth can stem the more visible forms of violence. In contrast, concerns about neighborhood crime and safety were predictive of weapon-carrying. For each unit increase in concerns about neighborhood crime and safety, non-Hispanic white youth were about 1.6 times more likely to carry a weapon. It is plausible that white youth are more likely to carry weapons in unsafe environments because of fears of victimization and a perceived need for self-defense. It is yet unclear, however, why this tendency might differ for youth of different racial backgrounds.

Family social processes did not consistently interact with or moderate the effect of neighborhood social processes on violence. Family processes may affect youth similarly regardless of neighborhood processes and conditions, and neighborhood social processes may also affect youth independently. An exception was that neighborhood social support was more important for youth in one-parent households. Supportive neighbors might provide supplemental monitoring and supervision over youth, providing additional protection when single parents are unable.

Interestingly, relationship with mother may affect youth of different ethnicities in alternative ways. Positive relationships between mothers and black youth increased the likelihood of weapon-carrying, while positive relationships between mothers and Hispanic and white youth decreased the likelihood of weapon carrying. While this type of finding has emerged in previous literature (Walker, Maxson, & Newcomb, 2007), our data have limited ability to uncover the explanation. Silverman and Dinitz (1974) hypothesized, and found some support for the hypothesis, that African American boys may become “compulsively masculine” to reject feminine identification with their mother, and place a greater value in tough behaviors, including risky behavior such as weapon-carrying. Alternatively, one could predict that youth with close relationships with their mothers may have a desire to be more protective, and thus carry weapons to increase perceptions of safety. Future research is needed to uncover the psychological processes underlying the finding; qualitative research may be particularly helpful in this regard.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the current study, including methodological challenges in assessing neighborhood effects (Sampson et al., 2002). Census tracts were used to define concentrated disadvantage and residential instability. However, self-reports of neighborhood characteristics were not constrained or defined by census tracts; the extent to which residents’ perceptions of their neighborhood boundaries coincide with the boundaries defined by census tracts is unknown. The data on neighborhood structural characteristics originated from the 2000 Census, while self-report data were collected 2003–2008. Neighborhood structural characteristics could have substantially changed during this time period (yet, the self-report data on neighborhood social processes showed stability over time, limiting concerns about neighborhood change in structural characteristics). Although our study included an observational measure of Census tracts concurrent with self-report, the observations of neighborhood disorder were not found to be predictive of youth violence. We may have underestimated the effects of neighborhood social processes given the small number of cases per neighborhood/census tract (an average of 2.4 youth per census block). Because of intra-neighborhood variability in social processes and variability in reporter perceptions, it would be beneficial to have multiple reporters within a neighborhood to improve reliability and validity. This study sampled only from one city, potentially limiting the range of structural characteristics and social processes available for study; having an adequate range is important for adequate estimation (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Also, the use of longitudinal data allowed for prediction of violence subsequent to the presence of risk and protective factors; yet, causation cannot necessarily be inferred. This analysis did not include an investigation of other factors at the relationship and community levels, such as peer influence and school bonding that have been found to be associated with fighting and weapon carrying behavior; such factors can work interactively with family and community social processes to protect youth from violence perpetration (e.g., Brookmeyer, Fanti, & Henrich, 2006; Chung & Steinberg, 2006).

This investigation identified etiological processes that can inform the primary prevention of violent behavior, stopping violence before it starts at the population level. We focused on identifying factors that prospectively influence whether youth do or do not engage in fighting or weapon carrying, across all levels of severity, because all levels of violence are of concern. Even low levels of violence can lead youth on a trajectory of chronic and serious offending (Loeber & Hay, 1997). Few researchers have directly attempted to differentiate the risk factors that predict different patterns and trajectories of violence (e.g., factors that predict low level intermittent offending vs. chronic and serious offending; Dahlberg & Simon, 2006). Future research might address how family and community assets and risk factors interactively affect trajectories of violence; that is, whether certain factors individually or in constellation predict consistent low level aggression compared to chronic, serious, and escalating violence. Other opportunities include studying how family and neighborhood processes interact with initiation of violent behavior at different ages (e.g., early starters compared to late starters), and how the interaction of family and neighborhood processes may differ for boys and girls as they mature.

Despite these limitations and needs for future research, the current study highlights that both neighborhood and family social processes have a prospective influence on violence. Primary and secondary prevention strategies that support family processes are available, such as the Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10–14 and Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care (Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 2000; Chamberlain et al., 2008; Eddy, Whaley, & Chamberlain, 2004). Further, by changing neighborhood social processes early in adolescence, it is plausible that trajectories of violence could be influenced. Unfortunately, there is a relative dearth of evidence-based strategies that support social processes at the neighborhood level. For the greatest impacts on violence to be achieved, we must further our efforts to develop and test community-level change strategies in addition to family-based interventions. Such change strategies might be successful in not only preventing youth violence at a population level, but also other youth risk behavior. By changing the ways in which neighborhood residents interact, providing supervision of youth, and intervening when troublesome behavior is identified, we may realize multiple health benefits for youth and the entire community.