479384

rnal of Health and Social BehaviorTurner et al.

2013
HSBXXX10.1177/0022146513479384Jou

Mental Health
Journal of Health and Social Behavior

Community Disorder, 54(2) 258275

American Sociological Association 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0022146513479384
Victimization Exposure, and jhsb.sagepub.com

Mental Health in a National

Sample of Y
outh

Heather A.Turner1, Anne Shattuck1, Sherry

Hamby2, and David Finkelhor1

Abstract
This study considers whether elevated distress among youth living in more disordered neighborhoods
can be explained by personal exposure to violence and victimization, level of non-victimization adversity,
and family support. Analyses were based on a sample of 2,039 youth ages 10 to 17 who participated in
the National Survey of Childrens Exposure to Violence, a national telephone survey conducted in 2008.
Using structural equation modeling, we find no direct effects of community disorder on distress, once the
significant mediating effects of victimization, family support, and adversity are taken into account. Using
a comprehensive measure of victimization covering several domains of experiences, we show that past-
year exposure to child maltreatment, sexual victimization, peer assault and bullying, and property crime
each significantly mediate the community disorderdistress association. A measure of the total number
of victimization types to which youth were exposed (i.e., level of poly-victimization) had the strongest
mediating effect.

Keywords
bullying, child maltreatment, community disorder, sexual victimization, witnessing violence

BACKGROUND Factors Linking Community Disorder to

Research has demonstrated associations between
neighborhood/community disadvantage and disor-
der and the mental health of both adults and youth
(Aneshensel and Sucoff 1996; Gary, Stark, and
LaVeist 2007; Hill, Ross, and Angel 2005; Latkin
and Curry 2003; Ross and Mirowsky 2009). Com-
munity disorder can be defined as a neighborhood
environment that presents residents with observ-
able signs that social control is weak and that there
is little concern or ability to maintain a safe and
orderly physical environment. Such neighbor-
hoods are often characterized by rundown build-
ings, graffiti, litter, public drinking and drug use,
vandalism, and cues that crime is common (Geis
and Ross 1998; Kim and Conley 2011).
Adolescent Distress
Although living in disordered neighborhoods may
be damaging to the well-being of residents, including
youth, the mechanisms that explain this associa-
1
University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
2
University of the South, Sewanee, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Heather A. Turner, Department of Sociology and Crimes
against Children Research Center, University of New
Hampshire, Horton SS Center, 4th Floor, Durham, NH,
03824, USA.
E-mail: heather.turner@unh.edu
Turner et al. 259
tion have yet to be fully understood. A more com-
prehensive consideration of stress exposure
associated with disordered neighborhoods may
provide some insights into the sources of elevated
risk. As Turner, Wheaton, and Lloyd (1995) argued
over a decade ago, the importance of social stress
in explaining variations in mental health is often
not sufficiently assessed because most studies fail
to adequately measure stress exposure. As we out-
line below, it is our contention that stress exposure,
especially exposure to multiple forms of violence
and victimization, represents an especially power-
ful predictor of youth mental health and one that
may largely explain the significance of community
disorder for well-being. We also consider whether
deficits in an important resource for youth, social
support from family, may further explain the nega-
tive effects of community disorder.
It has been suggested that individuals living in
disordered communities are more likely to expe-
rience negative life events, imposed by lack of
community resources and an unhealthy physical
environment (Cutrona, Wallace, and Wesner
2006; Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rowley
2002). Although poverty may both contribute to
adverse events and select families into disordered
communities, stressors such as accidents, ill-
nesses, interpersonal losses, and unemployment
may also be more common for individuals living
in disordered communities, independent of eco-
nomic status. In other words, disordered neigh-
borhood contexts can contribute to a
proliferation of stressors (Pearlin 1999) by, for
example, undermining physical health and safety,
limiting economic opportunities, and inhibiting
effective coping. Greater exposure to stressful
life events, in turn, may contribute to elevated
distress among young residents (Cutrona et al.
2006; Hill et al. 2005; Ross and Mirowsky 2009;
Sampson et al. 2002).
Community disorder may also reduce the social
support available to residents. Research suggests
that people in disordered communities are less
likely to form ties with others in the neighborhood
because residential turnover is high and because
trust in others is low (Cutrona et al. 2006; Hill
et al. 2005; Ross and Mirowsky 2009; Sampson
et al. 2002). Not only are social ties limited, but the
perceived supportiveness of relationships with
both friends and family is also lower in disordered
neighborhoods (Aneshensel and Sucoff 1996).
This may be a particularly salient issue for youth,
since disordered neighborhoods provide fewer role
models for supportive parenting and have been
associated with poor parenting behaviors and
reduced warmth toward children (Cutrona et al.
2006; Wickrama and Bryant 2003). To the extent
that disordered communities are associated with
reduced levels of family support, we might expect
youth in these communities to experience signifi-
cantly greater distress.
A potent source of stress for youth that is often
not adequately assessed (Turner, Finkelhor, and
Ormrod 2006) is exposure to violence and victimi-
zation. These types of stressors are likely to be
substantially higher in neighborhoods character-
ized by high community disorder and may repre-
sent a primary mechanism by which community
disorder affects well-being. However, surprisingly,
few studies that address the effects of neighbor-
hood disorder focus on actual exposure to violence
and victimization as a main component of the
research. One study (Curry, Latkin, and Davey-
Rothwell 2008) found that the effect of objective
neighborhood crime (based on police crime data)
was fully mediated by perceived neighborhood
disorder and experienced violence, each of which
showed independent effects on depression. Many
studies, however, assume that fear of crime,
rather than experienced crime, is the primary com-
ponent of community disorder (Hill et al. 2005;
Perkins, Meeks, and Taylor 1992; Perkins and
Taylor 1996; Ross and Mirowsky 2001).
Other studies focus on psychosocial processes
such as low perceived control, powerlessness,
alienation, and mistrust as core mediators between
neighborhood disorder and psychological distress
(Geis and Ross 1998; Kim and Conley 2011; Ross
and Mirowsky 2009; Ross, Mirowsky, and Pribesh
2001; Schieman and Meersman 2004). Ross and
Mirowsky (2009), for example, in a study of adults
found that mistrust and powerlessness were impor-
tant mediators linking neighborhood disorder and
symptoms of anxiety, anger, and depression. In
contrast, the researchers found that personal crimi-
nal victimization accounted for only a small frac-
tion (10 percent) of the mediating influence
between neighborhood disorder and distress. The
authors write, Individuals living amid neighbor-
hood disorder are robbed, burglarized, and
assaulted more often than those in orderly neigh-
borhoods. Nonetheless, the likelihood of personal
criminal victimization is low. On the other hand,
residents live every day with the threat of victimi-
zation (p. 50).
Although factors such as powerlessness and
mistrust may indeed be crucial consequences of
residing in disordered neighborhoods, we argue
260 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(2)
that a more comprehensive assessment of personal
exposure to violence and victimization may show
it to have a more central role than is often assumed.
In fact, we argue that the chances of victimization
are not low but are quite high, especially among
children and youth. That is, direct exposure to
violence and victimization stressors may be the
primary basis for why community disorder has
deleterious effects on young residents.
Youth suffer higher rates of exposure to vio-
lence than do adults (Finkelhor 2008). A recent
nationally representative survey (Finkelhor et al.
2009) found that a clear majority of the U.S. popu-
lation of children ages 0 to 17 had experienced at
least one direct or witnessed victimization in the
past year. Almost half had experienced a physical
assault in the study year, 1 in 4 a property offense,
and 1 in 10 a form of child maltreatment, and
almost 10 percent had witnessed an intra-family
assault. Importantly, almost 40 percent of the sam-
ple had been exposed to two or more victimiza-
tions, and 11 percent of the sample had experienced
five or more different forms of victimization dur-
ing the past year. Exposure to most individual
forms, in addition to the likelihood of experiencing
multiple types of victimization, is highest among
adolescents (Finkelhor et al. 2009; Turner, Finkelhor,
and Ormrod 2010) and is very likely to be further
elevated in disordered communities. It would
appear that, especially for youth in these commu-
nities, direct exposure to violence and victimiza-
tion is far from rare.
There is a large literature linking childrens expo-
sure to many individual forms of victimization and
psychological distress and disorder. For example,
investigators have documented linkages between a
variety of emotional and behavioral problems and
physical abuse (Dodge, Pettit, and Bates 1997; Toth,
Manly, and Cicchetti 1992), sexual abuse (Browne
and Finkelhor 1986; Feiring, Taska, and Lewis 2002;
Green 1993), neighborhood violence (Osofsky et al.
1993; Richters and Martinez 1993), peer bullying
(Bond et al. 2001; Espelage and Holt 2001), and
witnessing parental violence (Edleson et al. 2003;
Kitzmann et al. 2003). Importantly, exposure to mul-
tiple forms of victimization, or what has been termed
poly-victimization, has been found to have espe-
cially powerful effects on youth mental health
(Finkelhor, Ormrod, and Turner 2007a; Turner et al.
2010). Specifically, exposure to multiple forms of
victimization was more strongly related to distress
than exposure to any individual form of victimiza-
tion, even chronic levels of serious victimizations
such as physical abuse (Turner et al. 2010).
Given the evidence outlined above, past studies
focusing on community disorder, especially those
addressing its effects among youth, have not ade-
quately assessed the role of actual exposure to
crime, violence, and victimization. A more com-
prehensive measurement of multiple forms of vic-
timization is needed.
Assessing Community Disorder and
Victimization
Community/neighborhood disorder has been mea-
sured in a variety of ways. Some researchers have
employed objective aggregate measures such as
neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES),
crime rates, and availability of neighborhood
resources, such as stores and recreational facilities.
Other researchers have used subjective individual-
level measures, asking respondents themselves
about the social and physical conditions that char-
acterize their neighborhoods. Although it has been
argued that objective measures of community dis-
order are less susceptible to reporting bias, several
studies have shown substantial overlap between
objective measures and residents perceptions of
disorder (Quillian and Pager 2001; Sampson and
Raudenbush 2004). Indeed, Elo et al. (2009) found
that objective indicators of neighborhood disorder
explained over 70 percent of between-neighborhood
variance in respondents perceptions of disorder.
Other studies have found the effects of objective
measures of disorder to be fully or largely medi-
ated by subjective measures of disorder (Curry et al.
2008; Stiffman et al. 1999; Wen, Hawkley, and
Cacioppo 2006). Thus, it appears that subjective
indices may be more directly linked to the well-
being of residents than aggregate-level objective
measures. The current study uses a subjective
measure of community disorder that incorporates
aspects of both physical and social disorder.
Many past studies use measures of community
disorder that are confounded with witnessing vio-
lence. In our opinion, perceptions of neighborhood
decay and low social control, indexed by residents
observations of broken windows, graffiti, public
drinking, and crime tape or arrests, should be dis-
tinguished from direct witnessing of violence.
Especially for children, actually witnessing vio-
lence may involve different cognitive processes,
attributions, or defense mechanisms and, as a
result, may have different implications and out-
comes than does seeing evidence of neighborhood
decay, loitering, or that a crime has taken place.
Turner et al. 261
Thus, the current research employs a measure of
community disorder that is not confounded with
exposure to either witnessed or personal violence.
Witnessing violence in the neighborhood, what
is often referred to in the literature as community
violence, should also be distinguished from other
types of victimization. There is considerable co-
occurrence of community violence (witnessing
violence in the community), domestic violence
(witnessing violence between parents or other fam-
ily members), and personal victimization (crime
and violence directed toward the child) (Aisenberg
and Herrenkhohl 2008; Finkelhor et al. 2007a;
Finkelhor et al. 2009; Hamby et al. 2010). Only by
assessing multiple forms of victimization sepa-
rately and comprehensively can researchers deter-
mine the extent to which community disorder is
linked to particular forms of victimization (includ-
ing but not limited to community violence) and
which of those types of victimization are most
influential in creating negative mental health out-
comes in youth.
Objectives
Using a nationally representative sample of youth
ages 10 to 17, the present study seeks to examine the
effects of community disorder on symptoms of dis-
tress and to identify mediating factors that may help
to explain this association. Of particular interest is
the extent to which different forms of personal and
witnessed violence and victimization help to account
for the association. To this end we employ a more
comprehensive assessment of victimization than has
been used in past studies on community disorder,
including past-year exposure to child maltreatment,
sexual victimization, property crime, peer assault
and bullying, witnessing community violence, and
witnessing family violence, as well as considering
exposure to multiple forms of victimization. We
also assess level of exposure to other stressful life
events (such as family accidents, illnesses, and job
loss) and levels of family support as potential
mediators of the association between community
disorder and levels of youth distress. Specific aims
are to (1) describe the demographic distribution of
respondents living in neighborhoods characterized
by higher versus lower levels of community disor-
der; (2) compare past-year exposure to 6 different
aggregate categories of violence and victimization,
the total number of victimization types to which
youth were exposed, as well as levels of past-year
stressful life events and family support, among
youth living in neighborhoods with lower versus
higher levels of disorder; and (3) using structural
equation modeling, examine direct and indirect
effects of community disorder on distress symptoms
by considering the extent to which the above factors
mediate or otherwise explain greater distress among
youth living in more disordered communities.
DATA AND METHODS
Participants
The National Survey of Childrens Exposure to
Violence was designed to obtain incidence and
prevalence estimates of a wide range of childhood
victimizations. The National Survey of Childrens
Exposure to Violence is the largest and most com-
prehensive survey ever devoted to childhood vic-
timization (Finkelhor et al. 2009; Finkelhor et al.
2010; Turner et al. 2010).
Conducted between January 2008 and May
2008, the survey addressed the experiences of a
nationally representative sample of 4,549 children
ages 0 to 17 years living in the contiguous United
States. The current study focuses on the subsample
of 2,039 children aged 10 to 17 years. Demo-
graphic characteristics of this sample are shown in
the last column of Table 1.
Interviews were conducted over the phone by
the employees of an experienced survey research
firm. Telephone interviewing is a cost-effective
methodology (McAuliffe et al. 1998; Weeks et al.
1983) that has been demonstrated to be comparable
to in-person interviews in data quality, even for
reports of victimization, psychopathology, and other
sensitive topics (Acierno et al. 2003; Bajos et al.
1992; Bermack 1989; Czaja 1987; Marin and Marin
1989; Pruchno and Hayden 2000). In fact, some
evidence suggests that telephone interviews are
perceived by respondents as more anonymous and
private than in-person modes (Acierno et al. 2003;
Taylor 2002) and may encourage greater disclosure
of victimization events (Acierno et al. 2003).
The primary foundation of the design was a
nationwide sampling frame of residential telephone
262 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(2)

Table 1. Sample Characteristics and Victimization Exposure by Community Disorder Level.

Community Disorder Group

Low High Total Sample

(n = 1,441) (n = 598) (n = 2,039)
Age (mean)*** 13.1 14.4 13.5
Sex (percentage)
Male 50.3 54.0 51.4
Female 49.7 46.0 48.6
Race-ethnicity (percentage)***
White, non-Hispanic 65.8 50.4 61.3
Black, non-Hispanic 12.3 22.4 15.3
Other, non-Hispanic 5.1 7.5 5.8
Hispanic, any race 16.8 19.6 17.6
Family structure (percentage)***
Two parents, biological or adopted 63.6 47.3 58.8
Parent and stepparent/partner 12.9 17.4 14.2
Single parent 19.6 27.6 21.9
Other adult caregiver 4.0 7.7 5.0
Socioeconomic statusmean (standard deviation)*** .11 .16 .03
(.9) (.9) (.9)
Distress scoremean (standard deviation)*** 41.0 48.2 43.2
(10.1) (12.7) (11.4)
Past-year adversity scoremean (standard .6 1.2 .8
deviation)*** (.9) (1.3) (1.1)
Family social support scoremean (standard 14.5 13.4 14.2
deviation)*** (1.9) (2.6) (2.2)
Percentage of sample experiencing
Any property victimization*** 19.9 41.0 26.1
Any maltreatment*** 9.9 24.7 14.2
Any peer victimization*** 32.6 54.9 39.2
Any sexual victimization*** 6.9 23.8 11.9
Any witnessing family violence*** 7.6 22.9 12.1
Any witnessing community violence*** 27.5 58.0 36.4
Number of past-year victimizations by typemean (standard deviation)
Property victimization*** .25 .56 .34
(.6) (.8) (.6)
Maltreatment*** .12 .35 .19
(.4) (.7) (.5)
Peer victimization*** .57 1.19 .75
(1.1) (1.5) (1.2)
Sexual victimization*** .08 .31 .15
(.3) (.6) (.5)
Witnessing family violence*** .08 .28 .14
(.3) (.6) (.4)
Witnessing community violence*** .34 .95 .52
(.6) (1.0) (.8)
Number of all past-year victimizationsmean (stan- 1.45 3.63 2.09
dard deviation)*** (2.0) (3.2) (2.7)
Note: Comparison between low and high community disorder groups were made using chi-square analysis for
percentages and t-tests for means.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Turner et al. 263
numbers from which a sample of telephone house-
holds was drawn by random-digit dialing. This
nationally representative cross section represented
67 percent of the completed interviews. To ensure
that the study included a sizeable proportion of
minorities and low-income respondents for more
accurate subgroup analyses, there was also an
over-sampling of U.S. telephone exchanges that
had a population of 70 percent or more of African
American, Hispanic, or low-income households.
This over-sample yielded 33 percent of the com-
pleted interviews. Sample weights were applied to
adjust for differential probability of selection due
to: (1) study design, (2) demographic variations
in non-response, and (3) variations in within-
household eligibility.
Procedure
A short interview was conducted with an adult
caregiver (usually a parent) in each household to
obtain family demographic information. One child
was randomly selected from all eligible children
living in a household by selecting the child with
the most recent birthday. The selected 10- to
17-year-old respondent completed the main inter-
view him- or herself, following consent from both
parent and child. Respondents were promised
complete confidentiality and were paid $20 for
their participation. The interviews, averaging
45 minutes in length, were conducted in either
English or Spanish.
Response Rates
The cooperation rate (percentage of contacted
respondents who completed the survey) for the
random-digit dialing portion of this survey was 71
percent, and the response rate (the percentage of all
eligible respondents who completed the survey)
was 54 percent. The cooperation and response
rates associated with the smaller over-sample were
somewhat lower, at 63 percent and 43 percent,
respectively. These are good rates by current sur-
vey research standards (Babbie 2007; Keeter et al.
2006), given the steady declines in response rates
that have occurred over the past three decades
(Atrostic et al. 2001) and the particularly marked
drop in recent years (Curtin, Presser, and Singer
2005; Keeter et al. 2006; Singer 2006). Although
the potential for response bias remains an impor-
tant consideration, several recent studies have
shown no meaningful association between
response rates and response bias (Curtin, Presser,
and Singer 2000; Groves 2006; Keeter et al. 2000;
Merkle and Edelman 2002). We also conducted
our own non-response analysis with the current
data and found that respondents who refused to
participate (or could not be reached), but for whom
parent screener information was obtained, were
not systematically different from respondents on
factors related to victimization risk (details of the
non-response analyses can be obtained from the
authors). Nevertheless, because participation
required consent of both the parent and child, par-
ent-perpetrated violence may be underestimated
since abusive parents may be less likely to provide
consent.
Measures
Community disorder. A measure of community
disorder, covering both physical and social aspects
of disorder, was developed for the current survey
by sampling domains common to a variety of exist-
ing measures. In doing so, we were careful not to
include items that would be confounded with per-
sonal victimization or witnessed violence (Hamby
et al. 2007). Specifically, respondents were asked
nine questions regarding conditions in their neigh-
borhoods and schools in the past year. These ques-
tions asked if the adolescent had (1) witnessed
street drug sales (16 percent), (2) witnessed an
arrest (21 percent), (3) lived in a neighborhood
with gangs (13 percent), (4) seen gang graffiti in
the neighborhood (18 percent), (5) witnessed
police raid a building or block off a crime scene
(12 percent), (6) been prohibited by parents from
playing outside because of crime (3 percent), (7)
lived in a neighborhood characterized by physical
deterioration (3 percent), (8) attended a school
where there were gangs (22 percent), and (9)
attended a school where someone brought a knife
or gun to school (20 percent). Item wording is
shown in Appendix A in the online supplement
(available at http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/by/
supplemental-data). Because items 3 and 4 were
highly correlated, they were combined into a single
264 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(2)
item indicating whether an adolescent had lived in
a neighborhood in the past year where there were
gangs or gang graffiti (23 percent). For bivarate
analysis, yes responses to these items were
summed to form a community disorder score with
possible values of 0 to 8. In this sample, 49 percent
of adolescents had a community disorder score of
0; 22 percent had a score of 1, and 29 percent
scored 2 or higher. In the structural equation model
portion of the analysis, community disorder was
modeled as a latent variable with the eight items as
observed indicators.
Distress. Mental health status was measured with
the anger/aggression, depression, anxiety, dissocia-
tion, and posttraumatic stress scales of the Trauma
Symptoms Checklist for Children and thus includes
both internalizing and externalizing symptoms. For
the purpose of this study, the instruments were short-
ened for a total of 28 items. Respondents are asked to
indicate how often they have experienced each symp-
tom within the past month. Response options are on a
four-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very often).
For the bivariate analysis shown in Table 1, all item
responses for the five scales together were summed to
create an aggregate distress symptom score. The
Trauma Symptoms Checklist for Children has shown
very good reliability and validity in both population-
based and clinical samples (Briere 1996; Briere et al.
2001). In this study, the alpha coefficient for this scale
was .93. In the structural equation modeling portion
of our analysis, distress is modeled as a latent variable
using respondents mean scores on each of the five
subscales as the observed indicators.
Victimization. The survey utilized an enhanced
version of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire
(JVQ), the most comprehensive inventory of child-
hood victimization available for use in a survey
format (Finkelhor, Hamby, et al. 2005; Finkelhor,
Ormrod, et al. 2005a; Hamby et al. 2004). The use of
simple language and behaviorally specific questions
clearly defines the types of incidents that children
should report. The JVQ was extensively reviewed
and tested with victimization specialists, focus
groups of parents and children, and cognitive inter-
views with children to determine the suitability of its
language and content. It has been used in numerous
surveys and has shown evidence of good test-retest
reliability and construct validity across a wide spec-
trum of developmental stages (Finkelhor, Hamby,
et al. 2005).
The JVQ obtains reports on youth victimization
covering five general areas of interest: conven-
tional crime, maltreatment, victimization by peers
and siblings, sexual victimization, and witnessing
and indirect victimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, et
al. 2005b). Follow-up questions for each item
gathered additional information, including whether
the event occurred in the past year and perpetrator
characteristics.
Some kinds of victimizations can be considered
to be variations of a general class, such as property
crime, physical assault, and sexual victimization.
For this analysis, scores were calculated to meas-
ure adolescents past year experience of six classes
of victimization by summing the total number of
victimization types that the adolescent experienced
in each of the six areas. The six classes of victimi-
zation and the number of specific types measuring
each one are as follows: (1) property crime
(3 specific types), (2) peer-perpetrated victimiza-
tion (12 specific types), (3) maltreatment (4 spe-
cific types), (4) sexual victimization (6 specific
types), (5) witnessing family violence (4 specific
types), and (6) witnessing community violence
(5 specific types). The items used to identify these
types of victimization are shown in Appendix A.
Consistent with earlier research on poly-victimiza-
tion (Finkelhor, Ormrod, and Turner 2007a, 2007b;
Turner et al. 2006; Turner et al. 2010), a summary
measure was also constructed representing the
total number of individual victimization types
from all classes of victimization experienced by
each child in the past year. The mean number of
victimization types to which children were exposed
within each of the seven aggregate measures is
displayed in the last column of Table 1. In addition,
we report the percentage of youth who experienced
any victimization in each of the six specific cate-
gories in the past year.
Family support. Four questions about the adoles-
cents relationship with his or her family were used
to construct an indicator of family support. These
represent modified items from the family support
dimension of the Multidimensional Scale of Per-
ceived Social Support (Zimet et al. 1988). The four
items were, My family really tries to help me, My
family lets me know that they care about me, I
Turner et al. 265
can talk about my problems with my family, and
My family is willing to help me make decisions.
Response choices ranged from 1 = never to 4 =
always. For bivariate analysis, these four indicators
were summed to create a total family support score
with possible scores ranging from 4 to 16 and
higher values indicating higher levels of support
(Cronbachs alpha: .70). For the structural equation
model analyses, family support was modeled as a
latent variable with scores on the four questions
serving as observed indicators of the latent
construct.
Adverse life events. Respondents were asked to
report whether they had experienced any of several
negative non-victimization life events in the past
year (Turner and Butler 2003; Turner et al. 2006).
A sum score was created that indicates how many
of nine possible events the adolescent had experi-
enced. Events included the following: experienced
a disaster such as a fire, tornado, or hurricane;
involved in a very bad accident or had a very zation were added as possible mediators. Victimi-
bad illness; someone close to the respondent was
involved in a bad accident or suffered a bad illness;
repeated a grade in school; a parent lost a job or
was unable to find work; and someone close to the
respondent attempted suicide or died because of an
accident or illness.
Demographics. Demographic information was
obtained in the initial parent interview, including
the childs gender, age (in years), race-ethnicity
(coded into four groups: white non-Hispanic,
black non-Hispanic, other race non-Hispanic, and
Hispanic any race), SES, and perceptions of neigh-
borhood dangerousness. SES is a composite based
on the sum of the standardized household income
and standardized parental education (for the parent
with the highest education) scores, which was then
restandardized. Family structure, defined by the
composition of the household, was categorized
into four groups: children living with (1) two bio-
logical or adoptive parents, (2) one biological
parent plus partner (spouse or non-spouse), (3) a
single biological parent, and (4) another caregiver.
Data Analysis
Data analysis took place in two phases. In the first
phase, we conducted bivariate analysis of sample
demographics and predictor variables by level of
community disorder (see Table 1). For this analy-
sis, community disorder scores were used to divide
the sample into two groupsthose residing in
neighborhoods with higher or lower levels of dis-
order. The mean community disorder score of 1.45
was used as the dividing point, with scores of 0 or
1 classified as lower disorder and scores of 2 or
higher classified as higher disorder.
In the second phase of the analysis, we used
structural equation modeling to model the hypoth-
esized relationships between variables. We began
with confirmatory factor analysis for the latent
variables of community disorder, family support,
and distress. We then fit the structural models,
using maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS
19. Our first model assessed the relationship
between community disorder and distress alone.
The subsequent two models examined the relation-
ship between community disorder and distress
once adverse events, family support, and victimi-
zation was addressed in the structural models in
two ways. In one model, the 6 aggregate types of
victimization were considered as separate varia-
bles to assess their relative associations with com-
munity disorder and distress. In the next model, the
6 aggregate types were removed and replaced with
a single summary measure of the total number of
individual victimization types (out of 34 possible)
experienced in the past year to address the signifi-
cance of poly-victimization. All models include
sex, age, race, family structure, and SES as exog-
enous predictors. Errors of measurement were
allowed to correlate between the variables for race,
family structure, and SES as these variables were
reported by the adolescents parent in the parent
interview portion of the survey.
We report the overall 2 goodness-of-fit statistic
for each model, but in all models, this statistic was
significant at p < .001. Non-significant 2 statistics
indicate better model fit, however, in large sam-
ples, it is possible that rather small model-data
discrepancies can result in a statistically significant
value of the model 2 statistic (Kline 2011,
p. 201). Given our sample size of 2,039, we chose
not to reject our models based solely on the 2
statistic. We further assessed our model fit using
the Bentler Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler
1990), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) (Tucker and
266 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(2)
Lewis 1973), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI) (Bol-
len 1989), and the Steiger-Lind root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) (Steiger 1990).
Results
Bivariate Analyses
Table 1 displays demographic characteristics, vic-
timization rates, and mean scores for adversity,
family support, and distress for the sample as a
whole (last column), and across community disor-
der group (columns 1 and 2). Substantial differ-
ences across the two community disorder groups
were evident for almost all factors considered.
With respect to race-ethnicity, white non-Hispanics
were over-represented in lower disorder communi-
ties, while all other racial-ethnic groups were over-
represented in communities with higher disorder.
The percentage of black youth living in higher
disorder neighborhoods, for example, was twice
that of those living in lower disorder neighbor-
hoods. Similarly, youth living with two biological
or adoptive parents were more likely to live in
lower disorder communities, while youth in all
other family structures were over-represented in
higher disorder communities. Those living with
single parents were particularly over-represented
in neighborhoods with higher levels of disorder. As
expected, there were also significant differences in
the mean SES level of the higher and lower disor-
der neighborhoods. Finally, older youth were more
likely to report living in a disordered community
than were younger youth. There was no significant
gender difference in the lower and higher disorder
groups.
As expected, mean levels of distress for youth
living in higher disorder neighborhoods were sig-
nificantly greater than for those in the lower com-
munity disorder group. The same is true of all the
hypothesized mediators. Mean adversity scores
were significantly higher, and mean levels of fam-
ily support were lower in the higher community
disorder group. Moreover, the percentage of youth
exposed to each of the six types of victimization
was significantly greater in the higher disorder
group. All victimization differences are substan-
tial, ranging from over 1.5 to almost 4 times the
rate of exposure in higher versus lower community
disorder groups. For example, 7 percent of
respondents in the lower community disorder
group experienced some form of sexual victimiza-
tion in the past year, while nearly 24 percent of
those in the higher disorder group were exposed to
this form of victimization. About 10 percent of
youth in lower disorder communities reported mal-
treatment by a caregiver, yet over 24 percent in
higher disorder communities experienced mal-
treatment in the past year. The total number of
different victimization types to which youth were
exposed was also significantly greater in the higher
community disorder group. The average number of
victimization types for the lower disorder group
was 1.5, while it was 3.6 for those living in higher
disorder neighborhoods.
The table in Appendix B in the online supplement
(available at http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/by/sup-
plemental-data) displays correlations among com-
munity disorder, distress, all demographic factors,
and all hypothesized predictors. Significant correla-
tions between the demographic factors, distress, and
many of the hypothesized predictors confirms the
need to control for these in analyses assessing direct
and indirect effects of community disorder.
Structural Equation Models
Our first model (not shown) was a structural equa-
tion model estimating the direct effect of commu-
nity disorder on distress symptoms controlling for
demographic characteristics (2 = 991; df = 180;
p < .001; CFI = .92; TLI = .90; IFI = .92; RMSEA
= .05), including SES, race-ethnicity, age, gender,
and family structure. The unstandardized coeffi-
cient of the path from community disorder to dis-
tress was .98 (p < .001), and the standardized
estimate was .43, indicating a relatively strong
relationship between community disorder and ado-
lescent distress, with higher levels of community
disorder associated with higher levels of distress,
independent of the demographic correlates shown
in Table 1. The squared multiple correlation (R2smc)
for distress in this model was .19.
Next, we estimated a model of the relationships
between community disorder, distress, and the
other variables of interest: past-year life events,
victimization, and family social support (see
Figure 1). In this model, the six aggregate types
Turner et al. 267

Family Cares about Talk about Helps

helps me me problems w/decisions
Female Drug sales .52
.59 .56 .66 .61
Age
Arrests .55 Adverse Life Family Social
Events - PY .07 Support
SES
Neighborhood
.40 -.35 Anxiety
gangs or gang .64
Black -.39
graffi .74
.06 Anger
Hispanic Community .74
.44 Disorder Distress
Police raids Depression
Other .83
.34 .36 Property .13
race
Stay inside .75 Dissociaon
.30 .11
.32 Maltreatment
Single
.33 .07 .75
parent Decay .52 Sexual Post-traumac
stress
Parent & .43 .19
Peer
partner Gangs in
school .45
.28 .03
Family violence
Other adult
Guns/knives in Community
.51
school .03
violence

Figure 1. Structural Equation Model of Community Disorder and Distress: Mediating Effects of Adverse Life Events,
Family Support, and Six Aggregate Victimization Types.
Note: Standardized coefficients are shown. Dotted lines represent non-significant paths for unstandardized estimates.
Model 2 = 1,622; df = 418; p < .001; CFI = .92; TLI = .90; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .04; R2smc for distress = .42.

of victimization were entered as separate varia-
bles. Paths, coefficients, and correlated errors of
measurement for demographic controls are omitted
from the diagram for simplicity, as are the distur-
bance terms and correlations between them. In the
first iteration of this model, a path was estimated
between past-year adversity and family social sup-
port; however, this path was not significant and was
trimmed from the model shown in Figure 1.
This model fits the data reasonably well given
the number of parameters estimated. (2 = 1,622;
df = 418; p < .001; CFI = .92; TLI = .90; IFI = .92;
RMSEA = .04). As Figure 1 shows, there are sev-
eral factors that significantly mediate the commu-
nity disorderdistress association. Community
disorder has a strong positive association with
exposure to recent negative life events (Beta = .40)
and a strong negative association with level of
family social support (Beta = .39). Both these
factors, in turn, were related to distress symptoms.
Family support had a particularly strong associa-
tion, with higher levels of support related to lower
levels of distress (Beta = .35), independent of all
other variables in the model.
Community disorder was also associated with
all six types of victimization exposure. Although,
as might be expected, community disorder is
most strongly associated with witnessing com-
munity violence, it also has independent associa-
tions with property crime, child maltreatment,
sexual victimization, peer-perpetrated assault and
bullying, and witnessing family violence. The
four types of personal victimizationproperty
crime, maltreatment, sexual victimization, and
peer assault/bullyingwere, in turn, associated
with increased distress. Witnessing community
violence and witnessing family violence were not
significantly related to distress with the other
forms of victimization, life events, and family
support controlled.
Of particular relevance to the goals of the study
is the finding that there were no direct effects of
community disorder on symptomatology once vic-
timization exposure, family support, and adverse
(non-victimization) life events were controlled. It
appears that the strong association between com-
munity disorder and distress in this national sam-
ple of youth is fully mediated by these other
268 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(2)
Adverse Life
Family Social
Events Past Year Support
.08
.40 -.36
-.38
Community .05 Distress
Disorder
.64 .35
Number of Past
Year Vicmizaon
Types
Figure 2. Structural Equation Model of Community
Disorder and Distress: Mediating Effects of Adverse Life
Events, Family Support, and Total Number of
Victimization Types (Poly-Victimization).
Note: Standardized coefficients are shown. Dotted lines
represent non-significant paths for unstandardized
estimates. Model 2 = 1,332; df = 308; p < .001; CFI =
.92; TLI = .91; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .04; R2smc for distress
= .42.
factors. The model explains 42 percent of the vari-
ance in distress symptoms.
The total indirect effect of community disorder on
distress through the mediators of adversity, family
support, and victimization types is .37 in this model.
The statistical significance of indirect paths in the
model was tested using the unstandardized coeffi-
cients and the Sobel test (Kline 2011). All indirect
paths through a single mediator were significant,
except those from community disorder to distress
through witnessing family violence and from com-
munity disorder to distress through witnessing com-
munity violence. Comparing indirect effects using
standardized coefficients, more than one third of the
indirect effect of community disorder on distress
(36.6 percent) is through family support (.39 .35
= .14; p < .001), which has the strongest indirect
effect in the model. The next strongest indirect effects
of community disorder on distress are through peer
assault and bullying (.43 .19 = .08; p < .001; 22
percent), property victimization (.36 .13 = .05; p <
.001; 13 percent), and adverse life events (.40 .07 =
.03; p < .001; 8 percent).
Figure 2 displays the same structural equation
model substituting the specific victimization catego-
ries with a measure of poly-victimization (i.e., sum
of the total number of individual victimization types
to which youth were exposed in the past year). Thus,
while analyses shown in Figure 1 examined the
independent and relative effects of community dis-
order on specific aggregate categories of victimiza-
tion and assessed the specific types as independent
predictors of distress, the analyses presented in
Figure 2 focus on the mediating effects of poly-
victimization. The model in Figure 2 shows an
acceptable fit (2 = 1,332; df = 308; p < .001; CFI =
.92, TLI = .91; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .04). The over-
all fit and variance explained are very similar in
both models, as are the coefficients for adverse life
events and family support. However, the strength of
the associations between community disorder and
poly-victimization and between poly-victimization
and distress are particularly strong. Indeed, cumula-
tive exposure to multiple forms of victimization is
the most powerful mediator of the community dis-
orderdistress relationship evident in either model.
The indirect effect of community disorder on dis-
tress through the multiple victimization measure is
.22 (.64 .35; p < .001), which accounts for 57
percent of the total indirect effect of .39 in this
model. Again, there is no direct effect of community
disorder on psychological distress once multiple
victimization, adverse life events, and family sup-
port are taken into account.
We also tested two alternative models that were
nested in our final model of Figure 2 (not shown). In
one of these, the paths between community disorder
and past-year adversity and between community
disorder and family social support were trimmed.
This models fit was inferior to that of the model in
Figure 2 (2 = 1,710; df = 310; p < .001; CFI = .90;
TLI = .87; IFI = .90; RMSEA = .04; R2smc for dis-
tress = .38). A second nested model, in which the
path from community disorder to number of past-
year victimization types was trimmed, was also
significantly poorer in fit relative to the model
depicted in Figure 2 (2 = 1,854; df = 309; p < .001;
CFI = .89; TLI = .86; IFI = .89; RMSEA = .04; R2smc
for distress = .39). Although not central to our
objectives, we also tested whether total victimiza-
tion exposure interacted with community disorder in
its effects on adolescent distress, but this interaction
was not significant (not shown).
Discussion
Residence in disordered neighborhoods is unevenly
distributed by social status. Findings confirm that
black youth, those living with single parents, and
Turner et al. 269
those whose families have lower SES are espe-
cially likely to live in disordered communities.
Older adolescents also report higher levels of com-
munity disorder than younger youth, likely because
their greater independence and activities outside of
the household make them more aware of commu-
nity conditions and occurrences.
Findings also clearly confirm that youth living
in neighborhoods with higher levels of disorder
experience significantly higher levels of psycho-
logical distress, independent of the demographic
correlates listed above. The current study has
sought to better specify this association; what are
the mechanisms that explain increased distress
among youth in more disordered communities?
Earlier research with this same objective has
tended to emphasize chronic adversity, lack of
positive social attachments, and fear of crime and
victimization as important mediators. Although
past studies acknowledge that community disorder
increases risk of actual victimization exposure,
most studies have not adequately assessed experi-
enced victimization. Consistent with sociological
inquiries showing the importance of a more thor-
ough assessment of stress exposure (Turner et al.
1995), current research incorporated a more com-
prehensive assessment of victimization to better
determine whether it represents an important medi-
ator in the association between community disor-
der and distress in youth. We also considered
whether other forms of stress exposure (adverse
life events) and an important resource in the stress
process, family support, operated as additional
mediators.
Consistent with recent epidemiological data on
childhood exposure to violence, this nationally
representative sample of 10- to 17-year-olds
reported substantial levels of victimization. The
proportion of the population experiencing each
category of victimization, within a one-year period,
was certainly not trivial, and in each case, the like-
lihood of exposure was significantly greater for
youth living in more disordered communities.
Importantly, cumulative exposure across different
types of victimization was substantially greater in
more disordered neighborhoods, with the higher
disorder group exposed to an average of almost
four different forms of victimization in the past
year. Community disorder was also associated
with significantly lower levels of family support
and higher levels of adverse life events.
Structural equation modeling was used to
examine the direct and indirect effects of commu-
nity disorder on level of distress through victimiza-
tion exposure, family support, and adverse life
events. Community disorder had a relatively strong
association with distress symptoms, independent
of all demographic factors, when none of the
hypothesized mediators were included. However,
the full model indicated that the effect of commu-
nity disorder on distress was entirely indirect, fully
accounted for by the mediating effects of the other
factors.
Although this study did not address intergen-
erational processes directly, findings do suggest
that community disorder affects youth mental
health, at least in part, through family processes.
Family support showed a strong mediating effect;
community disorder was associated with lower
family support, which in turn was related to greater
adolescent symptomatology. Although research on
adults has suggested that lower social support in
disordered communities occurs because residents
are less likely to engage in neighborhood social
activities (Ross 2000), experience less trust and
reciprocity from their neighbors (Ross and
Mirowsky 2009), and are less likely to feel cared
for, esteemed, or able to count on neighbors (Kim
2010), the current research highlights how family
relationships may be affected by community disor-
der. Less perceived support from family may, at
least in part, be a function of the damaging effects
of community disorder on parent mental health,
parenting competence, and the quality of interac-
tions between the adolescent and parents and sib-
lings. Past research has found correlates of
community disorder, such as neighborhood pov-
erty, instability, and crime, to be associated with
less parental warmth, more harsh and inconsistent
discipline practices, poorer parental efficacy,
and greater maternal distress (Christie-Mizell and
Erickson 2007; Christie-Mizell, Steelman, and
Stewart 2003; Gutman, McLoyd, and Tokoyawa
2005; Pinderhughes et al. 2001). These conditions
and behaviors, in turn, are likely to reduce adoles-
cents sense of support from parents. Numerous
studies have shown the importance of perceived
parental support in predicting both internalizing
270 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(2)
and externalizing symptoms in adolescents (Auer-
bach et al. 2011; Bogard 2005; Needham 2008;
Stice, Ragan, and Randall 2004). The current find-
ings on the effects of family support on distress are
certainly consistent with this previous research.
Another mechanism that may also implicate
family processes is the mediating influence of
adverse life events. The total number of negative
life events (non-victimization) occurring in the
past year was significantly greater for youth living
in neighborhoods with higher levels of community
disorder, and this was in turn associated with
greater distress levels. Many of these events repre-
sent occurrences, such as illnesses, accidents, and
job loss, that involve a parent or close family mem-
ber. Thus, they may represent stress not only for
the adolescent but also for the family as a whole.
The positive associations between community dis-
order and two primary forms of child victimiza-
tionchild maltreatment and witnessing family
violencealso point to family processes. That is,
disordered neighborhoods are associated with
greater exposure to caregiver-perpetrated violence,
not just violence perpetrated by peers, neighbors,
and other community members, suggesting its
influence on adolescents through parent function-
ing. Future research would benefit from a direct
examination of the intergenerational family pro-
cesses linking community disorder to the mental
health of adolescents.
A primary goal of this study was to assess the
role of actual exposure to violence and victimiza-
tion in explaining elevated distress among youth in
higher disorder communities. We found that vic-
timization does importantly mediate the associa-
tion. Several different types of victimization had
independent effects, while cumulative exposure to
multiple forms of victimization was an especially
powerful mediator. Specifically, significant indi-
rect effects of community disorder on distress were
found through increased exposure to property vic-
timization, maltreatment by caregivers, sexual vic-
timization, and peer-perpetrated assault and
bullying. Thus, several forms of victimization not
typically assessed in community disorder research
were both important outcomes of community dis-
order and predictors of distress. The widespread
risk of victimization in disordered neighborhoods
is also highlighted by its strong association with
poly-victimization. Youth living in more disor-
dered neighborhoods were exposed to significantly
more different types of victimization within a one-
year period. Consistent with several recent studies,
poly-victimization, in turn, has a strong negative
effect on the mental health of youth (Finkelhor
et al. 2007a; Turner et al. 2010). Although the rea-
sons for the powerful effects of poly-victimization
have yet to be fully specified, exposure to many
different forms of victimizations likely means
widespread adversity and threats to safety across
multiple contexts of adolescents lives. Thus, those
residing in disordered communities are more likely
to experience personal victimization as a chronic
life condition than are other youth. Cross-context
victimization may also damage the adolescents
potential for resiliency by creating deficits in
social and personal resources (such as social sup-
port, self-esteem, and mastery) that would nor-
mally help to moderate the negative effects of
victimization and suggests no safe refuge in an
alternative domain.
Our results do not necessarily challenge past
findings on the importance of psychosocial medi-
ators, such as mastery, powerlessness, and mis-
trust, since it is possible that these psychosocial
processes also operate among youth who have
experienced substantial victimization. However,
our findings do challenge the notion emphasized
in some past studies on adults (Ross 2011; Ross
and Mirowsky 2009) that community disorder
triggers distress-producing processes independent
of actual victimization exposure. Indeed, our find-
ings suggest that personal exposure to violence
and victimizationfound in hundreds of studies
to have devastating effects on both the short- and
the long-term well-being of youthrepresented a
core factor explaining the distressing effect of
community disorder. It is unclear whether these
contrasting findings are due to a greater preva-
lence and/or potency of victimization among
young people relative to adults or whether the
more comprehensive victimization assessment in
the current study allowed for a more accurate
determination of its importance. Future research
on community disorder would benefit from direct
comparative analyses of child and adult popula-
tions that incorporate adequate victimization
measurement.
Turner et al. 271
Limitations
A number of limitations should be acknowledged.
First, this study is cross-sectional, and as a result,
the causal order of some factors cannot be fully
established. Although adolescent victimization is
very likely an outcome of residing in particular
neighborhoods rather than the reverse, certain
negative life events like parental job loss can
sometimes require relocation to more disadvan-
taged neighborhoods. Other selection processes
may also occur whereby adults who perpetrate
violence, including violence directed at family
members, may be more likely to move into disor-
dered neighborhoods. Additionally, despite the
substantial research establishing the effects of
social support on well-being, it is possible that
adolescent distress contributes to lower percep-
tions of family support. It is also possible that
families who are most supportive and concerned
with childrens safety, stability, and nurturance are
more likely to avoid or leave disordered neighbor-
hoods. Although our cross-sectional data leave
open the possibility of alternative interpretations,
we believe the advantages of our comprehensive
measurement of actual youth victimization expo-
sure and the findings demonstrating their potent
effects over and above community disorder offer
an important and unique contribution to the litera-
ture. Future research should attempt to examine
these mediating associations prospectively with
longitudinal data.
As is a potential problem in many studies of
stress exposure, individuals may sometimes tele-
scope more distal events into the study frame
period. Although analyses on a longitudinal survey
using the same victimization measures found little
evidence of telescoping bias (Finkelhor, Ormrod,
and Turner 2007c), telescoping can inflate rates of
past-year victimization. To the extent that dis-
tressed youth are particularly likely to telescope
victimization events into the past-year time frame,
associations between distress and victimization
would also be inflated.
Finally, as cited previously, there is ample evi-
dence that subjective indicators of community
disorder represent valid indices of objective neigh-
borhood characteristics and are more often strongly
linked to distress than objective aggregate-level
indicators. Nevertheless, incorporating commu-
nity-level indicators, which were not available in
our data, such as crime rates, institutional resources
(e.g., availability of medical services, parks and
recreation, libraries) and housing quality (e.g.,
housing value, home ownership, vacancy rates),
may help to better specify the mechanisms that
link disordered communities to youth victimiza-
tion, family adversity, and low social support.
Conclusion
Community disorder has substantial negative
effects on the mental health of youth. The detri-
mental effects of residing in neighborhoods char-
acterized by rundown housing, graffiti, public
loitering, alcohol and drug use, and gang activity
exist because young people in their neighborhoods
experience considerable personal victimization
and often witness violence. Community disorder is
also associated with greater exposure to other
forms of adversity and lower family support.
Efforts to address problems of community disorder
for children must acknowledge the important role
of actual exposure to violence and victimization as
well as its implication for parenting behaviors,
including abusive interactions and the inability to
provide adequate support to children.
References
Acierno, Ron, Heidi Resnick, Dean G. Kilpatrick, and
Wendy Stark-Riemer. 2003. Assessing Elder Victim-
izationDemonstration of a Methodology. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 38:64453.
Aisenberg, Eugene and Todd Herrenkhohl. 2008. Com-
munity Violence in Context: Risk and Resilience in
Children and Families. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence 23:296315.
Aneshensel, Carol S. and Clea A. Sucoff. 1996. The
Neighborhood Context of Adolescent Mental Health.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 37:293310.
Atrostic, Barbara K., Nancy Bates, Geraldine Burt, and
Adriana Silberstein. 2001. Nonresponse in U.S.
Government Household Surveys: Consistent Mea-
sures, Recent Trends, and New Insights. Journal of
Official Statistics 17:20926.
Auerbach, Randy Patrick, Joseph S. Bigda-Pey-
ton, Nicole K. Eberhart, Christian A. Webb, and
272 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(2)
Moon-Ho Ringo Ho. 2011. Conceptualizing the Pro-
spective Relationship between Social Support, Stress,
and Depressive Symptoms among Adolescents.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 39:47587.
Babbie, Earl. 2007. The Practice of Social Research. Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bajos, Nathalie, Alfred Spira, Beatrice Ducot, and
Antoine Messiah. 1992. Analysis of Sexual Behav-
ior in France (ACSF): A Comparison between Two
Modes of Investigation: Telephone Survey and Face-
to-face Survey. AIDS 6:31523.
Bentler, Peter M. 1990. Comparative Fit Indexes
in Structural Analysis. Psychological Bulletin
102:23846.
Bermack, Elaine. 1989. Effects of Telephone and Face-
to-face Communication on Rated Extent of Self-Dis-
closure by Female College Students. Psychological
Reports 65:25967.
Bogard, Kimber L. 2005. Affluent Adolescents, Depres-
sion, and Drug Use: The Role of Adults in their
Lives. Adolescence 40:281306.
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. A New Incremental Fit Index
for General Structural Equation Models. Sociologi-
cal Methods and Research 17:30316.
Bond, Lyndal, John B. Carlin, Lyndal Thomas, Kerryn
Rubin, and George Patton. 2001. Does Bullying
Cause Emotional Problems? A Prospective Study
of Young Teenagers. British Medical Journal 323:
48084.
Briere, John. 1996. Trauma Symptoms Checklist for Chil-
dren (TSCC): Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psy-
chological Assessment Resources.
Briere, John, Kerri Johnson, Angela Bissada, Linda
Damon, Julie Crouch, Eliana Gil, Rochelle Hanson,
and Vickie Ernst. 2001. The Trauma Symptom
Checklist for Young Children (TSCYC): Reliability
and Association with Abuse Exposure in a Multi-site
Study. Child Abuse & Neglect 25:100114.
Browne, Angela and David Finkelhor. 1986. The Impact
of Child Sexual Abuse: A Review of the Research.
Psychological Bulletin 99:6677.
Christie-Mizell, C. Andre and Rebecca J. Erickson. 2007.
Mothers and Mastery: The Consequences of Per-
ceived Neighborhood Disorder. Social Psychology
Quarterly 70:34065.
Christie-Mizell, C. Andre, Lala Carr Steelman, and Jen-
nifer Stewart. 2003. Seeing Their Surroundings: The
Effects of Neighborhood Setting and Race on Mater-
nal Distress. Social Science Research 32:40729.
Curry, Aaron D., Carl A. Latkin, and Melissa Davey-
Rothwell. 2008. Pathways to Depression: The
Impact of Neighborhood Violent Crime on Inner-city
Residents in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Social Sci-
ence & Medicine 67:2330.
Curtin, Richard, Stanley Presser, and Eleanor Singer.
2000. The Effects of Response Rate Changes on
the Index of Consumer Sentiment. Public Opinion
Quarterly 64:41328.
Curtin, Richard, Stanley Presser, and Eleanor Singer.
2005. Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse
over the Past Quarter Century. Public Opinion Quar-
terly 69:8798.
Cutrona, Carolyn E., Gail Wallace, and Kristin A.
Wesner. 2006. Neighborhood Characteristics and
Depression: An Examination of Stress Process. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science 15:18892.
Czaja, Ronald. 1987. Asking Sensitive Behavioral
Questions in Telephone Interviews. International
Quarterly of Community Health Education 8:2332.
Dodge, Kenneth A., Gregory S. Pettit, and John E. Bates.
1997. How the Experience of Early Physical Abuse
Leads Children to Become Chronically Aggressive.
Pp. 26368 in Rochester Symposium on Developmental
Psychopathology. Vol. 8, The Effects of Trauma on the
Developmental Process, edited by D. Cicchetti and S.
L. Toth. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Edleson, Jeffrey L., Lyungai F. Mbilinyi, Sandra K.
Beeman, and Annelies K. Hagemeister. 2003. How
Children Are Involved in Adult Domestic Violence:
Results from a Four-city Telephone Survey. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 18:1832.
Elo, Irma T., Laryssa Mykyta, Rachel Margolis, and Jennifer
F. Culhane. 2009. Perceptions of Neighborhood Disor-
der: The Roles of Individual and Neighborhood Charac-
teristics. Social Science Quarterly 90:12981320.
Espelage, Dorothy L. and Melissa K. Holt. 2001. Bully-
ing and Victimization during Early Adolescence: Peer
Influences and Psychosocial Correlates. Pp. 13242
in Bullying Behavior: Current Issues, Research, and
Interventions, edited by R. A. Geffner and M. Loring.
Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
Feiring, Candice, Lynn Taska, and Michael Lewis. 2002.
Adjustment following Sexual Abuse Discovery: The
Role of Shame and Attributional Style. Developmen-
tal Psychology 38:7992.
Finkelhor, David. 2008. Childhood Victimization: Vio-
lence, Crime, and Abuse in the Lives of Young People.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Turner et al. 273
Finkelhor, David, Sherry L. Hamby, Richard K Ormrod,
and Heather A. Turner. 2005. The JVQ: Reliabil-
ity, Validity, and National Norms. Child Abuse &
Neglect 29:383412.
Finkelhor, David, Richard K Ormrod, and Heather A.
Turner. 2007a. Poly-victimization: A Neglected
Component in Child Victimization Trauma. Child
Abuse & Neglect 31:726.
Finkelhor, David, Richard K Ormrod, and Heather A.
Turner. 2007b. Poly-victimization and Trauma in
a National Longitudinal Cohort. Development and
Psychopathology 19:14966.
Finkelhor, David, Richard K Ormrod, and Heather A.
Turner. 2007c. Revictimization Patterns in a National
Longitudinal Sample of Children and Youth. Child
Abuse & Neglect 31:479502.
Finkelhor, David, Richard K Ormrod, Heather A. Turner,
and Sherry L. Hamby. 2005a. Measuring Poly-
victimization Using the JVQ. Child Abuse & Neglect
29:12971312.
Finkelhor, David, Richard K Ormrod, Heather A. Turner,
and Sherry L. Hamby. 2005b. The Victimization of
Children and Youth: A Comprehensive, National Sur-
vey. Child Maltreatment 10:525.
Finkelhor, David, Heather A. Turner, Richard Ormrod,
and Sherry L. Hamby. 2009. Violence, Abuse, and
Crime Exposure in a National Sample of Children
and Youth. Pediatrics 124:113.
Finkelhor, David, Heather A. Turner, Richard Ormrod,
and Sherry L. Hamby. 2010. Trends in Childhood
Violence and Abuse Exposure: Evidence from Two
National Surveys. Archives of Pediatrics & Adoles-
cent Medicine 164:23842.
Gary, Tiffany L., Sarah A. Stark, and Thomas A. LaVeist.
2007. Neighborhood Characteristics and Mental
Health among African Americans and Whites Living
in a Racially Integrated Urban Community. Health
and Place 13:56975.
Geis, Karlyn J. and Catherine E. Ross. 1998. A New
Look at Urban Alienation: The Effect of Neighbor-
hood Disorder on Perceived Powerlessness. Social
Psychology Quarterly 61:23246.
Green, Arthur H. 1993. Child Sexual Abuse: Immediate
and Long-term Effects and Intervention. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-
chiatry 32:890902.
Groves, Robert M. 2006. Nonresponse Rates and Nonre-
sponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion
Quarterly 70:64675.
Gutman, Leslie M., Vonnie C. McLoyd, and Teru Tokoy-
awa. 2005. Financial Strain, Neighborhood Stress,
Parenting Behaviors, and Adolescent Adjustment
in Urban African American Families. Journal of
Research on Adolescence 15:229425.
Hamby, Sherry L., David Finkelhor, Richard K. Ormrod,
and Heather A. Turner. 2004. The Juvenile Victimiza-
tion Questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and Scor-
ing Manual. Durham, NH: Crimes against Children
Research Center.
Hamby, Sherry L., David Finkelhor, Heather A. Turner,
and Melissa K. Holt. 2007. The Community Disorder
Questionnaire. Durham, NH: Crimes against Chil-
dren Research Center.
Hamby, Sherry L., David Finkelhor, Heather A. Turner,
and Richard Ormrod. 2010. The Overlap of Witness-
ing Partner Violence with Child Maltreatment and
Other Victimizations in a Nationally Representative
Survey of Youth. Child Abuse & Neglect 34:73441.
Hill, Terrence D., Catherine E. Ross, and Ronald J. Angel.
2005. Neighborhood Disorder, Psychophysiological
Distress, and Health. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 46:17086.
Keeter, Scott, Courtney Kennedy, Michael Dimock, Jona-
than Best, and Peyton Craighill. 2006. Gauging the
Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from
a National RDD Telephone Survey. Public Opinion
Quarterly 70:75979.
Keeter, Scott, Carolyn Miller, Andrew Kohut, Robert M.
Groves, and Stanley Presser. 2000. Consequences of
Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Sur-
vey. Public Opinion Quarterly 64:12548.
Kim, Joongbaeck. 2010. Neighborhood Disadvan-
tage and Mental Health: The Role of Neighborhood
Disorder and Social Relationships. Social Science
Research 39:26071.
Kim, Joongbaeck and Meghan E. Conley. 2011. Neigh-
borhood Disorder and the Sense of Personal Control:
Which Factors Moderate the Association? Journal
of Community Psychology 39:894907.
Kitzmann, Katherine M., Noni K. Gaylord, Aimee R. Holt,
and Erin D. Kenny. 2003. Child Witnesses to Domestic
Violence: A Meta-analytic Review. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology 71:33952.
Kline, Rex B. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling. 3rd. ed. New York: Guilford.
Latkin, Carl A. and Aaron D. Curry. 2003. Stressful
Neighborhoods and Depression: A Prospective Study
of the Impact of Neighborhood Disorder. Journal of
274 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(2)
Health and Social Behavior 44:3444.
Marin, Gerardo and Barbara VanOss Marin. 1989. A
Comparison of Three Interviewing Approaches for
Studying Sensitive Topics with Hispanics. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences 11:33040.
McAuliffe, William E., Stephanie Geller, Richard LaBrie,
Susannah Paletz, and Elizabeth Fournier. 1998. Are
Telephone Surveys Suitable for Studying Substance
Abuse? Cost, Administration, Coverage and Response
Rate Issues. Journal of Drug Issues 28:45581.
Merkle, Daniel and Murray Edelman. 2002. Nonre-
sponse in Exit Polls: A Comprehensive Analysis.
Pp. 34358 in Survey Nonresponse, edited by R. M.
Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, and R. J. A.
Little. New York: John Wiley.
Needham, Belinda L. 2008. Reciprocal Relationships
between Symptoms of Depression and Parental
Support during the Transition from Adolescence to
Young Adulthood. Journal of Youth & Adolescence
37:893905.
Osofsky, Joy D., Sarah Wewers, Della M. Hann, and
Ana C. Fick. 1993. Chronic Community Violence:
What Is Happening to Our Children? Psychiatry
56:3645.
Pearlin, Leonard I. 1999. The Stress Process Revisited:
Reflections on Concepts and Their Interrelation-
ships. Pp. 395415 in Handbook of the Sociology of
Mental Health, edited by C. S. Aneshensel and J. C.
Phelan. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Perkins, Douglas D., John W. Meeks, and Ralph B.
Taylor. 1992. The Physical Environment of Street
Blocks and Resident Perceptions of Crime and Dis-
order: Implications for Theory and Measurement.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 12:2134.
Perkins, Douglas D. and Ralph B. Taylor. 1996. Eco-
logical Assessments of Community Disorder: Their
Relationship to Fear of Crime and Theoretical Impli-
cations. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy 24:63107.
Pinderhughes, Ellen E., Robert Nix, E. Michael Fos-
ter, and Damon Jones. 2001. Parenting in Context:
Impact of Neighborhood Poverty, Residential Stabil-
ity, Public Services, Social Networks, and Danger on
Parental Behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 63:94153.
Pruchno, Rachel A. and Jason M. Hayden. 2000. Inter-
view Modality: Effects on Costs and Data Quality in
a Sample of Older Women. Journal of Aging and
Health 12:324.
Quillian, Lincoln and Devah Pager. 2001. Black Neigh-
bors, Higher Crime? The Role of Racial Stereotypes
in Evaluations of Neighborhood Crime. American
Journal of Sociology 107:71767.
Richters, John E. and Pedro Martinez. 1993. The NIMH
Community Violence Project: I. Children as Victims
of and Witnesses to Violence. Psychiatry 56:721.
Ross, Catherine E. 2000. Neighborhood Disadvantage
and Adult Depression. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 41:17787.
Ross, Catherine E. 2011. Collective Threat, Trust, and
the Sense of Personal Control. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 52:28796.
Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky. 2001. Neighbor-
hood Disadvantage, Disorder, and Health. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 42:25876.
Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky. 2009. Neighbor-
hood Disorder, Subjective Alienation, and Distress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 50:4964.
Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky, and Shana Pribesh.
2001. Powerlessness and the Amplification of
Threat: Neighborhood Disadvantage, Disorder,
and Mistrust. American Sociological Review 66:
56891.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas
Gannon-Rowley. 2002. Assessing Neighborhood
Effects: Social Processes and New Directions in
Research. Annual Review of Sociology 28:44378.
Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2004.
Seeing Disorder: Neighborhood Stigma and the
Social Construction of Broken Windows. Social
Psychology Quarterly 67:31942.
Schieman, Scott and Stephen C. Meersman. 2004.
Neighborhood Problems and Health among Older
Adults: Received and Donated Social Support and the
Sense of Mastery as Effect Modifiers. The Journals
of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological and Social
Sciences 59B:S8997.
Singer, Eleanor. 2006. Introduction: Nonresponse Bias
in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly
70:63745.
Steiger, James H. 1990. Structural Model Evaluation
and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach.
Multivariate Behavioral Research 25:17380.
Stice, Eric, Jennifer Ragan, and Patrick Randall. 2004.
Prospective Relations between Social Support and
Depression: Differential Direction of Effects for Par-
ent and Peer Support? Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
ogy 113:15559.
Turner et al. 275
Stiffman, Arlene Rubin, Eric Hadley-Ives, Diane Elze,
Sharon Johnson, and Peter Dore. 1999. Impact
of Environment on Adolescent Mental Health and
Behavior: Structural Equation Modeling. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry 69:7386.
Taylor, Anthea. 2002. Ill Call You Back on My Mobile:
A Critique of the Telephone Interview with Adoles-
cent Boys. Westminster Studies in Education 25:
1934.
Toth, Sheree L., Jody T. Manly, and Dante Cicchetti. 1992.
Child Maltreatment and Vulnerability to Depression.
Development & Psychopathology 4:97112.
Tucker, Ledyard R. and Charles Lewis. 1973. A Reli-
ability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor
Analysis. Psychometrika 38:110.
Turner, Heather A. and Melissa J. Butler. 2003. Direct
and Indirect Effects of Childhood Adversity on
Depressive Symptoms in Young Adults. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence 32:89103.
Turner, Heather A., David Finkelhor, and Richard Orm-
rod. 2006. The Effect of Lifetime Victimization on
the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents.
Social Science & Medicine 62:1327.
Turner, Heather A., David Finkelhor, and Richard Orm-
rod. 2010. Poly-victimization in a National Sample
of Children and Youth. American Journal of Preven-
tive Medicine 38:32330.
Turner, R. Jay, Blair Wheaton, and Donald A. Lloyd.
1995. The Epidemiology of Social Stress. Ameri-
can Sociological Review 60:10425.
Weeks, Michael F., Richard A. Kulka, Judith T. Lessler,
and Roy W. Whitmore. 1983. Personal versus Tele-
phone Surveys from Collecting Household Health
Data at the Local Level. American Journal of Public
Health 73:138994.
Wen, Ming, Louise C. Hawkley, and John T. Cacioppo. 2006.
Objective and Perceived Neighborhood Environment,
Individual SES and Psychosocial Factors, and Self-rated
Health: An Analysis of Older Adults in Cook County,
Illinois. Social Science & Medicine 63:257590.
Wickrama, K. A. S. and Chalandra M. Bryant. 2003.
Community Context of Social Resources and Ado-
lescent Mental Health. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 65:85066.
Zimet, Gregory D., Nancy W. Dahlem, Sara G. Zimet,
and Gordon K. Farley. 1988. The Multidimensional
Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment 52:3041.
Author Biographies
Heather A. Turner is a professor of sociology and a
senior research associate at the Crimes against Children
Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.
Dr. Turners research program has concentrated on social
stress processes and mental health. She is especially
interested in the effects of violence, victimization, and
other forms of adversity on the health and development of
children and adolescents. Dr. Turner is also the director of
the International Conference on Social Stress Research
and past chair of the Sociology of Mental Health Section
of the American Sociological Association.
Anne Shattuck is a research associate at the University
of New Hampshires Crimes against Children Research
Center. Her work at the Crimes against Children Research
Center focuses on analyzing patterns of crime and vio-
lence against children and youth and associations between
childhood victimization and outcomes such as mental
health and juvenile delinquency. She is a doctoral candi-
date in sociology at the University of New Hampshire.
Sherry Hamby is a research professor of psychology at
the University of the South and the founding editor of the
American Psychological Association journal Psychology
of Violence. A licensed psychologist, she conducted the
first reservation-based study of domestic violence among
American Indians. She is the author or co-author of more
than 75 works including The Conflict Tactics Scales
Handbook. Her most recent book, authored with John
Grych, is the recently released Web of Violence.
David Finkelhor is the director of the Crimes against
Children Research Center, a co-director of the Family
Research Laboratory, a professor of sociology, and Uni-
versity Professor at the University of New Hampshire. He
has been studying the problems of child victimization,
child maltreatment, and family violence since 1977. He is
well known for his conceptual and empirical work on the
problem of child sexual abuse and has also written about
child homicide, missing and abducted children, and chil-
dren exposed to domestic and peer violence and other
forms of family violence. He is the editor and author of
12 books and over 200 journal articles and book chapters.
He has received grants from the National Institute of
Mental Health, the U.S. Department of Justice, and a
variety of other sources.