Neighborhood Influences on
Adolescent Developnlent
TAMA LEVENTHAL. VERONIQUE DlJPERE. AND JEANNE BROOKS GUNN
Social cuntexts. particularly beyund the
family. exert increasing influence un develupment
during the second decade of life (Booth &
Crouter, 20()1: Bronfenbrenner. 1979: Steinberg
& MOITis, 2(01). The growing need for autonomy
during the adolescent years implies that
adolescents spend more time outside of the
home. typically with peers. Neighborhoods are
thought to be one of the primary context!> for
adolescents' (Jut-of-home time. They provide
not only the physical space in which youth
frequently operate but also the social space in
which a wide array of interactions occur.
In the United States, attention to neighborhoods
as a social context for adolescent development
dates back at least to the nineteenth
century. Demographic changes at that time,
including increasing industrialization. urbanization.
and immigration led to social concerns
about youth growing up in urban centers.
Progressive Era reforms, such as the formation
ofjuvenile courts, are a reflection ofthis movement
(Kamerman & Kahn. 200] L It was not
until almost a century later. however. that social
scientists attempted to document links between
neighborhood residence and adolescents'
development (Sampson & Morenoft'. 1997:
Sampson. MorenofL & Gannon-Rowley, 2()02).
The focus continued to remain on urban youth
and their involvement in risky behavior~ slIch
as crime and delinquency (Park. 1916: Shaw &
McKay. 1(42). Like the early research. contemporary
interest in neighborhoods as a context
for adolescent development was also fueled
by demographic circumstances (Hernandez,
]993; Massey & Denton. 1993: Wilson. 1987,
1996). The loss of industrial jobs in favor of
service and technology jobs, coupled with rising
concentrations of poverty and unemployment
in urban centers served to reignite scientific
and policy interest in urban youth and their
problematic behaviors (e.g., Bursik, 1988:
Kornhauser. 1978: Sampson, 1992: Sampson &
Groves, 1989; see also Sampson & Morenoff,
J997, for a review). Contemporary research on
adolescent development in neighborhood context.
mllch of it emanating from developmental
scientists. although interested in risky behavior,
ha~ taken a broader lens in terms of outcomes
of interest and types of neighborhoods studied
(Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000).
The goal of this chapter is to review methodological.
empirical, and theoretical advances
in studying neighborhood contexts and adolescent
development The first section summarizes
approaches to studying neighborhood
The authors would like to thank the William T Grant Foundation for its support. Additional support was provided
by gran! R40 Me 07845 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V. Social Security Act). Health
Re"ollfces and Service, Administration. Department of Health and Human Services. The second author was
supported by a fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), We arc aho grateful to
Rachel CrirnmeJ alld Andrea Wy,<.,ocki for their research assistance,
411
.j ',
,JI:ihl',,'IIc.;,'
lilt JlIL:a\UIL:l1ll'lll and
(1c"1,,1:', TIll" tollo'v\ lili,' 'eclJOl1 reliev.~
011 nei:;hhorilood
,,)c:i'''X<>ll\liliil elie,'!>, ,m <IlJ(\le~cen! de\\~i()p'
111el1' h) d()llldill-':.Jc!1lc\e111enllL:ducaliull c,nd
iI1~11I), L:ll:<lIIOlllil and ~ocial \\ ell,beill!2
i IIlCillaf 1t~'aiIL, (Tillle. dclinqu(;:llcy, and ~uh~lanl:C
u~,: alll; ,exult! aCli\!I: and childbl."urIll!;'
'Jill' IllIJLi ,cl'liOi1 ClllhiLil'r, a taxonumy
\\ \,' dt'\ Cor addr(;:"ing 11ll' pUIL'lltial
patil\" Cl:" winch 1l1'i),>\II,uri1()(lll effecI,
ujlLr<Llt' on till',e ('UlCOIlll" (i,e.. indirect
palI11'11),;, Tlw propo,c:d Ihc:olTlical Illode\'-'
Illcl Udl' IIhi llutiollid I'e~( lUl'l'e' (characteristic,
and Illll!2l' '.11' L'(11l11ll11l1it: Il'~()urccsJ. n()rms and
lu!lt'l'ulc l':IIC<[CY ilollllllunil: social siructure,
lll'c'h, and pilY"lca! thrt:at~L and rt'lationships
,iIld lit> \parentin!2, home enviromnenL and
~lIppon nctl\ orb L Pnlu:"~e' most rde\anl to
"d, ,jesll'l1h arc highli!2htt'd. The Courl\) section
hiLchlit'III' emerging trnlds in nei)!hhnrhoud
rl'~l'aj'ch on ,I(j()!e~cl'nl dt',elopment and ume.",h.:d
i';~liC" in the ricld, Filiall~, future tlireelI(lIl'
fur rc,earch Oil neighhorh()()d contexls
and adult:.;('ence and pol icy impl icat ions are
>lllillnari/.c'ci ,
\1ETHOI)OLOGICAL ISSUES
11\ STUDYING ADOLESCENT
DEVELOP\IEl\T IN
'EIGHHORHOOD CONTEXTS
This sec:ion prl:~sl'nt, a brief n:view orkey mcthoLiolllgical
i.,sllt'~ l'ollti'omin:c the sludy of adoIt"celll
cll'vl'loplllt'nl in nl'ighborhood context;;,
dcfillitiulis (II lll'ighhorhood;., identiJjcCitioll
:l1ld Illl'HSUrCIllL'1l1 of neighh(>rhood dillll'n~i()n"
'lUd:- dc,iglls. and ~electi()n problem;..,
IIII" (llcn 1l'IY I.' II1Il'nded to prOVide a hackdrop
lor the rCllldlllin~' ~l'Cli()IIS in Ihls chapkr,
1\l'ighhorilo'ld Ddinitillns
;\n i1l1punalll qUl'qioll to cOII:-idn when
;,tud,' in~ ad(lIc'l'UII dCI L'lupmel1l in m:ighborhood
COlllc'\!." I"~, "'H'I)(// 1.\ (/ /l1'1'.!hhnr/wml:) "
:\llel'll~lti\l"II<lll'gIC" ha\t: heell u.'cd III define
[lit' IIcighh(lril\)uti ullil of an~!lysl', Tht; must
l!cql!l'iH appr"ll(:h 1\ 1(1 el1lpl()y data LolleL'led
11!l1li llle L ,\ UelL'l1lual CCIlSLlS Lumpiled from
lhe cen.'u~ Imnb u)JnplelL'd on the first of
April durlllg the lirst year or every decade,
A nelghhorhood i, thcn typicdlly defined as
a census Iract: lruels contain approximate!
:).()OO 1(; ~.()(J() indi\'idual~ and are identifie~
with tilt: aclvice 01 local comlllunities Working
lIndt'r Census Bureau gllldeiines to reflect
pWllllllel1t phy,icai ;tnd ~ocial features that
signi1') lH::ighborho<)lJ.... such as major slreets,
railroads, l'thnic divi~i()n\, and the like.
Anolher commUlL bUI ~()llIl'wha( smaller unit
i~ the hlock group (censu, tracb contain one
10 four block gr()up'). which contalll, approximately
600 to 3,000 people, SlJllle re~earchers
hall' combined (\\0 to three adjacent or relatively
homogenous trad\ or block group:,. into
nei!2hborhood clusters (e,g.. Brody et al" 2001;
Sampson. Raudenbush, & Earl<,. 11)97). The
smalle.st neighbllrho()d unit u:,.ed i~ the streetor
face-block. which includes the two sides of
the slreet facing a per;..oll's home, In contrast,
1110st studies do not speL'ify neighborhood
h()undarie~ when participant reports of neighborhood
conditions are gathered: however,
residenh' repuns of" neighborhood boundaries
appear to approximate censlIs tracts (or clusters
of tracts: Coulton. Korbin, Chan, & Su. 2001;
Sampson. 1l)97),
Neighborhood Dimensions
A critical distinction to make In defining
neighborhood dimensiom is belween neighborhood
structurl' and neighborhood processes.
Neighborhood ~tructllre entai" C(lI1lPOS1tional
ur ~ocitlJemographic all,i butes, such as
median income, employrnent rate. and racial
composition, Neighhurhoud proce~ses lI1Cllldc
a~pcc[;, such a:; social urganil.ation and illslitlllional
re~ourL'es, AIthough if j, thongh( [(l be a
function of Ilt'ighh(lrhoml structure, neighborhood
social organil.atiPIl describc' the capacity
of residcllt~ tD wor\' tugl'liler tov.ard COll1mon
)loal, alld \aILle~ and 10 e'tahli~h instillilinns
that promote and enforcc Ihl'~l' gpah by regulalill!2
behavior le'pccially that or youth:
Sampsoll l'l aL. 2()()2: Sha\\ &. McKay, lY.+2).
Methodological Issues in Studying Adolescent Development in Neighborhood Contexts 413
resources involve the presence of
and organizations that promote health.
and general social welfare.
the accessibility of census data. censu~measure~
of neighborhood structural
rJe:nSI1CS are employed in a majority of
(Jencks & Mayer. 1990; Leventhal &
2000). Neighborhood income or
status (SES)-a combination
and economic indicators--is the
romonly studied structural dimension.
often separate measures of neighSES
into high-SESJaffluence (e.g.,
percent high-income residents. percent
Is, and percent college-educated)
SES/poverty (e.g.. assessing percent
percent female-headed households. peron
public assistance. and percent unem.
This distinction is made because the
of poor and affluent neighbors may
differential associations with adolescent
(Brooks-Gunn. Duncan. Klebanov,
1993; Jencks & Mayer, 1990).
mSlldeJred are racial and ethnic diversity (e.g.,
Black. percent Latino, and percent
'''lel_h,,,.-n) and residential instability (e.g.,
moved in last 5 years, percent housein
current home less than 10 years. and
homeowners: Brooks-Gunn. Duncan.
Aber, 1997: Sampson et aI., 1997). Despite
consistency across studies, specific
of these structural dimensions differ
Neighborhood social organizational features
~v'''HlvHly examined include informal social
control. which depicts the degree to which
residents monitor the behavior of others in
accordance with socially accepted practices;
and social cohesion. which refers to the extent
of social connections within the neighborhood
(measures of informal control and cohesion
have been combined to assess what has been
called. "collective efficacy"; Elliot et aJ..
1996; Sampson et aI., IYY7). Other organizational
features that may result from the content
and consensus of values include physical and
social disorder. which describes physical conditiom
(e.g., abandoned housing and graffiti)
and social interactjon~ (e.g., publ ic drinking and
prostitution) in the neighborhood (Ros;, &
Jang, 2000: Sampson & Raudenbush, IYYY).
Institutional resources include the quantity
and quality of services. schools. health care
facilities. and recreational programs, The census
does not directly evaluate neighborhood organization
or resources. which are necessary for
testing theoretical models (as we subsequently
describe), Thus, much research has relied upon
individual parents' or youth's ratings to capture
neighborhood processes: these ratings are
problematic for several reasons. First. they
are often confounded with outcome measures
also obtained by means of participant ratings.
leading to problems of shared method variance.
Second. the reliability of such measures may
be questionable because in most cases it relies
on individual rather than ecological data and
corresponding methods for handling data.
Raudenbush and Sampson (1999) layout a
compelling argument for "ecometric" standards
of gathering data from mUltiple reporters
(preferably independent of study familiet.) to
enhance reliability of neighborhood measures
and to use appropriate statistical tools to generate
neighborhood-level reliability indices,
Alternative methodologie~ are required to
measure the neighborhood processes described,
including systematic social observations, community
surveys. neighborhood expert surveys,
and administrative data, Systematic social
observations or windshield surveys involve
trained observers using a structured format
to characterize neighborhoods through videotaping,
rater checklists. or audiotaping (Barnes
McGuire.19Y7;Kohen. Brooks-Gunn. Leventhal.
& Hertzman, 2002; Raudenbush & Sampson.
199Y; Sampson & Raudenbush. 2004; Spencer.
McDermott. Burton, & Kochman. 1997: Taylor,
Gottfredson, & Brower. 1984). Community
surveys entail interviewing nonparticipants
in the study about their neighborhoods.
yielding measures of neighborhoods that are
independent from those obtained by study
414 :\eighhurtlOod Inlluence, on Adolescent Dc' c\opment
panicipunt;, (Samp,'lI]' 19<)7: Sump,on et aL
1t)l!! J. \10l'eO\er a, noted. intcniewing
multiple re.'ldent;, pef neighhorhood increa;,c;,
thl' n:liahilit) in neighhorhood ll1eu.,uretnenl.
Neighborhood expert ,un ey;, require
inte!"\ iewing key cllmrl1unity leader;, such a...
prominent religiOlh. p()liti<.'al. busine"". ancl
;,ucial leaders in the <.'oi11munity about their
neighborhoods (Samp\on & Raudenbush.
:?O()·fl, Finally. alternative administrative data
soun.:es are available from city. state. and
kcleral agenei<.', ami inelude vilal stalistics
from health departments. <.'rime reports from
police tit:partillents. ,chool re<.'ord, from education
departillents. and child abuse and neglect
n:cord, frum human and ,ol'ial "ervicc agencies
(Coulton & Korhin, 2007).
Stud~' Designs
ReseHrcher~ intere~ted in understanding neigh·
borholll.l etlects on adolescent development
have used nonexperimental and experimental
approaches~ eadl I" reviewed in turn,
Nonexperimental Approache.5
The earliest set of neighborhood studies used
census-ba",ed rnea"urec, of neighborhood
structural characteristics in conjunction with
data collected on youth and their rami lies to
examine associations among neighborhood
residence and adolescent outcomes. This early
nonexperimental research w,:s based on two
general da"ses of studies. The first set was
large nalional data set, such as the Panel Study
or Income Dynamics (PSlD; Hill. 1<)1.)1) and
the National Longitudinal Survey of YouthChild
Supplement (NLSY-CS; Baker & Motl.
11IXLJ). Tlle"c studies typically had large \ ariation
in neIghborhood (and family) types and
pennilted estimation of neighborhood effects
ha,sed on lew adolescents per neighborhood.
The second sct was samples or YlJuth drawn
from ,ingk-<.'ily or regional samples in which
lhe range ()f sampled neighborhood.s <.I, well
as neighborhood types varied Cl<.'fOS' stuciies.
The;,e city ~llld regional samples \\'ere often
l'olllpri,eLi of primarily urh<ln. km-incollle
neighbor/Wl)(I\. Well-knov.!! e
Manv earlier
studie, with appended cenSl[;, data were
seclHHlal and were primarily useful for
menting a"ociation, between
re,idence and atioleM.:ent OU!collles:
they did not yield much information aO(1I1tt.....
dynamic relationship between
borhood., in which they live. which may
over time through a variety of internal or
nal means. The next phase of
re.search. wh ich incorp( )rated
range of neighborhood lypes may be
(e.g.. neighborhood;, from a variety of
demographic make-up..,). or specific types
neighborhood, may he sampled (e.g.. lowmoderate-poverty
neighborhoods). SamlDl1nl!lS
of adolescents per neighborhood (e.g.. at
15~30 study participants per neicrnlnfll-n(\NI'
Duncan & Raudenbush. 19<)<,)) to conduct multilevel.
longitudinal analyses, Multilevel analy- .
ses provide estimates of variation in outcomes
both within and between neighborhoods,
yielding more reliable estimates of neighborhood
effects on adole.scent outcomes, One
well-known example of a neighborhood-based
study i, the Project on HUi11"n Development in
Chicagu Neigilhorill)uJ, (PH DCI\; ) in which
censu~ cla!Cl were used to defi'le two stratification
\anablcs~SES (three levels) and racialethnic
composition (seven levels}--that were
cross-classi fied. and then a stratified probability
sample of iiO neighborhood clusters was
selel·ted for the longitudinal component of
tbe study (Leventhal 8:. Broob-Gunn. 2003c).
Finally. children and youth falling within
\e\cn age cohort;, ,panning I"WIll hirth lhrough
Methodological Issue, in Studying Adolescent Development in Neighborhood Context, 415
of age were ;,ampled from these
~.Ll_m·hn"Vl : approximately 75 children
neighborhood cluster were interviewed. In
PHDCN included an independem com,
survey component. in which neighborresidents
were interviewed regarding the
proces;.e;-, at play within their neighboras
well as systematic social observation....
"lJrimj~nt,(ll Approaches
tal and quasi-experimental studies
randomly assign families to live in certain
of neighborhoods have been conducted
the context of how,ing programs for lowincome
families. Because programs cannot
• serve all eligible or interested families. selecof
neighborhoods is often random. based
housing availability (i.e.. quasi-random>.
both. In these studies. a subset of families
is typically provided assistance in relocating
. from public housing located in high-poverty
areas to less poor neighborhoods (e.g.. families
may receive vouchers to rent housing in
private market or be offered public housing
built in nonpoor neighborhoods>.
The oldest quasi-experimental study is the
Gautreaux Program. enacted following a 1976
eourt order to desegregate Chicago's public
housing. Families were given vouchers to
move, and a"signment wa,; based on housing
availability (Rubinowitz & Rosenbaum, 2000),
The most weI! known experimental study. the
Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing
(MTO) demonstration program, was launched
by the U.S. Department of HOllsing and Urban
Development in 1994 partially in response to
positive findings reported in the Gautreaux
Program, Approximately 4.600 families across
five citte:-- were randomly assigned voul.:hers
to move out of public housing in high-poverty
neighborhood:.. into private housing of their
choice or into private housing in low-poverty
neighborhood~ (with special assi~tance): by
design. a subset of familie, remained in public
housing (Goering & Feins. 2003.1.
Another type of experimental study that is
relatively new is the use of natural experiments
111 which some exogenous or external shift
occurs thai affects residents over time or differentially
impacts neighborhoods (Fauth &
Brooh-Gunn. 200H)' Although few of these
studies focus on neighborhoods per se. se\eral
have examined the impact of changes in
environmental regulatiom on children\ health
at either the county or zip code level (Chay &
Greenstone. 2003; Currie & Neidell. 2005).
For example. Chay and Greenstone (200))
demonstrated how declines in county pollution
levels were associated with declines in infant
mortality. To our knowledge. this approach has
not been employed in studies of adolescents.
but provides a promising avenue for future
research to explore.
Selection
Selection or omitted variable bias i~ the m<tjor
criticism of nonexperimental de"igns used to
study "neighborhood effects" and represents a
potential threat to the validity of most existing
neighborhood studies. Selection refers to
the fact that families have some choice as to the
neighborhoods in which they live. and some
omitted (or unmeasured) variable associated
with choice of neighborhood residence might
account for <tny observed neighborhood effects
(Duncan. ConnelL & KJebanov. 1997: Manski.
1993; Tienda. 1991). A common strategy
used to minimize selection as a problem is to
account for child (e.g.. sex and age) and family
(e.g.. income, parent education. family structure)
demographic characteristics in analytic
models. Although this approach is preferable
(and. in our opinion. essential) because neighborhood
characteristics are defined by family
composition. it doe:; not fully overcome the
problem of selection. Moreover. many hypothesized
omitted variables such as parental
depression or motivation are not included in
most studies. nor IS the direction of bias
resulting from the omission of the"e variables
clear. For example. adolescent~' parents who
have poor mental health m<ty be more likely
to stay in disadvantaged neighborhoods than
are parents with superior health. Conversely.
In
OUf
,ei"ll' lunJ, flJ! relTealiullai acti\IlIC, fur lhelr
adu!c,l'l'li[c lIlal1 ~trl: ]e" llr:,:ani/cd pan:l1h
polL'ntJai ,cil'ctio!] probkm" UU(:' lu
lIlllJh~c'l\ ed \ ariable", a rt:et:nl ,tlld~ C:\<lllllI;ing
tht: lac'lll!"" inrIucnt:ing nClghhorhood
'c'il'c'li,Hl among PHDCN families found lilal
uillilled 1~lriahkr,. h)p()dll~,i/ed tu repre,cnt
pmcntlal Ihreat' or ~.cleeli()n hias In Ilcighborhom]
,lUdiC" ,uch a, l!JuSt' menliullt:d, had 111tiL'
illlpaL'l Ull rH.'lgi;borhood ,electioll oyer lillle
I S~lInf1'>l)1l 8: Sharkl'Y, 2()()X), Ratht:L fatlllly
'I1·.:i<H.'L:(1110Illic chmaclcrislic" roulinely eun·
lroliL'd lor in neighborhood \ludics, including
r~lcl"it:lllllicity, illl:Ollll' anu edUealilJll, wen: lhe
lll(hi fll1lCJll r.lctnr" a"soci<ltt:d with residcntial
stmtlfleall()ll, Thus, controlling fur these key
family characteristic", as suggested earlier.
Inight be "urficienr for <tchie\ ing reasonable
est imales (If neighborhood dTects,
Rc,earcilers also have used various analytic
'trale,uie, to addrc,> selection issues, Thcse
appmachc" include cnmparisons of sibling, or
fiN cousins, which hold family charactcristics
cpn"lant (Aaronson, 19<)7): illslrumental variahlt'
analy.scs. \\ hieh minimizc ullmeasured correlations
hel ween neighborhood characteristics
and adolescent outcomes (Foster & McLanahan.
!(j')6): hehavior genetics modds. which differentiate
between genetic and environmcntal
influences iCaspi. Taylor. Muffilt, & Plomin.
20()O: Clevcland, 20(3): and prol)cn,ity score
methods, which match ad(llesccnb who do emu
do !lot livc in cel1Llin tyf1C:-' or neighborhoods
(Harding. 20(3). However. only experimental
designs call full) o\·ercolTle the select ion probkm
in neighhorhood re"earch i altllollf.':h ,Hher
'clectloll problem, may ~Iris,: i.
A REVIEW OF NEH;HBOIUIOOIJ
STIWCTtRAL EFFECTS ON
ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT
Thi~ reI ic\\ build., ()11 pn:\IOlh .,ulllmaries of
publlshcd neighhurhood rcsearch cOndUl'!ed
during the! l)9(h (ix\enth,,j 8: Brooks-GUllI].
2()()(I , 2()O)<l 200..J.a i. The field h;1S continued
I,) pn'Iderate III the twent) -1'11"1 century (Entwisle
21J07: Salilpsllil t'l aL 2()()21. To I!leorpora~
Ihe,e recent de\ eluplllcilb. rl'lleWs of relevant
databa.>e.' were conducted f(lilu\\ ing similar
procl'dlirt'S d' tim", us"d PIt:\ i;)u,l) (Leventhal
6: i:lroob-Ciunl1, 20()(j. 20()."a, 2()04a).
the,," rnicw." \H' Cucu'cd (Iii thl' three stmc_
tural dlillen,i(JI]., i<l",e,,'l'd by the cenSUSI most
jj(:qll':lltj~ t'.\<tnlllled: illc:oll\t'/SES ,affluence!
high SES and pOI t'llyll()\\ SES), I"acial!eth_
nk di \er,il:, and rc,idcnllal instability,
re\'leV,S yielded few and sOlllewhat inconsisttrlll
finding' i"()r raciailethnic diver,ity and
resHjential in.,whilit), t!Ill". onl) rinuings for
SES arc sUJ11l1lari/ed herl', OtiIcr neighhorhood
dimellsions an~ cOIl,sldereJ ill the subseyuent
,ection. In both st:ctiuns. only '.tudies that
ac'COllllleu for indilidual and lami]y characteristil's
sllch as child sex, age, and race-ethnieity:
family incollle and composition: and maternal
eliucatiutL age, and the like ill the allaIY~I" were
included due tll potential st'ic'l'lion issllcs,
Three domain., of well-being are cllnsidl'red
In !Uill: (I) euucationai Lind c)cl'lIpational
acillevelllcnt (lest score" gr:ldc failure. high
:-.,:hool dropuLIl status, collegc attendance. ycars
or completed .,;dlOoling, employment. and earnings),
(2) emotional and \oL'ial wel'-heing (mental
health, crime. delinquency, and suhstance
U\e Land (3) ,exual activity (age "~f inniation,
numher of partll1~rs, CIne! contraception lise)
and childbearing, Wheneh:l pus"ible, we discriminate
between finding" lor early adolescents
(j 1-15 ycars (lid) and late adolescent;. (16-,19
year, old) hecallse Ilcighll(lrho(lds lTlay hll\le
Ji!Terential l'llccts on nlllc()lIleS during each
devcloplIlent;i1 peri(;d !Abel'. Gephart, HrooksGunn.
& Cunnell. 19(7)' Fm ill~lallce. neighhorl]()od
IllIlUcIlCe, rnay IllLTease liUrIll!,' iate
adolescence. when youth arc oflen ""ranted Illore
allt()Il()I1l~ Ihan they are at ymlll!:'er age;.. rc,sultillg
in t,::rt:ater e:\po,ure t( I t::\tral"aillilial influellces,
incl<lding ncighhorho()d;, (Elllol el aL. Il}LJ(!),
Ani I.';'. thc siudie" reviL'\\cJ, till' stlonge,!
t'\ idence \\ a, found flll'the ;Is,(lcimilHi bell\ccn
•
A Review of Neighborhood Structural Effects on Adolescent Development 417
SES and adolescent achieveaccounting
for child and
characteristics). Living in
more high SES re;;,ident~
i."__ 1..~th younger and older adoThis
pattern of findings
nonexperimental reo.earch
techniques. and to a
'''~n."..,rn,pnt::ll city and regional
census data (Connell &
1997; Dornbusch. Ritter. &
etaJ., 1994; Halpern"1,,,oN'ntc'
achievement (math
skills tests, grade point
U\<",UV>HU risk score). This patwas
confirmed more recently
neighborhood-based stud.who
ranged in age from 4 to
a multisite study of youth
first neighborhood-based
a diverse sample of Chicago
:that the presence of managin
the neighborhood was
elJ?:JIlOC~rn()od affluence during late
adolescence was associated
educational attainment, paryouth
from nonpoor families
Racine, & Mustard. 2007).
site, cross-sectional study of
diverse, primarily European
..:actOll~sc:ents documented a positive
neighborhood median
. verbal ability. but in
c'aSSC)Ct~ltjcm wa<; iitrongest among
lower income families (Gordon
Additional findings on young adolescents'
achievement from city and regional studie:-.
entail links between neighborhood 10'" SES and
related measures (e.g.. male joble~sness and
female-headed homeholdsJ and poor educational
outcome:,. (Connell & Halpem-Felsher.
1997; Halpern-Felsher et aL 1997 J. Several
of the studies reviewed also found that neighborhood
SES may have more pronounced
effect;,. on young adolescent boys' achievement
than on girls' achievement (Entwisle et aI.,
1994: Halpern-Felsher et al.. 1997).
Studies of older adolesccnts have relied primarily
on national data sets. A number of studies
based on the PSID reported associations
between neighborhood high SES/aftluence and
youth's educational attainment (high schoo]
graduation. college attendance. and year~ of
completed schooling: Brooks-Gunn et al.. 1993;
Duncan, 1994; Halpern-Felsher et a!.. 19(7);
these associations were more salient among
European American than among African
American youth. However. one city-based
study of African American adolescent,> found
that the presence of managerial and professional
neighbors was positively associated
with boys' educational attainment (Ensminger,
Lambkin. & Jacobson. 1996). In addition. a
nonlinearassociation between thi s SES measure
and youth's chances of completing high school
was found in the Public Use Microdata Sample
(PUMS). such that when the percentage of
profes"ional or managerial workers fell to five
percent or fewer (or reached a tipping point).
neighborhood effects were more pronounced.
especially among African American males
(Crane, 1(91).
Findings from a quasi-experimental study in
which low-income. minority youth residing
in public houiiing in poor urban neighborhoods
moved to the more affluent suburbs concur
with the results of the nonexperimental literature.
In a lO-year follow-up of the Gautreaux
Program. youth who moved to the suburbs
were found to be more likely to graduate from
high school. take college preparatory clast-es.
attend college. be employed. and earn higher
d!Cc" lilaii II ere Ille!r I)\.:<.:r, II h,) rC:I1l;lin\.'d ill
lI,c' ,'lll i {(clhllo,1 Jl/ &: RO\L'nhllllll. 2()()() I,
\,1< Ii'.' I , IIUII c\ 1.'1. iii) achi\.'\ el1lent
~ilC:('.' \1,:Il' Il'p"rted III HU:,)', :;·year c\'alu·
.11101. ", lilL \ lTO prugfllllL \\Ilicil u\c'd a truc
c'\i'c'nllll'n~;i! (Ll'\cllllJai. hillth, &:
Bnlili,c'(I(i!IIL 2()(J): San\)unmal\U, Klin!:'.
DUlIC:llil. ,\: 1$1\ )PI. ,·GUIll!. 20(Jh).
Till iv1TU iindillg' 11l1l,1 he unlicr'l\l)()d III till'
Ullill'.\J 01 il ,oc'ial \'\IIl'rillll'lll BecClu;.c ,oeial
c \1'c:nlllC'lll. "c,'ur III the n:al \\orld alltl nlll ill
;: [llhurd;":'\ \1 ith highl: cuntrolled conditiull'.
,C'I nid ill!!'()t':anl ll'alLtf6 (I! l\f! () impact (llil
IIlkrplel:lllllll ul till' "Ill'i!:,hbclrhuud l'Ilech"
n:I'Clnc:c1. Oni,\ appr<l\ill111lely 50 percent of
iall Iii l\.i\ ul krc:d \(Jlll:her, 1I,ed them to IlHl\C
!e; Ill'\\ lll:i;.>hh()rhuod~~ Many hm-pov('rty
!,:l11ille' who rc:located typically mOl'ed to poorer
l1l'igllhoril()(.u\ .liler the riN year in which they
\',cre requlrcd 1<) he in 10" ·poverty neighborhomb.
:\1uI il1~ i, di,ruptlvl' t(l ycluth'~ .'oc:ial
Ill'!" ",1, ami illa\ ofbel bencfit~ ass(\ciatl'd
'cl ilil ,1., Ill' ach dI11'1!r!cd Ilc'igllhorhu(lu~ I Auam.
2()(J"+: Adam &. Cha'l'-Lal1~ualc. 200::::: Pribesh
,\: Dl'WIlc'\. illl)'Yi. Fin.tlly. and specific' \(l edu·
c"lIi(li1. becauc.l' mailY ramilie, in MTO wilo
lm.'1 ed rl'llJall1ed in urhan area". children continucd
to attend ht)!hly disadvantaged urban
puhlic schoul..... In contrast. children in thc
Clautre.lllX :;lUdy 'Ittl'ndecl ;,chop\;, in achaniaged
,uburban school di~tl'icts. More in lille
1',llh \1To. it 7 year follow-up or another
LJlta~i·e.\I1t:rilllelll,t1 .'.tully of a desegregation
dJ(lrl in 'ron Kel's. New Ynrk. in which all
iamlill" 1,:I1l<lllled III public 11ll1l1>ing vvithin the
,:Jllle Cl1\ and .,clwoi di\triu found that oluer
~ldok'CCJlI:. \\ 11" nH)\ed to middle-incoTlle
'lcl;.>nhorIIIHIlJ, reportcd I)('orer school per·
f.}nn'lIk,· than Y')LlIII who rl'maineci ill hii,!.hPO\
en:. Ilci,!.!llh(lriJ(.od, i Fauth. Le\'eillhal. &
B l'uob·( iUIlIi . .:'0071.
T\I (\ teecill tHlllt'\]lerlllll'lllal ,!udie:. with
Ihl' I'SID halt' j',Juhl'd em Ilci;.>hhorhoml Il)w
SF'" ;iIld It, ;I"oviati,)(l \\ ilh dropping out of
hi;.>h ,chou\ !CriJ\\lit:r k SUlItil. 2()03: Harding.
2f)().' I. Iii c:olllra,! Il) llci!r!hborilooJ hi~h SESI
Ilucnl l·. III luI' SES had J111)1\:
prunollllCl'd dkch OJ) !\jIlC,lIl Americans'
l)dd, of dropplll!,! .HIl 01 high :.chool than
Furopcan Alllc'ric<ln<. partlcLilarh among
Alrican American h(l~' I Crowder & Solith.
2U()3r 01 note i~ tllal lhc magnitude of the
associatioli bet\\t:'ell neighborhood disadvan_
tage and Afncan /\Illcrican< high ,ChllOI disruptioll
lm:reascd UI er lime fJ onl IlJ7() to J <)t)O.
tht' Il)X(), heill!,! the period Oil which much
01 the carilcr nei~hhorllouu work with this
,alllpit: was ba,cd (Br(luk.,-Ciunll et al.. i ')<)7).
Finally. one stud\ lIsin!,! another nallomti data
,('I indicate, thai nl'l~hh()rh\loJ povcrty during
adolescence IllU) hal e long·run association"
willl adull unelllpl(lymenl. p.lrticulmly
among males (Hollow<l" &. Mulherin. 2(04).
How(;vcr. a lJua~i-nperimclllal study of
Canadian adoiescenh, which did not have the
l'onfounding of neighhorhood and relocation
like MTO. found thaI older adolescents who
lived in puhlic housing in poor neighborhoods
did not differ in their earnin!r!s. employment. or
wellare receipt at age 30 compared with peers
fwm public housing in l1llLlcllc..income neighborhoods
(Oreopoulos. 2(03).
Other measure." or neighhorhood SES.
such as the high schoo] completion rate. perccntage
of female-headed hOllseholds. and
feillale employment rate. were found to be
associated with educational allainment as
well. Almml all of these qudie, were hased
Oll the PSID m other large. national studies
(Aaron;'()Il. J lJ97: Brooks-Gunn et aJ.. J 9lJ3:
Duncan. 1994: Ensmingcr et al .. Il)96: Foster
& McLanahan. 1l)')6: Garner &. Raudenhush,
IlllJ I). In a number of these studies, neighborhood
SES effects on adolescent achieveIllcllt
Wt're reponed when tcch1ll411e, were
used to addrcss problems of selection
hia" or <1(hanced ~tati,tical approaches
were clllJlI():ved. includIng 'lbling analy.sc's
(Aaronson. ill97: Plotl1lch k HotTman.
19<)4). in,trulllental \C\;'iahle an,tiyse" (Foster
&. McLanahan. 1l)l)6: ct. bans, Oatc'. &
Scil" abo Il)Y21. multile\ 1.'1 model, (Garner
& Rauclenbush. IYlj I Land prnpt'll,il;' score
matching (Hardin;.>. 2(J031.
A Review of Neighborhood Structural Effects on Adolescent Development 419
and Emotional Outcomes
evidence from well-designed studies
the conclu~ion that neighborhood
emotional outcome:- after accounting for
characteristic~, Most notable are
between low SES neighborhoods and
delinquent and violent behavior
both younger and older adole~cents,
examining neighborhood SES effects
young adolescence primarily drew
city and regional samples with appended
data, For example, in a rural Iowa
of European American 8th and 9th
neighborhood low SES was positively
with boys' psychological distress.
positively associated with girls' conduct
nrflt\lp'm' (Simons, Johnson. Beaman. Conger,
Whitbeck, 1996). Likewise, among 13- and
-old boys in the Pittsburgh Youth Study.
ng in low-SES or "underclass" neighbor(characterized
by poverty. unemployment.
male joblessness. female headship. nonmarital
African American presence. and
receipt) was positively associated with
engaging in delinquent and criminal
. ,and effects were more pronounced
... among younger than older adolescents, as well
. as among impulsive adolescents (Loeber &
Wikstrom, 1993; Lynam et aL, 2000; Peeples
,& Loeber. 1994; see also Beyers, Loeber.
Wikstrom. & Stouthamer-Loeber. 200 I).
Several recent multisite. neighborhood-based
studies also find links between neighborhood
SES and young adolescents' engagement in
a range of problem behaviors. Results from
the Family and Community Health Study
(FACHS). which originally sampled 10- to
12- year-old African American children and
their families in Georgia and Iowa living in a
wide variety of neighborhood settings (i.e.. not
just urban central city neighborhoods). demonstrated
an association between neighborhood
low SES and affiliation with deviant peers
(especially among early maturers) and girls'
(but not boys') substance use (Brody et ai..
2001: Ge. Brody. Conger. Simons. & Murry.
2002: Gibbons et al.. 2(04). A related finding
from the PHDCN study reveals that living in
a low SES neighborhood wa~ asso;;iated with
violent behavior among adolescent girls (13­
17 years old) who experienced early menarche
(Obeidallah. Brennan. Brooks-Gunn. & Earls.
2004). Finally, another multilevel study conducted
in three cities found that lo\', leve\:' of
concentrated affluence were associated with
young adolescent boys' grcater externalizing
of problems (Beyers, Bates, Pettit. & Dodge.
2003).
A number of recent studies have used
data from the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health (Add Health), a nationally
representative. longitudinal study of middle
and high school students. to explore aspects
of neighborhood SES associated with adolescents'
behavior and emotional outcomes,
Most of this work has used a multilevel analytic
framework. Research focusing on violent
behavior reported that the proportion of
single-parent families in the neighborhood.
an indicator of low SES. was associated with
adolescents' self-reported violent behavior
(Knoester & Haynie. 20(5). while another
investigation found that neighborhood socioeconomic
disadvantage was associated with
this olltcome (Haynie. Silver. & Teasdale,
2(06), Two additional studies with this sample
demonstrate associations between community
disadvantage and adolescents' depressive
symptoms (Wickrmna & Bryant. 2003;
Wickrama. Merten. & Elder. 2005).
Nonexperimental research focllsing on
older adolescence documents association;;,
between neighborhood low SES and a range of
problem behaviors. too. Two studies using data
from a British national study found adverse
associations between residence in low SES
neighborhoods and adolescents' participation
in crime and delinquency (Samp:,on & Groves,
191\9; Veysey & Messner. 1999). Along these
same lines. a national study of U.s. JOth graders
found that the male joblessness rate was
..~
-120 '\ei;!hhoriloml JunU,'!H"'" Oil Adul",n:nl Deyelopment
P,,,ill\ el) a,,(luatcd \\ nil drll!,' U~l': hU\\l~\er.
till' P' l\ en\ r,lle \\a' Ilc~ali\e!: a",,()cialed wltil
drUl' lbl' anlun!! tile..,e same youth (Hoffman,
2()()2 LA nel!,'hhorhooli-ba,eLl ,tUlI) in ClllGlg(),
!]\l\\ C\ cr. iuunu 1mb between till' presence of
fe\\ manage!'s and prok"jOlWI.., ill the ncighhorlw()<i
and uluel aciukscelll': "elf-reponed
\ioil'nt bei1:I\IOr ! S:1l11P'OIL tvlorenofL &
RdUdenhu'ih, 20().'i),
Finally. AlIt'..,ilensel anu Slicoff (I l)l)())
exalllllled till: dieet n1neighhor\1()od SES anu
raciak,tilnic di\er,ity ,imullaneously on the
Illl'lItal health ulltel)llle, or 12- t() !7-year-oilb
in Lll' Angell'" Their results indica1ed that
the prevalence of conduct disorder wa.., highest
dlllOll!,' adok.'L't'nh ill I()\-\ SES, African
Allierican neighhorhoods dlld lowest amollg
adole;,eenh in luw SES, Latino neighhorhoods.
The pre\alence of oppositional defiant disordel.
how\:'ver. wa" hi!,'hesl amollg adoie"cent,
in middle SES comillunities with high concentrations
01 European American, and Latinos
and lowes, allll'lliC adok,cenh in low SES.
Afriean American neighhorhoods. Latinos
dj'played more depressive symploms than did
European American and Ai'ric<ln i\ merican
youth. e\l'ept in low SES neighborhoods with
high concentration, of Latino"
III line with the nonexperimental literature
revealing links between lo\-\-SES neighborhoods
and older adole,',cent.< socia!. elllotionai.
and behavimal outcomes are experimental
lindlllgs frolll the MTO program 5-year
evaluation (K ling. Liehman. & Kat/., 20071.
;\dole,cent girls who moved to low-poverty
neighborhoods repl1ned less psychological
distress, anxiety. and substance use and were
less li"eiy to \1(:' ane,lcd Ifor both violent ancl
propl:rly crillle,) than &lrl, who remained in
puhlil' hou,ing in 11I!:!h-poverty neighborhoods.
L1nfor1un:lleh. such bl.'l1l'lils of lllll\ ing to 10\\'pO\Cn)
neighborho()(b \Verl' not seen amollg
aliole,ee}]! hoy,. who dCllloJlstraled ,1l1l1C
l1l'!:!ali\c llululllle, <IlkI' 1l1()\·ing. Interl"lil1gly,
a 7-\-l;'ar e\ alwlti()11 of :1 qlw,i-experimenlal
slud) of hOllsin!,' de,egre!,'atioll ill '(011 "crs,
!\Jew )'01'''. also Illlliltl S(ll1le nl'!,':itill' effeCh.
especIal I) amung (older ad()le,cenls, In
this ,tud)_ older adole,ecln, \\ 1](\ relocated to
more :.Hhantagcd nt'ighb,.rlloud, rCpurle(\ more
heha\'ior problelll' and sulbtallce lise than
pcers who remained in IlllpU\en,hed neighb()r_
IW(ld, (Fauth. Le\ellthal. et al.. 2007 I. In these
experimental .'ludle" it i, li"cl) that the di,ruptivc
eiTeeb ot fllO\in!,' ()Il ,ucial networks
wefe more harmful among hoy.., than girl,; in
the c:),(' oj MTO ami among older than younger
adolescents in the cast' (11' Yonkers.
Sexual Activity and Childbearing
COJl\c:rgin)! evidcnct' from 1l11111Crou, national
data seb a~ \Veil a~ llluitile\el ,lUliies points
to ass()uati(lIl'" bl't\-\ eel! nei!,'hhorllllou SESespecially
low SES--and ad,l!escen!;i sexual
hehavior and fertility (controlling for individual
and family charaCleri,licsi. This pattern
holds alllong both younger and older adolescenlS
In addition, neighborhood employment
Illeasun:::-. appl'ar 10 he as,ocialeu WIth these
outcome.s, hut the direclion orefil..:t'l.s is mixed,
Recently, increased attention in the neighborhood
literature has fOCLl\ed on younger
adolescet1l< sexual initiation. One study based
on a Canadian national sample reported that
among 12, to 15- year-olds, neighhorhood uisadvantage
was w;soeialed with adolescent girls'
sexual initiation overall and both girl'; and
boy,- "exuul initiation among those with a history
of conduct problems (Dupere, Lacourse.
Willms. Leventhal. & Tremblay, 20m.;,. Using
multilevel data from Ihe PHDCN. Bro\Vning
and colleague, dell1OlI\lrated in a serie" of
sf ud ies a link betweell !leighbori1ood concentrated
poverty and sexual onset alllong youth
11-16 year, (If age (Browning, Burrington,
Leventhal. 8:. Brooks-Gll!lll, ::!OOX: Browning.
Lev eotha!. & Brooks-GUill!, 20()4, 20(5).
Studies lIsing six dilTl'rentnatiollal data sets
(Nat jOllal Sur\-..::\, ufAdolescl'llt iv1 ale., ir-.; SA MI·
Nalional Sliney "f Children 11\5CI. National
Surveyor rall1ily (iJ(lwth I1\SFG-IIII, pSID.
PLiMS, and Add Health) reported that indIcators
(If nelghhorhood SES were associated
wilh pre(/(llllinHtl·l) ulder ;Idoiesl'ellh' ,,,Xllill
''''r,"ml~W(lrli. for Understanding Potential Pathways of !'Iieighborhood Etl'ects on Adole,~ccnt Outcomes 421
vity. Across these studies. the presence
advantaged ~ocioeconomic conditions
m, affluent or professional neighbors
associated with a decreased risk of
adolescents' nonmaritaJ childbearing
& Moore. 1992: Brooks-Gunn et al..
, Crane. J991: South & Crowder. 1999;
Cubbin. Santelli. Brindis. & Braveman.
). whereas the ab~ence of such resources,
,including high poverty and low housing val.ues,
was adversely associated with both boys'
,and girls' initiation of sexual intercourse,
frequency of intercourse, number of partners,
contraceptive use. pregnancy outcomes.
and overall sexual risk behavior (Baumer
& South. 200 I: Cleveland & Gilson. 2004:
Cubbin et aJ.. 2005; Ku, Sonenstein, &
Pleck, 1993: Ramirez-Valles, Zimmerman, &
Juarez. 2002; Ramirez-Valles, Zimmerman,
& Newcomb, 1998; South & Baumer, 2001:
South & Crowder, ]999). Moreover, two studies
found nonlinear associations, such that the odds
offemale youth bearing children increased when
community disadvantage reached an extreme
threshold (Crane, 199 I: South & Crowder,
1999). Finally, the association between neighborhood
poverty and adolescent girls' odds of
nonmarital childbearing were confirmed in propensity
score models (Harding, 2003).
Employment indicators were associated
with adolescent sexual and fertility outcomes,
although the pattern of resuhs was inconsistent.
Among adolescent males 1.'i-19 years of age
in the NSAM, a high unemployment rate was
positively associated with impregnating f.omeone
and fathering a child (Ku et al., 1993), and
among middle school and high school students
in Add Health, the proportion of idle youth was
associated with boys' sexual initiation (Cubbin
et aL 2005 L Likewise, amClng females in the
NSFG-III and Add Heallh, unemployment and
joblessness were positively associated with
sexual initiation, frequency of intercourse,
contraceptive use, and nonmarital childbearing
(Billy. Brewster. & Grady. 1994~ Billy &
Moore. 1992: Cubbin et al.. 20(5). However.
among these same young women in the
t\SFG-IIL but not Add Health. the percentage
of women employed in the neighborhood
was positively associated with timing of first
intercourse and risk of premarital sex (Biliy
et al.. 1994: Brewster. 1994b). In addition.
among female youth aged 14--20 in the NSFGlll,
female labor force participation wa~ positively
associated with noncoutracepted first
intereourse among African American. urban
young women and with contracepted first
intercourse among European American young
women (Brewster. 1994a: Brewster. Billy. &
Grady, 1993). Findings related to female
employment may be related to the monitoring
and supervision of youth as upposed to socioeconomic
resources.
A FRAMEWORK FOR
Ul\;DERSTAl\;DING POTENTIAL
PATHWAYS OF NEIGHBORHOOD
EFFECTS ON ADOLESCENT
OUTCOMES
The research presented in the previous section
documents associations between neighborhood
structure and adolescent outcomes: however.
it does not address the potential pathways
through which these neighborhood effects
are transmitted to youth. A widely held view
among researchers is that neighborhood influences
are indirect (01' mediated), operating
through various processes such as community
social organizations. families. peen;. and
schools. In addition, neighborhood enects are
thought to condition (or interact with) other
contextual influences~particularly the family
environment~in shaping adolescent development.
Despite such expectations, much more
theoretical than empirical work has explored
mediated and moderated neighborhood effects
on adolescent outcomes. Empirical investigations
of underlying mechanisms of neighborhood
inHuences have been hindered by the lack
of a coherent framework outlined by outcome.
age of child. and specific pathways. as well as
by methodological Iimitations~particularly.
adequate study designs and neighborhood
measures. However. over the past several years
empirical ,uppurt COIIClIr, witli C>"PCl­

laUDI]',. inuL'atIlJi:' lila: Ih:'j~hhurhu()u eflec!\ art' 

llHJlleL'l. uperatin!:' through inuJliLiuai-. 

taIIlII; -. aud Cul1lll1l1l1li: -Inc:! pmlc"e,.
In Ihis ,CL'llllll. tlm:c theoretical 1I10Ueb
lor cOl1ct'l,tuail/ing IH1\\ 1H.'lghhurhoous
III iglll il1 fl UCIILC aciuiesle111 delel OplllC III
art' l,re,eI11ed (L::\ elllhal "" 8ruu"s-Cillllll.
2U()O. 2()() I J. lilt' rirst Illodel. imlllllliollui
r(,.\{!llrcn. pusih thai Iht lIlialit). qll~lIllit).
IIIHJ Lil\er.,itl (lrt'(I!11ll1l1llil) n:S()lIrleS Illedialt'
neighb()ri1uud etfech. Tbe sel'lllld Illodd.
IIOIllI.1 I/Iul coI/Celil'I' "I1t:culatl's lhal
thle \:X1Ull oi" CUllllllllllily IOl'lnal amJ inlormal
institutiuns present tu Illonitor n:sideills
hella\ ior lespeeially plet'r ,urDu!',,) and physiGli
Ihreah to residents IILT(lllllh for neighborhoud
etTcCls. The final l1lodeL refUliu/lship,
IIlId lic.I. hypotllCsi/.es that parenlal attrihutes.
,ocial net\!'orks. and hdl<l\ im a, Ihell as home
el1\irolllllent L'haraCleristics lran~mjl neighbnrhood
ill flue nees. These' theon:tical fral1les
were developed ha;,ed 011 a review anu analysis
0/ lH::i~hb()rhuud quuics by Jencks alld
Mayer ( I()';IO I, Ihe literature on economic hardship
and unemployment (Conger. Ge. Elder.
LorenL & Sj mOil;'. 1994: McLoyd. ILJYO I.
and \VOl''' on social disorganlzatioll theory
(Sampson. 1002: Samp>.,oll et al.. 19\.)7: Sha",
& McKay. I\,)42. see Sampsllll & Morenoff.
Il)Y7. lor a re\ie"')
These theoretical models are intended to
he complementary rather than conflicting.
For instance, instituliullal I\>source mcchanisms
may be most "alient when sludying
high SES~achievement linb. norms and collect
ive efficacy processcs Illay hc mosl relevant
for examining low-SI-:.S~delilllluency
assoCi~lli()ns. and relatiollship pathways Illay
he Illosl lIseful for examining SES ·,c'>,ual outC01l1C
ilnh.s. In terills of dc't:I()pmt:nlal dillerellces.
relationship mechanisms mi~ht Ix' more
rcle\ant for younger thall older mlole~cent~
ht:GllIse lalllille~ may excrt a greater influence
liming this perioJ. whereas L'('Jlllllunity IHlrlll~
and pn'ce~,e' llIay be Iilorc s,ilicilt lor <'Ider
thall for youngL'r acioiesecnh becallse ,,1' Ihe
gml" Illg IlIfiuenl.:e ()i peer~ Junng this period
C'lIlliTlUI1it} inSllllllJrllla; 1\~'()llI\:t:s Illay PIa;
all ellualll Imjlonalll roI,; hutll earlier and I. ater
III adoic,ccIICt'. hUI tilt' specitlc rt:~()lIrce of most
relt:1 ance Illct~ diner ju:· tilt' t\\(l age groups.
An:mJingl). the present re\ ie", or the theoret_
iCet! lllockis hi,ullli~'hl' aspects of eaeh model
thai are illost rt.'le\ ;lllt tt' adojescem.s.
IIl"tilutionul Resources
EcollollllC rt',OUIU: per.'pe~'tiles. focusing typicall;.
onlilc lamll:- contcxt. IJelllif) lesources or
opportlillilie, to whieh dli!Lirell and youth theorl'lically
have alL".':S;' ((·kc"er. 19K I. BroobGUill!.
Klehallol. Liaw. ,\: !JullcCln, 1995;
Havcman & Wolk. 19LJ-h EXlrapolating this
model 10 IlL'I)lhhurhoulis. COlllllHlllity resources
include the qualltity. qualny. di\ersity. and
atfordahility of scvera! types oj resources in the
eOllllilunit) penincllI t() aookscenl;,-schooLs,
health and ;,(lcial serviccs. recreational and
social program;,. anu employment-that could
int1IK'llce well-heing (Levcnthal & BrooksGUIlIl.
2000: l\cuman "" Cclano. 20(J I).
For adolescents. "eilo()b are (! primary
vehicle through whieh neighhorhood cffects
Jllay operate 011 adoie.seents· achievement in
particular. Rele\ilnl aspects of school:, include
lIuality. climate. norlllS. and delllllgruphic
mu"cup. Living in a disad\llnla)led neighborhoou
is adversely associaled witIi these school
attributes as well as with adolescenls' cducational
outC(lJlleS ICard & Payne. 2002: Jencks
& Mayer. 1990 l. Several studies have looked
al lhe inlerseetic'll of ncighhoriwtld context
and ;,;.;i1ool norms regardini:'- risky behavior.
Findings indieate thai neighhorhood structure
is as.,ociated with school 1l,'rl1lS. which
In turn Illay lie assoCialcd willi ddoie,cellts'
,,''>,lIltl initiation and thei,' 'lIh.stance lISC (Eitle
& McNulty Eitie. :::O(j~: r.nnelL Flewelling,
LJIldnl(ltil. & i\iorton. IlN7: Tt'itier & Weiss.
2000: SCl' ,)dlool Vl'!'SUS Nelg hbol'ilOod Influenee,
section tor additional details I.
The alailahilit~ qULllit:. and affmdahility (If
ll1edlcal and social scnices in tilL cOlllmunity
lila) hI..' a potential p~lthway 01· l1ei~hhorh()()d
•
a a 

Ji'rameWI:ITK for Understanding Potential Pathways of Neighborhood Etl'ects 0\1 Adolescent Oulcomes 423
notably on mental and physical
(including sexual risk behavior and pregAlthough
work examining this resource
scant. access. quality. and variety of health
services vary a~ a function of family SES. with
high income generally conferring beneficial
effects (Newacheck. Hughes. & Stoddard.
1996; Newacheck. Stoddard. & McManus.
1993). Differences in health carc services
availability rekvant to adolescents have been
shoW to vary as a function of neighborhood
SES. Result~ based on Add Health indicate that
high schools located in lower SES communities
are less likely to otler school-based health
services than schools in more advantaged
communities (Billy et al.. 20(0). However.
reduced availability of health services in disadvantaged
communities does not necessarily
explain differences in adolescent health behaviors
or attitudes. For instance, several studies
of adolescent sexual behavior found that the
availability of family planning and abortion
providers in the community was not associated
with adolescents' sexual activity. fertility
outcomes. or attitudes toward contraceptive
use (accounting for neighborhood structure,
Brewster et aL 1993; Hughes, Furstenberg, &
Teitler. 19(5). In contrast. another nationally
representative study found that although availability
of family planning clinics in the county
of residence wa~ not associated with adolescents'
sexual activity, it was predictive of
contraceptive use among sexually active adolescent
girls (Averett, Rees, & Argys, 2002).
Another possible mechanism of neighborhood
effect~-particularly 0n physical and
social development-is the presence of social
and recreational activities such as parks.
~port~ program~, an and theater programs, and
community centers. Generally, studies of
youth programs and after-school care point to
these programs as having beneficial effects on
adjustment particularly among low-income
youth (Eccles & Gootman, 20(2). In the same
manner. enrollment in these activities could be
especially beneficial for adolescenb living in
disadvantaged neighborhoods..For example.
participation in organized activities was found
to be most protective against cigarette srnokini!
among adole,>cents exposed to higher leveb of
neighborhood risk... in terms of SES and racial
composition (Xue. Zimmerman. & Howard
Caldwell. 2007; see also Coley, Morris. &
Hernandez, 2004: and Pettit. Bates, Dodge. &
Meece. 1999). and among low- and moderateincome
African American youth. participation
in locally based organized activities promoted
affiliation with neighborhood prosocial peers
(Quane & Rankin. 2006: see also Rankin &
Quane. 2(02). However. it i~ important to
note that involvement in activities. such a~
community-based clubs, might have negative
effects on adolescel1l adjustment in highly violent
communities. possibly because it could
increase exposure to violence (Fauth, Roth. &
Brooks-Gunn. 20(7).
In spite of the potential benefits associated
with activity participation. adolescenb living
in low SES neighborhoods might have limited
access to organized recreational activities as
compared to their peers in more affluel1l communities.
A neighborhood-based study of adolescent
development in low- to middle-income
neighborhoods found that the extent of prosocial
activities varied acros'> neighborhoods and
was linked to problem behavior (Furstenberg.
Cook, Eccles, Elder. & Samerotl. 1999: see
also Furstenberg. 200J ). Meanwhile. research
on youth from affluent communities also points
to the need for more after-school programs
(or at least participation in such programs)
to prevent youth from engaging in problem
behaviors (Luthar. 2003). In addition, a recent
review of the environmental cOlTelates of
youth's physical activity indIcated that higher
neighborhood crime leveh were associated
with lower participation in physical activities.
although evidence was mixed regarding a
direct link between avallabil ity of sports
facilities and programs in the communit)' and
youth's physical activity (Ferreira et al.. 2(06).
Two reasons might explain why availability is
not consistently associated with participation.
First. qualitative and quantitative research on
IalililIC' JI1 di'lI(l\wl1,;geU neighhorhomb indicalc"
lhal \\hen ,uual and recreatIonal prugram,
are nol a\aIlahk III lamilie< own cOJl1l11uniIi..:..,.
parent;, acce,,;, re,ourcl" Irom th..: larger
wrrouml cUIl1111unilY (Elder. En:!..:;,. Ardell.
6.: Lord. 19l):'i: .JarrelL 1997) Second. the link
hCI\,eCIl ([\ailahility ,lIld panicipalioll aprears
II) vary as a functioll Dr ill,ighhorh()oU eharactcri.,tlc'.
\\ilh youth li\lllg ill di;,adv<lntagcd
C()lIll11unitie;, llIore likely to partH:ipate in
neighborhood-based urgani/.ed acti \'itle, when
(Jilered lhe chance (()uulle & Rankin. ~(J()6)
The last in.,titlllionaIIT\nurce most rel..:vant
to al'hinelllelll uutUJ1lle" and \1os"ibly problelll
beha\ iors elliaib the supply of cmploy!lIent
opp(\rtunitles. aen.'.'" to jobs (lilcluding
transportation j. and adolescents' OWll expectatiOll'
aboul cl\'ailable opJl()rlunities. Although
sllldie" Iw\l.' not cxulllllled neighhorho()d~
cmploYl11t:nl links on adolescent develupment
i 111();.t studie.... focu> on young adu1t~). we draw
upon re;.;earch Oil family-level SES differences
in the c()nscqllcn<:e~. oj adolescent employment
(Bachman & Schulenherg. 19Y3: Gleason &
Cain. ~O()4: Leventhal. Grabel'. & BrooksGUl1n.
~O() I. Mortimer. Finch. Ryu. Shanahan.
& Call. 191.)6: Nev,·man. 11.)1.)9: Steinberg.
Fegley. & Dornhusch. 1993: Sullivan.
Il)Kl)L Specifically. the impacI of adolescent
employment (and available orportunities) on
subsequent outcomes may be moderated by
neighborhood SES. such that in disadvantaged
neighborhood,,, the effects of employment
may be bencficial because fewer developmentally
enhancing ouliets beyond employment
may exist. In contrast. in more afTllIent neighborh(Jo(k
where learning and social aetivities
may prO\ ide Illorc enriching alternatives to
clllpl\lyrnenl. the e1Tech of employment may
he !lIore detrimental. ;\ related finding supporting
thi~ \iev,' c(Jllle\ from a recent "tudy that
found that the a...sociatioll bct ween longer w\)rk
hour, during middle and late adolescence and
adule\cent,' hea\';. cpi...odic drinking wa, moderaled
cOllllllunitv contexl. 'pccifieally rates
of adole,celll drinki ng: longer hour, were l1Iore
dctrilllelllal in "liver ri,k clluntie, (i.e" those
with 1m, le\ eb of adolescent alcohol use:
Breslin & AdlaI. ~()O:'i I.
'\1 the indi\'ldualle\ eJ. adolescelll,' e"pectation,
ahOlIl emplo) ment upportunitles available
to them are likel' af1eCled by their neighhmhood,
\including pre...cnce 01 working role
models). The,e expectation... as well a, related
ft,eling' of hopelessne" Illa~ be aSsociated
with adulescent outcome.... 1Ilc'lud ing educational
allainmenL ...ubst'Ul<X u;.e. cnme. sexual
aClivity. and childh..:aring (Billy et aL. I<i94:
Bolland. ~()()3: Bolland. Lian. & Formichella.
~()()): Willis. 1977)
Norm~ and Collective Effical.)
The Ilorllls and collecllve efficacy model
draw, heavily fmlll s(lcial organil.<lliun theory
and it;, more recent f()nnulatiol1~. partiCUlarly
collecti vl' efficacy Iheory (Samp;,on. 1l)92;
Sampson et aL. 19l)7: Shaw &: M,·Kay. 1942).
According to these per~pecli\ es. collective
efficacy-defined as the extent of commul1ityIe\el
social conllectioll\ including mutual trust
shared values among residents. and residents'
willingnes;, to j ntervcne on behalf of community·-(;ontrols
the ability of communities to
monitor residents' behavior in line with social
norms and to maimain public order (Sampson.
Morenoff. &: Earb. J 99l): Sampson et aI.,
19l)7). Formal and informal community institutions
are thought to act as regulatory mechanisms.
and the capacity of these institutions
to monitor residenh' behavi()r~especially
peer groups and physical threah. in tum--is
hypothesized to he a functioll of specific comnlLlnily
structural characteristics. including
low SES. racial/ethnic diversity. residential
instahility. ancl ,mgie parcntiloud (Cuuiton.
Korhill. Suo & Chow. IlJl)'i: SWllpson. I'J92:
Sampson &: Gn,ves. ll)lN). Fur instance. in
pOOL residcntially unstahle. racially/ethnically
diverse neighborhoods with many single parents..social
ofgani/.atioIJ j" often low. resulting
in the prolllul!C<ltiun of adolescel1l problem
heh<ll'ior, sllch <I.... crillll' and \ <!ndalism. In
contrast. when social orgallll.Btioll is high.
ado\escenh are less liL'I;. [(\ ellgage in these
"";"me'WOI,h for Understanding Potential Pathways of ]\eighhorhood Effects on Adolesl~~nt Outcom~s 425
ve behavior!> and may display more
behaviors such as school engagement
civic panicipation. Over the past decade.
of researchers studying adolescents
tested various components of this model.
much of the work has focLised on problem
inquency. crime. violence. and
use-and to a lesser extent sexual
This section reviews research on the
model components.
An important distinction to make is that the
connections described under the norm!>
collective efficacy model are more diffuse
the social networks discussed under the
relationships model (see next section) and
primarily. at the community level (see
Srump:50n, 1999. for further discussion of this
distinction). In PHDCN, collective efficacy
.and social control (measured by a community
survey) were found to be negatively associ'ated
with neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage.
level of crime and violence, and
observations of physical and social disorder
,(Raudenbush & Sampson, IY99; Sampson et al.,
1999; Sampson et al.. !997; see also Pattillo.
1~98). Such links have abo been reported in
studies of adolescents. For example. in a study
based on a nationally representative sample
(Add Health) and two other studies with citybased
samples of at-risk minority adolescent
boys (juvenile offenders and adolescent boys
from disadvantaged inner-city neighborhoods),
structural characteristics were associated with
parems' and youth's perceptions of community
social organization (Chung & Steinberg,
2006; Tolan. Gorman-Smith. & Henry, 2003:
Wickrama & Bryant. 2(03): neighborhood
social organization. in turn, was associated with
adolescent adjustment. At both the neighborhood
and individual leve1s. community social
control of youth is negatively associated with
a number of adolescent externalizing (delinquency
and violence. affiliation with deviant
peers. amI carrying a concealed weapon) and
internalizing (depressive symptoms) outcomes
(after accollnting for neighborhood structure;
Brody et al.. 20()]: Chung & Steinberg, 2006:
Elliot et al.. ]996: Molnar. Miller. Azrael. &
Buka. 2004: Sampson, J9<)7: Sampson et al..
2005: Tolan et aL 2003: Wickwma & Bryant.
2003 J. Moreover. collective efficacy b associated
with more private adolescent behavior"
including delayed sexual onset and a lower
number of sexual partners (Browning et al..
2008: Browning et al.. 2(04).
Peer group behavior and norms are central
pathways through which neighborhood structure
is anticipated to influence adolescent
outcomes, especially social and emotional outcomes.
Peer effects are generally hypothesized
to be adverse because potential negative peer
group influences are exacerbated when community
institutions and norms fail to regulate their
behavior. In disadvantaged contexts. neighborhood
peers represent a significant proportion
of adolescents' peer network;., (Dolcini•
Harper, Watson. Catania, & Ellen. 2(05),
and living in a socially disadvantaged neighborhood
is positively associated with adolescents'
affiliation \",ith deviant peers as well
as exposure to violent and unconventional
peers iBrody el al.. 200 J: Dupen:':. Lacourse,
Willms, Vitaro. & Tremblay. 2007: Ge et al..
2002: Harding, 2007; Haynie et al.. 2006:
Quane & Rankin, 1998). Thus. affiliation with
deviant peers may be facilitated in disadvantaged
neighborhoods through increased
opportunities to do so.
Accumulating research sUpp0l1s the notion
that deviant peer affiliation is an important
mediator of neighborhood structural and social
organizational effects on adolescent behavior
problems. such as delinquency and substance
u~e (Chuang. EnneH. Bauman. & Foshee.
2005: Chung & Steinberg, 2006: Haynie et al..
2006: Meyers & Miller. 2004; Simons et
al.. J996). For instance. a lack of formal and
informal institutions present to supervise adolescent
peer group activities has been found to
mediate the association between neighborhood
SES (and related characteristics) and adolescents'
delinquent. criminal. and prosocial
behavior (Sampson & Groves. 1989: Shaw
& McKay. 1942: Veysey & Messner, 1(99).
-126 ""ighhOl'homl Inf1uclll'l" 011 Auoics<:t'nt Dcn:lopment
In addiliull. cl11cr:,:in." cmpirical ami ethno·
iCrapl1lc L'liucncc sugge,ts thaI peer character·
istic,. notal1l) il1\ull emelll Wilh dCI'ianl and
oider peers" arc' p()tcI1tia: Illcdiator;. oj' neighborhoou
elfec1, ()Il adoic,('ent sexualit\ anu
childhcaring ( et al.. 20llX: Harding.
2U05. South & Baumer. 2()UO J. Other wor~
has shuWIl thaI peer interactions l1luLierale
nelghborhoou eflect;. 011 ado!escent< anli,ocial
hehm iOL substance u,c. and school achievement.
;,ucli thaI in hi."h-ns~ neighborhoods.
peel innIH:nl'\;~ have IllOrl" Ilc!;<llive etTech.
\\ilerca, In luw-ri.,k llclt'-hborhoods. peer
cffech are mort beneficial (Dub()w, Edward".
&: Ippolito. It)97: Cioll/ak.,. C1UI'e. hiedm<ll1.
& Masll!1. 19t)(l: Pellit el ~Ii .. Il)l)l)).
Phy.,ical threats. inciuding the extent 01
vlulence. the availahilit) oj harmful and illegal
substances. and other general Ihreats tll wellbeing.
are hV]1othcsil:ed to be associated wilh
coml11uility mechanisnh of control and subsequent
adolescent outcomes. especially physical
allu socioclllotiollal UC\ clo)llllcni. Twu hOlI"ing
programs ill ,<\'hich I°V>. -income families moved
from public housing in high-poverty neighborhoods
to less poor neighborhoods found Ihat
rarell~;' reported thai gelling away from drugs
and gangs was their primary motivation for
wanting to move (Briggs, 1997: Goering &
Feins. 2()03). In fae!. initial and longer term
follm,-ups of the.,e programs have found that
children and youth 'A,'ho IT1med to il10re advantaged
nei."hborhoods were les" likely to be
exposed to \ iolence and danger than were peers
who remained in pOl.r neighborhoods (Fauth.
20{)4: Fauth. Leventhal. & Broob-Gunn, 20U5:
Faulh et a!.. 200X: Kal!. Kling. & Liebman.
2()() I: Klin!:, et al.. 2()m) In nonexperimenlal
\Vor\... Y(luth fr(lill poor. urban nelghb(lrhoods
who are expo"ed to high le\eb of cummunity
"i(lience cti~play I!1ternaliling and external i/in!,'
prohlelll~ a~ wl:'ll u\ physical and psychiatril'
"YIIlPll)nt\ iCooley-Quilie. Bllyd. Franl/.
&: WaJ<.;h. 20D I: Gorlllan-Smith. Henry. &
Tol~lIl. 200-1: Gorman-Smith &. Tolan. Il)l}X:
Haynie ('I al.. 2()()(,!. In ~I(ldition. several >tudie,
h<l\'cllIIIlH1 that neighhorhood d~lnger
<lce()ulllcd tor links betI' eell nei."hoorhuod
lo\,\ SES and aciuie'l'cnt outcome,. including
"motional problem, and liming or first Inter·
l'OUl'Se I Al1cshensel &: SucufL I'N6: Penil et
al.. 141.)0: upchurch. AncshenseL SUCllff. &:
Levy-Storms. It)l)!) J.
Acce.,-, tll illegal and harmful substanCes
has heen shown to I ary a, ~I Iullctioll of neighborhood
characlerlstics. with low-lI1comc/SES
Ileighhurhoods anu thus" With high proportions
ul African American, p1'(lviding adolescents
with greater acces, ((l alcohol. Cigarettes.
and cocaine than dn higher incllll1e!SES
Ileighhorhl\()d~ or pred(lmin~ltel~ European
American neighhorhoods (Duncan, Duncan. &
Siryd.:er. 2{)02; Fauth et al.. 2(0): hei,';[hler.
Lascala. Gruene\\ ald. & Treno, 2005:
Landrine, KlonofL & Aicaraz. 1'-)'-)7 j. Sluuies
of dlsadl antaged youth 1{)Und that adolc,cents'
repun, of drug availahility in their neighborh()ou~
were aciver~ely linked 'Aith their substance
use, offending behavior. and likelihood
or gang affiliatiun rChung. Hill. Hawkin,.
Gilchrist. & l\;agin. 20m: Hill. HowelL
Haw~il1\. & Battin-Pearson. 1999: Lambert,
Brown. Pbi Ilips, & ialongo, 20(4)' In addition.
levels of drug activity in the neighborhood arc
positively associated with school rates of
rene smok.lI1g (Ennell et al.. 1'-)'-)7).
Relationships and Ties
According to the felaliollships and tie, ll1(1del.
parental relationships are hypolhesiled to be a
pOlential pathway of neighborhood effects on
adolescent developmellt. e,~pecially social and
emotional well-being. This framework draws
heavily from the fumily stress model developed
from research Oil ecollomic hanJshlp and unemploYlIlent.
in which links hetween family low
inCOllle and adolescent outcome" arc accounted
1m ]-;,1 parel1ls' "ensc 01 fll1ancial strain, depres"iotl.
and resultant pan:nlin~ (Conger el al..
Jl)l)4: Con,.,er. Wallace. Sun, Simons. McLoyd,
& Brodie. 2()(J:?: ,McL():d, 19901. Parental relatlonsllips
and sUppOI1 ndwllr\..s are thought [(l
l1led iate and moderate LlS,ociatioll.' bet ween parents'
(and ]llls"ibl: ;.outil\) well-heill." and their
AFramework for linderstanding Potential Pathways of !\eighborhood Effe(:ts on Adolescent Outcomes 427
Neighborhood Disadvantage ---+~ Family - ----+~ Child
~~::'~
~
Low social ~_____+! 

organization 

behavior. We broaden this model of family economic
hardship to neighborhood disadvantage
such that neighborhood disadvantage may affect
parental well-being and subsequent adolescent
outcomes through parental behavior and the
home envilOnmenl (see Figure 12.1). Beyond
looking at aspects of neighborhood structure.
such as poverty. that may serve as sources of
disadvantage. more recently rei>earchers have
expanded disadvantage to include social features
of neighborhoods that may pose challenges
to parents. such as low collective efficacy. disorder,
and violence (e.g.. Simons. Simons, Burt.
Brody. & Cutrona. 2005). We review research
exploring whether these proposed individual
and family mechanisml> transmit neighborhood
influences to adolescents as well as relevant
work on the different components of the model.
Aspects of parental well-being thought to
be a~sociated with neighborhood residence
include physical and mental health, efficacy,
coping skills, and irritability. At both the
individual and neighborhood levels. compelling
evidence exists for links between Bdults'
physical and mental health and neighborhood
structural conditions, panicularly SES
Cubbin. LeClere. & Smith. 2000; Diez-Roux.
200I; Hil!, Ross, & Angel, 2005: Ross, 2000).
For example. experimental work indicate"
that low-income parents who moved from
high- to low-poverty neighborhood~ reported
superior mental and physical health compared
with parents who remained in high-poverty
neighborhoods (Fauth el a1., 2008: Kling et
aI., 2007). Another study ba~ed on adolescent
report:, found that neighborhood disadvantage
wa:, positively associated with family stress
(after accounting for family SES: Allison
et al., 1999). Neighborhood structural characteristics.
and parental well-being have also been
linked with parenting practices and adolescent
outcomes. Among families in disadvantaged
neighborhoods, parental efficacy mediated the
use of family management strategies employed
with adolescents among African American
parents but not European American parents
(Elder et aI., 1995). In addition. maternal selfesteem
was found to moderate the positive
association between the neighborhood dropout
rate and adolescent risk-taking behavior.
such thaI thi~ association was enhanced among
youth with mothers with low self-esteem
(Kowaleski-lones. 2(00). Finally. a study
examining the family stress model within a
sample of African American adolescent boys
found that neighborhood poverty indirectly
lwarmth/suPPort •
Few
institutional
resources
FIGURE 12.1 Model of Neighborhood Disadvantage
'-I Parent
..Iemotional and
I
behavioral
/1 problems
:.JlIectcci \ iull:lil hl:h~11 1"1 h\ 11lean\ (lj lamil\
,tie" ~lIId cUllriiL'l and hI lIIeilll, 01 adoie,L't'llb
()111l keilJl~'. ()1 ,ell-I\or!h {\J('I\eler.
'Inull,..:, did !lot ,(llllrtJl 10r ilIdl "jdllid allli
iamil: hCld,~1 <lunci c1idril:.:len,tll·,: l'a,chall ,I;.:
Hubbard. ]l)'J/'i!
Support net\\ oIL,., induding aCCt'" to
incmb and lalllih allc; l(l!llll:ctiun' wItllin
neighhorhood, may illlen l:lil' hetv,eell IlelghhurilOOd
l'l'l11l(l1ll1C rl',uun.:es and ild()ie,cellt
well-heing I('()ul-. Sha.l'ic, 8.: Degirmencioglu,
i YLJ7l. The,e 'UPP()rl Ilt:l\,\orb may huller
pi,reni'> Iruill till' ,[r(:'"or, oj !lelghborliood
pmlTty. 1!OiL-llce. ,1I1e1 di,onh:r lind in,,,
d()l11~ llIil) diminish lIll' <llher,e ellech (If lUll
I'al,~ntid lunniuniug 1>11 ddok'l'ellt dn..:iop!lienl
I Conger et aL. 199..+: Elder el al.. Il)y:'i:
fvkLoyd. 19<)0; Ro" 8.: Jill1g. 20()()). It i,
unclear whether the dell"!) of ,1Ippurt Ile(~
II orb \aric~. bl ncigilh(,ri1(loci SE,S and raciali
elill1Je diver,:!\,: 'lippor( Illay he ,lrollge,1 in
11llddk~ income nelghhorbood" (compan.:d ",mil
!O\\- ,mel miJdle-lilcoll1C neighhorh()()ds; as
v,e11 <I'. in tho"c with high concentration, oj
imilligrants, paniculari) Latino populatiuns
(K IehaJl(lI, Br,,(lb~Gllnn, & DuIICclll, IYl)"+:
MohwL Buka. Brennan. Hulton. & Earls,
2()03: Rosenbaum. Popkin. Kaufman. & Rusin,
19lJ I). ror parenh. ,oeial connectIon, within
the eOl1l11lunity appear 10 be panicllillrly lIseful
for Job refcrral network;, and lor a",isting ';.ith
ll1onitoring and caring lor children I ellicman.
Il)XX: Jones. r·orehand. O'ConnelL Armistead,
& Brody, 20ll:'i: Logan & Spitze. 1l)l)4). With
rcspcd to adoiescelll,' uwn rL'ia!iDn...hip' and
ties, in ,I sample or adolcscent, recclving
,uclal .scn icc,. adolesccnt" reeei\ cd support
(rolll r,ll11ii;, alld pen, appeared to hufkr lilt'
,I\s()l'iatiull hetwl'CIl reportcd nl:'i)!hborlwud
rrohkllls and tilelr Illental heallh.
e,peclal!y intemaii/.ing prol'klll.s is!iITmall.
Hadll')~hl". Eile. J"hll'llIl. 6.:. Dure. !l)l)\)l.
!\,'I)! hh••rllOod c()mlIt it Ilh-·n,lwh ~ YP()I crt y.
\joll'nee. and hypotile,j/cd 1(1 be
,h"'l',;lled \\nil ,t'l era! parellUutc heha\·
iur,-,- \\anlllh, i1ar..;h Ill'."'. aml,up..:nl'llIn
ami l1l()lllt()rll1~~-' ami suh.,eL]uCnl ad.,lc"ecnt
del eil1jlllleni hOlil lju<wlItali\ c: and lilialilative
\\ ()It "I' 1anllh el'Ullll!1lil' re\'cab that
parental ,lre,,, and all \ICI) Illii\ hale the larg_
e,! impact Oil Ilclh!l parelltlllg (e ullger et aJ
jl)l)..j. MeLo)d. IlJYO!.ln qll,t,,-C),perimen~;
sluch. h(llh )Ullngl:'r and older ;Idole;,cents
Wi)" !ll()\ed Iroll1 pOOl III ie", poor neighbor_
iWUlb reported Iecci \ II1g Ie" har-,h parenting
t'),111 did youth whu renlalned ill puor neigh_
borhood, (rauth. Levcnthal el aL 2()07; e.f.,
Levcnthal &: Broul-,-CillIlIL 200:'iJ. Along these
linc,. 1I1 poor ami dangl:roll' Ileighborhoods,
pan:l1l-Chlld rci<ttiun.,hlp' have been ,hown
to he markcd by 10\\ \\mlllih :lllCl high aggre;,'ilLlll
(Lllls.Me( iuire. &: Slw:. 1l)l)4: K1L'han(lv
d al.. i l)l!4: T<I\lo1. 2()()OI. \,\ i1iclllll<ly he linked
to ati(lk,cent probicill hehavlOr ,Beyer, <.:1 aI.,
2(JO I) In fact. tWi.l :,tudle, report that involved
parenting ami cio,c parcnl-child r<.:lalilln:,hips
bullen,d adolescents' dc\cloplllel11 (peer deviance
and llumh,'!' of .scxllal partner, i from the
mher,c consequence, or nelghhorhood discl\jyantagc
(tlrod;, ct al.. 2()() I: Ck\cland &
Gilson. 2(J()4). while olher.' ha ve found that
,lIeh parenting behavior:, losl theil effectiveIlt'S,
in hitchly disadvantaged neighborhoods
(Gorman-Smith. Tolan. & Henry 2000;
Knocster & HaYllle. 2()U5: Wickranw & Bryant,
20()3). Yet other research del1lol1,trate;, th:.ll the
hcncficial elft'l'ls ()f parl'ntal in\oheillent on
sexual ri,k hehavior vvcre ;[lllj1lirleci in more
illhant<l1!ed nelghhorhood 'clting.s (Cleveland
&: Gd'OIl. 20U..+: Roche el al.. lO()5). or that
the adve!"e etlecb of 1I1lill vojv',,:u parenling on
ado\e"cent delinqucncy were exaccrbatcd in
more di.~ad\al1taged Ilelghhorhoods (Roche,
blSlllil11!eL & Chedin. 20fl7)
A Illillti)l'r of weIHil'slgIlCo. Illulttlevel
,tudil" hil\ c' :ilSll cxplicltl;- I('.'>ted mediation
1l1(l(kl,. ami mo,t have foclised Oil ;;(lei,1i organilalional
1L'ature" or neighhorhood mther
than PO\cr!: and otilei' ~l';pc('ts (II struclural
disad\ anl~lgc (thoutcil all account for 11elghhurt1(loci
;;tnll·lure). For e\;tlllpil'. a longitudinal
'-Iud: hased Oil the rACIlS data sci f,)lIl1d that
increa,es III Ilcl22hhorhood (lllkclive dfieacy
('\':1' tlllle wert' as,(lclatul \A illl inel\:ilsl'd
A. Framework for lmderstanding Potential Pathways of r...-eighborhood Etl'ects OP Adolesc('nt Olltcome~ 429
authontative (warm and firm) parenting. and
that increase" in authoritati ve parenting. in
turn, were associated with decreases in adole~cent
delinquency and affiliation with devianl
peers (Simon;, el aI., 2005), Two l:ros;,-sel:tional
studie~. also fOl:using on neighborhood organization.
provide further support for indirel:t
neighborhood effel:t~, The first study, ba;,ed
on a sample of male juvenile offenders. reported
that ineffective parenting (a composite of low
warmth. limited knowledge. and lax monitoring)
partially mediated the association between
neighborhood disorder and adolesl:ents' reported
peer deviance (Chung & Steinberg. 2006).
The second study. using data from Add Health.
found that parental acceptance and involvement
accounted for the assol:iation between
neighborhood collective socialization and adolescent
depressive symptoms (Wickrama &
Bryant. 20(3), Finally. another study found
that quality of parenting (monitoring, warmth/
support. inductive reasoning. harsh discipline,
hostility, and communication). assessed through
videotaped parent-\:hild interactions, mediated
the positive association between <:ommunity
disadvantage and adolescents' problem behavior
(Simons et al.. 1996).
In the field of neighborhood resear<:h.
parental supervision and monitoring are
thought to be particularly important during the
adolescent years by modulating adoles<:ents'
exposure to community influences (Beyers
et aL. 2003; Browning et al.. 2005: GormanSmith
et al.. 2004J. Along these lines. a number
of ethnographi<: researchers have observed
thai parents in dangerous and impoverished
neighborhoods may use restrictive monitoring
techniques to limit their adolescents' exposure
to negative community influences (Anderson,
]Yl)9; Burton. 1990; Burton & Jarretl. 2000:
Furstenberg. IY93: Jarrett. 1997), One quasiexperimental
study of moving from low- to
middle-income neighborhoods supports this
finding: parent., who moved to advantaged
neighborhoods reported less stringent moni·
toring than did parents who remained in lowincome
neighborhoods (Fauth. Leventhal. et aL
20(7), In term~ of links with adolescent (lutcomes,
parental monitoring of early dating
behavior was found 10 mediate the positive
associalion between neighborhood low SES
and teenage childbearing (Hogan & Kitagawa,
1995: c.1, Baumer & South, 200I: South &
Baumer. 20(0),
Accumulating research has focused on how
the intersections between neighborhood mil·
texts and parental monitoring, supervision. and
<:ontrol are associated with adolescent outcomes:
much of this work draw" from neighborhoodbased
studies. For instance, in the PHDCN
sample, neighborhood mllective effi<:acy was
associated with delaying sexual onset only
among youth who experienced low levels of
parental monitoring (Browning et al.. 20(5), In
contrast. within a sample of low- to moderaleincome
African American families. also in
Chicago. the beneficial effecb of parental
monitoring: on promoting competency and
deterring problem hehavior were enhanced
when collective efficacy was low (Rankin &
Quane, 2002), Similar findings regarding the
importance of monitoring and <:ontrol for protecting
youth against negative outcomes in
more disadvantaged neighborhoods have been
reponed by others as well (Beyers et al.. 2003;
Roche et al.. 2005). particularly when high
levels of monitoring are used in combination
with high levels of emotional SUppOrl (Brody
et a1.. 200 I; Gorman-Smith et al.. 20(0) In
contrast, additional research demonstrates
that the deterrent effe<:ts of parental control 011
young adolescents' COlldU<:i problems are less
effective in communities marked by danger and
disorder (Simons et al.. 200:::). while another
study of low-income. minority families found
thal permissive and disengaged parenting were
associated with adolescent boys engaging in
1110re delinquency in the most dangerom and
socially disorganized neighborhoods (Roche
el aL 20(7).
Several characteristks of the home em'ironment
may a<:t as vehicles of neighborhood
intluences on youth~physical home environment.
pre~ence of routines and structure. and
•
a
to
..UH '\ci)(hhoriwH{I Inl1lu-nce, 011 Adolescent De\elopmenl
L'X!'(lSun: [(l I iuiencl'. The phy,ical home
cn I Ironmenl IlHl) he l1lu,1 ,alienI for lIdu
k,CCllts health. t\elgllhorilood Ill\\ income
I C()l1lpdreli "illl middle inlll!11e I i, neg.dtl\ cl)
a,,'lciated "Ilh qualil) 01 physil'al home
el1\ irunl1l1::m, I after controlling for famil)
SLS. Klcbal1ll1 CI :iL. It)t)..lL !\i(lnexperirncillal
l'\ I,h:nce reI cal, lhal childrcil and aliule,cenh
lillllg IIi poor llelghborhclOlb may hc al ris~
lor iujUI'1 ami aSlhma ((:.g.. Borrell el aL 2002:
Suubhl.. RaliliL &: Kohen. 20()4: \1vrighl & fisher..
2()(n I. Thl, silliatioll is probahly in part due to
qUdlil) (lIthe physiclJlllolllc cnvironment
Till' pn:.senee of family routines and >truetunc..,uch
ilS regular mealtimes anu homework
lilllc:--. are thought to he :-,ignifiealll for adoIt',cenh'
social del eiojllllem (Boyce. Jensen.
.lames. & Peacock.. IL)~3: Bradley. 19(5). At
the theoretical lc\l~l. II ha;, heen hypoti1e:--.ized
that such routines Illay he weaK in neighhorhoods
cilaracterlzed by high poveny and
uncmplo) ment lI1arked violence. and low
c,()cial cohe"ion (Lelenthal &. Brooks-Gulln.
20()O: Wi],ol1. .1987. I i.)t) I ). Two experimental
,tudie, found no eflect or moving from poor
to less pOOl neighborhood, on family routines:
however. this hypothesis remains to be further
tested (Fauth et aL ::;005: Leventhal &. BrooksCiUI1Il.
20(5).
Finally. e\pOSUIT to violence (as a witnes;,
or a lictim) may be iJ potential mechanism
for neighhorhood effect;, on adolescents" physical
and emotional health in particular (Wright..
Ill98J. Living in a poor neighborhood is associated
with children's exposure to violence in the
community and in the home (Coulton. Korbin.
& Su.. 1l)9l): Coulton et aL 1995: Martinez &
Richter,. 19tH: Richler;; & Maninez. 19(3).
As noted before hee the section on Norms
and Collcctile Efficacy). finding~ suggest
tllUt exposure to vioicnee in the cOlllmunity i~
a"ociatcd wilh aliok"eCIlI adjustment (e .. g..
C;ornwll-Snlllh el al ... 2(J04: Gorman-Smith &.
Tolan. I()()X: Haynie ct aL.. 20()6): Il\)\\·ever. it
i~ unclear if CXP\l'UI't' to cOlllmunity violence
h~b an indepcndcllt a,s()ciali()n with child and
alioiL-,cl'llt well-heing beyond C(\-Ol'CUring
exn()~ure 1(> \it,jenct: in rill' IlOlile (see Buka
Stichick. Birdthistle. &. Earl,. 200] fo
r
relicl\ I. Additional n;"earch i, needed
elucidate Illm the Illtersccliull oj expOsure
to liolence in thc home and the community
alTects adolescent dc,clopi1lenL
E\1ERGING TREII"IDS AND
U:"IRESOLVED ISSUES
In lhi, sectioll.. wc relie\\ some emerging
IJenUS III thc neighh()Jhood 11lcrature that
havc heen alludc'd 10 in our revicw tllll~ far.
Specifically. we rt?view filldlllgs Oil individual
characteristic:-- that appeal' to modify neighborh()od
effects and e\piore putential explanations.
In <ldJitioll .. we discll;,s :>Ol1le unresolved
i,;,ue, that bear 011 thc' tht?oretical and empirical
sigllificance of neighborho(lu inlluences
on adolescenl development incluulI1g whether
adllicsccnee i, a ~alient timc for nClghborhood
influences anu the relative importance
of neighborhood c,mtext as cumpared with
school C(lnte\!
Modifiers of Neighborhood Effects
Our review of the literature on neighhorhood
~tructural effecb on adolescent;," development
suggests lhat a~soeiations among neighborhood
SES and adolescent outcome, vary as
a fUllction of key individual characteristics,
notably.. gender. race/ethnicity. and possibly
pubertal timing anci personality lraits. Perhaps
the most compelling ev!uence exists for gender
differences in neighborhood SES effects on
adolescent development. although the findings
to dale have been mixed aero" the nonexperimental
and experimental literature, [n the nonc\perillleillal
litc!atllre. tllc ,trullgC:.t .supp0I1
{'pr gender diHerenccs i" seen wil h respect to
achievement. ,vith l)(lYs heneflting more from
af/luelll/high SES neighborho(lds and being
hindered ilion: bv povenv/lu\\ SES. especially
African American buys in the ca,t' of pp\ertyl
low SES (Connell. Halpern-Febh(,L Clifford..
Crichlov.. &. Usingcr. 1095: Crane. 1991:
Cro\\der &. South. ~()f)3: EIl\lllingcr et al...
Il)t)6: El1lwj ..,!c ct aL ]<)94: hut see C('ballo.
& Toyokawa, 20(4). Although fewer
of social and emotional outcome~ have
gender ditlerence\ in neighborhood
effects. the srudies reviewed earl ier sugthat
the association between low SES and
class of outcomes is more pronounced
ong boy" than girls. which may be [J funcin
part of the lower prevalence of risky
<__,.M,'"''''·''' displayed by girh as compared with
review looking at gender differences in
,neJ~hborh()Od effects on conduct problems and
delinquency (Kroneman. Loeber, & Hipwell,
2D04). This review also concluded that boy"
and girls tended to be ditTerentially influenced
specific neighborhood characteristic~, with
:girls being especially sensitive to the proportion
of single-parent families and the presence
of affluent neighbors. Finally. gender differences
in neighborhood effects on adolescents'
sexual behavior in the studies reviewed varied
.as a function of the specific outcome under
study (i.e.. childbearing/impregnating someone
versus age at sexual initiation). but also
according to other defining individual characteristics
such as race/ethnicity,
Although findings from early MTO sitespecifk
evaluations. which used experimental
designs, were consistent with patterns seen
in the nonexperimental literature, the recent
. 5-year results. as reviewed previously. have
not been. Specifically. 2-3 years into the program,
low-income children and adolescents
who moved to low-poverty neighborhoods had
higher educational achievement, superior mental
health, and fewer arrests for violent crime
than their peers who remained in high-pove11y
neighborhoods. with effects largely restricted
to boy~ (Goering & Feins. 2003: Katz et aL
2001: Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn. 2003b.
2004b: Ludwig. Duncan. & Hir~chfield. 200 I ),
Despite these early positive program effects on
boys, a more recent cross-site, 5-year followup
evaluation found that adolescent girls who
moved to low-poverty neighborhoods were
faring better than their peers who remained in
Emerging Trends and Lnresolved Issues 431
high-poyen) neighborhood~ in most of the~e
domaim and that boy, in low-poverty neighborhood,
experienced minima! if not negative
ourcome~ compared with peers in high-poverty
neighborhoods (Kling et a1.. 2007: Kling.
Ludwig. 8.: Katz. 200:,)).
Although the re,ull, from the nonexperimental
and experimental literature on
gender ditlerence, in neighborhood effecb
appear to be at odd" potential explanation,
for such gender differences reconcile some
of the discrepancies when considered in the
larger cOl1lext of MTO a, discussed earlier
(~ee section on Achievement). First. only i.I
handful or studies. primarily emanating from
sociology. have considered how neighborhoods
might contribute to gender differences
in adolescent outcomes. The~e researcher~
have speculated that family socialization practices
largely account for gender differences in
neighborhood SES effects. Specifically. parents
may provide less supervision and regulation
of boys' activities relative to girb', resulting
in boys' greater exposure or su.~ceptibility to
neighborhood influences (Ensminger et aI.,
19%: Entwisle et aI., 1994: Hagan. Simpson,
& Gillis. 1987; Kroneman et aL 20(4). Thus.
for boys, neighborhood influences may operate
more through processes outside of the home.
especiaJJy through interactions with peers;
whereas, for girls. neighborhood influences
may operate more through processes inside
the home, especially via parent-child interactions
(Clampet-Lundquist. Duncan, Edin. &
Kling, 2006: Kroneman et a1.. 20(4). If neighborhood
conditions are advantageous, exposure
may benefit boys 1110re than girls unles~
it results in contact \vith more deviant peers
(for example, as might have been the case in
MTO). In contrast. in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
lower levels of ex.posure may protect
girls from adverse outcomes, particularly in
the case of a supportive home environment.
Findings on gender differences also point
to the salience of race-ethnicity w, i.I potential
moderator of neighborhood influences.
Minority youth are more likely than theil
·B2 f\l'ighhorhuod IIII1U("lH'(" fill Adoll"l:~nt n~\('I()pl1wnl
IlU 11 11 IlIIonl\ PC:Ch t<, rc:'~idt' III PU()1. .'c:grc:,
galed nelghI10['l;ooJ, (Kalm. Kaplowitz.
G()udmall. &: Lmall\ 2(J()2: Klehanul e! al"
!t)tq: !';,1<i"n (\: i)CI1I(lli. 1\)9:;1. In adui,
tioll. lhl.:'.\e nelghl1ori1(lud" arc' llllcn marked
l' crinll.:' and li(llenee, l(lv, .,oclal
l'olw\iull. ddinqu::nl j!L'1'1 group..,. and low,
qllalit~ ,ChllOb l.lend" 6:. -"bye!'. Il)l){):
Sal11p.".>I1. I(}ll!: 6:. Ralllli.:'nhush.
Il)l)\)). AlriL~ln American raillilie< neighhor,
hl\(llh arc al"l' IllOi'C' like!) Ihan European
Aillerican ramilie,' neighburlH1od, to he
di;.adl antagl.:'lI in lenn\ ul their cmhelicbl·
I1C;''' ill 'IXllia! area, 01 ..,trUL'lUraJ and
..,oeial dis,ltivdl1lage (MorellolT. S,II1111,011. 6:
i{'lwknbu,h. 2()D I. SamrL,on ci aL. ]l)()l)).
;\i()1 Pili) arc African American neighborhoOlb
oh]t'cti",:ly Jll()re dismh <ullaged than com,
parahle European Americall neighborhood".
bUI tilCY are al"o Illore 10 be perceived
"" lllore di"ordered hy re,ident;, of all race~
(Samp~oll & Raudl'nbll',h. 2()04). The COllse'
quence of this dilTerencc in the larger ellvi~
roillnenh in which European American and
African American youth li\ e is that the influence
or ncighborhood advantage. "ueh as high
SES. Illa) hme Ie,s impact Oil the well~heing or
A1 ricall American adolescents thall Oil that of
European AlIleri':an ad(llescents and. comersely,
that Illw 5ES Illa\ have more adverse COIlSCljuence,
for l\fricun American than European
American youth (e.g.. Crowder & South. 2(03).
Despite tht: apparent threat... to well-being
ac:.:rucd to African AmeriL'<ln youth in pre,
dominantly pOOl' andlor African American
ncighhoriH)(xi;.. rl'search with Latino" suggest"
that high C()lllTlllrati()n~ of immigrant... and/
OJ Lltlll()~ IlW\ hc prole'':l!n fl.lI· a<.i')k,ecnt:o;,
l'~pecially Latino youth (Anl',Ill'n~el &: SueufL
Il)l}(): Browning et al.. :::OOX: Sampsoll et al..
2()O:"). In ethnic ellCluH". 111(l!'C traditional
norm;.. Ill":'- prc\ ail thai prohibit youth from
cng;lgill), in pmhlclll;Jtic heli:l\!ol. ami such
Ullllllllillitil" Illa\ hc ;"llcialh l'ohcsive, which
i~ :ilsu proicCli'l' (iarcill Cull &: S/alacha.
2()04: P(ll'1l', ,v kUJIlhaUL 1'l961. Thus. Ihe
intcr"cctlol1 or raccicthnil'it\ and neighhorhood
"lructurl' 111<1.' ha\t' a ClHllplt:\ a~'()Ciali()n with
adlllc,cel1t dc\e\opllleni.
In addition tu gender alld racc!ethnicity. an
emerging lilL'rature focu,ing Oil risb behaviors
,ugge,!'> lhat otiler inui\iduul ci1araetcnstics.
,pecificall:,-. pubertal timing ancl peNlJlality
traih re lalL'd to conduct problelll' and antiso_
Cial beha\ lOr are cd,o likely til moderale the
impact or Ileighhorh()()d SES on adolescent
outcomc..,. Gt'nerali.\. the,c ~(LJdic" indicate
thai nelghhorhood di;'Ulhallt,lge alllplifie~ the
impact or these indi\idual-le\el rish. factors.
J 11 olher WOi'us. the combination or individual
and neighborhoml ri"h.s Sel.:'illS 1(, he especially
prohlelll:ttiL'. For exal1lple. early physical maturation
appears to increase the chances [hat
adoll.:',scent girls ill disadvcll1taged neighborhO(lCls
will engage il1 problem behaviors sLleh
as violence and substance lise (F()shec et al..
2()()7: Ge et al.. 2002: Obeiciallah d al.. 20(4),
Among hoy, in tbe Pittshur!!h Youth Study, an
interaction effect revealed th:lt the lillh. hetween
impulsivity and delinquency wa;. amplified in
disauvantaged neighhorhoolb (Lynam ct al.,
2oo()), although this re"ult was not repli~
cated in Ihe Add Health sample IVazsonyi,
Cleveland. &: Wiebe. 20(6). Moreover. other
results ohtained in a Canadian national sample
indicated that a history of conduct disorder
and related personality traits accentuated the
threat:-- posed hy disacl\antaged neighborhoods
t() youth gang alfiliatiotl and early sexual initiation
(Olipere et aL 200ti: Duperc el aL,
20(7), Explallati()n~ for the,e amplitication
effect" uSLlally rc\olve aroLlnd differential
peer and family procc~se;. a" it function of
neighbofllPud conlcxt. For instance. Dupere
e! <II. f 20()S! I(llind thai amliation with deviant
and older peer~ partly explaincd why vlllner~
ahle adolt..\cellt girls living ill a di,advantaged
ncighborhood were m()I'L~ likely to experience
earl~ "exllal initiation. Similarly. neighborho()d
disacl\antage alld rc 1~lted cond it ions may
furl her ,train parellt,adole,cclll rclatinnships
alrcad) challcnged b\ other circllmstances
sllch a" carly lllalurati(l11 or dillicu!t per,onality
Iraits t OI1L~idaliah el ai., 20041.
Timing of Neighborhood Influences
Theoretically oriented work suggests that the
impact of neighborhood~ increase:.. during
adole'>cence compared with earlier childhood
because parents may begin to grant their
older children greater autonomy. resulting in
more exposure to extrafamilial influences
(Bronfenbrenner. 1979: Maccoby & !\1a~tin.
1983: Paikoff & Brooks-Gunn. 1991: Steinberg
& Morris. 2001 ). Given general restrictions on
adolescents' mobility. neighborhoods provide
as wei! as organize opportunities for social
interactions and out-of-school activities. Early
and middle adolescence also entail significant
changes ill physical maturation brought on
by puberty. advanced cognitive capacities
(e.g.. ability to think more abstractly). shifts
in school climate and organization with the
move from elementary to middle school and
then high school (e.g.. less personal. more
restrictive. and more competitive), and alterations
in salient relationships in the family and
peer group (Feldman & Elliott. 1990: Graber,
Brooks-Gunn. & Petersen, 1996; Steinberg &
!\1orris. 200 I). Each of these challenges has
implications for the prominence of neighborhood
inlluences during adolescence (compared
with earlier childhood). However, somewhat
surprisingly, almost no res-earch has explored
this essential premise regarding the salience
of adolescence as a developmental period for
heightened neighborhood influences.
In contrast to research on neighborhood
income and SES. research on family economic
status has explicitly tested whether the association
between economic conditions and
developmental outcomes varies across developmental
periods~early childhood. middle
childhood. early adolescence, middle adolescence,
and young adulthood. This shoncoming
in the neighborhood literature resulb in
large part from the fact that a majority of the
existing work is cross-sectionaL based on
neighborhood residence at a single point in
time. or both. A study by Wheaton and Clarke
(2003) using longitudinal data on children
followed from early to middle childhood into
Emerging Trends llnd l;nresoived Issue;, 433
late adolescence found that neighborhood SES
during early to middle childhood had more
pronounced effects on mental health in late
adolescence than neighborhood conditions
during middle or late adolescence ("ee al~o
Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn. 200 I). Consistent
with these findings is the work on family
income and poveny. which indicates that family
economic resources during early childhood.
a:-. opposed to other developmental periods.
are most salient for late adolescent outcomes.
notably educational attainment (Duncan &
Brooks-Gunn, 19(7). Together. thi" evidence
may challenge the notion that adolescence is an
especially significant period fDr neighborllood
influences. at least as far as "ocioeconomic
conditions are concerned. We caution any firm
conclusions at this time until more research is
available to contribute: to this debate.
School Versus Neighborhood
Influences
School and neighborhood represent two pnmary
extrafamilial contexts for adolescent development
where youth spend substantial amounts
of time (Gershoff & Lawrence, 2(06). The
extent of exposure suggests that both contexts
could exert pronounced influence on development
during adolescence. but distinguishing
school and neighborhood effects and their
relative significance is a difficult task given
the nonnegligible overlap between these two
contexts. This situation is due in part to the
fact that neighborhood characteristics affect
school re~ources and school choice. indicating
that school could be a powerful mediator of
neighborhood effects (Lauen. 2007: Leventhal
& Brooks-Gunn. 2000: Waanders. Mendez,
& Downer, 2007J. Yet. school characteristics
such as composition and achievement also
impact neighborhood conditions. such as property
values (Bogart & Cromwell. 2000). Peers
also serve as a source of overlap between the
two contexts, with large pOl1ions of adolescent
peer networks comprised of schooJ- and neighborhood-based
friendships (Dishion. Andrews.
& Crosby. 1995: Dolcini et aL 200S: DuBois &
H,hCh, I (Nlll, rUrli'lCL '.~tllIl"gntphIL e\ l(:Je:ncc
'l!ggc~h Ihlll <llllllllg IImer-ut: \ (luliL \iglllfic~llll
pl:cr ulllfiIrl occurring a~ \Lhoui often
in tilt:
(\iatcu-Ge:lanert (\: LUIlt:. 2()()1l Fur the:,c
J't.'<i.\(jlh, ~11](j hecau,c limitcd rt',carcil. particularl:
nlClhoduiu,'!icalh ng()wu, wurL l1a.\
~(111\idere:li ,iIllUit"1I1L'''1I'. a\\()cl,JI i(ln~ between
neighborh, l(,d ~Ind ,l'ilOU! dlaral't':ri,lic\ wllh
indil Idual "duk,ct:11l ()L!tt:Ullle, la\ oppu,,,d to
~cil()()1 or Ilcigllburiloud ()ull'omc',:
1.:ltk 6.: I'vL"iult) Eille, 2()04: bllletl et aL
1')')7 L it j, \ en ditT1CUit t" di'CIll,Hl,'!lc neighburli()od
11'( lJ1l schoul L'lkCl\ or to a",:s, the
reiatiye influence or each.
~, l!J1c\\h,1I
llient..l ,lUdiC', locu,ing on acilic\ ement
appt:ar to find that neighborhood effeets
v, erc t:ljui\ alt:n1 to or ,tl'Ollger than sdlOul
elfel'ts I B,'\\cn 6.: BowL:n, Il)l)\): Card &
Rutlhlcill, 2()O" r,:,anlUll, 2()OS: Ga1'lle:l
0.: Raudcnbush. ll)lJ I: Raudenbush. I Y9J),
Fur C\<lllJple. ll~u!tile\e:1 'luJi~:, of Scottish
"dule~l-ent, found more \ariatiull [I: "ducat!(11\,11
attailllncl1l ,II the neighborlwuo than
at till' school h:\LI and t.hat neighborho()ci
dcprivation \1 as nc;gati a,\Socialed with
attainment. en:11 after cOlltrulling for schoo]
characterislics (Garner & Raudenbush. IlJYI:
R,wdenoush, IYl)3!, In additi()n, Card and
T~olhslein (20()7)_ u.<,;ing li sample of rllughly
UIlc--tllll'd of SAT test takers in Ihe 1991.-:2001
high .,elm()I graduation clas<,;L:s. round that when
hoth neighhorhood and selmol segregali')J1
were e\amilleci simultaneously, unly llL:ighboriluoci
segregalion was associalcd with the cityI"'\L'I
8Iac"-, \,\'hilc ,'!ap in test Sl'urt:s.
In cOlllmst to the 1l(lIlCXPL:rI IIlC11Ia! work Oil
ilc!licn:mcIlL rL:.;carch Oil hclul\ioral outcOIllC';
tcnd~ to find that I1cighhllrh(l(ld~ and sch(l()I~
hal C cOlllparahk dlcch. nr that \chouls an:
IIlUIC sl,'!llilicalll (Cpo", HCITll,lIL Phillips. 6.:
SClicrSL'IL 20()2: Duncan, Boisjul:, tV. HalTis.
20(J l. Tcilkl ex \.\'L'i~" 2()(;iI i. Fu! ill',t~lIlcc :1
lItultilc\ cl studv IsludCIll.' ncstcd 111 SclH)()b
and in nL'l~hll()rll\ll>d:, I e~alllilllllg se'\ual initiation
dlll()llg Philadclphi'l \ outi; <li'uj 1-+- I X
IfHtIld !hill lllL:I'l' \\ as IIIU!, bCl1\ CL:Il-,ciJ, it >lthall
bct\\c:cn-nL:ighhorh')(Ic\ \ ,ili:niull II! \"lIth\
'O,lI'.) ,letlll1}, and thal when the tv.\! C()l1le\ls
We'ft' epn~iden:d,illlultl!llc'lu~I}, !lilly Scl1\)o)
\ ariati(lll remailll,d siglll!ic<lllt I Tellier ,\: VIC1",
2000;, AnOlilei ,tud} lhn! ,'\dd Hcalth tf' luok
at \ dri()Lh C()ll1c\[U,Li 1Il1'iLlence, un achic\ellicni
and dl'lintjucllL'y b> eOllipallll)' correlatiolls
hclwecn p'lir~ e)( ,ihilll)" wilhill <t lamily,
hct\\cen lX:,l liiemb. hetween gradc-Illatc, "nhin
a schooL and ht:l\\ eet; ,ciluulmCltc, 11\illi:' in the
,aml' Ilcigllhurho' lei (I )UIlL'Cln et ,d .. 2()(j I ), Reslllt~
illdicated that iamiil aIIIIpeCl' contcxt-. \, crc illore
stmngly a:"ociated \1 illl adolL'sL'Cll1 OIlIl'OJ1lt:s
than ,chuul and llelghhorhood C\lIllC.'\h, which
hlllh) IciLbl ,111Iilar!) weak l,\\ociatiull'
Finding;. fr,llli the l'>'pCI illlC:Jl1,i1 literature
al"u bL:ar on thc n,:ighhori1uod \ :,l'iluul debate.
The.;e ,tLldie, ,ugge\l tlial a', far as achicvL:menl
i, c·nm.:crnet!, sehuuis arc an inlcgral
part nr "l1eighbur]l(lod effeCls" in Ihe conlext
of hOll',IIlg mobilllY prngmm" A, disL'Llssed
earlier. in the: Gautre;[\ where children
changed neighborhouds and school diqricts
b) from the cil) to the affluentslIburb"
>ulith denlllll;..lraled adllC\ ClllCllt bellefih
(RubinoW!I! & Ru;,cllhalll1l, 20()O), III
contrast. in the MTO and Yon"er, sludies.
whert' neighborhood changt: w<[, not Ilt:ces,miiy
accomp:lIlied hy a change ill SdlOOI
and/o! ;,t'i10{11 districL sLieh bcnefiIs \Vere nol
c\ ielent (Deluca, 2()()7: Fauth. Lc,enlilal e1
aI., 2lJ()7: Levcnthal & Brooks· Gunn. 20(t:;:
SanbOlllll<ltsLi et al.. 20061.
Ta"en ttl,'!l'thcr, tile llollcx,perilllclltal and
c\jlcrillll:nlal silldie~ suggest thai hotl, ncighhorilond
and Scil(l(lb mailer ror adulesc'Cilt
dcvcilljllllCIlL hut tlial tileil' rdative II1J'iUCIlCe:
1Il:t}' depend Ill! lile OlltL'OJ1]C lImlcr investig,ltioll,
For achievel1lcnt. re:,uits from eXjJLTiIlleilial
SllIdics sUg,'!l'S! lhat lIl'lghhurhl l()d
,ILl \ anlagL' II, I1hUlIt c<)JTl~SP()1lt1 ingscho()1 <1\" allta~lc
Ili,ly Ililt gL'llerall' hCllcfits 1'''1' adtJll'~l'ellt
<)IIlc'olllL'S. imliGlling lila: scilOUl:. lliay he ,I
\ chldc lhrout!h \\!lJ~'h Ilcl~~hb()rl](l"d erkels
(Jpcrale (although rc,ults Imlll limiled IWlle\perillleiliai
studiL's <Ire Illl\cd Oil this ~L(lrl'l.
For behavjoral outcome~, the relative strength
of school versus neighborhoods influences
suggesh that schools may not serve a, an indifect
route for neighborhood effect!> for these
outcomes, They also point to the potential
impOitance of peer interactions, which occur
in both contexts but apparently most consistently
at school (f)obn! et aL 2005),
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Adolescence is a period marked by expanding
social interactions, Therefore, the goal of this
chapter was to examine the influence of one
social context on adolescent development~
neighborhoods. We took as our starting point
that neighborhoods likely play an important
role during this phase of the life course
(though we also note that the premi"e regarding
adolescence as a uniquely susceptible
period remains to be tested), The empirieal
evidence was reviewed to this end. followed
by specification of a framework for studying
the pathways of neighborhood influences on
developmental outcomes. An overview of methodological
issues was also provided along with
some emerging trends and debate" in the field,
In conclusion, an integration of the empirical.
theoretical. and methodological findings is
presented in this section, along with policy implications
and directions for future research,
Findings from our review of the literature
revealed growing support for neighborhood
SES effects on adolescent development These
effects were not restricted to a particular
domain; however. the ~pet:ific aspect of
SES that mattered most varied by outcome,
Neighborhood high SES was positively associated
with adolescents' educational achievement,
and neighborhood low SES was
adversely associated with their behavioral and
sot:ial well-being and with sexual and fertility
Outcomes, Findings were generally consistent
with respect to both older and younger adolescents,
panicularly in the nonexperimental
studies that drew on neighborhood-based
studies or national sample~,
Polic~ Implication~ and Future Direction~ 435
Despite consistent patterns of result~. the
overall size of neighborhood :.;tructural etlecb
reponed in nonexperimental studies has been
small to modest. accounting for approximalel)
5St,-IOQ of the variance in adolescenl oulcomes
(after adjusting for child and family
background characteristics: see also Entwisle.
2007: and SampMlJ1 et aL 20(2), In most studies,
other factors. such as family characteristics
including income and parent education.
appear to matter more than neighborhooci re~ldence
characteristics. In comparison to none:xperimental
studies. the limited experimental
work i>lIggest~ somewhat larger neIghborhood
income/poverty effect" on adolescent development
at leasl when low-ll1come youth and
their families were given the opportunity to
move from poor to less poor neighborhoods:
however. these effect:, were both positive and
negali ve, Together. these findings suggest thai
neighborhood influences contribute to adolescents'
developmental outcome~ and should be
incorporated into re<,earch on this phase of the
life course,
To understand the observed association0
between neighborhood structure and adolescent
development requires drawing upon our
theoretical models-institutional resources.
norms and collective efficacy and relationships
and ties. The models proposed within
this framework highlight different underlying
mechani~ms (individual, family, schooL peer,
and community), with the utility of each model
dependent on the outcome under investigation
and the age group studied, Accordingly. we
use these models to interpret the findings from
descriptive studies of neighborhood effct:t!> in
conjunction w:ith relevant research fmdings
examining processes of influence.
The association between neighborhood high
SES and achievement is best understood in
accordance with the institutional resource
model, Affluent neighborhoods may haH'
higher quality schools as well as student, with
more achievement-oriented norms than do
less advantaged communities, Economically
advantaged neighborhoods also may have
mon:: rt.',purcc" thaI promote learn ing. sueh
Cl'> libraric, and cliucmiunal program,. than
d(: more di"Cllh antaged communities. A"
rc\ ic\\ u.i. ,()Ille empiric',d "upporl t'xi"l',
lor lilt' prcmi,e rcgarding "chouI Cjuality.
Alternati\e:!). lamil) relationship, Illay be al
\\01'1\. High SE:.S Ileighhorhoods m'l.' he conduci\e
ttl Ihl' malntcnance of home cll\'ironll1elll"
with ,lrllcturc and routines that foster
l:ducational allailllllent: howe\'er lillll' work
lla' cxamined this hypothe"is,
TIll' associations aillollg exposure to low
SLS Ileighbors and mental health prohlem,.
delillljuency. nillil'. scxual acli\ity. and child­
11\.'arill~' arc best understooll within the rubric
01 the l1orn}s and eoliel·tive cfficacy model.
III econ()lTlicaliy and socially disadnllltaged
ncighhorilOods. c()mmunity-level supervision
01 YOlllh Illay he lax. resulting in fewer instiILltion,s
that regulate adolescent peer group
behaVIOr. Compelling evidence, as reviewed.
exist" \0 ,UpPllrt this argulllent for a range of
risk) hdu\iors. In additioll. according to the
in.\lilUti(ltlul re'Olln.:e framework. low SES
Ill'ig:hhorhoods may lack social and recreational
resource" ;,uch as after-school ami youth prograllls.
which in turn. adversely a1Tecrs adolescents'
adjustment. Again. research indicates
thiS situation to be the case. Adolescents in
low SES llcighborhood, also may have low
expectations about the opportunities availahle
to them. resulting in a disinccntive to avoid
problem hellavior: very little empirical work
alldresses this hypothesis, Finally. although
filldings are ljuite mixed. growing research
points to rela(Jollship mechanisms. often in
rcspoll;,e to or in conjullction with neighborhood
I(l\\' SES and other forms or social disad\'<Intal!e.
as contributing tll lillb bClVl'een low
Sf::S and adolescellt problem behavior particularly
parental supervisiol1 and monitoring of
Y()lltl1 ami il1\ohed and "upPorlive parcnting.
()Ile cun ust: the theoretical modds described
ill this chapler 10 interpret the results 01 the
litvrClture rc\ie\\. hut 111\ll'l1 morc \.I()rk remains
\(l be done in Lonceplllally oriented neighborllOud
rcse,lreh Oil aclok'L'ents, '\s we have
described, an increasing numher olrl:searche s
are hegullling tll approach thI' challenge. Bo~
the nmllls and c(lilecthl' clTieac) ,Lnd relation_
ship, and lie\ Illudels han: been mOst widel'
. I' '. Ytested. parllCU al"l) \\ Ilh respel'l to problem
behavior. Re,earclH:r, ha\ e e\en hegun to test
the.sc l1ludels .Juintl). Ill\)\ ing the field another
hig step forward.
In many \\ays. ulllceplUally focused neighborhooci
research has het'll hampered by methodological
limitations. Specifically. studies
that are not de,ignecl to stucl) neighborhood
erfect~ oneil luck \ariation within ancl hetween
neighborhoods to te;,! tiletlretlca! moclels. nor
do the~e studie, measure (or at least measure
reJtahly) the neighborhood procc,ses I1Cces,ar)
ror examining theoretical models. such
as social control ancl ~l'h()(ll norms. or ramily
mechanisms. SUdl as parental supervision.
To asse" the neighhorhood processes
discussed under the institutional n:,OllJ'ce and
norms and collective efficacy models, which
appear to be especially important I'DI' understanding
neighborhood ini1uence;, on adolescent
development. alternative methodologies
are required. The strategies reviewed and recommended
indllde community surveys. systematic
s(lcial oh;,ervations. ancl alternative
administrative data s()urces, The aclvantage
of these approaches is that they provide meaSlire'.
of neighborhood dimensions (beyond
structure) ohtainecl from indcpendent sources
(as opposed to participant rating,. which are
often ~uhject to threats of nonindepenllence of
measurement). An important corollary is that
measurement and analytic models accommodate
multilevel structures (i.e.. rater~ or parlicipal1l~
nested withill 1l1'ighhurh()uJs J. Asicle
from neighhorl]()(ld-hased "Iudies. whil"h typically
address these design ano measurcment
limitations. experimcntal studie;, are ad\ocateci
because they ()\'erCOl11e problem" pi "election or
omitted variahle hias present in l1oIJc\[Krimenta!
nClghhorllOod research.
TestlIlg thcO!'dicall11odeb pcrmih lhl" identifil'atioll
01 specific ullderlyltlg meciJani"ms
of neighborhood inllut'lll'es. which i, lIl:cessary
Heference, 437
drawing pol icy recommendation~. The
presented in thi~ chapter ,uggesl
.'fbiI (he aspect of neighborhood most sen~ibl)
t
. eted by policy makep., and pral'litioners
:nds on the outcome under con~ideration.
If adolescenb' educational attainment is the
omary outcome of interest. focusing on
~tential pathway:; of high SES. such as school
quality. would be recommended. Alternatively.
if adolescent delinquent. VIolent. and sexual
behaviors are the target. then building community
mechanisms 01 eontrol would be recommended.
as wdi as providing recreational and
social programs for youth. In addition. another
strategy would be to work wilh families to help
parents sliceessfully momtor children and to
.foster close parent-child relations. Moreover.
altering these potential pathways of neighborhood
influences can be achieved through a
variety of mechanisms. As we have noted. current
policy efforts that have relocated families
out ofhigh-poverty neighborhoods into nonpoor
neighborhoods have met with mixed ~uccess,
as have community-ba~ed efforts to alter the
economic and social conditions of existing
neighborhoods where families (typically those
who are poor) live (Kubisch et a1.. 2(02).
In summary. neighborhoods appear to matter
for adolescent development: however. how
they matter is only beginning to be elucidated.
Process-oriented research is needed to design
effective neighborhood-focused programs
and policies aimed at enhancing the lives of
adolescents and their families.
REFERENCES
Aaron."nl1. I). I ~l.J1.I71. Sih!lnt: l'"til!};Jte~ or llel~bh(lrh()od clll'Cb III
1 Bn)oh~G'JI1/1. Ct. 1. [)~nc,.m. &J. LAhcfrEd"", J,Ndr,:i;i;o/-hood
pOI {'rly_ Polin JlIl,';"'!!I'W/.' in MwlriJlX Ilclf;iJbflriwo(/,\, )'0/ :!
(pp. ~(L.9::;!. Nt'\\ Rll~"d! Sage foundation Pre..."
Abel. J. L. Gepba,t. M..
l'th:cl:-.
NClghhorllood I)OI-crty COI/!ext (1m! (()/I\('(!IIUI('('" lor e/Jiidren
\'01. ! IPI' 4-+--b I; N<:v.. Y(lrk.: Ru~_"...'1l Sa~l' hlUnd;{i\)ll
Adam. E K quaIl!) Parcllwi and fL''''Jd':ftlla!
stahilii~ and ali.lu"tnll'tH Carrell! i)lf{ 01011,\ in
V, \'( ho/ngica/ 5Ictc/ln' i_~', 3
AdanL E !\" 6:. C!l!bc-Lm:-.dak, P L j .:OU~ I HnJln':. \WI."C:
hOI1)<':! ,"} Par~lllal ",l:pal'.HioDs. ri.';"ldi.'DliaJ m()\'~". and <ldJu",( .
fHC!l! to to\\. inl.'iHll':: ,ido!c"'CCIH g!rl-. } )ct"do/Jlllc/'fui
p'\(
,\.III'-Ol'l. t\. \\ BUrl')!.. 1 ~I \hll'..,ih.lji "'l Pt'IL"/-h:hit';'1
~lrnli~l()r, l\.!l..,n. B c~ ,.d i!'1l)~, Lik ,,'\Pl':'jClll..'\'"
AnLit~1 '"Oil. f- 'lliyl) ,', the (mit, of ;111 'in i; })t; ]')0101( (, ~lIttl
iii{ mow' hit 01 fill' i1lJlC.1 ('I!." ~L'\' Yml--. \\ \\ !\O!'1!J1i
,-'nn~c\l .adnlc..,u:n! 1ll!:Hi..Jl he,lin-, .11111 I"It(! i
'if!, {:I! lie//ill ;O!; .~ I(J
gll\,"TEllh:1l1 poL;.·u.> and t:!laJ'J.I..'I:'·;i"'il~:\ uo
a~llC "'CXU~I: a~:Lj\ ,!flU ,,'O!ilf<t(\.'[lI1\L U"L' -\!!I('FIl'(/}; }PUUlU!
I)uhh: NeaUlt 177 i 177('\
Havhm~\l; J (i" 8: SLhuknbel~. J ll'Jt})1 1111\\ pun-IllnL' \\;.ll'~,
lIH":!l~l\y fehtle, to dru;: ll~,:, phlhh.:n~ hch,-l\ ioc WilL' lI\C, .wd "J,!
L"l~,c!ioll L1]H(lfle; h1t!11 ,,,.:IIUOI ...,"-~niol~, ;\1<' liH:"C ,'-(ll1",l'Ljl:t~lk'L'" ,y
me:":-!: ~·(\ITe!,!!c.,>'! iJ( ,c1UIJIIU'!I[uI1',,\'\ ho{o,';!\ :20
A ,~;lIifl! afl(] fn(J!lfu ,!:,l'!lIlJCiI' Iii! ,'/"1' SaIiOl/a' Lon,l!lIu(/lIhli
.own'£'\ or )'rJUtil j{),W; ("II/hi i},,'{d (,pju!r,\)u\, ()H ('l'llll'f rlll
HUllldlj l<e ...mlr~c.., t<'C\c;u·ch, ()jilll <";[dh' l:ol\l'r....lty
B:JfIlc" Mctllll],(,.'. J 11\)97 J Thl' rdlability unt! Yal!,jil~ ul qUl.'v
liollU<HI'L' dc...crihlH~ nel,t.:'hhuriH1t·d l:hala:':!.l'rl.qi'..:'1 rCIl'\~ln; It!
la!lli!ll.'''' '-lnti youn~.' !.'!J;:un:ll il\ lilt: :1: what. ~lll'iL", .1ourl!O!
('Wlll7UIJW,'\ Vvrcll(.l/ug). 25. ! -)/1(1.
BatlllltT, P.. A ~oulh. S. J {20f)i). COilllll1JlIit~ L'lleu ..., \,111 )O:l!ll
~c.\ual itl.'tl\ il~ . ./!)!trJldf oj MUrri(l:';{' ml(l J({filth, (;3, ::;-'+0--5,')..JB~Tkt'l,
(I. I I'Ii-', i :. II 11'('[111,\(' Oil illt, funuiy 12nLl cu.;. C.llnhriJ(lt'.
\11\: Han'arc! t liiy;;:r"Jt~ Pres;..
Beyer", J. tvI.. Hull:.'-. J E.. PeUE, (j S.. A~ Dod':;l. K, A" 120031
pf()Ct~:-.\i.:';, and the- dC\elophcilil\'lOL
A mtlluk~vl'l .<m•.dy,;!:-.
Hc}e-r:--.l M.. Lnchc-l. R.. \\'ik"lf()I11, P H.. c\. SWWhalTll.'f-Lol'bcL M
1~OO! J \Vha: prl'dicl\ ddok:-.ccm "jolene,: iI: ht'tler-\)ff l1~it:hhorlJood,\'!
,}olll'llai 0/ Ab1lfl{llUJI Clui,') pj.ychniog\. 2~, ,~6l),· ~3X
Billy. l 0 .. i:lrcw'ltL K L & Grad:.. W R. ,1994,. Contextual
dllxl" 011 the ",cxual beh<:t\'ior 01 ad'~)h.:..,cenl wumen, ,l()uHlul nt
_MurriUMc WId hJJlltiy. 5(), Jo7,-.:j.{)...,
Bill}, .I, 0 .. A:. Moore, D, E, ! IY')21 lllullik'H'1 dml!:'ii.., o!
Olilrilal and non-marital I'erlilil) in the C,S Sm if/! Fun t'.\
70.	Yn~JOII
Grad). W. R. \\ellzlol'. A. T. Brener. N. l),
I\.unn. t, 12(00). Con1C\1tw: inlluencc,"on "choul
PI\)\'l<;,lOfl of health "l'f"lce.... .10[(1'1/(1/ f~1 Adulc.IH'flI Jiealth, ., ....
J]·-24
Bogan. 'Iv' T, & Cronw,'l'IL !3 A 12000, Hm>,' much j:-. "
horho(ld ..,cbool 1,.,vorth" jUllflWI (if [rhmi L< {ll/onI/O,
~HO-JOS.
Holland, 1 M. L:!OO~), Hn,n,'·le,·"w" and nsh. hellavinur :.tlnoof:
adoie,cL'nL" ji\'inF In l11lH:.'T~L'Jl; Ilclghhourho(lcJ\
.lullmo! -I)X
Bulland, J NL Lian, 13, Eo, & r-orrnic~lclla. C 1'v1 12005 L 'I itL'
tl()rc1c":-rnc...... inllCr-ci!~ ..\lIX<'Ul':\Jl)Crll'lIl
Allrcrf('ufl o! CIIIlfIlIlIlII\' f'S'c/IO/O/-!\, 3(1,
Booth. A.. 6:. (ruuter. ,i'\ C \~O{)l L nuel !l luke (i lffl(()':'t";
COJl!!IIf(f1if\' ('fieefs (1) dl1ldr('l.', ud(Jinl'f'n:." WIt} fillul!(-',
Mdh" a/1, NJ' Ll\\Ten..:c b'lhaun"
Horrell ill . f'erralldo. L
<{lid t'{1l1lt'\tual
clJ'L'Ch In 111.10;-': mortalf1 y' :\h;\', t'\ idl'on: Inm1 "Inall ~n.:'1
alla!)Sl~. iujfll..- Prc\'('J/fiun, 8. ]l)7·-,{(J2
Bp\I,Cll. t\, K., 8.: B{'\.el~, Ci L (!()l)l..), ~:'[!tTh n! LTUilc '-Iml \1(,"
lL'o,,:c in Jlcighhoritpoch ami ,,-chonh Oil the ..,~...'hllol hch,.l\ 1m .md
I'C] I!,nn::lm:c of ado\t:,'>,::...·m", JOUr/wi pi ,'11101(,:,1 ('11: No t'l II'( j;
1-4, .-;! Ij-- _~42.
Boycl..'. W 1'.. Jl'tl,"~n, E \\ ,Jallll':-', SA,. (\: PeJ.l.l:od.. J L (l()S'-~'
The h_lIni!~ RtHIIH1e.... IIl\cmjx~ TIh.'i.m.'L!c~l( onglll" Sot'lid
U!l vdLJ,,']Il!nul <llia,lIll;el.:
Cilijd Hc~d,L ;,ltI'-':, i;dl(I\~<lr'
II \1 II
I);-('\\>\l'. t... 1 . r ~'J'qh l.zil~'l ddr~'lvn', ,,'" ..,,·\l.;J! :tdl\ Ii\ dl!l~l[l:-'
ddok",-,';i \\\'I1~\.."n. 1h' f()k I'! Ih·!~~td'l1n·lhh"d L'I!;lralk'fj-'!;l"
'\}I/( "':Or, 4.2-1{ll}fH;,
\(I\.-I<ll collk'\)
1I: ! 1';:....'\ \11 '- \l!llll;~i!IJt~, d~1 ,Ill'
j I •II , 'I [I () " ,,' ">t- '. II ~I 1
.\" )qlr- \1;1\ III!:' lI: \t'f'lh f!!\1\ 11i~' OUt" '\,~'j';h')\'dH;j;l~
III fhIU'-lilt.: !I!lhd;l~ P((ll-!I~d;b fI(li!,1li~ i'uiu' /)('I;a!:
I{ ~ (Itl\ (, i I" (ll \._
Lil'IT<I;-.1. \L, ,:[ ;li ' ~Ol:: I, Tlw IIlJ!Ul.-'II(l III !lC1C!liiHJrh,)od
d\'';'~'\;IIl\a~;l' L-\ilk':I]\,' ,\",i~dl/,alll\!1. ~'ild paH':l!iil:~' :,1) /\lri~'d!1
l'hi;J!l'll'~ ,dri~i~\lil'!l \.\!Ih dl'\i:HH "'l'Vi" Clfll,,!
I~;I I jn7l)) Fiil I', n!iJV\ uf Iml!luli ;In'dull/flt'-';:
(d!llh!id1:":, \L\: Han'lI-d lilli\",'r..,!!:, 1'1'....'_,
13mo!''."GUIlI!. ,1 , I }UIIC~\lI, (1. ,I., ,\: r\ bl'l. J, 1 I jl)()7 I. !'v'(,!:;J;fJ(1.,·h,'(IIJ
,r!(lrt'J1} , 1 n/. I,' ( OI/fCt'i dlld ('(!II,\nll/~'/i( c.\ I';,', 'ilihl, di, \L'\\ Ytir;..:'
Ru.,\cil h_\\llhbtiOl; Ilrl,,,:.,
Br',l\lt.',·{IUIlIl. L I)Ulj,.'~ill. C, J t..:k'i1:mO\. P. h .. 1..\: .\cabnt! i\
'llJ~H (, i}(l ll'-'I:;hh{ll'hillllh mrit.l-.:nl'L' child and adi)h::'\.::.~tll
d~'\l'I(Jpm\'..nL AIII('rinl!! jOJjrnul f:! ,)(li J{JIII~'\', 4',/ 3::,;··.~\I~,
!:l\\;ud l!l:dn~l;JlI(lJll~ oj lhl..' dkl.:h (Ii PO\<,:rI; upon '.:hildr:"II.
11: H L h\/~'.:r;dd, B. rvL LL"h'! ,\: H, S ZuckLTl!l,u;
il;d". i ('/1Ii(/l"('11 /If /)(11-1'01. Re_\( (lld/. !u'(lirh 10:(/ p(I/:n i\IIWI.
Ipp Nl'\'- )ork: (i;I!'Jar'l~,
Rn,,,\ nlllt.: (. H . illt;[Hl1. I. L...·\ cr,lhaL '1.. t\: Brook,·' IU!Hl,
"200X 1. \l'i~hhprh"od '-,lrul'tHf;li illnFj~,lil). cn!!cl'l!\ l'
allt: "...',\U;:; ll...,/-' hl'I:~1\ itH ;J:l\(Jll~ Urh;1l1 ~(,!lIl\l, }(wnwl (1!
(/Ii,,' ,\'(!c/u/ -it;, 2()9--X5
B!"\\\I1;n~' (' l\.. L'..~\L'llth~li. 'L &- Bm(lL,,-GwlI! J. (200-1-1.
:"'''''ighhorl1ooc: l'(lllll'\! ;md r<I~'i,!I ddkrcDu:'., 111 '..'drh dd(l~c,'~'L'\l1
,"l'xu;1i avtivi:: !)!'f)wgrtl/;/!\_ ·il. (It)! .<
B!'tr\\l1jn~. C. R.. LA'\\.'l1tha.. T, <'l.: Bnll,lb-GlI1HL J. I~OilS)_ S...'\u;,d
,n:ll:lt:UI1 t';Jrl~ ;Id,;l\.',\.·cncc. TIl>.:' nv\u" III !)~lrclHal and I.:(nn
1!lUllJl y '..:onlrol. ,'lIlW)"/( un .')"J{'f;J/",\!io! HcnnL 7:-i';
C\)')(I,Ul',' In \i(lh.lh:':. "",'\at':!l"'-L', ri>kt> (11!d (UI!,CQUl'I1l'C'.
c.t()rrl/U/,q'11!1!J!I"I. ;!!)
Ihil'-.ik g .I f J 1lXKI SOL'I,d tI:,,'n,~;llli/~lIinn ,\lid 111\.'01'11':" nf (,:II:llC
1-~Url'l!1. I. M \ ltJll{)!
!li
14-,<
I\llf!dl:.1 \1 ,\ .Ll1!l'!t.R 1,,(~nf)(lt Illtlll' llll'-" \:..'1 Ull IIH'!l!;I"--'llh
j;m;illl", 1:1 tllb,lI> Ill'ILhhl,r!\(llld ;md dlild
l"",uch II'!lFII(f/ {.! ,,'!/d}":'I1],!_''- find I (1/l11!\
I).. [Ll\ Ill'. \, \ ,~O(j:: ~dl;j;}1 )ill;l~;l':' l~'i(lnll, the ,ji"ll"I'
!1ltli\':1 t'!' "\. :1t\t)f :;\\d II..' dl'!";J111~I'W 0: '< )I iLl!!
'.!I'd. IL (\ j{(ll)~"kili. ;~(I;r; k;I~'!al ;!li,l 1!1l'
1~:,ll'k -',\1111~ Ic'~ "-L \!I; , I,'urn,,: ,,' f'!li1il' /.f "II"!'.'! 1,1
~ 1;,:-, ! ,'.;
;l'>i'j :\ /,I\ltlr. \Llllllt 

'\ ~'I !'.:lJi lpi In ,; ~c 
 .;ilIV:' dflL'd"
j-.I;\ir'.lllilil'llU] ;'hk,
( 11« ." "; (,,-- (i:\l·!hl'-ll",. \:1
1!(!(Ull 1;II,e:!!:!,' }',\ Id,:llc\.'
1'!111.t;HJli "h'l'r." IlldlJl\'d 

/., fI,!"IJI',' f f ,\ ! i _ ~ 1 

{'LifllP,--'~ ,I .UI:tiql!:"i UU!'l;IlL L bJIII. K ..
\/O\'/IJ,' {If I!''}' f('Cli(i~:cr\ IIII!
Cnl\.'>. I'e L. 0.1IlHi'"', J. L. & H,,'manJe7.. f), {:20(4),
~:an' and p!"(lhll"IH bdw\'ior tnljJ.:c!ories
~ldok"i.xm: Il1dt\ ldu~d. f;:JllIdy .1Ihj Ilcighborhood
a" i.lu(.h.'d n"t-,...,. e!llit! /J('l·c/(I/flIIClt!. 75,9..tS-965.
I .. fl9(}4l Eluilllmic :.lrL'~~. co"."n:ive family
JL\ ~!npmcl1!i!1 pr\jhkrn~ PI' fH.lok<;'cCIlL ChiJd
()5, -5hl
R f) .. \\'all;KT, L, L. Sut!. Y. SUll0!1;".
6:. Brod:. G_ II r:2oir:~ J. CL'OIlOlllic pn.'!\surl' in African
r<l111ih~':.,; A rcpiiL'dilOIl ;!l1{1 t'.\ll'Ij,~ioll orthc family
iJn'I'/n/i!li{-J!ra! f',"'d -!ifI/ngy. .Is. 17l)-19~.
Cllo,lL I D.- HCfllIan. j\,1, R"
SnnlL \\;1'" ill \~ 11K'!! "";"hl",,,h,,(\/h
II Ivlld"-h!;-, group: ,md "cboo!."
~1\:li,It'''l'l'nl ,.k'\\.':lljlilll'lll ('iiild
f'!)'lk, T D .. <";il;Jj::~' ~ C .:\: Ikgirtlll'lH.:ioglu. S. M..
('~Ir!l,rin~' ,ncia,l, !'1{1cY':-' b.r 1~_'l!!1t: mcdUJlionai &:.
ill';::llhnrJll lod l'Ikl'L'. Jr: J Bro,\b~(jvnn. G, J, Dun,ca~ "
\I~,~'r li.th. ,', .\ ci-,,:hh!lrJ(IIflti po; ('f(I-, j'oi Policy
i.l; lrud\flI,l' }!(')~/IIJf,r!:'!/!t/" i f'f', \)4 .. i tG), New York:
,'!!1I1hl,dil'l!
\ '!'(lk~-()uillt ~l.. H,'\(:. R. C
L:llP!lPilaJ and h('ll,n II);.!! ill1pall
;ld,lk,I'L'l1l:-­
&
Coulton. C. J,. &: horbllL l t.. (2007}. IndiC<lwr:-. o! child well-hemg
throuerb i.l rlt:ighhorboud len-, ,)(Jcw/ /Julic(lfon Re){'((rcli.
349-361.
coulton. C 1.. Korhin. 1.. Chdl'. L "" Su. M. ,:::001, MapPlllg
re:-,idenl,"'" pef(.:epliDn~ of neighborhood houndane...: A mdhod~
olocical note American .I0111"11(({ uj COf!/l}l/Il1In PS\rrw{og\ 2v.
371'"~-3g:·.
Cou!tor:, C L K()rhin, J. E.. & Su. M. (IY991.
and child mattreatf1H':i1L A l1lulli-kvel .)tudy.
J'ieyit"Cf.23. 1014·· 1040
coulton. C. .I.. Korhill. J. L ~u. i'L /5:. ehol'. 1. (19'151. Comrnunitv
Jevel factor.... .:1lld child maltreatment ralt'·. Child LJel'c/0iJtfwlIl.
66. 1262-1276
Crane. l ( !99 l!. The eridl':mic thl'or~ of gheHo\ and !1eighhorhood
effect..., on nUl and childheanng. American
Jm/nw! 96. 1126·- I
Crowder. 	K. D.. & South. S. J. C2CXJ:'). Ncjghborhoud di"'1rc:-.~ and
schoo! dropout: ThL' variubk community contt:xt
Soual SClt'llce Rc.''('(Jr('/i, 3::
Cuhhin. C.. LcC!cr(\ F B &. Smith, G. S, (2000; SOcif~l"Unornic
slatu:.. and inJUr~ 1~)oflJljty: individuul and neitlhhorhnod delL'r~
mintHlb. Journal oj i:pit/cnll%gy (~ Commulli!y HctliIlI. 54.
517-524
Cubbin. C. S;lOtclh. 1.. Hrind". C. D.. "" BravcnJan. P. (2(»)5).
Neight-orhood (onlcx! und ..,exlial hehu\'ion~ among adoJe:-.cent;.;·
Fmding.., from the Nalional Longitudinal Sludy of AlIol6ceni
Health. Perspective,\ On .)('xual tl.nd RqJruducliw: lifO/lit,
125-i34.
Currie. L &: ~e,dell. ',.1. i20051. Air pollution ami infant heallh'
\A/hal call 'We' learn from Californra's recem experience?
QU(1rt!'r(r journal (~rEco!i()mi('.L /20. I003~J030.
Deluca, S. (2007), All fiver the map: Explaining educational out~
comes of thL· MO\'in~ to Opponunily progralR Education /\'exl.
24-36.
Die!~Rou>" A. V. (2(XH i. In\'e~tjgaling ncighhorhood and area effe(\s
on heaHh. AmericaJi Jmmtulo{Publi< Heo!tll. 9/. 17H3~ 17H9.
Dishiun. T J.. Andrew!:;, D. \V.. & Crusby, L i Iif'15). Antj~OI:jHJ hoys
and their friend'\ in carl)-: udole"cence: Relationship characteri,StiC".
quaiilY. 3mJ interactIOnal proce~.s. CI,ild Delleiopmcm, 66.
139-151.
Do!cilll. M. M.. Harper. G. W. Watson. S. E.. Catania, J. A.. &
Ellen, J. M. (200.'\ L Friends ill the 'hood: Should peer-based
programs target oonschool friendship nel~
oiAdoic""t'1l1 Heliith. 36. 267.e6-267.e15.
Domhuseh. S. M.. R,tler. L P.. & Stcinnerg. L 119(1). CommunilY
inuucnces un the relation of famlly status, to adolescent :--chou!
pen'onnancl.": Difference.s hetween African Americanb and nooHispanic
white,,,. Amerium Juurnal ({["Education. 38. 543-~567.
DuBois. D. L. /5:. HIrsch. B. J. (19901. School and nCIghhorhood
friend,<;,hip patlern.s of Blacb and White.s in early adolescence.
Child DfFf'lopwenl. 61. 524--S36.
Dubow. F. F. Edwards. S.. & Ippolito. M. F., 19(7) Life ,Ire'",,,.
neighhorhond di.sadv;,mtages. and rcsollrce~: A focu.... on
childrcn':- adjustment J(Jurnal {~r Cltnicol Child
nrc/i!""'H.26. i:10--144.
Duncan. G. J. (IY941 Famjlie~ UilO nelghhor:-. a:-. sources o( disadyantagt:
in the dcci~ioHS of \\'hite anJ BJal'::l-. adoie:--­
ccnb, American
Duncan. G. Boisjol). L /5:. Harris. K. M. i20011.
nelL.!hbor and !->choulm<.lic correlalions. as indicator~ of the
lanct: of contexi for adnJescen! dc\e!opnH,?nt. DCHlogwphy,
437-+.:17.
Duncan. G L &. Brook:-.-Gunn. 1. (1997}. Comet/L10IU!S (!(;.:nJlt"ill)!
11/1 poor, Ne\.\< York: Rus~dl Sa~c Foundation Pres".
Dunea!;. G. .I .. Connell. J. P.. & Kleban,,\". P K. (19971. COl1ccplual
and melhvdoio,gical i~suc", in estimating causaldJeL'l.... of neighhUfhoO(~
and family condiliom. on ind!vidunl development. In J.
8H.lok:-.~(Junt1. G. 1. Duncan. &: J, L Aher (Edb,). Nt!ighborhom/
C(Jlfiexr (mc rOI/,\l'411t'llt cs for (iJildren, 1'0/ J
~ew York: Ru.....scll Sage Foundatiun Pre:.,..,
References 439
DUf1Cilil. (j, L 6.: Ruuth:nbL,~jL S. \\'. ' I'J1.)t> ,. A\\c.'I:-.mg IDe d"tCC1.., lli
conte>.! in :-.wdic.'I ul child uno youlh dC\(.!10pmCfll, i:Jul.'!wlm{/,'
V~rchol()gi.q, 34, 2Y·-i J
DUllea!), S. C. Duncan. T E.. A- Slryck.er. L {2()O~ J. A Ill.l!tlic\ d
alcohol an"': dn1t!
DupCfe. \'. Lw.:our:.t:. E,. Vvilill1~. 1. D, Lc\en!haL 1.. &:
R E. (1(JOlh ~..:jghhorhooJ povet1~ ulld t'ar!y tr<Jr]..,jli'lIl tP
al'tj\'it) In yo,mg i.HlolesL"eJ1l~: A ccqJll~ica!
approuch. Child D('l'eiUJ'itif'fi!,
Dupere, V. Lal'ollr~c, t" WiHw;'). J. D.. Vltaro. F.. &. Tn:wblc.l),
R, E" (:W07J. Alfihati\lIl t~, youth t!ang" ud(Jle\celKc
Tht, interaction \)erv.'ccn childhood Ds,,'chioDath Lent1encit:ne,gl1')(lrnOll(!
db<.lch·un;agt:. juur/w! oj Ahll(lrmai ChUt!
35. 1035-1045.
Eamon. M. K. (l005J.."()Clal-dewogrophlt"...chou!. liL'tghh(Jrho(ltl.
and 	 parenting influ;;:ncL~;' on the ul'ademi( achic\'c'men! of
adole:-.cento- Jrlllflio/ 0/ }(JU!/I ami .4duit',\( ('!ICC.
Eark F. McCiuire. L &. ~h"). S. IIY94!
intt'r\'enti~m 10 reduce the ri:->K of chillJ aI/usc:
:..lratC',gje... in conducting 1H.:lghborhood suney...
lVcri"CI. iii, 473-4H5.
[cdc!'>, J.. & GoolJ1latl.l A. (20fJ21. Cf}!IIIJIi.lIl1tr I)JO,!"'IWnI If] I"WIW/1
roWJi tln-"e/opmolf. \Vashillt![On. DC: "iutional Academic Pres".
Eith.:. D. L &. Me!'iully Eitlc. 1. (2004), ::,chooi and count: charau~lisu!.:.'.
a" predlctor:- 01 ~chool I'm,.-... o[ drug. akohol. and lohat't:o
offense,,,,. Jmlflwl 0/ Hell/Iii uml.(){)(:iullJelwi"iOJ: -/5. 40t;-421.
Elder. G. H.. Ecclcs. J. S.. ArdelL M.. &: Lord. S. II'N';!. Inner-cit\
pan:nb under ecunomit: pressure: Pl..'fspcctivc.... on the
of par~nting. Journal (~rA1arnagl' wul l/ie hill/f!.'. 5:-.
Ellio!. D. S.. Wilson. W. J.. Huizinga. D.. SampMlI1. R. L Elliot. f\ ..
/5:. Rankir.. B. (J ~961. The et1'eclS of neighhorhood """u·,",""''''
on adolescent dev~lormem"
LJclln(jHl'!l(Y. 33. 3X9--426,
Ennct!. S. T. Fb\eliing. R. L Lindrooth. R. c.. & Norton. E. C.
(19971. School and ncighhorhood C'haraClCri~tlc:' a.s~octaled
Wllh school ralt'~ or akuhnL L'igar;..~ne. and J1!an.iuana usc.
Juunw( (~r Hn.t1lliuJI(/ Sucia; Hehal'iol: 38, 55-71,
En'l1lingc;·. M. 1:... Lambkin. R P.. & Jacobson. N. (IY96, School
leaving: A perspective includIng neighhortlood
effecb. 07. 240(L-2416.
Entwisle. B. (2007j Putting people lOto place. lJel1/(J.l.:mpIJy. 44,
687-704,
D. 	R.. Alexander. K. L & Obo". I 

in math: lt~ po:-..sihle origir.,,, in 

Socioto:.;i('({1 Rerint'. 5f)
Evans. \\' N,. Oates, V\'. E" & Sdnvab. R. M. (19Y:':J. \kasuring
efCect:-;: A ,.,tudy of teenage behavior. JOlimo; 01
E(·olloJlI.y. JOV. 966-·Y91.
Fauth. R. C. (20041. ShorHt'rm effecb of mo\'in~ fmm puhlil
hOl1:-.ing in poor lo middle-tla...." neighhorhood:-. on low· income.
minorily adults' outcome". ,)'ociai ,)·cif'l/('c unci Mu/;nll('.
59. 2271-22~4.
Fauth. R. c.. Leventhal. 1.. &: Hroohs-Gunn.J. (2005 j. Emil impacl'
of tTlovin~ from poor Lo middle-das!- n(,.'ighhorIH)od:-. on lowiw.:ome
youlh. .!mlnw/ of Applied Iht'Cifl/IIlJe'nwl PVfc/lOiogy,
26. 415-439.
Fauth. R. C,. Le-vcnUial. T.. & Hroob-Guon. J, (lOU7l. Welcome:
10 the neighhorhood',) L,'{.lOg~tenn impacts. of
poverty netghhorhuod!- on poor children'" and "(\<,(".,,",,,,,,,'
oulcome:.., .Io!lrtlul (~r /{e.It'un:h on A.doh'ycencc. I:'. 2..J9-- 2X,-*-.
Fauth. R. C.. LeventhaL T. & Bmoks-GLlnn. J. 1200gl. Seven ye:Jr~
laler: Effecl... or a nelghhlJrhood ll1ohJlit~ prot!ram on poor
Black ~md Latino adult< well~h('in!!. lournal 0/ Health mHi
Sodal Brli(H'ior 4Y, 119-J30
Fauth. R. C., Roth, 1 L. &: Hroob-Gunn, J (2007 L Due:-. tile llClghhorhood
context alter [he lint.-. he.t'W(~cn }outh·~ ar!c!~.\ch(J(l1
lime activlttC\ and Cle\.clc'tm,cnral outcome:..:: A IllLlltik\ c! analysl;'
/ Jr,:p{'/I.lpnlcflwl 43, 7(l()~ 777,
-
11,1'J
I ' h \, :11 'L'III: ,I " J j 'I',""
,\1 ;~ \k),dlld,;"j ') Ill}(jili \n JlLI,....lI;d'tl;1 \,' 'll';,
lil',II,jl:lt'!li;.1 \.;r ahk\ D" nCI;":~'l!)[ldll;,)d ;.u;hil(I"II'
! ,\
\!ll·~,II1!ll!.ltl(H l;~ i!ld!.: ;!'-11\ 11\ I.!! .....:L'> II' 1\' I~ld, Idd)I)jJ
',ll' d"',VI\tjHI\\'IJi o! til'!':" ,i:';ltll)U:I,lIi
; j\/':" 11\\\, j;;Jl(lj',> 111-'1:\:1:;(' f!\f. ,lIlt i i!ii!hllL'
11;1., If,d<IJj~'.·IIJli,I!L"!I~hlhll~i\)',)\h \\ J \\.ii ....(,;jll.l:,J,.\I"
,\JlIliU'c.:Ii<' /I' iilil;",( I): I ''lJ(IJ; '1111/11<1711, \
t '111\ ','I'.'!) Ilr( JIIC;\~;(: 1'1C"~,
C;,Il ..:,~l( "III.\' (j 6, \;al:H.'t\'L 1,./\ ,~(ln,~, Thvll!ull1pk',H!Jh:\I"
(;:U'()I.'::'. ( , i. 8: l{,.l,dL'phh,h,:-; \\'. j J IJl)! •
II!I l'dll"";I~ij)ll,d ,l1l,LIIILlll' .\ llh!hlk.t.!
l./['i'UI!{!I'
(iv, j-L t'dnp.l.'1 R 11" SigIOll'., R i.," L\
"'lllplilll'HIIl'11 01 pU!X,TI<l! ll';Ul'-,liiol;
.llf!li;!tl(lp :lIld v\kT!l:tii/ip,;: 1;;'11;1\ 1(\1 ;!i~lOIl~
~j~'I'"Il(d( E A: Ld"'!tTI(l', ,\, ,I. (~ilOhl. "",·i::;.hhoril(l()d-, lIml
'.~.'h(lul" (\)Jll~'\,li' "nd \.',)Il',l'qu ....ncl..'\ I('r llll' 1l11'l'lL,d lll',dtl;
all~, h.'II," ui ,-'hihln:11 .uld ~p,!lh. !ll L, Ualki C' S
1 dn!;o.,-~ .L'~vl{lnd:1 j Ld:--.!. C;I!i:! !F.., f'!;(!{Ogl' , A hOJufhfll!,', ,,{( Oil·
I(,JIl/-'''lUr1 i\,)u(') i Ld ; 0:l'\\ lurk ,\..1 P,",:l:holo.t~ Pr~'.... o.,
151'",h. (i,. 

('OL~.!l", I~:. ~ 2U(j-J.!. Cn!:k\.1 ,did l'o~'.Ldit'm.: E!1\ inHlllll.'I:!al 

J i:-.k. 0.,0\."\;11 !llntk'I]"'",' ,J:ld )dl)i~'..,ct."l1f >ul)',I:Ill','c \!~~. j'(,}"I(H::tilf'< 

\1}<'j(I! !II',,)/I!!!!:;, Nul/dill, 10.+(- tfJ{,l,
(lI.. ;j,o.,nll, PM, (\: ('.1i1) (i. (i i2on·~;. Larllllif:'; 0:' Hldd, ;;nd \\1I1h..'
:,ol1!h ~nd ll- Il'i;!I!OH h' 11\)\\'i·I.~. In C M. Hem: fbJ i. Nun'. INt\'·
iT!\, {!1!lidOl!{( lil( I)o/in ~~.\~ H,I\ cl1 , ('T: l";dv t:Il!\L'i'."j(:, I'lL''''
J. {\: FL'il;'>, J j), iLlk' 12(;(1,11, (f;;ifnillt.:, {; /;,.fif'! 11/( !
/,\dilld.'iIP: iiI; ;lj(J; I;I~,' ()I)II',,"IIIIIII'
\\';I',,\I1:I;,:tn!1. IX' \,111;11' 11),,111\11\' PH.."'.
(;np/,lk':-- 1\ A.. (';,Ilh.L'. '\ ;Y!.. I :'il'dll~;111 1< I. (\: \1~Nl!i C. '\
1'1')(;­ "1\1
dlWd', dlJ11,'\i.TIl'1l; <I11HlIl~ ·\Iri,.";!jl i\I~It.TI\':;II: ;'\hlk:'>.:~l\!"
dk...:I'" \!I!('/';j'Ii;,' ,lUll/lid! 0/ ( ,jJj11Iluli/'\
\,q~!1l.di,~jjlllj:. 1) lil'nn 11 H .. t.\... 11..11;11;,:' I!" L\jll)'>.llq
1·' l'l)ill~lHlnl\> \ ;Ilh: ,!r,j( lie':.. ptTp,'!i al!l);, I i!~ PHdv~
1!\\..' (111;1\11:" 11111':IPJlHE' /",'I(i:(I/llf{'IJ!!11 ('/lfh!u!",'
I..'!"l'jlll'!::.tl 1~'\1hil.."'\" 'lilll'l ,
, : ,till, iJ; \ r n: (/Iii' /" !Ii 11)) :: (,
'l,.l::l'I'llliil'l;III{lIi
ilL" hpJ".'..'
;1!ILl \;VI,HqU'..'ih, IIi« ,'f; WI
\i H ·\hu, j L.
ci ;I~ j'Ff"l ~<t'I,~~hlh\rll;''!d dnd
t!; {fJ.',!t'\:r
It}! i
{;,((1111: ,elL!!l:! IJllllk!,;;l! h~*I~l!IHl!l
Li:\'l'Pl!l'~ , ill :lI1d tU:lliJt!i'
lu" :()
'Uil,'dt:rt! til
Z ';..11\\.'1 lk:;:.:~;r",·h j{'.'ihl!'j '\c'
H;pdlliJ,." ;'" i
Il..i,t:;,jj",:ilPo.,
,die j'pll);tll(K
\I!}, il; Uf!
!1;1\ \,'Jl;;:;il. l~
111,d!1"
1'11Uf,d\lI!\!lj
IleI\ 1";:H)h ~l'i; hh',)Jilu(jd
:nlJ ;,ti()k',:..tlli '.I\dl'1ir,', ./t!lIf'1'd/
1_47 i(lLI
!ldi. k (;, Hl,lv,;;!J. J t." H;I\\ )ll~. J. U.. A' Ball!(;·P""&'.Oll,:), 1<
; jl)Ol}: Childilnnt! r;",k k"UI;" !·O:' ,IJ(}1...''.Ll'l1l IlL'mh"'f'-,hql
I{:..'\ll!t, ~rLlll1 11K' ~L';Hlk ');)~'i;d Dl\ l'i()p:,t;,'l1; Pm},-'Ci, )o,':nlili
Nt II ({I'd' Ilj \. !'iHlf' Wid /)(/rilrjll<'/h {(', ,)(,11 1
.\I' i /r.\
~,~ \\ :'lIr: r\dl, (':\:
lfdl ,~1)u51. ,'\\,;:;;hll{!ri;!.{'o,ill)'.dh.kl.
;liql:.:·..,...., .thi
Jl!..';dIlL .llI/flIiU! ftl ,Ii!i, dlld
I'll'..' unlllnU:lli\ U\lIH,'\1 (11
.I11iJ ([(I(dt":>t'':lll drd~' lI~, .!i!if!l;U/ ('i HIIJn,i,':r
()-i . .\ l-J
!i,,;.::,m, I) P.•\ hll<l~(i\i;\. J. !\1. (Iq",,':") lk IIIIP;I\.:! pI ,1"_'1,:1 ',,!~HU'.
!;Hlllh ;...{nh'I(H\' ,ji]{l 11'1t=l!hnrll(\(l(' !'l' l;n kfll,:l\ jj~ Hla(t;,,jnk......
l'l1l... If/WI'!, .i1'1!!!,!!! ut S(J('//I!IW\ "0, ;-;.2~
ll, i5-'llh{lrh{ll»i 1'(I\r:r!:1 pl. ,I~:,!~ ('1111'1", Hll'I'1 JUllin,," .,.' ! Ihrli'
Ii!,!!!', _)(1, ,~,~! ~:'-J.
I'~ :1I11Ik'lt;j'l' 11', i<lllllh pid:i'l!II~' i,'~', \l!llhc ;'l'lqd,;"
11<11; pi Phd;I\;,'lj;n:;1 r(llllll' I'i(!!'}:il."· Ii: l"!I( {{I;(', ,{A!
L1i!d! !" h /1,It.·L in ~, ':~hhdhl;>(!
Ill.! HlitPh..., [IUll'I,!'! i)lln~.Ir
!'!}r/r \
1;/1t'1//",,{;, rq ,~:-, (....1 '.
Ul" 11 PI,dl ;\1 \ I, l !~',I' ~ 

I I'd" !I/Jd" I' 

\\ ,I,ll',11::': 1,.!! I)( 

.­
lone~, D, J. i-OI('lla!1ll. R.. ()"Conth.'JL C,. Anr~l"lc-uJ. L. & IJrotl;.,
G. (](JO) I. Mother,' 01 fK'lgtlhorhood \ 10]l'IH.'I.: uno
morhl'r-ref)orted of AfncJ!1 AIllC'rica.r children
An e:\<.unin<llion uJ the llmoefmint,: roll: (l]' .;;uppur!
lJelwnor lJH'J'U/Jt .
Kahn. J. A" Ki.lplmvilL H. A.. (;tJ()Ul!1aI~. L. 6... EmtJl1"
(2002). Thl: a~~ocj4Jl!on hel\VeCn impul.,;i\Clk·"'-' and :'t!\l1al n:-.k
behavloP" ill mlok:"cLnl ami utluh \\tlI1lCtL Jf}irrnai of
Ado!nccilt IinJfll!. 3(;.
KamermulL B. LX KahJl. A. J, j~OOj j Child and rami!:- policie'>
m th<: UnileLi SU.ut:.... at tilt· of the \\\·el1l) ~[Ir""i C0Il1Ur:>.
()~··x~.
Katz, L i-. Klin2'. L &: Liehman. 1. B. L~O{)l; Mo',mt' In
OppOrlUIlJl) iJ. Bo....ton. bar!) result" 01 il ntlldolilt/cd mohihl~
expL'rinletll. {jw,frIl'r/; .fo/lmol (It tU)fIOlllic.\, I If;. 607·..6:'-1-.
Kiebano\. P. K.. Hrool-.,,-(iuJlH. 1. L\. Dunc.all, G. J. (19q.:i.) Dol'~
neJllhhorhodd and fam~!~ pllVt'rl.' affect mother::· pllrenung.
mental hed.htL am! socl..d ~tlppor! '.j Journa! f~r Marritl,!!c lind llJi.'
Famfh, Ct·.J.1~55.
KlIng, J. R.. I..li':: hll III11. J. H.. 8: Katz. F-. (~007J Experim:...:ntal
analy:-.i:-. nf nl.:i~:l1borhood dIce-b. t:nJl;otflL'frJC((, rQ-ll Y.
Kling, J. R.. LlIdwl~, L & Ka1l.. L f-. i Febn,ar,. )
f\;~jghhorhoou cflCt:l\ on criml' lor kflHlh' ami malt,: youth
Eviuctll:L' from <.l wnJnmi;,ed hou..in..!.! voucher expcr·ln\cnt.
Qlwrlt'r(\ Journal {:FEn)fJrm1/('.\. 120. g;'·-130.
D. L. (2005L Communily colllexL :-.ocial
inHJ 	 and youth violellt.:e. .Imrnlu/ oj Marrinru'
()I. 7()7~7{{{L . .
Kohen. D. E.. Brnob~Gunn. J.. LeventhltL T.. 6; HCflDlwn,
(2(1)2 J, :\elgilhorhoocl income and physical and ;,(\('la; di~on..ier
in Canad<.l: Assuclaiion" with young t.:hiJdr~n';., cOIOpe!enclc:-'.
Child i>n'C/oI'I!1C!1l. Ig44-1 H60.
Kornhau~er. R (147kL Social .\()/Ii'U'", (~f deiinqlH'iI(L Cnicago:
Univt:rslt) of Chlca~u Prcs~
Kowale::>kl~Jone:," L f20(JO). Slaying: oul of trouble: Community
resoun.::-.:.,; and prob\em bebm i()~ adolc:-.cent:..
Journal ({{A1arri{/,il,c lind fhe "'[uliih,
Kroneml:llL 1,. Lo~:her. R. E. r2(X14I b neighn",hood
prohiem~ and
Childwu/
Ku, L Sonensle;IL F. L., & Pleck,), H. (IYl),'L Npial"hnnw.". fam;l)
and work: lnl1uenc\!'\ nn the premarital
male~, Social Frnn:.\. 72. 479-50:i.
Kubisch. Aus['os. P.. BmwlL P.. Chaskin, R.,
Anderson, K., & Humi.lton. R. (':002,. Voice\ limn/lie
RejlectiolE 011 ('OIllprehell.\'ii'<' commtmity chang!". \\;'a.shington,
DC: Aspen InsLiLIlLC.
Lambert, s. F.. Brown. T, PlliIIips, C. M., & blongo.:\. s. r:!W4, Tne
relationship hct\\'cCIl perct'ption:-. or ncighhmhoud L'haraclcri!\lic~
ami subM,mcc U:-,C ;1l11ong urhan African American adolescenls.
American ,!ounla! oj COI!ll!lUllrr..... P....'ycholt}~y. 34, 205-·2 IH.
LanJr;ne, H., KlonolT. [, Ap &: Alearat. K (1997) Racial ,Ii,·
crimination in minors' accc:-.;o.. It' tohacco, Journal (!I' j;,'ru t.
P:n;clw/t)J':'''' !35~14?_
Lauen, D L. (2007). Contextual L'.\rh.m:lljol1~ of' school choice.
Soci{)IO,f~r (~r Ldur·Oliol/. 00 179-....WY'.
(2(IUO). The 1I~lghhorhooo:- the:
rl"~idence on child iJnd adoBlflluin.
/26.
Lcvcnrbal. T.. 6.: Hrooks-Gunn. i2r;OI j. Changin¥ n(:i~hhor~
hood" and child \\/ell-hein12: Lnderslandlll'.." how l'hildren nU,\
b..: affct:tvd 1!1 th..: cOlllin; centUf\. Ath·o;lCt'.\ ;/1 Uf{' Cl!lIn~·
Rcs('(1rch. 1()~~3()I ' " .
Leventhal. T., ;..\ Brnok:--~Gl1nn..L C~OOJai. ChHdrell and
neighborhood l,.·O\1[ext-. (·unt'lil /)irccriol/.\ ill
8nen(c, 12. ~-;.. 31.
Leventhal. T" &.. BrOOhl'-~C!u.nn. J. !2003h!. Mu\'in~ 10 OppontjJlIt~:
All cxp..:ri!ucntal :-;!Ud\ 01 cHcrt' OJ~ meolal
IH:~l1lh /wll'rinm ./ulln;oi (~f fin/Ill!. 9). 157h-l5H2,
Referencl',' 441
Lt:\'L"nthal T. &: Hrook~~(1tlD!:. J. ! 2(){JJc; !'\elghhorhu\lu-!)~l~l'd
Iflll1a:r'd';" In J, Hnl\)~,>~(junll. A. S. Fuligm, t.\: I. '. Berlill
! t:c:, ;. I~llrly child dt.'I·('/O/JlIICllf il! rJ!( 1iSI ('('!dun: l'/'{!fjlc', f','
('lflT('Ji! {{'\i'nrcli (!II/wIII·n. r\C\\ Y()rl\.ll,."achf.,:r~ C(llk,t!c Prt:~·"
A. Brouh ".( lUllf,. J. (201Hfl l. Di\'e~"ity in d~:\ viI 'Ii!l)en
tal ir:tJ~"'Cwnc." iiCJ'(l...... adnk."I,.'clH:r:
R M Lerner'" I.. Sle:l1ner~ (lou'.,
LO;;"\l"ntllul. . K Bronb-(iullL J. (~O()4bj /\ r;'inuollH/I.'J ,>llld., uj
lil'ighhorhood effect", OJ) low !1ll\IIHe l'!HI(!n:n·;-.. L'ducatlon~11 Hut
l·om~". /)('1 c/opnlf!IIW/ Pnc/]%g.\. .J.U -+?-\X···50i
Le\ ell!haL 1.. b.: Hwol\...-(JUI1Ii. J, (1005!. NC1,?hhorho()d Hrld
cth:Ci\ on lamil: proCl'.':"'cs' f{t'.\u!t:- lrnm ttll
{)pponunjl~ pfugrUnJ. I"omi!" Hdallow 54, 6J?,-64J
Lc\'~nlhaL"1 . hluth. R. c., &: HlOoh~Gllnr. J. (2(J()5 I, ~L:i:.::hj)orhood
p(lvt:n: !l!ld polIcy: A [0110\\ ¥up 01 Lhf!drl'n'..
otHl.:oJl)C' til th~' l'nrk
UrpOnUnil) lh:monstratin:c /)('\'l'Io/1iIJt'JI!al .j. /
~(~J-952.
Ll'\'cmhaJ. T. Gruher. J. A .. &. BrooK:,-Gunr:. J. r200 1J Adolc."u:ll!
,1Lhl ,! Jon,
.luI/nUllo/
Ll'vl...'nthaL '1'.. XUI:. Y.. &. Urook·..(iu!1tL :2(J06Ll1111l1igraJil differClJC(,!..,
in ~cll()ol-<.J.ge childrcll'~ tJujr.::cwne:-.: A 1001-. al lour
racjalil'!i1nic group",. Child 1Jt't'clo/IfJU:Ill. ,77, !y:;\)- n7-L
LoencT. K.. & Wiblrim1. PAJ. H. (1')<)11. Il1d;,iduui
l'riml' in ditferent of neig-hbl)[·hoou\. It! D.
R. J. S;..unpAJl1 & fL Vv'H;strilm (f.U".L lW<',t!ratjll.~ illdn'hllUll
IJlJd ecological (npl'Ci.\ (PI". ln~ .. 20-+1. SlOcJ..:hoinl,
>">v.cdcn: Nationa! Council Crimi: PrC\L'Hlioll
Lo~an. J. fL. IS.:. Spilzt:', G. Il (19Y4i. Famil) n;:!~hhor~. ;\/li('riUIJI
JourJwl 1:/ Soci%g.\. IIX,. 453-.J.76.
,L Duncan. G. J.. 6:.. Hin..chfidd. P. L20(jJ i. U;;)an PO\TI1~
IUVenill' \.Time: E\·iJcncc from a randOll1!zcd hOllsing-mohi;..
ity experiment. QUllrler(j Journul (~rCU.JII(JJlH(). / /(1. o55-h74,
Luthar. S. S. (20031. The culture of affluencc: P:-ychologtGll CO.'a". of
materiill wcl!~b('in~. Child nel·dO]l!JIelll.
\.,YI1",e. IJ. R" A., Moffll!. T. 1::.. Wiksln;m. P. H.. Loeber. R.,
&: N(nak, S. (20()OI. The imerdCl,"" nClwec"
neighborhood context on
arc stronger in poore:
Psychology. lUi). 563···.574.
Maccoby. E. E.. Mm1in. J. A, (j 9H3) S(tcialil..al.ion in the context
of the family' Pal't:nt~t'hild imeral·tioll. Iii. 1::.. M. He(bL'ring~Qn
(Ed.). lir.mdhooA. (~f child \-()/. Sudoii:utioll
{Jer.\fmafi(r and sudol ,1,·,·,.1"",,,,·,"; pp. I 1021. Nc"
York: him Wiley 8:. Suns,
Manski. C. (J 993 1. 111enti!icatiol1 of cnJogenou:-. !\OCHI! cffcl"t~; Tht:
reficction problenl. Rcl'i('\1' oj'Economi( ,\f!ulic.l. (j(j, 531~)42
/vlaninez. P. &: Riehler', J. E. (1~93) The NIMH Community
Violencl' Projecl: II. Cnildren':, distrcs... as:-.o.:iiltcd
WJlh \·tole-nce CXPOSUH.', P...ychittln. 56.
!v1n~."e). D. S.. & Demon. 1\. I j'Jl)JI. Anu:riCl1!l apartheid:
,)"{'gregorioll llJll..i tilt maAtJlg 01 rhe III1Crcill'i,\, CamhrH.h.!.t:. MA:
Har\'~lrc linivCL,iij Pn:",~ 'Malcu-GdaheI1.
p" &. Lune. H. L2003j, Scho{J; y!o!vm;c: The
hlt!in:ctiooil! cont'!11': t rluw bCl\.\t:t:1l m:ighhorhoou und .\....lin()!.
ein & COIIIl1Wllifr, 2..~S3-3hg.
McLoyd, V C, (]000). The impa...·l of Cl'OIHlII)il' hard...,hip Oil h!<h':(..
lalniliec, Hnd chlIJn:n: PS)ChO!llgLcal disll'e....:o-.. p<lrenting, anJ
~{i('ioc1l1otjon;!I dl'\·>-'lopment. C!JUt! /)n'('/Ojllliolf. 6/, 311.-.'LH,.
(20(l4 i. Din.:ct. IlH,:diall'd, Jnt'i!Jc:ralcd,
and l'Ullluhltij'l' rriatlilll'" hctwl'vll fll'ighhorilonJ charanL'n:-'lll'''
allli adok:-.cent (lulU)n1I.:"'. :Ido/c.'i( i!HU. 3t;, !2 J~j-+4
Mo,na: B. E. Hui-", S. I .. Bien",,,",. 1<. 1.. Holton. J K.. .\ Ealk
}-.. (:!JlO)l. A multilevel stud) or m.:ighhllfhopu:-. and p~tI\,;nt-!o·
aggres:-.ion: f\-..:-.uit;- JWIll tht' ProjlT[ un HUl:lan
in Chil·~if:n I\'cighhornooJ:-:. Child Malrl'c(li!!lt.'1Il
~
,,1,:~;'., ,'
I

1

;.(J'-JJ'i\,ilf,11/tlJ;,'/ilP;1./..Il1q"~h'\\tpnql!'1L'11
W:qJI\til;"[lJ(l",lP11;'1(\\.11\unV"X'l'J"'1l,-!lldrO'1011\:U,"....qu
W;:l(l'-.,rll;tL'l-:I:S-((Ad)I'\\--.;'q\11-1U,"PIl1''i'1'\?r~>l·!I\l".,d~lll'''''
L~;::"f)"Iilp,ill!}jlji'rJ/I!
ifll;IUJi;',;llf·'P))\"',~!\Ul;d'dJ'."PIIII"11!1l;P'L,l'!III
JPI'('\';~~()i);:;S-q'dlqu,')pnp>-J"\)(Jr',I(HL'\lO{\"'r';-')'(;,J"du);'\
'\'''()IIl'''Ii~/0,',nuN!1)!liliIV-IF'UI','';,,JU1\tl!tIlX'JIP
\\,'\1.1pw:"1\",-,,,oJdil:~.10S,'.,1,,1,1,'1r(\(Hl,llh'il:~!"il_.511l,-;,'''''V
I('()OZ!'.i.\"1\\°(1UilI!Ul?)"\1"Ur'UI\ll,)J()~\:'1"(I-:10,,'(1:,(11'-';
tNt)/1/l!JI-',.J,lf!,'JJ;;;'lttj1/IIOI/.I,lilli
1l,)JppQ,lto.!\:\I;"\lUJ,'\!l;1,,,\:iO,1j\)-':\IlII!:H\P:PHdl~,'
jI~I"n"PlHl\"HIff(-)(dJI""PW:i"\'""(1(·ilOH.)h'~\'r';>1'l[;hd(lw~
U(1I1"!1li!1\)-j
PJ-""n}1''!.10\~\.)~!elL!;-/",\"llo!(!lllo.jll(;'UI!,)'/11
~\/!lIl\ilt\'UOfIOIi/dull\-,l),lId\1-1,),1011l'U(}!/f;1fll/";I.l,\jT"fY-[J
L'llV'r)l·lm.)un(lf'()·utlll!)-~·1U(1.IHUI·HI.":\"J..(pl!l~
l"I',j'WQJll10]\,"'lUtl;;.~l\lun
,l.id"j,idP!,i;;-:U!o'Y_1([oillinT'J.jl;U,!J()~\--Vr(f
(j~L--t~L.tf)\;','';jll/,lrJS'/I'
/,lJIUli~Jrill);/.'.lIfi\/'\JU,"'tjlW11}1!J!(Jl'R,I;)"~P"1!;i:'1ht1UI1"'~_L:,")LU!JJ
pur:0.lIil.l!l.li-'",\jIUnHII!to,)'lh~hl'H'\'\-..,;n(),i~);OY""f'>1'uo\dun:s
''';-."1.1,,lHl!11111hUJ
,,"GUllUI).!H.)0u:nf;'u~q"'l;_\\iZ6~-Ir~dd)il/Jwt/neI,ll)\-1111
-lHWI/IJ)/)111:\/fUjl/Olt!IlIhf.!)'I·'ip-.:jJ,->u,)'F'<q.1.'\\')1:lOSni1j,!~{
-I11''I,{l!lll1UIUhU,jl:l(:\:\'1666~!f'N'uu"JLLW:::
tt·~1/1,/uONi!ul\',lj,ljl\J/()jIJIUJ/Ii(
',!)()uqJO'-!l!;ll,':ll!n.ir:)H1JHIOt.;"1111,,:.,1llonr:P!!l!;\
<H-l:,~mlU,),:'>;"'I!t)Pl:10u(!~nqnf?;-j')\11,--',1110,)'iU)(~I;
'\'1008
~I\>ll,"'H~'ut~.!L:rN'1"I""Ulug\\:l;--':'I~:()-~'t)'jdl,(-'lUI'Ud.il!,
II],'tifo/flullm.n1ft\'.u/m.l/'V.Yl\'JJ),UOr/'IIIJ'\'j,!(!JUfUHII',-Pj)1
'IT~-llPJO''),lt,\'!'ilJ'\.Ith'\jllI()lll~,/!l!p~.lmlr!fl.IO....HlfUj-.,lq;;!"i.I!
,lll;,)U1LioF'I\,,1'liiltF'I!'U)'lLl;mL,~r:ur:H!\111(0:_1'1Z6hI!'r}t·uo·.;dul1':S
",'"lidotiC!ltl).!Il:\I!'l~),\I,U)l
:();11~.ln!:)'}}i'tlli'IIlI'1t,!I/.:Hilj';'If!~'II()I')flout!IiIW,!'\',)!ll/tOln,l
j!/fl)\\/J,u1){1(fllil',flt,)!OOo"lI'-}'r'HlIif!l;H.l....O>1:-Y"S-;11\\OUIl\tl>l
lot'\\/;OjO,!-lI·\d\11l1/Il/liil;l,)/0f!)!/.iJlOrilf))Udlll\.'
tjll,\\'-.'lIl!Pl.Jli...[(I,ilill;1\l!J;1JJllLJ1....n.ll'>;tupun
'11:,,]l,li\lll"!j'l'{l()1JJ"qlF~!,l~'I()OO;::Jr'S~,)'''''),}I
LI.;I'ft'lll/.w/PH;1I/IJl!JjIUHIf}jlJII.Ii!f!{
!lOI"'Jllbpil;1!!l~pi!l'.)"';P!:l1'\[11-:\IPpi,oqJoqllj!,!~~()OO;::)".-1,)".,,,n~l
Ii}rS'tt\\,''WI,lj(jo.lr//JIl"','''',<..pnqn..;,1\~lj\\
",";P;:h11PpnrJ\I;"':1111111:"Plq'l'lUO,l\l:~\\OJlo't(101F'Jii;')1l1lp:!)0:;'
(lh611'r'q~';I1}1':y"'--1-I'':Jl~1!q(1);:f[')'!JI~d()d""-I'f'U11H:qU,1"(')1
t-su/!\\!Ifl/lfll!/,)/liitfJJOr'q.ll]!'!!!
ponu;"\FFi:I.)U\\(\\1':IU",l")IOi'l':t\hHlIl"UO~WI1~UI\;;,\1.111:;U()
"<'.",.)\I,l!l;jlil,~U!\(l.in:d;I;\i,;-);1I1I1T""'1-:V"''-1;,I./·...j\>1
11,';;p(l\~n'l\i,\;"1i(()~"\i"t..;)'J,lpm~\''''i'i:'"(I"(i'F'~\"P,j'I',ll!'(j'e!
{)O(1-:::-~>:\'Z'r/11\'11,),1/1/1'-I!n
1.JIII'HOr,,('.111'iil:q.m':'UinlU1'~'JI!til\!!",,'I!1I!I1-:rdJl!P~'lrlW
til:);:,11!iVW:,'!IIV~I,OHIP".,1\1(1·"'111\1111.":.,",'IP1WI'll:,;1([Il!.""jl~;IU1
'UtHIl'lil:-\,,:no;:-lr-V'Iif!.!,'!!,)'V'',['t,\;,'IX;lII!U"Wrl"I'~'){';)lj,n>l
I"·\.'JI!I'P\\,/·.",_1t!,"'i
\';1""",,,,,,-1Ully'p[j!~I"",Inp!\,,'I'q;\IP11IL)'I,1,1."11'0-'<1"lu,l:\)~.,\
\l~HIl(;ln!<»)lH\I''<'lIj'':!)hll',J'/;"!!!!!'!)'!'\;V'1'1'-".LIPj.'!)!
It-1";,-\,10jtJ!)()I/PlV
/1J!!,;U!(',.l!l\"11;Fll!)Oqq5'I,o!iJiltlljl',/.1"tlUP::"11:1ll.l1"\~..1111
dl:~n'Y"!lddctil!v\.P~,'I;;oin:~,",1'1i"\:,l~".'I~
pW'.\;)[·'-.,liJl.1IU\\Y!ih6i)i:r}I'1In"dlul'<,)V"\;\-....,'lJ"n\jl:.'rnl'N
!~:-'\'1"ill"nil/)';l)IliI!!1'tf!/illJlfUJrlj."iJi'Y<\1p~Jlll'
-nil;1'!!!'1Dill!il;'llII,""''',)),,,1)()1)t;,;:rddl:q:l,\;~Wl')"ll!I1::pqHn
hi!i,'rWI11,!.).::q~."'f'[ll[ll:n,':'''''01''\',::'(,h!I\\\i!C:~ll{IL)P;l'}!
f)q;(,f-,I';'j!f'U,1

j"!,1)\''HIIll!'1!1'-;:J.;'li\'-111'lUI\-;I!l-"I,")..!plJl~<'>lptn;'1''-.!'(!lH!

lUI"U!d:"'liln;1{;'l.'","'ltli'j;

il1:!.;11l!!ill'I~\r:'"Iql~!l(~J,1"f-['$I'11I'-;IJ1')1
':",'!I!!"f/,1)11,)",'jJ!I!Jili/Plil
-'II.1,ll'11;)"':"fll)j;"\IJ,"<:';1':lYi"l)h!I')
11110\:;UI'I!?1:,1i)1\1;1\,;'11"1i[l:C\.'\
Ii..;U1,'i\~;!U".",,'\.\'\'£\'!:'lIU.llH~::l/'r":';l\:\·/·~W(!l')l
:~t''\lr';:',j,j!'{'\jll{!1U/IiI'('\i;no\1,"t1\'1\
'll!;'!III'j\ll\,1Ilj,W,\\I!~\ln\l!l!,",,,Lhl,~,;,)ll!!,,,Iij,;',,{nUllI'~';!l~11
'Plll'V,,-.,,:\,)tud!IUllll))P~\,~lhplll:j1ddl!,Inqq;"ij,lllj,'...,llll.ll,1:l\i-'
Llj!!J.)I)"=!JIJZ!';-j,'H:nr\,''\"'dl'UI.I.)\lIlIlI/'j"'",;!l"\'-,ll,I!I;N
.\'(''j\,JJ.1.l.'J\1.Ii1,II,'Ifl/hl{1)111'iIJill/1ij)111:q;nit)
,~tnptl~'"l.I\)qC!~U:~~lllp",,!':-,!!l\hlq~O'-i(/~I.'\.;
II".1(1(1'1<)1)0=:II·H-1!1'~lP\il.y'l\Jf',1ur:n(j
Il"),",!iJ,lj'"Iflli!!}
/11liJlI,II/0j'\1;)I,ll/,ll,1[11,11"llL"'.l'.,,-:;tljW!l1"11;;!!!\,;'U!!,"'il!V111
,)W,'"l,)tI!"p:,dlIW"J1"-Un'1U\1)jIL1!ljifL'fUh),~'l)tW-'.1\1',11,)1,")1';:'1:'
j11)"qJ;!ql!,-:l.h~(}.;{)(I!1HH'/111,1:").1")L'\'J-'"\~!;()
I,~.'.;tJ~
'\',/dllJ,'loll/,l(fh,),1\11~U!!OJj,,,;JjlltltP"'!I)()t!IJJI\\p.llln,"h'\:,,'"nlll
illl,q,",Pili:P~L!U,",;~',,-1.1\"1[:\\11)('1(":I)H\!"HI\\il(!V\'i!"_'i\;1,1
"'<,)JdPHUOIHll,).;11\11<";.1;:),'.1(1,1\,1j::lLiH'jp.l:HI;:-l
H!J{j.l,;t/\.'.'11111,)l1I'\,'t1/JJ/;";'Hflilillq()bll~}'(I'!lWljlllrl,}1-..,'.\;;-,,'jJr\!
XI)j,itJli())'IUtisfIJI"'\
';11Pltl~1";')1\~11!1l.J.)11\/'.','it1hL)ll1dlInpH"-UIlO,;11\),,:;q'-.II,)IX'IHlj'
puotpO"Il!;!l,lU.10I,V1JF','tlL·l(16()1j'0'\'lWlU!.lilt-I:'\'.(1.d"''PI~ll'\~J
'1lI,)wt/Of')\,1(//Jjfll.)1l!,'llll"n~pl!.j{Hj~.\\,:;P1"

P,1u;'>:1,1;,>d';;'Uptil~[H)HIp'lu.'lnd\qP_")ll~J:'pnUl,!,>Hi0p.loid(;lP/1

-!pUJ.l\'.';"!)t1;),!....,llopl~\i1'P,;}1I('j,il;l!iO:J.1,),,;,1liHlIF:'"i'"'ljl~pl:,wduJ~

:'lLL'(6hhI)'\\(J',l,l,l')i\l--:"1"\'"')1';",<<1r()(],:~'r';',)11!H~)'11l1"d

'Oi'\'iinIOl1l1l/U,),1.1!:IJi!!if!"!II{)iO;1l1l.flI11/"
;'>pU~l\111HI,,;l,lU;1J,")JI!P."~Ulll>')U!~~ld\,11\';"!);.Iri,'"
pm'[Cnp!\~PUIu(j1tnhl!'<I.1,";{-j.illJV''I'<";"!lcb')d
!.t-_
'pnoqJ{iqlj<1l-lO,-''IT'-,lIPIHlI!'],w;q!~ut
'''.1.ljuI~4~w';;pur'J,~qwtll;,1:'\\\IS()(;!i:1l\illil\H'd
j:'~-'':::Z)\'{)Ij\';;'r!!r)'VI\/
jf}iPII.!II(I('1.)1Q!lpqllL";~()[\10!\11
.\H!",)",l\npn.1;!;t!!!tP'.l!J;)lI.1V-lll!XIIVl!iJ\~!IU\~Iflt,1'
pompOtf4j'I;,,!U10\]:1,ll[11';\66!I-1'l'~f\ll~qqnf-!:v.fL\i'IP,q,l\'i~d
:1'J
'OZ'\i)()fO!jt)\/"liJlt,{iW{IIIUff.J!lI\'!\j,"IlUih\!t\tL'uc,pn;ttl!1;1
.IUI.\I:tpqt)I~\lIlHl.I\lqhilll:~'1\,;\111,'til'O!"':!iOlh",-:;1P.\·1\II\)!I"(j"'i11'<1
'IN'-U-'Iii/'lIIP/lJifjliJ,ll,';")!OIP,\\j"\u;:qnd;1\;l.mp,,<i'tWq.1
\Ull!'UOI!':Fl.lPP4,)-W,).lI!dnn'jI()()~J'j".IOI1:)":iU('JrI~''~I'j!tllil~d
,'>,'1I'\l!IlfOlldi'/:P!I.IIIO(tf.uf.i!>.lI()if/;','iHhn;JOqq<i'!)\I.it.l(ld
\~H!:·:[[1..\111(1",1,1u:\llln'-,lIll,,,)1I!:J'~II(\!"1\\',-jq'!l!i)t!n,1!()
S9tj-"II}!'"I\:I1P11I';\\'d}li,)11:,',10/1\,!J!m,'1/.1//);(i\i!!.l/)')1\'
{flUU,IIf!\:)II!!Iifllll,!!!r)/,·.In!\PlpqHL1!lll\<,lllll)"j!llliL1
";1\',lHlfl,1pn,lqJ,h•.jll;;L'U"ll\~:~HlU1l1i1l1.I,,,;qnd11,"),",\\:,,'1\'itWI
it-OOl)1'\"::1:";'(lIl[ll:)'''~ln(lIHL'>I"jl:l,fj,",I~1~!'ql~l!1:!'Llq(}
'(jOI1CJlttnn'i.1;1!;\[!,h'-.\1rl!'\;I~:dnw'-1"P"\\/1'liJ/{iI
III!d,Jt!;;il/~.Ii'11.)I1f.!lfill;l\illJIII!!I/'iI\'"h(,!l;j'-,:':1'III:I!!.,\,'\.
?;t'();ItOI'!{!f1yu,1"U'1'lip1Itl,),'1!!!l!!!"
nnl)IjPj!lj:'Illl:wdur:I'up,1,1:I."'!"\,1d,,;,(In:'\11\'[;'1.1)',\:1"'HlI)(l'::l!I
'~(1(")!:'i~'''I1Ht:I\'l\~JITJJ;]1J1111\\\d'1',"iI;.'I',\\,)1-..,'
(;'\,,!'1t:j'
11\/P.lI1'!!!pIlI;',"[!!tI,;tii',"',")1;.!\{j";),.11,)),'U!(I'IH")\I!:l'll,l,:i)1
'-'.lI;'lpprL)!'It)/)I1f'r'il!l;j"PPI\::V')'0",~l';':;:'!-l"\\:i'p,llj,W",")'
'J';Sf;r'j.I,J!.ff'Jlr'l,('111"',\/;~II!!1fJ)N~!l!l'~q,J;:l!li;i"L1,!
jllll!III\!~nl'W~J;;r::o.~,'\l.i\!...,lJ;!!nHIIJ:I,n,i!(j,:,'1j•r~f'rp!lpili'
.'(UO.!III-l'lll':1I1fLHjIIIIjfjll;::IqIlIP!",)q'\
,r~11I1.III!d,)/I;l(iFIlii.)\!'I1",1\11~.ld,,',ud"'II!I,·!
nIL'pI',),;\,-)\'iLll!II'nl(,l'p:.Jll!\~:q,"iqpW:JI),~':P"lI'P
]1:\11."1'11lu,y'",l:I)i)",\,\\lhU:)1!1!1111\\!n,1';"!11,"'HU_('(;(Ji
I.	'{'liP,)"\l'I'j,\'ll1'lP~l!I'tj\....·n\>J('1\ll·)!!l,!1;'1,111:/()I\
:<:
p!lll'd,'ill
\!flO;:I\\
,qIiPl.fJ',-jf")j\-r'htl:,Hltj'J;-'ij,'.\"ir.~!tL)'II){1"lUd(II·,,;f]
liPUnt-{!PI:)11'11\i"
-:U(jfl!l'lL1C1H!
'I
IU~llIdOFIUn)ua.1s~loP\,!lO',1.1U,1IlUUJpO'llpo'lIli'i!.1,<:t-t
:-=:004 .. ~et:H1~ di~(Jrdl'r:
:'1'-)
Raudenhush. S V., &- Eurl",
and violent l.Tlme: A Illultih;,vel ~tud~ of l.'ollc-::JVL
Science. 277, ~ 1!-\-4:!4.
J.. &- Sharke). P. (200H;, t'\clghhorhoml
and the 'socia! n:rrodHl'{Jun 01 t:OI~(,.'l"lHr.lteu racial incquulit)
J)f",ol!raf1h\~ 45. 1·-:")
.flb<:mnI"l'.U, L. Khng. .L R.. Duncan. (j j,. &. Bro()k~-GUIllL j,
,(20061. Neighhorhood-" Llnu, acaJemi,L' acf1lL''.l'H1L'IH'
'~fi"om the Moving to 0pp0rlunll) C.\pl..'mw:nt JOHnin! of Human
Rt£OUI'Ci'S, 41. (J.\9-69 I.
C, & McKa). H. 1 I4..J.:2 ! . .Iuro;i/(" dd(IJ(I!H'!lCr (Jur! ur/Jan
areas. Chicago: Chicago LJnivcf:'lly Prc;-.:-..
SUnons.R. L., John:->ol1. C. Beallum. L Con~;.:r. R D_. &. Whi[h~.c".
,­ L. B. (1996). Pi1rcn!~ iJnu pl:cr a' Il1CUHHOf,' of the effect
of community ~trlll'tun: iln problem
American Jmmw! I!! COlll1ilUitify !)syc1!o!og.l. 24, 1-+5·-171
. R. LoLIn. K 11.. Gordon. L. C Brou). (j. Ii..
Conger. K D. (200::). Community diffL:l\;oL:e, in til..: ;j:-,\uclUlion
between pmemillb praclil'l.:;" and child condUCl
Journal oj'MarriLf,l!C and lilt hunNy. tJ4, J3 j~<t-+).
,Siinons, R. L, Si!llOfl~, L. G .. Burt. C, H.. Brod~, G. fL & Cutrona.
C. (2005), Colkl'liv(' e1Tiull'Y· awiloritaliv(' par('nlmg anJ dt.:"hn~
queney: A longitudinal te:-.l of tl Illodel
and family-level procc:-,~cs. Crh'lin%gi.
Soubhi. H.. Ram,,, P.. &. Kollen. D. (2()04 i.
. and chIld predictor:> of childhood
JDumal o{/-fea/lh Be/lilt'ifJl; 28,
South, S. 1.. & Baumer. E. P. {2000,. De.:iphering conunumty
and race e:ffect:-. on adolescent premarital childhcarll1t:, ,)'o{'laj
Forces, 71i. 1.179-140H
South, S, j .. &. Baumer. E. P. C:~O(l;~, Community efTel.t:-;
resolution of aJolc:-<.:ent premarital pn:gHilncy.
Family Issue,,,. 22. 102:,),-1043.
South, S. 1.. Ii,: Crowder. K. D. 11999l. Neighborhood effecb
family fonnation: COlll..'entrateo and beyond, American
Socin/oxicaJ Rel'iel-t. (H. 1
Spencer, ~L B.. McDermolt. P. A . Blirlon, L M.. Ii,: Kochman. T. J.
An alternative approach to <4...."t'\Mng
achievement and problem
J. Brooks-Gum1. G . .I. Duncan. & J. L. Abel' (Eds. ,. Neif!,hhor/wod
impiicntiom ill .'i/H(ZYing l1eigJdJorllo()(/s
Ru.,~ell Sage Foundatlon.
Steinberg,L, Fegley. S.. Ii,: Dornbu,ch. S. M. (199:1).
or part-lime work 011 adolescent adju:>lmcnr
longitudinal ~tudy. [)e:'cio!mU'flwl P_~-ycllO/(lf.!,Y. 21.)
Steinberg, L, Ii,: Morns. A. S. [1(Xl! I. Adolesccl1!
Annual 1~(!l'i(,\I' (4 P.n'('/101up'" 52. f(LJ 10
Stiffmun, A R.. Hadley-he,. E.. Elze. D.. J"l1ns,,". S..
(J999). hnpaci of environmenl on adoie:.cen! mental health and
behavior: StrucLUraJ modeling, Amcricall Journal of
Ol1ilojJ.\'\,·hialrY, (if.).
Su11ivan. M. L (1 t}89 J. GcUif/f.!, paul: roUf!! crime ami lfork If) tlie
(mIfF elf'!, llha...:a, NY: Corn~l1LJnih~rsity Pre..,:-..
Tuylor. R. 13.. Guulrcdsoll. S.. Ii,: Brower. S (19x4:. BI(x:k enn\e
and [ear' f)c(cn ...ihle
Journal if! Come Wid lkjill'lt/t'J/i".'~
01 ·'Brot.;l'll
(] 91.)7!
\c:lcclioll
.f~l'SU!h
bchavlOl
Murr}. V. &.
prohlem'
on tbt:
JOUr/wi (~f
on
impaCI
from a
17l,-l80.
development.
& Dore. P
Refercnccs 443
'L:l~IOl. R. D. (~OO()i, A.n c'\am.inalion oj the a~~u;,:1i1t10Jl oj .A/ncar;
AlT1enl.·m~ m{)~!H~r'-': p<.:rcL'ptH)lh or thel!, iH:ig:hborl'lood_, v,'it1J
(helf and adolc\Cen; ae!.lu"tmenl ,/rtl!I"! W! 0/ BhU'/'"
~f):·-2:-:7
leilkr. J. (J .. &. \\ei",...., C C '2000; E:JfCL't~ o~ nt"lghhoriJ(Jl'u ~lfId
...chon! environnH.:nt!-. un trun:-;HlOn~ to fll'\! ;.,C'\ UilI IJUcn.:uUf'W.
:"(JCIO{og,I' (:1 Ldll( (!lion J. 1-:::-·1.1,2
T!l:tHja, M, ~ ]i)L)! J_ Puor pl:opk uno puor place:-.. 1Jeclphenn.:z
nl'lghborhoou etleL:L~ un p{wert} iJUH..O!J1L':-'. In HlIhcl i bL).
MOCrtHlticm ihikugc.,> /I: '\{JCI(iI().~.\ ipp 2..\.-4.--·2621. ;'\ev,btlr\
P<'lrh. CA: .':lag,,', lotan.
P. H.. (jurmal!-~llli[h, D. &: D R r200:i! Tht.:'
dcyclopml'ntal ccology 01 urhan
f)t:l'('!f)pf}U'nI(~! "vyc/tlJlo,!;l, 39, ::n'+-2'-}j
LJ'church. D M.. Anesilellsel. C S.. Sucut1. C A.. &: Lcv:Swrm::-..
L i lY'J'-Jj !'\t:l£-,hhnrhuoJ anu !arnily contcxt;.. or &Utl~
le\cL:o( .\cxua: >1<:ti\'ll) )OVrliu! 0/ A10rl iag( onJ ,lie romi".
M. '1211
Va/sony;. A T. Cle\clullJ. H Ii.. &. Wick. R P. 1200(lI. !Joe,
th<: dkL~ of un dclinqlh.-:ncy Hit': 0: k\',"~l 01
J)cl;;hhorl!I_)l,Kl CrimII/O! Jllslice (md He}u_ll'iOJ:
33.511· 541
VI.?v:'Cj. B. M.. &: Mt:'\slln. ~ t,.! J9'J')). r'urllkTicMlI1g 01 \o('lal di,..
organi/~atlOn the,,}!'y: An ciaboratlon of ~amp:-.on allu Gro\,,':';\
"communi{) :-'ifl1l..'WI'I..' Clnd crime' juurJiol Rc\c(uY'i, 111
Crime amI 1)L'iill'-ju('}f(·.' , 36. 156-· 17'+.
\\:tlUnclt.:f\. C. rv1cllua, J L.. & Dcm:nt'L J. T \2007 J. Parent charal'tcri",uL::>,
(X_OnOmlC ",(re~;-. and twighhorhood I,:ontcxt a\ predil"
tor~ of par..:nt lnvolycm.:m in children':. edUcalJOll,
Joumal of ,)'c/woJ PSydlologl, 611.)-636.
Whealon. B.. & Clarke. l.r, (2003) ~p:JC\? meet-. tinll':
tempora: anti contextual intluel!ce\ on mental health In
adulthood, AmeriulJI S'ocioJoJ;icul Rel in!', hS. 6XU,-·706.
WH:krama, K. A, S., & Br:unt. C, <:2003). C(mununi!) context
OJ ~ucial re....,oun.:c;.-, ane! adoJesceni mental health. Journal 0/
Marriage ulld Fwnih, 65, 850-866
Wickrama. K A S.. Merlen. ~l. J.. &. Elder. G. 11.. Jr. 12005r.
inf1ucIH':C' on precocioll,'; mlnsllion;-. to adulthood
d,llerce,"'e.' ,-md mental h-:ailh COI1:-.t:qucm:-e.\. .lollrflul of
COlJlmwun l'.\lch%,t:y. 6Jtf-653
\h/illis. P. (]977j. L('ormng to lahor: How lI'orku:g-(/o.\\ kids gel
<l'm'kil1f:;-das'> jot)s. New York: Columhi;\.
Wilson. W .I. ( 1987), 7Iro diJlIdnlwagC!d: The "lIIer ciIY. fhl'
wlt!crc!ll_\j. dlld puNh ChiL'ago: UmYCr;'-'ll; or Chicago
Pl"t'<;~,
Studying mner-l'it) ::-.o<.:mJ dislopuhlk
agenda Hc\earth. Alliericall
1-14.
Wih,on, \)y', J. (19CJ6). WhcllliorA disappears: Tile ~l'Orld of the 11(')\
ur/Jan /JOor. Nc\\ York: Vintage Books.
Wright. R. 1. (19<J?;,_ Exposurl' to Violence. from ww\\.mal'~e~,u\L
L'du/Rl':~earch/P:->ycho....ociaJlnotehook/v iolcm:e,hunl.
\.\iright. R. J.. & Fi,hcr. E. B. [200,)) PUlling astbmn JOlo contex.t:
Community InnUen(;t;~ un risk. beha\ lOr. and inlcf\ !.;JHIOIl. In
I. K:JWJchi &. L, F. Bcrkm;m {Ed:.,l. NcighhorJwod\ (Iud /walrJ:
(pp_ 2:,."L 2641. Nn'\ Y:Jrt.: O.\I-;:)1'd lhli\l~r:-.i1.~ Prc~....
XUl'. 	 y" Zimmerman. M" A .. &. Howaru Caid'welL C 120(7)'
'\~Ighborhood re:-.idcncc and -.:it!arCHC ~l1lnhmg {[lHOllt! urhan
j~'mb: The rok u! actJ\ !tll':~. Americ(J/!
.!tmnwt
HANDBOOK OF
ADOLESCENT PSYCHOLOGY
THIRD EDITION
Volume 2: Contextual Influences on Adolescent
Developnlent
Edited By
RICHARD M. LERNER
LAURENCE STEINBERG
~WILEY
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.