Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2003, Vol. 95, No. 1, 163–173 0022-0663/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.163

Community Violence Exposure and Children’s Academic Functioning

David Schwartz Andrea Hopmeyer Gorman

University of Southern California Occidental College

This study reports a cross-sectional investigation of the link between community violence exposure and
academic difficulties for 237 urban elementary school children (mean age of 9.5 years). Children
completed a self-report inventory assessing exposure to community violence. Their achievement test
scores and GPAs were obtained from school records, and other aspects of psychosocial adjustment were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

assessed with a multi-informant approach. Analyses indicated that community violence exposure was
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

associated with poor academic performance. These relations appeared to be mediated by symptoms of
depression and disruptive behavior and remained significant even after the prediction associated with
bullying by peers was controlled.

This study is an investigation of the link between exposure to
community violence and academic difficulties for children in an
urban elementary school. Although murder and assault rates in the
United States have steadily declined during the last decade (Blum-
stein & Wallman, 2000), many of America’s children continue to
live in chronically violent neighborhoods. The results of survey
research suggest that, by the middle years of childhood, most
inner-city children have had first-hand encounters with shootings,
stabbings, and other serious acts of violence (Bell & Jenkins, 1993;
Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Kliewer, Lepore, Oskin, & Johnson,
1998; Martinez & Richters, 1993; Osofsky, Wewers, Hann, &
Fick, 1993). Empirical investigation of the impact of such expe-
riences on children’s functioning at school is clearly warranted,
given the pervasive nature of violence in some urban
neighborhoods.
There is growing evidence that community violence exposure
exerts a pernicious influence on children’s psychosocial adjust-
ment (Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny, & Pardo, 1992; Osofsky,
1995). Researchers have described moderate associations between
children’s self-reports of exposure to community violence and
symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (American Psychiatric
Association, 1994), anxiety, and depression (Kliewer et al., 1998;
Martinez & Richters, 1993; Overstreet & Braun, 2000). Children
who have been exposed to neighborhood violence may also be at
risk for disruptive behavior problems in the classroom (Gorman-
Smith & Tolan, 1998) and concomitant social difficulties with
school peers (Schwartz & Proctor, 2000).
David Schwartz, Department of Psychology, University of Southern
California; Andrea Hopmeyer Gorman, Department of Psychology, Occi-
dental College.
This research was supported by an Early Faculty Award from the
University of Southern California’s Zumberge Fund and a faculty fellow-
ship from the John Randolph and Dora Haynes Foundation. We gratefully
acknowledge the contributions of the participating children, teachers, and
school administrative personnel.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David
Schwartz, Department of Psychology, University of Southern California,
501 Seely G. Mudd, Los Angeles, California 90089.
163
Less is known regarding the impact of urban violence on chil-
dren’s academic functioning. Relations between violence exposure
in the community and children’s self-perceived academic compe-
tence have been examined in a small number of existing studies
(Bowen & Bowen, 1999; Schwab-Stone et al., 1995). In addition,
Overstreet and Braun (1999) reported preliminary findings on the
relation between violence exposure and low GPAs for a sample
of 45 inner-city youth. However, the availability of research ex-
amining associations between community violence exposure and
direct assessments of academic functioning remains quite limited.
Although it may be too early to draw strong conclusions regard-
ing the community setting, there is evidence linking violence
exposure in other domains to academic difficulties. For example,
children tend to exhibit declines in academic functioning following
exposure to maltreatment, marital conflict, or other forms of do-
mestic violence (for a review, see Margolin & Gordis, 2000).
Experiences with physical or verbal victimization by peers can
also be predictive of poor performance in school (Juvonen,
Nishina, & Graham, 2000). Generalizations from research on
violence in the home and in peer groups should be made with great
care, but these findings do highlight the need for further
investigation.
In the present study, we sought to build on past work by
investigating the link between community violence exposure and
academic failure for elementary school children. Our objective was
to examine relations between community violence exposure and
academic difficulties, as indexed with objective indicators of ac-
ademic functioning obtained from review of children’s school
records (i.e., classroom grades, achievement test scores). To the
best of our knowledge, analyses of this nature have not been
presented in any existing report.
As a complement to our focus on the direct link between
community violence exposure and academic difficulties, we also
sought to identify the central mediating processes. In particular, we
investigated the role of depressive symptoms in the relation be-
tween neighborhood violence and poor academic outcomes. A
number of investigators have hypothesized that the emotional
distress experienced by many children following violence expo-
sure could interfere with academic adjustment at school (e.g.,
 164 SCHWARTZ AND GORMAN

Jenkins & Bell, 1997; Lorion, 1998; Overstreet, 2000). The symp-
toms of depression and other forms of internalized distress asso-
ciated with such experiences (e.g., Lynch & Cicchetti, 1998;
Martinez & Richters, 1993; Singer, Anglin, Song, & Lunghofer,
1995) may result in difficulties with intrusive thoughts, loss of
energy, decreased motivation, and impaired concentration, which
might be expected to hinder children’s functioning in the class-
room (Pynoos & Nader, 1988).
Mediating pathways of this nature have not been directly exam-
ined in any existing study of community violence exposure and
academic functioning. However, similar models have been the
focus of empirical attention in related areas of inquiry. For exam-
ple, Juvonen et al. (2000) and Juvonen, Nishina, and Graham
(2001) reported evidence that depressive symptoms, loneliness,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Shields, Cicchetti, & Ryan, 1994). Here, we use the term self-
regulation to refer to basic psychological competencies that allow
a child to adaptively modulate emotion, attention, and behavior
despite external challenges (Pope & Bierman, 1999; Shields &
Cicchetti, 1998). Not surprisingly, there is consistent evidence
linking community violence exposure to aggressive behavior, hy-
peractivity, and other significant impairments in regulation of
behavior and negative affect (Attar, Guerra, & Tolan, 1994;
Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000).
It seems likely that children who experience problems with
behavioral control will have difficulty negotiating the academic
demands of school. Children who are impulsive, hyperactive, or
easily distracted will find it hard to stay on task in the classroom
and remain engaged in schoolwork over long periods of time (Coie

and low self-worth mediate the association between persistent
harassment by peers and negative school outcomes (i.e., low
GPAs, frequent absences from school).
Another critical mediational process may involve disruptive
behavior problems. Children who have been exposed to violence in
the community tend to be characterized by intense feelings of
anger and irritability (Osofsky, 1995). Powerful mood states of this
nature can overwhelm a child’s developing capacities for self-
regulation and exert a disorganizing influence on behavior
& Krehbiel, 1984). Aggressive or noncompliant behavior might
also interfere with a child’s functioning in the classroom. Thus,
community violence exposure could be linked to academic diffi-
culties through the mediating influence of disruptive behavior
problems.
Our full theoretical model is presented schematically in Fig-
ure 1. As illustrated, we hypothesized that community violence
exposure would be negatively associated with academic function-
ing through the two identified mediating mechanisms: depressive

Figure 1. Schematic depiction of hypothesized mediational paths linking community violence exposure to
academic difficulties through the mediation of disruptive behavior and symptoms of depression.
 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE
symptoms and disruptive behavior. For conceptual clarity, the
direct path between violent victimization and academic function-
ing is excluded. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the pathways in
question are complex and may not be fully accounted for by the
hypothesized mediating processes.
Although our primary focus was on the link between community
violence exposure and academic difficulties, we also conducted
exploratory analyses examining the role of bullying by peers. In
particular, we sought to determine whether community violence
exposure and bullying by peers make independent contributions to
the prediction of academic outcomes. We viewed this as an im-
portant issue for investigation because there is evidence that chil-
dren who are exposed to violence in the community also tend to
emerge as persistent targets of bullying (Schwartz & Proctor,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
2000). The association between these two forms of victimization
appears to be modest and may reflect the detrimental impact of
violence exposure on children’s social functioning with peers
(Shields et al., 1994). Contextual factors that potentiate neighbor-
hood violence are also likely to be predictive of aggression and
conflict in school peer groups (Lorion, 1998). In addition, it is
possible that bullying by peers and community violence exposure
are linked partially as an artifact of conceptual overlap between the
constructs. That is, similar forms of victimization may be assessed
by the relevant measures in each domain of inquiry.
The described research questions were examined within a sam-
ple of elementary school children living in economically distressed
urban neighborhoods. We focused on middle childhood because
this is the developmental period during which trajectories toward
negative academic outcomes stabilize (e.g., Pungello, Kupersmidt,
Burchinal, & Patterson, 1996). Similar to previous researchers, we
used a self-report inventory to assess exposure to violence in the
community (Bell & Jenkins, 1993; Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993;
Kliewer et al., 1998; Martinez & Richters, 1993; Osofsky et al.,
1993). The remaining constructs were assessed with a multi-
informant approach, including self-report data, teacher question-
naires, and peer nominations. A cross-sectional design was used,
with all measures collected over the course of a school year.
Although cross-sectional investigations are generally not optimal
for testing causal hypotheses, we viewed this approach as an
appropriate early step in this underinvestigated area of inquiry.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from an elementary school located in an
urban section of Los Angeles county. The school was identified for this
investigation by the district superintendent’s office because it serves a
population that is at high risk for academic difficulties (as indexed by
school-wide performance on annual standardized testing). The families
living in the surrounding neighborhoods have been conceptualized as
“working poor” in recent demographic studies of the Los Angeles region
(e.g., Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, 2000; Southern California
Studies Center, 2001). Unemployment rates are low, but household in-
comes are often marginal for subsistence in Southern California, and the
majority of families rely on some form of public assistance (see United
Way of Greater Los Angeles, 1999). Approximately 70% of the children
attending this school participate in federally supported lunch programs, and
approximately 20% of the children live in publicly supported housing
projects.
165
Per capita crime rates in this section of Los Angeles county are mod-
erate, at least in comparison with other densely populated urban areas of
the United States (County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, 1996).
Nonetheless, gang violence remains an extremely serious problem through-
out the Los Angeles region (Klein, 1995). Moreover, homicide rates in the
adjacent sections of the county increased throughout the period of the study
(Los Angeles Police Department, 1999) despite national trends in the
opposite direction (Blumstein & Wallman, 2000).
All children in 16 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms from the
participating school were invited to take part in the project. Of these
children, 80% returned positive parental permission and assented to par-
ticipate. However, our analyses did not include 21 children who had either
pervasive developmental delays or serious hearing impairments. The final
sample included 237 children (114 boys, 123 girls; mean age of 9.5 years),
although the actual subsample varied across analyses because of missing
values (4 children had at least one missing value). Consistent with the
ethnic–racial composition of the school and the surrounding neighborhoods
(United Way of Greater Los Angeles, 1999), the participants were pre-
dominately from Hispanic American and European American back-
grounds. The composition of the sample (ascertained through children’s
self-reports) was as follows: 48% Hispanic American, 23% European
American, 13% Asian American, 2% African American, 18% other ethnic–
racial background (e.g., mixed background), and 4% unclassified.
We were able to obtain some limited information on nonconsenting
children, including addresses (rounded to the nearest city block so that
specific children could not be identified) and standardized achievement test
scores. This information was provided by school administrative staff in a
data file that did not contain names. Consenting and nonconsenting chil-
dren were distributed with similar frequencies in the census tracts sur-
rounding the school (i.e., they lived in the same neighborhoods). In
addition, mean achievement test scores and GPAs did not differ for
consenting and nonconsenting children.
Measures
Community violence exposure. Children completed the Community
Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ), a self-report questionnaire that was
developed and validated in a previous investigation (Schwartz & Proctor,
2000). The CEQ yields scores that are internally consistent and correlate
with relevant adjustment indicators in a theory-consistent manner. Items on
this measure range in severity from threats to shootings; the 4-point scale
ranges from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot of times). Each of the items was identified
from a review of existing measures, particularly Richters and Saltzman’s
(1990) Survey of Exposure to Community Violence. However, in consul-
tation with local school teachers, we simplified the wording to facilitate
group administration to children for whom English is not a first language.
This device does not represent an empirical or theoretical advance beyond
existing measures but is optimized for group administration to multiethnic
populations.
The CEQ contains separate subscales assessing exposure to violence
through witnessing and through direct victimization. However, we decided
to restrict our analyses to the 11-item violent victimization subscale (␣ ⫽
.85, M ⫽ 1.50, SD ⫽ 0.56). We choose to emphasize violent victimization
instead of witnessed violence because this is the form of community
violence that has been most closely linked to the hypothesized mediating
processes by past researchers (i.e., Kliewer et al., 1998).
Children were instructed specifically to exclude incidents that involved
family members or other children at school. They were also reminded to
report only serious “real life” events from their neighborhoods and their
communities and not incidents from movies or television. These instruc-
tions were repeated at multiple points during administration of the ques-
tionnaire and were illustrated with several sample items.
The percentage of participating children endorsing each of the items is
summarized in Table 1. As shown, exposure levels for the most severe
levels of victimization (i.e., shootings and stabbings) were generally below
 166 SCHWARTZ AND GORMAN

Table 1
Percentage of Children Who Endorsed Self-Report Violence Exposure Items

Factor Reported one or more

Item loading M SD occurrences (%)

“Somebody broke in or tried to force their way into

your home.” .40 1.3 0.7 20.8
“Somebody threatened to hurt you really badly.” .72 1.9 1.1 42.8
“Chased by somebody who was trying to hurt you.” .66 1.8 1.0 41.0
“Somebody hit, punched, or slapped you.” .71 2.0 1.1 51.3
“Somebody stole something from you using
violence (like somebody ‘mugging’ you or
stealing something from you after beating you up
or threatening to hurt you).” .73 1.4 0.9 23.2
“Somebody fired a gun at you or at your home.” .52 1.1 0.5 7.6
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

“Somebody tried to hurt you with a knife or other

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

sharp object.” .74 1.3 0.7 15.3

“Somebody tried to hurt you by hitting you with a
stick, bat, pole, or club.” .79 1.5 0.9 28.2
“Somebody threw a bottle, rock, or other hard
object at you.” .72 1.8 1.0 43.6
“Somebody tried to use violence or threats to get
you to do something that you didn’t want to do.” .65 1.5 0.9 28.8
“Arrested or taken away by the police.” .56 1.1 0.4 7.2

Note. Items from the Community Experiences Questionnaire (Schwartz & Proctor, 2000) are scored on a
4-point scale, with 1 ⫽ never, 2 ⫽ once, 3 ⫽ a few times, and 4 ⫽ lots of times. Factor loadings are based on
a principal components analysis, yielding a single factor solution. Means and standard deviations summarize the
average rating given by the participating children for each item. Percentages are based on participating children
who gave ratings of 2 or higher on the 4-point scale.

15%. Overall, the exposure rates reported by these children were consistent
with past survey research conducted in economically distressed urban
settings (e.g., Bell & Jenkins, 1993; Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Kliewer
et al., 1998; Richters & Martinez, 1993) including large-scale epidemio-
logical studies (Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor, 1995; Schwab-Stone et al.,
1995, 1999). There is some variability across existing investigations, but
previous researchers have generally found that between 10% to 20% of
responding children indicate experiences with severe acts of violence (i.e.,
shootings, stabbings, violent muggings), and 30% to 50% of urban children
report exposure to verbal threats or other less serious incidents (for a
review, see Jenkins & Bell, 1997). However, it should be noted that
children’s self-reports consistently yield higher exposure estimates than
data obtained from other informants (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002;
Selner-O’Hagan, Kindlon, Buka, Raudenbaush, & Earls, 1998).
Disruptive behavior. Teachers completed the Social Behavior Rating
Scale (Schwartz, 2000; Schwartz, Chang, & Farver, 2001; Schwartz,
Farver, Chang, & Lee-Shim, 2002). This device includes 43 descriptors of
children’s social behavior and adjustment with peers. Teachers rate the
accuracy of each item on a 5-point scale, with points ranging from 1
(almost never true for the child) to 5 (almost always true for the child).
Subscales that are relevant to the present study assessed aggressive behav-
ior (“starts arguments,” “threatens or bullies other children,” “taunts or
teases,” “hits or pushes,” “uses force to obtain other children’s posses-
sions”; ␣ ⫽ .91) and hyperactive–impulsive behavior (“impulsive,” “easily
distracted,” “difficulties with attention,” “can’t wait turn,” “doesn’t remain
seated,” “doesn’t play quietly,” “fidgets”; ␣ ⫽ .89). Teacher rating of
aggression (M ⫽ 1.67, SD ⫽ 0.70) and teacher rating of hyperactivity
(M ⫽ 2.27, SD ⫽ 0.78) summary variables were generated from the mean
rating across each subscale.
In addition, a peer nomination inventory was group administered to the
children. Children were given a copy of a class roster and asked to
nominate up to three peers who fit each of 16 descriptors. Included were
two items assessing aggression (“kids who bully or pick on other kids,”
“kids who hit or push other kids”; the correlation between the two items
was .80, p ⬍ .01). A summary peer nomination score for aggression was
calculated from the total number of nominations received by each child
across these items, standardized within class.
Depression. Children completed the Children’s Depression Inventory
(CDI; Kovacs, 1985), a widely used self-report assessment of depressive
symptoms. This measure includes 27 items that require children to choose
one of three sentences describing varying degrees of severity in symptoms.
However, during the data collection, we excluded an item that assessed
suicidal ideation (see Burbach, Farha, & Thorpe, 1986). In addition, we
dropped two items from analysis that reference children’s perceptions of
their academic functioning (e.g., “I do badly in subjects I used to be good
in,” “I have to push myself all the time to do my schoolwork”) to eliminate
potential item overlap with the outcome constructs. A summary depression
score (M ⫽ 1.15, SD ⫽ 0.12) was calculated from the mean of the
remaining 24 items (␣ ⫽ .88).
Bullying by peers. The peer nomination inventory also contained four
items assessing bullying by peers (“kids who get hit or pushed by other
kids,” “kids who get bullied or picked on by other kids,” “kids who have
mean things said about them by other kids,” “kids who get left out of fun
games or play when other kids are trying to hurt their feelings”; ␣ ⫽ .87).1
We included items assessing both overt and relational subtypes of bullying
(as per Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), although a principal components analysis
of the items yielded a single-factor solution (accounting for 72% of the
total variance, with all factor loadings greater than .80). For later analysis,
a summary bullying by peers score was calculated from the total number of
1
We relied on a peer nomination assessment of bullying by peers in the
present investigation. However, as part of our earlier data collection, we
also obtained information on bully–victim problems using a self-report
questionnaire and a teacher rating scale (Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). The
violent victimization scale of the CEQ was modestly correlated with both
the self-report score for bullying by peers (r ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .01) and the teacher
rating of bullying by peers (r ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .05).
 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE 167

nominations received by each child across these items, standardized within from school records, comparable data was obtained directly from the
class. child’s teacher.
Academic functioning. As part of annual statewide evaluation proce-
dures, children completed the Stanford Achievement Test—Ninth Edition
(SAT–9; Psychological Corporation, 1996). The SAT–9 is a widely used
Results
standardized assessment of children’s academic achievement. We obtained
Overview
children’s scores (proportion correct) on the Reading (M ⫽ 0.54,
SD ⫽ 0.24) and Mathematics (M ⫽ 0.63, SD ⫽ 0.24) subtests of the We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine direct
SAT–9 from a review of the school’s records. and indirect relations between violence exposure and academic
Children’s GPAs were also obtained from the school records. We
functioning. These latent variable models were specified in the
assigned numerical scores to letter grades in reading and math using a
5-point scale, ranging from 1 (F) to 5 (A). The correlation between the
Amos statistical package (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). We relied
reading and math scores was .65 ( p ⬍ .01). GPA was calculated as the on the diagnostic procedures contained in this program and careful
mean of these two scores (M ⫽ 3.43, SD ⫽ 0.93). examination of model parameters to assess identification and
stability.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

To evaluate the models, we considered indices assessing a

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Procedure number of distinct aspects of model fit, including the comparative

Data collection began approximately 6 weeks after the start of the fall
semester. All self-report and peer-nomination measures were administered
to the participating children in a 1-hr group testing session, conducted by
one of the authors or by a trained research assistant. Administrators were
of varied ethnic–racial descent, including European American, Hispanic
American, and Asian American. Standardized instructions were read to the
children, and questionnaire items were also read aloud. Children were
seated apart from each other and asked to remain silent during adminis-
tration. The order in which the questionnaires were administered was
randomly varied across classrooms.
All children participating in this study were fluent in English, although
English was a second language for some. Spanish-speaking research as-
sistants and teachers were present during the administrations in case any
child had difficulty understanding items. In addition, Spanish-language
translations of all measures were made available. Teacher measures were
completed over a period of several weeks following administration of the
child measures. Teachers were paid $50 for their participation.
Achievement testing was conducted by the school district later in the
school year, and final reading and math grades were recorded at the end of
the spring semester. Test scores and grade information were gathered from
each child’s records by a member of the school’s clerical staff, who served
as a paid consultant to the project. A small number of children (n ⫽ 18) did
not have test scores because of record keeping problems or other admin-
istrative reasons. For these children, scores were imputed on the basis of
regression analyses conducted with the remaining predictors (i.e., class-
room grades). In cases where information on classroom grades was missing
fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the chi-square statistic, the root-
mean-square residual error of approximation (RMSEA), and the
standardized root-mean-squared residual (SRMR). The CFI is an
index that compares the specified model with a model in which all
variables are assumed to be uncorrelated (i.e., the null model). The
CFI ranges from 0 to 1, with values greater than .95 generally
considered indicative of adequate fit. The chi-square is a statistical
test of “badness of fit,” with significant values suggesting that the
model does not replicate the underlying covariance structure.
However, the chi-square statistic is influenced by model degrees of
freedom and, as a result, tends to be biased toward large values.
The RMSEA is an index that is not influenced by model complex-
ity. Browne and Cudek (1993) suggested that an RMSEA value of
.08 or less is consistent with acceptable model fit. The SRMR is
the standardized average of the covariance residuals (i.e., the
difference between the observed covariances and the predicted
covariances). SRMR values of .10 or lower are indicative of
acceptable fit. Each of these indices is described in greater detail
by Kline (1998).
Bivariate Relations
Table 2 summarizes bivariate correlations among the variables
(to minimize inflation of Type I error rates, effects are interpreted

Table 2
Bivariate Correlations Among All Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Violence exposure
1. Community violence exposure — .20** .21*** .27**** .24**** .36**** ⫺.24**** ⫺.14† ⫺.26****
2. Bullying by peers — .28**** .35**** .38**** .18** ⫺.19** ⫺.07 ⫺.25****
Behavioral and psychological adjustment
3. Teacher-rated aggression — .73**** .56**** .20** ⫺.23**** ⫺.11 ⫺.31****
4. Teacher-rated hyperactivity — .39**** .27**** ⫺.35**** ⫺.14† ⫺.50****
5. Peer-nominated aggression — .07 ⫺.22*** ⫺.14† ⫺.28****
6. Depression — ⫺.24**** ⫺.10 ⫺.32****
Academic functioning
7. SAT–9 Mathematics — .60**** .64****
8. SAT–9 Reading — .49****
9. GPA —

Note. Critical levels are set at .005 to control error rates. SAT–9 ⫽ Stanford Achievement Test—Ninth Edition.
† p ⬍ .05 (marginally significant). ** p ⬍ .005. *** p ⬍ .001. **** p ⬍ .0005.
 168 SCHWARTZ AND GORMAN

with a critical value of .005). As shown, there was a pattern of

moderate associations between the predictor and outcome vari-
ables. Surprisingly, however, the SAT–9 Reading score was only
marginally correlated with most of the other variables in the data
set. Given this pattern of effects, we choose to include only the
SAT–9 Mathematics score in the multivariate analyses presented
in the following section.2

Relations Between Community Violence Exposure and

Academic Functioning
To examine the relation between academic functioning and
community violence exposure, we conducted an SEM analysis.
The specified model (Model 1; fit statistics for all models are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

summarized in Table 3) included two latent variables: community

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

violence exposure (indicated by three random groupings of CEQ

items) and academic functioning (indicated by the SAT–9 Math-
ematics score and GPA). This model fit the data acceptably well.
As depicted in Figure 2, there were moderate to strong factor
loadings for each of the observed indicators. Consistent with our
preliminary hypotheses, there was a significant negative associa-
tion between community violence exposure and academic
functioning.

The Mediating Roles of Depression and Disruptive

Behavior
Next, we examined our hypotheses regarding the mediating
roles of depression and disruptive behavior in the association
between community violence exposure and academic functioning.
We evaluated these hypotheses using criteria specified by Baron
and Kenny (1986). Specifically, we required that the predictor be
significantly associated with the outcome, the mediators be signif-
icantly associated with the predictor and outcome, and the pres- Figure 2. Measurement model examining the relation between commu-
nity violence exposure (CVE) and academic functioning. Standardized path
ence of the mediators significantly reduce the association between
coefficients and factor loadings in boldface are significant at p ⱕ .05. See
the predictor and the outcome. text for details regarding model fit. e ⫽ error; SAT–9 ⫽ Stanford Achieve-
The specified model (Model 2) included one exogenous predic- ment Test—Ninth Edition.
tor variable, community violence exposure (indicated as described
previously). The mediator variables were disruptive behavior (in-
dicated by the teacher rating of aggression, the teacher rating of
hyperactivity, and the peer nomination score for aggression) and of hyperactivity and aggression and GPA (these indicators were all
symptoms of depression (indicated by four random groupings of generated based on data provided by teachers and, accordingly,
CDI items). The outcome variable was academic functioning (in- shared informant bias).
dicated by GPA and the SAT–9 Mathematics score). We also The fit of this model was acceptable (see Table 3), and all factor
allowed correlations between the error terms for the teacher ratings loadings were of at least moderate magnitude. As illustrated in
Figure 3, the overall pattern of path coefficients was highly con-

Table 3
2
Summary of Model Fit Indices We were concerned that the pattern of weak correlations for the SAT–9
Reading score might be an artifact of language differences between ethnic–
Model Figure ␹2 df ␹2/df CFI SRMR RMSEA racial groups. However, exploratory analyses were not consistent with this
conclusion. We conducted bivariate analyses for the SAT–9 Reading score
1 2 1.4 4 0.4 1.00 .01 .00 separately by ethnic–racial group. The pattern of findings was quite con-
2 3 94.5* 47 2.0 0.96 .02 .07 sistent across groups, with only modest correlations between the SAT–9
3 94.9* 48 2.0 0.96 .02 .07 Reading score and other variables in the data set. Interestingly, this pattern
4 4 16.9 24 0.7 1.00 .03 .00 held even when we conducted analyses that included only children from
European American backgrounds. Moreover, although children who de-
Note. Unless otherwise noted, chi-square statistics are not significant. See
Kline (1998) for details regarding these fit indices. CFI ⫽ Bentler’s (1990) scribed themselves as European American (M ⫽ 0.63, SD ⫽ 0.26) did have
comparative fit index; SRMR ⫽ standardized root-mean-squared residual; higher SAT–9 Reading scores than children who described themselves as
RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square residual error of approximation. Hispanic American (M ⫽ 0.48, SD ⫽ 0.23), there were no other significant
* p ⬍ .01. ethnic–racial group differences for the SAT–9 Reading scores.
 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE 169
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 3. Measurement model examining direct and mediated relations between community violence exposure
(CVE) and academic functioning. Standardized path coefficients and factor loadings in boldface are significant
at p ⱕ .05. Correlations between error terms are not illustrated. See text for details regarding model fit. e ⫽ error;
d ⫽ disturbance; CDI ⫽ Children’s Depression Inventory; SAT–9 ⫽ Stanford Achievement Test—Ninth
Edition.

sistent with our predictions. There were significant paths between
community violence exposure and each of the mediator variables
and significant paths between each of the mediators and the
outcome. In contrast, the direct community violence exposure 3
academic functioning path was reduced to nonsignificance by
inclusion of the mediators.
As a further test of our mediational hypotheses, we conducted a
series of analyses guided by the recommendations of Holmbeck
(1997). According to Holmbeck, comparison of chi-square fit
indices for a full mediational model (i.e., a model including all
direct and indirect paths between the predictor and outcome) and
a model with the direct predictor 3 outcome path removed pro-
vide an appropriate test of mediation. If the direct path is not
necessary for model fit (i.e., removal of the direct path does not
significantly decrement fit) then the relation between the predictor
and outcome is presumed to occur through the indirect pathways
(i.e., through the mediators). Accordingly, we respecified the
model depicted in Figure 3 with the community violence expo-
sure 3 academic functioning direct path constrained to 0 (Model
3). We then compared the chi-square indices for the reduced model
(i.e., Model 3) and the full model (i.e., Model 2). As expected, this
comparison did not produce a significant effect, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 233)
difference ⫽ 0.4, ns. Thus, the relation between community vio-
lence exposure and academic functioning appears to occur primar-
ily through the mediational pathways.
Relations Between Community Violence Exposure and
Academic Functioning With Bullying by Peers Controlled
Finally, we conducted an SEM analyses to examine the relation
between community violence exposure and academic difficulties,
independent of the prediction associated with bullying by peers.
The specified model (Model 4) included two exogenous predictor
variables, community violence exposure (indicated as described
previously) and bullying by peers (indicated by the four peer
nomination items). The outcome variable was academic function-
 170 SCHWARTZ AND GORMAN
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 4. Measurement mode with community violence exposure (CVE) and bullying by peers as simultaneous
predictors of academic functioning. Standardized path coefficients and factor loadings in boldface are significant
at p ⱕ .05. See text for details regarding model fit. e ⫽ error; d ⫽ disturbance; SAT–9 ⫽ Stanford Achievement
Test—Ninth Edition.

ing (indicated as described previously). The fit of this model was
acceptable (see Table 3), and all factor loadings were of at least
moderate magnitude. As depicted in Figure 4, there was a signif-
icant association between the community violence exposure and
bullying by peers latent variables and significant negative paths
from each of the predictor variables to academic functioning.
Thus, community violence exposure was associated with academic
difficulties even after we statistically controlled bullying by peers.3
Discussion
This investigation attempted to extend the existing research on
children who live in violent urban neighborhoods by focusing on
the link between community violence exposure and academic
functioning at school. Past researchers have reported that commu-
nity violence exposure is associated with disruptive behavior prob-
lems (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998), depression or other forms of
internalized distress (e.g., Kliewer et al., 1998; Martinez & Rich-
ters, 1993), and social maladjustment with peers (Schwartz &
Proctor, 2000). Our findings add to this growing body of work by
demonstrating that there is a relation between children’s self-
reports of community violence exposure and deficient academic
performance (as indexed by GPAs and standardized achievement
tests).
What processes underlie the association between community
violence exposure and academic difficulties? The results of this
study suggest that children who report violence exposure in the
community may be vulnerable to academic difficulties because
3
For exploratory purposes, we also specified a model with bullying by
peers indicated only by the two overt bullying items (“hit or pushed by
other children,” “picked on or bullied by other children”). Inclusion of the
relational bullying items has the potential to enhance the content validity of
the peer nomination scale by extending the range or relevant behaviors
assessed. However, overt bullying items have stronger conceptual associ-
ations with the forms of victimization assessed by our community violence
exposure measure. The findings from this modified SEM analysis closely
replicated the model summarized in Figure 4. Overall fit of the model was
strong (CFI ⫽ 1.00, RMSEA ⫽ .00, ␹2/df ⫽ 0.73, SRMR ⫽ .02).
Community violence exposure and bullying by peers were significantly
associated (standardized coefficient ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .05). In addition, there were
significant negative paths to academic functioning from community vio-
lence exposure (standardized path coefficient ⫽ –.27, p ⬍ .01) and from
bullying by peers (standardized path coefficient ⫽ –.19, p ⬍ .05).
 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE
their functioning at school is hindered by symptoms of depression.
Like previous investigators (see Osofsky, 1995), we found mod-
erately strong relations between community violence exposure and
depressive tendencies (e.g., intrusive thoughts, decreased motiva-
tion, low energy). In turn, depressive tendencies were associated
with deficient academic performance and at least partially ac-
counted for the negative association between violent victimization
and academic functioning.
Violence exposure might also exert a pernicious influence on
academic functioning by interfering with children’s emerging ca-
pacities for self-regulation and behavioral control. In this study,
children who reported experiences with violent victimization in the
community also tended to be characterized by aggression and
hyperactivity (as indicated by teacher ratings and peer nomina-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tions). Not surprisingly, disruptive behavior problems were related
to poor academic functioning. Latent variable models suggested
that these associations served a mediating role in the link between
community violence exposure and poor academic performance.
Our findings regarding the incremental contributions of bullying
by peers and community violence exposure to the prediction of
academic outcomes are also noteworthy. Like previous researchers
(Schwartz & Proctor, 2000), we found evidence for a modest
association between these two forms of victimization. Children
who experience violence in the community may be vulnerable to
bullying or related social difficulties with school peers as a con-
sequence of acquired deficits in emotion regulation and social-
information processing (Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, & Matza, 2001).
There is also conceptual overlap in these constructs, with some
similar experiences being assessed by the relevant measures. How-
ever, in our SEM analyses, bullying by peers and community
violence exposure each had independent negative associations
with academic functioning. One potential implication of these
findings is that children who experience victimization in multiple
contexts (i.e., the community and the school peer group) may be at
particularly high risk for academic difficulties.
Several limitations of the present research should be kept in
mind when evaluating our findings. First, the correlational design
of the present project does not provide a secure foundation for
causal inferences. This is a significant concern because some
children are likely to be characterized by attributes that predict
both violence exposure and negative educational outcomes (for
related comments, see Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998). For exam-
ple, children who have significant deficits in self-regulation (e.g.,
impulsivity, aggression, hyperactivity) will do poorly in school
and may also tend to select into environments in which violence
exposure is a high probability.
The suggestion that particular psychological or behavioral char-
acteristics might be associated with risk for community violence is
consistent with emerging sociological perspectives on urban vio-
lence. Such conceptualizations emphasize the link between anti-
social lifestyles (e.g., frequent involvement with deviant peers; see
Halliday-Boykins & Graham, 2001) and violence exposure in the
community. However, children may suffer from adjustment prob-
lems following violence exposure even if they are active partici-
pants in the larger situation. Moreover, researchers have found that
community violence exposure can exacerbate existing tendencies
toward externalizing behavior (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998).
Thus, an important challenge for future educational researchers
will be determining the relative contributions of violent exposure
171
and underlying behavioral propensities to the prediction of school-
based outcomes.
Careful consideration should also be given to the nature of our
violence exposure assessment. Like previous investigators (Bell &
Jenkins, 1993; Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Kliewer et al., 1998;
Martinez & Richters, 1993; Osofsky et al., 1993), we relied on
children’s self-reports of their own exposure to violence in the
community. Assessment approaches of this nature have been
widely accepted in the literature on urban violence (see Selner-
O’Hagan et al., 1998) based, perhaps, on the assumption that
children have unique access to information about their own expe-
riences (Richters & Martinez, 1993). Nonetheless, a number of
researchers have conceptualized self-report questionnaires as indi-
cators of belief systems, attitudes, and perceptual tendencies rather
than objective assessments of experience (for a review, see
Schwarz, 1999). From this perspective, violence exposure inven-
tories might be viewed as assessments of children’s cognitive
schemata regarding their communities instead of direct measures
of experiences with violence (as we have suggested elsewhere; see
Schwartz & Proctor, 2000).
Self-report assessments of violence exposure have received a
degree of validation in past research. For example, children’s
self-reports of violence exposure, when aggregated within neigh-
borhoods, correspond systematically with violent crimes rates at
the community level (Richters & Martinez, 1993). There is also a
moderate degree of agreement between parent and child reports
(Kuo, Moher, Raudenbush, & Earls, 2000; Selner-O’Hagan et al.,
1998). In addition, self-reports demonstrate strong construct va-
lidity (Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Kliewer et al., 1998; Martinez
& Richters, 1993; Osofsky et al., 1993) and acceptable predictive
validity (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Schwab-Stone et al.,
1999). Nonetheless, children tend to report higher levels of expo-
sure than might be expected on the basis of reports obtained from
adult informants (Selner-O’Hagan et al., 1998). Similar patterns of
findings have emerged in related domains of inquiry, with children
showing a possible tendency toward over reporting negative ex-
periences (e.g., research on bully–victim problems in school peer
groups; see Juvonen et al., 2001; Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd,
2002). The implications of such assessment difficulties for the
prediction of educational outcomes are not yet clear. Likewise, we
cannot be certain that alternative measures of violence exposure
(i.e., police reports or data obtained from other informants) would
yield a similar pattern of associations with academic functioning
difficulties.
Another potential shortcoming of this study is that we did not
attempt to assess children’s exposure to extreme forms of violence
in contexts other than the community or neighborhood. However,
levels of violence exposure may be related across contexts. For
example, there is some evidence that children who have had
experiences with violence in the community tend to be at risk for
exposure to violence in the home (see Margolin & Gordis, 2000).
Although these associations do not appear to be strong, the con-
clusions that can be drawn with specific regard to neighborhood
violence and children’s academic functioning might be strength-
ened by more multifaceted assessments (i.e., measures that simul-
taneously tap violence exposure in the community, home, and
school peer group). In the meantime, the limited data that are
available suggest that domestic violence and community violence
 172 SCHWARTZ AND GORMAN
make incremental contributions to the prediction of child malad-
justment (Linares et al., 2001).
A final series of concerns relates to sample composition. In the
Los Angeles region (where this project was conducted), as in other
major urban centers of North America, children from ethnic–racial
minority backgrounds are overrepresented in distressed inner-city
neighborhoods (see United Way of Greater Los Angeles, 1999).
These children may also experience stressors (i.e., racism, discrim-
ination) that exacerbate the effect of negative life events on aca-
demic functioning at school. Accordingly, we chose to recruit a
diverse sample with a relatively high proportion of children who
were from minority ethnic–racial backgrounds. It is possible that
our findings might not replicate in other kinds of samples (i.e.,
samples that are primarily composed of European American chil-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
dren), although we are unaware of any evidence suggesting that the
impact of community violence differs across ethnic–racial groups.
Unfortunately, given the conservative nature of interaction effects
in quasi-experimental designs, we lacked the statistical power to
directly examine the possible moderating influence of ethnic–
racial background (McClelland & Judd, 1993).
In summary, this investigation has demonstrated that there are
linkages between exposure to violence in the community setting
and academic difficulties at school. Analyses suggested that symp-
toms of depression and disruptive behavior may play central
mediating roles. Moreover, the relation between community vio-
lence exposure and academic outcomes appeared to be indepen-
dent of the influence of bullying by peers. Further research con-
ducted with longitudinal designs and participants from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds is clearly warranted.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 users’ guide [Computer
software]. Chicago: SmallWaters.
Attar, B. K., Guerra, N. G., & Tolan, P. H. (1994). Neighborhood disad-
vantage, stressful life events, and adjustment in urban elementary school
children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 391– 400.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 51, 1173–1182.
Bell, C. C., & Jenkins, E. J. (1993). Community violence and children on
Chicago’s southside. Psychiatry, 56, 46 –54.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 107, 238 –246.
Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (2000). The crime drop in America. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Boney-McCoy, S., & Finkelhor, D. (1995). Psychosocial sequelae of
violent victimization in a national youth sample. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 63, 726 –736.
Bowen, N. K., & Bowen, G. L. (1999). Effects of crime and violence in
neighborhoods and schools on the school behavior and performance of
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 319 –342.
Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136 –162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burbach, D. J., Farha, J. G., & Thorpe, J. S. (1986). Assessing depression
in community samples of children using self-report inventories: Ethical
considerations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 579 –589.
Coie, J. D., & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the
social status of low-achieving, socially rejected children. Child Devel-
opment, 55, 1465–1478.
County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. (1996). Year in review. Los
Angeles: Author.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and
social–psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710 –722.
Fitzpatrick, K. M., & Boldizar, J. P. (1993). The prevalence and conse-
quences of exposure to violence among African-American youth. Jour-
nal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32,
424 – 430.
Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in
danger: Coping with the consequences of community violence. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. (1998). The role of exposure to community
violence and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Devel-
opment & Psychopathology, 10, 101–116.
Halliday-Boykins, C. A., & Graham, S. (2001). At both ends of the gun:
Testing the relationship between community violence exposure and
youth violent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29,
383– 402.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statisti-
cal clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the
child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599 – 610.
Jenkins, E. J., & Bell, C. C. (1997). Exposure and response to community
violence among children and adolescents. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Chil-
dren in a violent society (pp. 9 –31). New York: Guilford Press.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psycho-
logical adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92, 349 –359.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2001). Self-views versus peer
perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S.
Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 105–124). New York:
Guilford Press.
Klein, M. W. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence,
and control. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kliewer, W., Lepore, S. J., Oskin, D., & Johnson, P. D. (1998). The role of
social and cognitive processes in children’s adjustment to community
violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 199 –209.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-
eling. New York: Guilford Press.
Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory. Psychopharma-
cology Bulletin, 21, 995–998.
Kuo, M., Moher, B., Raudenbush, S. L., & Earls, F. J. (2000). Assessing
exposure to violence using multiple informants: Application of hierar-
chical linear model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines, 41, 1049 –1056.
Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. J. (2002). Identifying victims of
peer aggression: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance,
estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 14, 1–23.
Linares, L. O., Heeren, T., Bronfman, E., Zuckerman, B., Augustyn, M., &
Tronick, E. (2001). A mediational model for the impact of exposure to
community violence on early child behavior problems. Child Develop-
ment, 72, 639 – 652.
Lorion, R. P. (1998). Exposure to urban violence: Contamination of the
school environment. In D. S. Elliot, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams
(Eds.), Violence in American schools (pp. 293–311). Cambridge, En-
gland: Cambridge University Press.
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. (2000). The other Los Angeles:
The working poor in the city of the 21st century. Los Angeles: Author.
Los Angeles Police Department. (1999). Los Angeles Police Department
annual report. Los Angeles: Author.
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). An ecological–transactional analysis of
 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE
children and contexts: The longitudinal interplay among child maltreat-
ment, community violence, and children’s symptomatology. Develop-
ment & Psychopathology, 10, 235–257.
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community
violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445– 479.
Martinez, P., & Richters, J. E. (1993). The NIMH community violence
project: II. Children’s distress symptoms associated with violence ex-
posure. Psychiatry, 56, 22–35.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detect-
ing interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
376 –390.
Osofsky, J. D. (1995). The effect of exposure to violence on young
children. American Psychologist, 50, 782–788.
Osofsky, J. D., Wewers, S., Hann, D. M., & Fick, A. C. (1993). Chronic
community violence: What is happening to our children? Psychiatry, 56,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
36 – 45.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Overstreet, S. (2000). Exposure to community violence: Defining the
problem and understanding the consequences. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 9, 7–25.
Overstreet, S., & Braun, S. (1999). A preliminary examination of the
relationship between exposure to community violence and academic
functioning. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 380 –396.
Overstreet, S., & Braun, S. (2000). Exposure to community violence and
post-traumatic stress symptoms: Mediating factors. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 70, 263–271.
Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer prob-
lems and antisocial activities: The relative roles of aggression and
dysregulation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 335–346.
Psychological Corporation. (1996). Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.).
San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Educational Measurement.
Pungello, E. P., Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M. R., & Patterson, C. J.
(1996). Environmental risk factors and children’s achievement from
middle childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 32,
755–767.
Pynoos, R. S., & Nader, K. (1988). Psychological first aid and treatment
approach to children who are exposed to community violence: Research
implications. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 1, 445– 473.
Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. E. (1993). The NIMH community violence
project: I. Children as victims and witnesses to violence. Psychiatry, 56,
7–21.
Richters, J. E., & Saltzman, W. (1990). Survey of Exposure to Community
Violence: Self-Report Version. Rockville, MD: National Institute of
Mental Health.
Schwab-Stone, M. E., Ayers, T. S., Kasprow, W., Voyce, C., Barone, C.,
Shriver, T., & Weissberg, R. P. (1995). No safe haven: A study of
violence exposure in an urban community. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1343–1352.
173
Schwab-Stone, M., Chen, C., Greenberger, E., Silver, D., Lichtman, J., &
Voyce, C. (1999). No safe haven: II. The effects of violence exposure on
urban youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 38, 359 –367.
Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of aggressors and victims in children’s peer
groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181–192.
Schwartz, D., Chang, L., & Farver, J. M. (2001). Correlates of victimiza-
tion in Chinese children’s peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 37,
520 –532.
Schwartz, D., Farver, J. M., Chang, L., & Lee-Shim, Y. (2002). Victim-
ization in South Korean children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 30, 113–125.
Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposure and
children’s social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating
roles of emotion regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 68, 670 – 683.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.
American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.
Selner-O’Hagan, M. B., Kindlon, D. J., Buka, S. L., Raudenbaush, S. W.,
& Earls, F. J. (1998). Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39,
215–224.
Shahinfar, A., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Matza, L. S. (2001). The relation
between exposure to violence and social information processing among
incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 136 –
141.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated
children: The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 381–395.
Shields, A., Cicchetti, D., & Ryan, R. M. (1994). The development of
emotional and behavioral self-regulation and social competence among
maltreated school-age children. Development & Psychopathology, 6,
57–75.
Singer, M. I., Anglin, T. M., Song, L. Y., & Lunghofer, L. (1995).
Adolescents’ exposure to violence and associated symptoms of psycho-
logical trauma. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273,
477– 482.
Southern California Studies Center. (2001). Sprawl hits the wall: Confront-
ing the realities of metropolitan Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Author.
United Way of Greater Los Angeles. (1999). 1998 –99 state of the county
report. Los Angeles: Author.
Received September 18, 2001
Revision received June 24, 2002
Accepted July 5, 2002 䡲