BCJ 4101, Police and Community Relations 1 Course Learning Outcomes for Unit V Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 7. Analyze impediments to community policing. 7.1 Explore the challenges faced by law enforcement related to maintaining safe neighborhoods and communities using community policing strategies. 8. Explain why CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) and Weed and Seed programs are important to neighborhood safety. 8.1 Discuss how CPTED is related to community policing strategies designed to maintain safe neighborhoods and communities. Reading Assignment Chapter 9: Early Experiments in Crime Prevention and the Evolution of Community Policing Strategies Chapter 10: Safe Neighborhoods and Communities: From Traffic Problems to Crime Unit Lesson In the late 1960s and early 1970s, crime prevention programs became popular. Such programs included street lighting projects, security survey projects, neighborhood watch projects, and property identification projects. The street lighting projects employed a strategy called crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). This strategy requires that the environment be designed in such a way to reduce and/or eliminate the elements necessary for crime (e.g., motivated offender, suitable target, absence of a capable guardian). Street lighting can be strategically placed in an environment to increase the visibility in that area. Research has found that street lighting projects do not decrease crime rates; however, they do have a positive impact on how secure community members feel. Property identification projects are designed to allow community members to identify their property so that in the event that it is stolen it can be identified as that community member’s property. Similar to the street lighting projects research has not been able to demonstrate that property identification projects have an effect on reducing crime in the entire community and/or increasing the apprehension of the perpetrators of those crimes. Security surveys also take into consideration the design and place when developing prevention strategies. Once elements of a location that put people at risk or create opportunities for crime are identified, problem-solving strategies are implemented to develop a crime prevention program for that environment. Citizen patrol projects, citizen crime reporting, neighborhood or block programs, and special crime watch programs (e.g., mobile crime watch, youth crime watch, business crime watch, apartment watch, realtor watch, and carrier alert) are programs designed to directly involve the community in the crime prevention process. Citizens actively patrol communities, eliminate environmental opportunities for crime, and/or inform law enforcement about criminal activity in the community (Miller, Hess, & Orthmann, 2014). Crime prevention programs have also been specifically designed ...

1. BCJ 4101, Police and Community Relations 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit V
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
7. Analyze impediments to community policing.
7.1 Explore the challenges faced by law enforcement related to
maintaining safe neighborhoods
and communities using community policing strategies.
8. Explain why CPTED (crime prevention through
environmental design) and Weed and Seed programs
are important to neighborhood safety.
8.1 Discuss how CPTED is related to community policing
strategies designed to maintain safe
neighborhoods and communities.
Reading Assignment
Chapter 9:
Early Experiments in Crime Prevention and the Evolution of
Community Policing Strategies

2. Chapter 10:
Safe Neighborhoods and Communities: From Traffic Problems
to Crime
Unit Lesson
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, crime prevention programs
became popular. Such programs included
street lighting projects, security survey projects, neighborhood
watch projects, and property identification
projects. The street lighting projects employed a strategy called
crime prevention through environmental
design (CPTED). This strategy requires that the environment be
designed in such a way to reduce and/or
eliminate the elements necessary for crime (e.g., motivated
offender, suitable target, absence of a capable
guardian). Street lighting can be strategically placed in an
environment to increase the visibility in that area.
Research has found that street lighting projects do not decrease
crime rates; however, they do have a
positive impact on how secure community members feel.
Property identification projects are designed to allow
community members to identify their property so that in the
event that it is stolen it can be identified as that
community member’s property.
Similar to the street lighting projects research has not been able
to demonstrate that property identification
projects have an effect on reducing crime in the entire
community and/or increasing the apprehension of the
perpetrators of those crimes. Security surveys also take into
consideration the design and place when
developing prevention strategies. Once elements of a location
that put people at risk or create opportunities

3. for crime are identified, problem-solving strategies are
implemented to develop a crime prevention program
for that environment.
Citizen patrol projects, citizen crime reporting, neighborhood or
block programs, and special crime watch
programs (e.g., mobile crime watch, youth crime watch,
business crime watch, apartment watch, realtor
watch, and carrier alert) are programs designed to directly
involve the community in the crime prevention
process. Citizens actively patrol communities, eliminate
environmental opportunities for crime, and/or inform
law enforcement about criminal activity in the community
(Miller, Hess, & Orthmann, 2014).
Crime prevention programs have also been specifically designed
for youth. Some programs include
campaigns such as the McGruff “Take a Bite Out of Crime”
program, which used a dog dressed as a
Columbo-like detective as a spokesman to encourage children to
become involved in preventing crime in their
community. There are also athletic programs such as the Police
Athletic League (PAL), which gives youth an
opportunity to interact with law enforcement during athletic
activities instead of en route to juvenile detention
UNIT V STUDY GUIDE
Community Policing Strategies:
Early Interventions

4. BCJ 4101, Police and Community Relations 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
facilities. Some crime prevention programs are targeted at
encouraging youth to think about possible future
careers in law enforcement. For example, in the Police
Explorers program youth are given the opportunity to
be “trained in various aspects of police work such as
fingerprint, identification techniques, first aid, and
firearms safety” (Miller et al., 2014, p. 248).
Police also have a presence in schools to encourage youth to
become comfortable with law enforcement and
to reduce crime that occurs in schools. These police-school
liaison programs can also be beneficial in
improving relationships between law enforcement and school
administrators and teachers. The Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (DARE) program was developed to
encourage elementary school children to “say no to
drugs.” The DARE program is no longer as widely used by law
enforcement as it has been in the past;
however, it is still a popular program with many parents,
teachers, and some law enforcement.
Empirical research has been conducted on community policing
crime prevention strategies. Early empirical
studies were conducted on the Flint, MI neighborhood foot
patrol program; Newark, NJ foot patrol experiment;
Oakland, CA foot patrol program; San Diego, CA community
profile project; Houston, TX fear reduction
project; Boston foot patrol project; and Baltimore County
citizen-oriented police enforcement project. The

5. study’s findings were inconsistent concerning the reduction in
the fear of crime and the reduction in the actual
crime rate. Some studies found mixed findings, such as
identifying a reduction in the fear of crime but not
identifying a reduction in the actual crime rate. Some studies
found that both the fear of crime and the actual
crime rate were reduced. Some studies found that neither the
fear of crime nor the actual crime rate was
reduced. Some studies found that as the number of foot patrols
in the community were increased the
community members’ perception that there was a serious crime
problem in the community also increased.
These early empirical studies have been criticized because of
concerns about the use of flawed research
designs and the absence of rigorous statistical analysis. More
recent empirical studies of crime prevention
programs, such as the San Francisco Police Department foot
patrol program and the Philadelphia foot patrol
program, have responded to the call for better research designs
and more rigorous statistical analysis and
they have focused on differing crime types and the associated
locations (Miller et al., 2014).
In addition to quantitative empirical studies on crime
prevention, qualitative evaluations of crime prevention
programs have been conducted. According to Miller et al.
(2014), the National Symposium on Community
Institutions and Inter-City Crime Project researched model
programs for the reduction of inner city crime.
Their study was able to identify the following program
characteristics of outstanding local inner-city crime
reduction programs:

6. ss affluent,
-defined procedures
The ultimate goal of crime prevention is to keep neighborhoods
and communities safe. Thus, crime
prevention efforts must cover all issues related to disorder in
communities: from traffic problems to crime.
Traffic enforcement and safety in the community includes
addressing speeding in residential areas, street
racing, red-light running, use and non-use of seatbelts, impaired
drivers, and other related incidents. Law
enforcement also addresses disorder concerns in communities to
prevent crime.
There are also specific problems that are addressed by
community policing efforts such as preventing:
burglary in public housing, burglary at single-family house
construction sites, theft of and from vehicles,
robberies at automated teller machines, witness intimidation,
acquaintance rape of college students, identity
theft, street prostitution, human trafficking, assault in and
around bars, robbery of taxi drivers, violent
confrontations with people with mental illnesses, and crimes
against businesses (Miller et al., 2014).

7. Implementing crime prevention strategies in the community
often requires partnerships with police
departments and various entities in the community (e.g., public
works staff, business members and
community residents in beautification projects). There have also
been several federal endeavors to help with
the implementation of community policing such as the
development of The Office of Community Oriented
BCJ 4101, Police and Community Relations 3
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Policing Services and the Community Policing Consortium, and
the funding of the Weed and Seed Program
(1991-2011). Partnerships to prevent or reduce crime and
disorder in communities are not limited to agencies
within the various components of the criminal justice system or
the federal government. Such partnerships
must also be fostered with entities such as: business groups,
local government, community crime prevention
coalitions, and grassroots organizations.
Another aspect of maintaining safety in communities is to
reduce the fear of crime in those neighborhoods
and communities. Efforts by law enforcement to assist in
reducing crime in neighborhoods and communities
have included strategies such as the use of video surveillance in

8. public places (CCTV), increased foot and
vehicle patrols in high-crime neighborhoods, community
education and awareness programs, and police
substations in troubled neighborhoods. Statistical software has
also been used to help fight crime. Such
usages include identifying hotspots using maps and geographic
information systems in conducting statistical
analysis to determine if the high number of crimes in an area is
actually a hotspot or simply a random
occurrence.
The crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)
strategy can also be utilized by law
enforcement to prevent crime in the community. CPTED focuses
on target hardening, changes to the physical
environment, and community building. This strategy
complements community policing because it focuses on
the systematic analysis of crime in a specific area which allows
the development of crime prevention
strategies that are designed to address the unique problems in
that area. Other community crime prevention
efforts include addressing risk factors for offending by creating
prevention models that counteract those risk
factors.
Reference
Miller, L. S., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2014).
Community corrections: Partnerships for problem solving
(7th ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.

9. Suggested Reading
To learn more about the topics found this unit, you must first
log into the myCSU Student Portal and access
the General OneFile database found in the CSU Online Library.
The articles listed below highlights issues associated with
implementing and sustaining of community policing:
Ellison, J. (2006, April). Community policing: Implementation
issues. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
75(4), 12-16.
Friend, Z., & Martinez, R. (2010, November). Preserving
community-oriented policing in a recession. The FBI
Law Enforcement Bulletin, 79(11), 10-13.
Leitenberger, D., Semenyna, P., & Spelman, J. B. (2003,
November). Community corrections and community
policing: A perfect match. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
72(11), 20-23.
Learning Activities (Non-Graded)
Environmental Design
This is another opportunity to better familiarize yourself with
your community. Take some time to research the
environmental design of your community (e.g., spatial
boundaries, traffic flow, lighting, and community
development ordinances). You may be able to conduct this

10. research based on your knowledge of the
community and/or you may have to spend some time searching
the Internet and/or directly observing the
environmental design of your community. Once you create an
environmental design sketch of your
community take some time to make note of any environmental
design issues that might make conditions
favorable to commit crime. Next, take some time to identify
strategies that are being used by law enforcement
agencies and other government agencies to address the
problematic environmental design issues you
identified. Again, you may be able to identify the strategies
based on your knowledge of the community and/or
BCJ 4101, Police and Community Relations 4
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
you may have to spend some time searching the Internet and/or
directly observing the environmental design
of your community. Lastly, make note of any suggestions for
improvement and/or creation of strategies for
developing and maintaining an anti-crime environmental design
in the community.
Non-graded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in
their course of study. You do not have to
complete or submit them. If you have questions, contact your
instructor for further guidance and information.

11. © 2016 Springer Publishing Company 523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00056
Violence and Victims, Volume 31, Number 3, 2016
No Safe Havens: Protective Parenting
Strategies for African American
Youth Living in Violent Communities
Dexter Voisin, PhD
Kathryn Berringer, AM
University of Chicago, Illinois
Lois Takahashi, PhD
University of California, Los Angeles
Sean Burr, AM
Jessica Kuhnen, AM
University of Chicago, Illinois
Africans American youth experience disproportionately high
rates of exposure to commu-
nity violence. Such exposures are associated with a myriad of
physical and mental health
challenges. However, few qualitative studies have examined the
ways in which parental
figures have attempted to manage youth exposure to violence.

12. This study recruited 4 focus
groups composed of the parents of African American youth (n 5
54). Participants reported
that (a) there were no safe places immune from community
violence, (b) there were no
populations or subgroups protected from community violence,
and (c) strategies to man-
age exposure to violence were often defined by the gender of
the child. Although com-
mon protective parental strategies included mixed benefits, they
ranged from “sheltering”
(keeping children off the streets), “chauffeuring” (transporting
or accompanying children
to and from places), “removal” (enrolling children in schools
outside of the neighbor-
hood), and attempting “to rebuild the village.” However, several
of these strategies had
constraints including money, time, and child maturation. Based
on these findings, we offer
research, policy, and practice implications in response to
community violence exposure
among this population.
Keywords: African American youth; exposure to community
violence; protective
parenting; gender strategies
C
ommunity violence consists of violent acts taking place outside
the home among
people who may or may not know each other. Exposure to
community violence
includes direct victimization, and/or hearing and witnessing
violent acts, such as
gun shots, muggings, robberies, gang- or gun-related incidents

13. (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy,
Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). Globally, youth exposure to community
violence is a critical
public health concern (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002; World Health
Organization, 2004).
524 Voisin et al.
However, among all developed countries, the United States has
one of the highest rates
of youth exposure to community violence, with nationally
representative samples indicat-
ing that most youth witness or experience violence or
victimization annually (Finkelhor,
Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2009). Moreover, among urban
adolescents, national rates of
exposures to community violence have been as high as 55%
(McCart et al., 2007).
There is a great deal of variation in the rates of exposure to
community violence
throughout the United States based on geography. Rates of
violent crimes (i.e., murder,
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault)
represent one dimension
of exposure to community violence and such estimates were
highest in Illinois (525 per
100,000), surpassing New York (398 per 100,000) and
California (503 per 100,000;
Uniform Crime Reports, 2012). Similarly, among large U.S.
cities, Chicago continues to
have among the highest rates of youth exposure to community
violence, with 9.1% of high
school students in Chicago reporting being threatened or injured

14. by a weapon on school
property, compared to 5.8% in Los Angeles, and 7.1% in New
York City, according to the
most recent national Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Report
(Kann et al., 2014). This
is also consistent with the disproportionately high murder rate
in Chicago, which at 8.2
per 100,000 is also higher than both Los Angeles (6.0) and New
York City (3.8; Uniform
Crime Reports, 2012).
Nationally, there are also clear differences in rates of
community violence exposure by
race and ethnicity, especially among youth. The incidence of
homicides per 100,000 among
African American male youth was 66.4, compared to 28.4
among Hispanic/Latino males,
16.9 among Asian and Pacific Islander males, and for 3.4 among
White males (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). In addition, White high
school students report higher
rates of carrying a weapon on school property (5.7%) than both
African American (3.9%)
and Hispanic students (4.7%). However, a greater percentage of
African American (8.4%)
and Hispanic students (8.5%) report being threatened or injured
with a weapon on school
property in comparison to White students (5.8%). Indeed,
although some data indicate that
overall victimization levels may be similar across racial/ethnic
groups, the most extreme
disparities between racial and ethnic groups tend to be in the
most serious victimization,
including robbery and aggravated assault (Esbensen, Peterson,
Taylor, & Freng, 2010).

15. Although serious violent victimization rates have been in the
decline, the dispari-
ties between racial and ethnic groups persist, with the rate of
serious violent victimiza-
tion (including aggravated assault, rape, robbery, and homicide)
for African American
youth (ages 12–17 years) averaging 67% above the rate of their
White peers (Snyder &
Sickmund, 2006). Among African American adolescents, males
also report exposure to
violence at consistently higher levels than their female
counterparts (Kann et al., 2014),
with the nonfatal violent victimization rate for adolescent males
(ages 12–17 years)
between 1993 and 2003 averaging 50% above the rate for their
female counterparts
(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Correlates associated with community violence exposure, like
the rates of exposure
itself, are similarly varied, and a growing body of research
explores the mechanisms by
which community violence exposure impacts adolescent
outcomes (Overstreet, 2000).
Among the most documented factors associated with community
violence exposure
among adolescents are negative mental health deficits including
posttraumatic stress disor-
der (PTSD; Fowler, Tompsett, Braciszewski, Jacques-Tiura, &
Baltes, 2009; McCart et al.,
2007). These negative sequelae may manifest as both
internalizing and externalizing
mental health problems. The type and severity of these
outcomes seem to vary depending
on the degree of community violence exposure as well as the
age of the youth exposed

16. No Safe Havens 525
(Fowler et al., 2009). Research indicates that community
violence exposure is also associ-
ated with various other negative sequelae including low school
engagement, problematic
peer relations (Margolin & Gordis, 2000), and unsafe sexual
practices (Voisin, Jenkins, &
Takahashi, 2011).
One framework that has been proposed to explain how
community violence
exposure might interact with risk and protective factors to affect
outcomes is an
ecological-transactional model (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993;
Overstreet & Mazza, 2003).
This model identifies ways in which multiple contexts or
ecologies, both distal and proxi-
mal, to a young person (i.e., macrosystems, exosystems, and
microsystems) might mediate
the impact of exposure to community violence, which is defined
in this model as eco-
logical vulnerability. For instance Cicchetti and Lynch (1993)
identify macrosystem-level
(i.e., large-scale societal level) factors such as societal
willingness to tolerate violence at
exceptionally high levels in the United States. Likewise,
important exosystem-level factors
(i.e., social structures affecting one’s immediate environment)
include neighborhood fac-
tors, social support networks, the availability of social services,
and other pervasive factors
associated with socioeconomic status. Similarly, on the

17. microsystem level (i.e., individual
interactions between youth and parents), such as parent–child
communication might also
affect how youth cope and respond to community violence
exposures. This model serves
as a helpful lens for understanding how environmental and
relational factors interact with
systems-level vulnerabilities such as community violence
exposure when parents employ
differing parenting strategies in response to this exposure.
COPING WITH EXPOSURE TO COMMUNITY VIOLENCE
The definition of coping adopted in this article draws from the
process-oriented (rather
than trait-oriented) theory of coping developed by Lazarus and
Folkman (1984). This
process-oriented theory focuses on one’s context, both
psychological and environmental,
and theorizes coping in response to this context, unlike trait-
oriented theories which would
focus on coping as an attribute of an individual. This definition
of coping helps to explain
the complicated, multidimensional, and dynamic process by
which individuals employ
“constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage
specific external and/
or internal demands” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141).
Moreover, like the ecological-
transactional model, Lazarus and Folkman’s (1987)
transactional theory on emotions and
coping also highlights systems and relationships in the interplay
between person and envi-
ronment in this dynamic coping process.
Despite the high rates of exposure to community violence and

18. the deleterious mental
health, school engagement, peer relationships, and sexual
behaviors associated with such
exposures (Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Voisin et al., 2011), few
studies have examined how
parents and the parenting strategies they employ might be
involved in coping processes
to manage such exposures to community violence. However, one
quantitative study on
parental coping reported that parents of middle school children
have attempted various
measures to protect their children from violence by encouraging
their youth to confide
in them, increasing parental monitoring, or screening their
children’s friends (Horowitz,
McKay, & Marshall, 2005). A quantitative study explored the
importance of neighborhood
factors including collective efficacy as well as parents’ own
appraisal of the neighbor-
hood in influencing parental messages to adolescent children
about violence (Lindstrom
Johnson, Finigan, Bradshaw, Haynie, & Cheng, 2011). Findings
indicated that the primary
526 Voisin et al.
influence on parental messages were parental attitudes toward
violence but that neigh-
borhood collective efficacy also seemed to have an independent
direct effect on parental
advice to manage violence exposures. These preliminary
studies, although highly informa-
tive, did not explore if findings were gendered and therefore
suggest a need for a deeper

19. investigation into the particular strategies employed and
messages delivered to youth by
their parents in the face of reoccurring community violence.
In addition, despite the significance of the aforementioned
findings, extant research
on coping processes tend to be mostly quantitative with a
primary youth focus. For
example, Rosario, Salzinger, Feldman, and Ng-Mak (2003)
noted that among a multieth-
nic sample of 667 sixth graders, behavioral coping approaches
typically fell within three
domains: strategies to avoid, reduce, or tolerate stress. This
study also documented that
confrontational coping was related to increased delinquency
among the overall sample and
increased the impact of witnessing violence for boys. Berman,
Kurtines, Silverman, and
Serafini (1996), in an earlier study using a multiethnic youth
sample (N 5 96), found that
negative coping (e.g., criticizing, blaming others, wishful
thinking) was related to PTSD
symptoms. Finally, in one qualitative study, Voisin, Bird,
Hardesty, and Shi Shiu (2010)
documented coping styles among African American youth
ranging from “getting through,”
which included both an acceptance of community conditions;
“getting along,” which
included self-defense techniques; “getting away,” which
included avoidance coping strate-
gies; to “getting back,” which consisted of confrontational
coping strategies. In addition,
boys reported more confrontational coping styles than girls,
who used more avoidance
approaches (Voisin et al., 2010).

20. In summary, an important gap in extant literature, and one that
this study attempts to
address, consists of research to investigate how parents may
interact with other systems-
level factors to ameliorate the degree of exposure to community
violence and enhance
protective strategies generally or by gender. Consequently, the
analytic aims of this study
were to identify parental strategies to strengthen adolescent
coping strategies to exposure
to community violence and to explore whether any such
measures differed by gender.
METHOD
Design
This study used a qualitative study design. Focus groups offer
several distinct advantages
that were important for this study. Focus groups are important
for generating new insights
into social, complex phenomenon; privileging participant voices
through group dialogue
versus researcher-directed questions; exposing how participants
think about a topic, rather
than just what they think about it; and encouraging participants
to contribute through con-
versation with their peers in an economical and time-efficient
method (Kitzinger, 1994).
Moreover, the focus group method is particularly useful when
there are power differentials
between the participants and decision-makers or professionals
and when the everyday use
of language and culture of particular groups is of interest to a
given topic (Kitzinger, 1994).

21. Recruitment and Participants
We recruited parents and legal guardians of African American
youth who were between
the ages of 14 and 18 years and resided in Chicago for possible
study enrollment. Study
flyers were posted at community centers, churches, and other
public places frequented
No Safe Havens 527
by African American parents and legal guardians. In addition,
five recruiters trained by
the first author (DV) solicited potential participants at bus
stops, outside supermarkets, in
community centers, and housing developments in largely
African American communities.
Respondents lived in various communities on Chicago’s South
Side. Given Chicago’s
history of neighborhood segregation, the vast majority of these
communities are racially
segregated and predominantly African American. Participants
were eligible if they were
African American, born in the United States, and were parents
or legal guardians of a
youth between the ages of 14 and 18 years.
Data Collection
A minimum of two master’s-level social work students trained
by the first author (DV)
conducted all focus groups at private locations accessible to
participants. The primary
questions focused on parental strategies to mitigate the harmful

22. effects of community vio-
lence and probed for potential gender differences in parenting
practices (e.g., “What are
some things parents can do to help reduce the amount of
violence children experience
outside the home? Do these approaches differ for boys or girls?
If so, how?”; “What are
some things parents can do to protect children from the negative
effects of being exposed to
violence outside the home?). For each group, a research
assistant took notes on nonverbal
communications that could not be captured by audiotapes. The
focus group discussions
lasted between 60 and 90 min. Participants were offered $30 for
study participation. Study
protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board at
the University of Chicago.
Data Analyses
Transcripts obtained from the focus group audiotapes were
analyzed using a grounded
theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Although an iterative
process, the concepts,
categories, and themes derived from the data were used to
develop an understanding of
how parents attempted to help their children cope with exposure
to community violence
and whether such approaches may have differed based on
gender. This approach allowed
us to document similarities and differences across all groups to
illuminate the possible
relations across all data (Hewitt-Taylor, 2001). More
specifically, line-by-line analyses
were used to identify repeated ideas, concepts, or elements
tagged with codes, which

23. were then extracted from the data. Because more data were
collected and analyzed, the
data were re-reviewed, codes were then grouped into concepts,
and then into categories.
To ensure the rigor of the analysis, four researchers discussed
the various interpretations of
the categories, their meanings, and further refine the emergent
themes (Coffey & Atkinson,
1996). Overall, the interrater reliability (kappa coefficient) was
mes
when used by focus group participants were changed to protect
the identity of participants.
When applicable, descriptive numerical data (e.g., age, gender,
and education) were ana-
lyzed using SPSS Version 19.0.
RESULTS
The study recruited 54 parental figures (12 males and 42
females) who participated in
four focus groups. Participants ranged in ages from 30 to 76
years, with a mean age of
46.54 years (SD 5 8.74 years). Eighteen respondents had
attended high school or had high
school degrees, 25 had attended college or had college degree,
and 11 had graduate degrees.
528 Voisin et al.
Three general themes emerged related to community violence
based on the perspectives
of parent participants: (a) There are no safe “havens” or places,
although some places are
perceived as safer than others; (b) there are no safe types of

24. individuals, even elderly indi-
viduals, religious leaders, are not immune from violence; and
(c) there were general and
gendered strategies used by parents to protect their youth from
community violence expo-
sures and its effects. The most general parental strategy
included sheltering, chauffeuring,
removal of their children from violent communities, and
attempting to rebuild community
protective factors by using “schools” to enhance or recreate “the
village.”
No Safe Havens
One common theme that emerged in all of the focus groups and
which permeated all areas
of discussion was the belief that few if any places within the
community could be consid-
ered safe from violence. One participant, Sonia, stated, “There
are no safe havens . . . ”
and referred to the city using the popular epithet, “It’s Chiraq”
(combining Chicago and
Iraq). Participants across the groups expressed common notions
that many places in the
community that were previously considered safe (e.g., churches,
schools, and homes) were
increasingly becoming very dangerous and were now besieged
by violence. This theme
resonated across all groups; “It’s everywhere,” one participant
asserted, and “ . . . there’s no
safe neighborhood in Chicago anymore,” another affirmed. In
another group, the comment,
“There aren’t any safe zones” elicited widespread consensus.
Parents expressed a belief
that violence can occur “downtown,” in “nice areas,” or near
“million dollar homes” easily

25. as in neighborhoods at the other end of the lower socioeconomic
spectrum.
Although violence seemed to be considered widespread
throughout communities, sev-
eral focus group participants identified places where incidences
of violence were particu-
larly prevalent. Multiple groups referred to schools as the sites
of violence, particularly
shootings, and referenced certain schools by name. Public
transportation systems such as
buses and trains especially during school hours were places that
were mentioned as places
where violence is most likely to erupt, with one participant
exclaiming, “Have you been
on the bus lately?” to an enthusiastic reaction of agreement
from her group that it is an
increasingly dangerous site. In addition, although viewpoints
were mixed, recreational
public spaces, such as parks and basketball courts, were also
mentioned as other commu-
nity spaces where youth were exposed to community violence.
In summary, although several participants still cited “churches”
and “certain schools”
as safe places, other participants argued that even these
traditionally safe sites had become
dangerous, giving examples of gun violence against preachers in
the pulpit and during
funeral services, or of people being robbed while at church.
Despite the widespread lack
of safety and security with communities, several participants
still indicated that they felt
relatively safe within their homes, although this viewpoint was
decidedly mixed.

26. No Safe Groups
Similarly, many participants commented that community
members who had historically
been “safe” from violence, particularly elderly individuals and
clergy, had commonly
become increasingly vulnerable. There was a pervasive sense
that long-held community
traditions of respecting the older individuals and the sacred
were being torn down and
debased by widespread community violence.
Participants further emphasized that there was an increasing
universal vulnerability
to community violence irrespective of age, gender, or clerical
status and that such acts
No Safe Havens 529
were random, senseless, and could occur anywhere or to anyone.
Participant’s recounted
common incidences of babies, older individuals, and clergy
being killed by gun violence,
occurrences that were traditionally uncommon but were now
becoming all too frequent.
Several participants recounted incidents where babies were
killed by random gun vio-
lence, as Helen recalled,
. . . this mother was sitting on the porch holding her baby and
someone passed by and
started shooting up the house and the baby took several bullets
and died . . . these people

27. have gone crazy, imagine they are shooting and not caring who
gets killed . . . an innocent
baby murdered who has not done nothing to anyone and not
even gotten a chance to live
or even learn to walk . . .
Other participants reported that older individuals were also
commonly besieged by
community violence, a violation of long-held community norms.
Evelyn reported,
. . . a boy somewhere around 13 to 15 attacked and robbed this
old lady . . . there was a time
when old people were off limits and respected by young people .
. . young people would
have their beef and rob and steal from each other but they knew
not to put their hands on
old people . . . that [old person] could be their mother or
grandmother . . . they should know
better, they would not want anyone to rob or harm their own
people.
Across all groups, several participants reported that ministers
and other clergy were
increasingly becoming victims of community violence. Melissa
recounted an incident of a
priest being shot inside the church.
. . . this whole thing [violence] is crazy, it is like the wild, wild,
west, gangster style. This
one priest was shot inside the church . . . people are shooting in
churches. Imagine on
church doors they have stickers saying “no guns allowed” . . .
crazy you have to put that
on church doors . . . that is all so crazy. Back in the day, church
was a respected and sacred

28. place . . . not anymore.
In summary, numerous participants endorsed this theme that
community violence had no
respect for any groups of persons “ . . . these people come
together anywhere and take it [vio-
lence] anyplace and everywhere, [they take on committing
violence] like it’s a job.” For many
participants, violence was unpredictable, fairly random, and
perpetrated in mob-style fashion.
Common Protective Parenting Strategies
The three most prevalent parenting strategies described by focus
group participants
in response to community violence exposure were “sheltering,”
“chauffeuring,” and
“removal.” Sheltering consisted of limiting activities within the
community, chauffeuring
consisted of driving children between school, home, and
recreational sites, and removal
consisted of enrolling children in schools outside of the
neighborhood.
Participants expressed a general sense that there was a lack of
safety within Chicago’s
schools, and many reported removing their children from
Chicago Public Schools (CPS)
altogether. Several focus group participants indicated that they
believed that suburban
schools, private schools, and/or charter schools outside the
neighborhood were a safer
alternative to the public school system. Many participants also
discussed choosing to live
in the suburbs although there was disagreement by the
participants about whether the

29. suburbs—or any place—was safe.
The most prominent protective parenting strategies appeared to
be sheltering and chauf-
feuring children, and there seemed to be very little variation
between male and female
parents and male and female children. Many focus group
participants offered examples
530 Voisin et al.
of limiting the activities of their youth, insisting that they go
from “ . . . home to school,
staying away from playgrounds and public recreational spaces,”
with as one participant
described parents acting as their “private chauffer services,
taking them to and from
school, to the mall and avoiding public transportation because
those are the places where
violence is likely to jump off.” However, such strategies were
also seen as incurring other
negative costs. For instance, Roma indicated that “ . . . her son
is relatively safe because
he really does not go anywhere other than home and school” but
that “he is a pussycat
because he has book sense but no street sense and does not
know how to survive or handle
himself on the streets because he is so sheltered.”
Most participants discussed chauffeuring as a common strategy
to reduce children’s
exposure to community violence, which consisted of driving or
actively accompanying
children to school or around the community, described as a

30. “limousine service” by one
participant. Another participant described, “If I don’t have
enough gas that day—and I’m
going to be honest to you—to take them to school, they not
going,” to which the group
responded with a chorus of “Amen.”
There were downsides to all of these strategies. First, without
experience in the neigh-
borhood, children are less able to navigate their own
communities. One parent explained,
“The consequence is that they don’t know anybody in the
neighborhood and are less safe
as a result.” Participants suggested that a few number of friends
in the neighborhood meant
limited protection against community violence. One participant,
whose children live in the
south suburbs but stay with him every other weekend in the
city, stated,
I don’t feel comfortable letting them [go] to the park—“Y’all
don’t know anyone over
here”—they don’t understand the mentality that the suburban
kids have and the inner city
kids have. They don’t experience none of the violence directly,
I just don’t feel comfort-
able letting them go out there.
Second, attending an institution outside the community can
create a stigma that the
child “thinks they are better than” or is “not as street smart”
inadvertently setting their
child up to become a target of violence. Parents went on to
explain that neighborhood
youth would often target peers who they believed felt they were
superior to the other

31. adolescents in the community, which often resulted in “high-
minded youth becoming
targets and victims of peer violence.” Allison stated that her son
was attacked because of
this stigma, “My son was jumped because he attended Urban
Prep . . . and the other kids
thought that he felt he was better than them . . . ” (a selective
enrollment charter school
located in another geographic community).
Third, there are financial and time costs to these strategies.
Chauffeuring means high
financial costs of transportation (gas, commuter train costs,
etc.), and removal means a
high temporal commitment. One participant described that she
had extended her child’s
day by sending her to school on the North Side from 6:15 am to
5:15 pm. She said,
“We attach an hour and a half of travel time onto our kids’ days
and still expect them to
get the same amount done . . . ”
Finally, sheltering, removal, and chauffeuring may impede child
development and
maturation. One participant described, “I don’t let my kids get
on the bus or walk down
the street . . . [but] that’s not the answer though because it
hinders . . . their maturation.”
Another described, “Something else has to happen because
that’s not a good fix . . .
because you’ll end up with eighteen, 21-year-olds who’ve never
been on a bus.”
Many focus group participants saw rebuilding community
networks and institutions
as a solution to the challenge of community violence exposure

32. among their children.
No Safe Havens 531
Participants echoed the notion that “It really does take a
village,” with another participant
stating, “and I know that sounds like a cliché but that’s where
we have lost.” One partici-
pant described the need for institutions,
The reason why some areas have a higher propensity for
violence is because in some
neighborhoods, they have YMCA, they have BAM programs like
my child is in, they
have afterschool programs, they have community programs,
when you have other
neighborhood[s] that have kids that are just as good and just as
smart [that don’t have these
sorts of community supports], that is where the greater violence
is.
There seemed to be a consensus that both the problem of youth
violence and its solution
depended on the entire community—that to effectively curtail
violence, the community
would need to engage in “rebuilding the village.” However,
participants also expressed a
paradox, with one participant summarizing, “We need the
village but we don’t trust the vil-
lage.” This was a common theme across all groups that trust or
cohesion was undermined
among members in communities were exposure to community
violence was prevalent.

33. Gendered Protective Parenting Practices
Several focus group participants indicated that parenting
strategies were different by
gender and identified noticeable gender-specific ways in which
they taught their youth
to cope with or respond to such exposures. Most participants
agreed that boys were more
likely to experience severe forms of violence within the
community because they were
more physically threatening than girls and as such when
approached or attached, such
incidences were more likely to be violent or fatal. As Evoria
explained, “ . . . violence is
just on a much more dangerous level because men are more of a
threat . . . which can result
in someone getting killed.”
Consequently, a prominent theme from some focus group
participants was the gen-
dered strategy to de-escalate aggressive and potentially violent
male-to-male encounters
by teaching their boys to “walk away, try and cool down the
situation” to stay alive. Jalen,
a father recounted a story of walking down the street with his
15-year-old son and being
aggressively approached and shoved by four male teenage
youth. Jalen described how he
moved aside and modeled for his son the act of walking away
because he believed that
retaliation might result in him or his son being shot. He stated
that although he fought the
urge not to “ . . . get punked in the eyes of [his] son . . . it was
more important that his son
had a father who was alive than dead.” Several focus group
participants stated that they

34. tried to teach their sons to “walk away and then get help.” There
was this common theme
across all groups that boys were more aggressive than girls and
such as “ . . . things can
quickly go really wrong and sometimes deadly when boys get
into it . . . ”
Many participants indicated that boys compared to girls
experienced double jeopardy
at the hands of community violence and higher susceptibility to
becoming targeted by
criminal justice systems. This was another reason why some
parents were more inclined
to teach their sons not to use aggressive force, if avoidable,
when confronting community
violence. Jacquie stated that the “ . . . police are looking for
boys more . . . they are look-
ing for any reason to put our sons away . . . you have more
Black boys in prison than in
college . . . ” Several participants identified for African
American boys this position of the
double bind—mistrust of many community police to protect
them and the real fear that
if they reported incidences of violence to the police that they
could further be harmed or
killed. Within one focus group, many of the participants echoed
a popular statement “ . . .
snitches get stitches . . . ” Focus group participants discussed
how young men in particular,
532 Voisin et al.
must manage daily threats from within their community
(violence) and the external threat

35. of sometimes being unfairly targeted by police.
In contrast, focus group participants indicated that the messages
given to daughters were
different. Participants acknowledged that girls experienced
greater physical and sexual vul-
nerability than boys and therefore there was a perceived need to
“equal the playing field.”
Focus group participants consistently stated the need to protect
daughters from various forms
of gender-based and sexual violence. Parental strategies
included discussing what clothing
their daughters wear, explaining, “I tell her don’t wear certain
types of clothes because it
incites certain types of problems.” Community violence was, as
Monica described, “ . . .
both physical and psychological . . . ” with “ . . . people that try
to control them.” Participants
discussed the challenge of modeling protective communication
behavior to girls who may be
vulnerable to negative or violent interactions from male
partners. One parent described a need
to “talk with girls respectfully so they can recognize when they
aren’t being treated well.”
The distinct challenges faced by women and girls led to several
parents reinforcing the
need for their daughters to carry weapons for defense. Shirley
described women carrying
weapons as a way to “put ourselves on equal footing as a man,”
with most participants
agreeing that women are “packing extra to put them on the same
level.” Eunice lamented
the need for young girls to carry weapons, stating,
. . . it’s because I don’t want them [my daughter] to be like me,

36. I don’t want her to be afraid
of everything. When I get on the train I got a Taser, I have a
knife, and I have Mace. Why
do I have all of this? I don’t want her to be me like me, I want
her to be able to live free,
protect herself but live free at the same time . . .
Several parents indicated that they had forthright discussions
with both their sons and
daughters about community violence and often watched the
local evening news as a way
to “ . . . talk about the topic and explain to them the need to be
careful on the streets, given
that someone was continuously getting shot in Chicago and the
news always happy to
report it.” In contrast, one mother reported that she did not
allow her daughter to watch the
local news for this reason and only looked at it with her son
because she did not want her
daughter to walk around in terror like she did. This strategy was
opposite from the com-
mon opinion of other parents who indicated the need to have
both sons and daughters well
informed about the level of violence within their communities.
In summary, there were several ongoing tensions parents
reported when attempting to
protect their youth from community violence exposures. There
was a general consensus
that violence exposures were more prevalent and lethal among
males compared to females;
therefore, parents attempted to teach their sons ways of de-
escalating or walking away
from violent encounters. Whereas daughters given their physical
vulnerabilities were
encouraged to use more aggressive coping strategies when

37. protecting themselves from
community violence.
DISCUSSION
This is one of the few studies to examine how African American
parents attempt to help
their youth navigate violent communities and the strategies used
to protect them in the
face of such dangers. Prior qualitative findings have indicated
that parents have employed
various strategies to protect their youth from exposure to
community violence and its
effects such as fostering open dialogues based on trust,
increasing parental monitoring,
No Safe Havens 533
and/or screening their children’s friends (Horowitz et al., 2005).
This study substantiates
and extends those findings by documenting that parents
attempted to shield their youth
from community violence exposures by primarily sheltering and
chauffeuring children—
another form of active parental monitoring—although this
intended protective strategy at
times made these youth susceptible to other types of
vulnerabilities. This study extends
those earlier findings (Horowitz et al., 2005) by documenting
that parents believed that
exposure to community violence was pervasive, rampant,
random, and that unlike earlier
periods in the history of their communities, there were no places
or persons who were

38. protected from such exposures.
Prior quantitative findings indicated parents who perceived their
neighborhood as hav-
ing collective efficacy were less inclined to advise their youth
to use aggressive solutions
in conflict situations (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2011). Although
this finding was highly
significant, this study did not explore whether messages
delivered by parents in relation
to such exposures were gendered. Findings from this study
indicated that some protective
approaches by parents in relation to community violence
exposures were gendered—such
that males were told to use less aggressive strategies to avoid or
de-escalate potential com-
munity violence exposures but females were encouraged to use
more aggressive protective
strategies given that they were more physically vulnerable and
needed to “even the battle-
field” and less likely to be targeted by police for incarceration.
A major finding documented the common belief that rebuilding
community institu-
tions (e.g., schools) and networks among neighbors would help
to reduce community
violence exposure. Neighborhood collective efficacy has been
identified as a significant
factor related to parental messages to their youth about
managing exposures to community
violence (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2011). Other related
findings have documented that
poor neighborhood collective efficacy was related to higher
rates of community violence
and that strong neighborhood networks were correlated with
supporting strong collective

39. efficacy of residents in achieving social control and cohesion
(Morenoff, Sampson, &
Raudenbush, 2001). However, the findings from this study
identifies several important
obstacles to the rebuilding “the village or community” in
response to violence exposures.
First, as participants pointed out, although many stated their
desire for enhanced connec-
tions and community institutions, many also indicated that they
did not trust community
members. This is consistent with prior findings which indicate
that cohesion (trust) is
eroded in communities where community violence exposures are
prevalent (Morenoff et
al., 2001). Second, the removal strategy consisting of parents
removing their children from
local schools, parks, and recreational opportunities means that
there is a fragmentation of
neighbor interactions and routines. Children attending local
neighborhood schools have
similar schedules, events, and occasions for parental interaction
with teachers, students,
and other parents. Given the removal strategy, the “school” as a
central social anchor for
communities might be less applicable to some youth and their
families.
Despite the importance of the overall study findings, several
study limitations warrant
mention. First, this study used a convenience sample, so there
was possible selection bias
inherent with this approach and consequently our findings are
limited to the experiences of
our focus group participants. Although we gathered the
important perspectives of parents
and legal guardians, we did not solicit the opinions of youth.

40. Future research might focus
on their perspectives as an additional way of confirming the
themes identified in this study
and strengthening data triangulation.
Notwithstanding these limitations, these findings have
important implications for
future research, policy, and practice among African American
youth. Future research
534 Voisin et al.
should investigate more fully the cost-benefit of sheltering,
removal, and chauffeuring
for children living in violent neighborhoods. In addition,
forthcoming research would
need to validate from the youths’ perspective and using
longitudinal designs to examine
the effectiveness of these parental strategies by enrolling
matched samples of youth and
their parents.
From a policy and programmatic perspective, it is important for
schools and other
youth systems of care and development to account for how
exposure to community vio-
lence may threaten organizational and individual goals. For
instance, schools are primar-
ily concerned with youth educational outcomes. However, as
these findings illuminate,
educational, social, and development outcomes may be impacted
positively or negatively
by parental attempts to ameliorate exposure to community
among their youth. Clearly,

41. parents are teaching their youth various strategies for managing
exposure to community
violence. Such efforts would need to be supported by large scale
school policies that
implement evidence-based programs for teaching youth how to
recognize and respond to
violent situations when avoidable and do so in ways that might
diminish personal harm
and injury. Such consistent efforts and programs are especially
critical in low-resourced,
high-violence communities.
Consistently, African American youth bear the highest burden
of exposure to commu-
nity violence relative to their other ethnic peers. In contrast, too
few studies have focused
on how their parents may teach their youth to cope in the
presence of such random and
consistent threats.
This study has deepened our understanding of these concerns
and documented how
African American parents use general and gendered strategies to
reduce exposures to such
assaults.
REFERENCES
Berman, S. L., Kurtines, W. M., Silverman, W. K., & Serafini,
L. T. (1996). The impact of exposure
to crime and violence on urban youth. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 66(3), 329–336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0080183
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010).YOUTH
risk behavior surveillance—United

42. States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59, 6.
Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an
ecological/transactional model of community violence
and child maltreatment: Consequences for children’s
development. Psychiatry, 56, 96–118.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative
data analysis: Complementary strate-
gies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dahlberg, L. L., & Krug, E. G. (2002). Violence—A global
public health problem. In E. Krug, L. L.
Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi, & R. Lozano (Eds.), World
Report on Violence and Health
(pp. 3–21). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Esbensen, F. A., Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Freng, A. (2010).
Youth violence: Sex and race differ-
ences in offending, victimization, and gang membership.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Ormrod, R., & Hamby, S. L. (2009).
Violence, abuse, and crime exposure
in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics, 124(5),
1411–1423.
Fowler, P. J., Tompsett, C. J., Braciszewski, J. M., Jacques-
Tiura, A. J., & Baltes, B. B. (2009).
Community violence: A meta-analysis on the effect of exposure
and mental health outcomes of
children and adolescents. Development and Psychopathology,
21(1), 227–259.

43. No Safe Havens 535
Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2001). Use of constant comparative analysis
in qualitative research. Nursing
Standard, 15(42), 39–42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/ns2001.07.15.42.39.c3052
Horowitz, K., McKay, M., & Marshall, R. (2005). Community
violence and urban families:
Experiences, effects, and directions for intervention. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
75(3), 356–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.75.3.356
Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Hawkins,
J., Harris, W. A., . . . Zaza, S. (2014).
Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2013.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
63(Suppl. 4), 1–168.
Kitzinger, J. (1994), The methodology of focus groups: The
importance of interaction between research
participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16, 103–121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.
ep11347023
Krug, E., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., Lozano, R.
(Eds.). (2002). World report on vio-
lence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping. New York, NY: Springer
Publishing.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and

44. research on emotions and coping.
European Journal of personality, 1(3), 141–169.
Lindstrom Johnson, S. R., Finigan, N. M., Bradshaw, C. P.,
Haynie, D. L., & Cheng, T. L. (2011).
Examining the link between neighborhood context and parental
messages to their adolescent
children about violence. The Journal of Adolescent Health,
49(1), 58–63.
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and
community violence on chil-
dren. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 445–479.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.51.1.445
McCart, M. R., Smith, D. W., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D.
G., Resnick, H., & Ruggiero,
K. J. (2007). Do urban adolescents become desensitized to
community violence? Data
from a national survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
77(3), 434–442. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.434
Morenoff, J., Sampson, R., & Raudenbush, S. (2001).
Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy,
and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39(3),
517–559.
Overstreet, S. (2000). Exposure to community violence:
Defining the problem and understanding the
consequences. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(1), 7–25.
Overstreet, S., & Mazza, J. (2003). An ecological-transactional
understanding of community vio-
lence: Theoretical perspectives. School Psychology Quarterly,

45. 18(1), 66–87.
Rosario, M., Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., & Ng-Mak, D. S.
(2003). Community violence exposure
and delinquent behaviors among youth: The moderating role of
coping. Journal of Community
Psychology, 31(5), 489–512.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10066
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and
victims: 2006 National report.
Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, PA: Sage.
Uniform Crime Reports. (2012). Crime in the United States,
2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/
crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime
Voisin, D., Bird, J., & Hardestry, M., & Shi Shiu, C. (2010).
African American adolescents living and
coping with exposure to community violence on Chicago’s
Southside. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 26(12), 2483–2498.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260510383029
Voisin, D., Jenkins, E., & Takahashi, L. (2011). Toward
conceptual model linking community vio-
lence and HIV-related risk behaviors among adolescents:
Directions for research. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 49(3), 230–236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.01.002

46. World Health Organization. (2004). Preventing violence: A
guide to implementing the recommenda-
tions of the World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva,
Switzerland: Author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.434
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.434
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-
u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-
u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime
536 Voisin et al.
Acknowledgments. Support for this study was provided by the
Center for Health Administrative
Study at the University of Chicago. The authors thank the
parents who participated in the focus
groups and provided their valuable insights. We also
acknowledge the contributions of Kathleen
Stevens, Fern Tate, and Aaron Mallory who along with the
coauthors conducted the focus groups.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to
Dexter R. Voisin, PhD, University
of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, 969 East
60th St., Chicago, IL 60637.
E-mail: [email protected]

47. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.