Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Behav Med. 2025 Mar 10;48(3):513–522. doi: 10.1007/s10865-025-00564-z

Racialized economic segregation and youth firearm carriage: Community violence as a mediator

Daniel B Lee a, Zainab Hans a, Samantha L Aprill a,b, Philip Stallworth a, Marc A Zimmerman a,b, Maureen A Walton a,d, Patrick M Carter a,b,c,e
PMCID: PMC12927849  NIHMSID: NIHMS2132107  PMID: 40064764

Abstract

Firearm carriage poses a significant public health challenge, especially for youth (ages 14-24) living in predominantly Black communities that endured racial and economic segregation. Structural racism is a determinant of fatal and nonfatal firearm assaults, but the influence of structural racism on youth firearm carriage has received limited attention. Our study examines whether community violence exposure mediates the association between racialized economic segregation and youth firearm carriage. We analyzed data among 599 youths who sought emergency care and reported drug use within the past six months. Our mediation analysis revealed that increased racialized economic segregation was associated with higher perceived community violence. In turn, a heightened perception of community violence was associated with youth firearm carriage. Our findings advocate for upstream interventions that address the systemic marginalization of Black communities from economic isolation to mitigate community violence and, ultimately, reduce risk for youth firearm carriage.

Keywords: structural racism, firearm carriage, racial health disparities, community violence, firearm violence

Firearm injury is one of the leading cause of death among adolescents and youth in the United States (Goldstick et al., 2022; Kegler et al., 2022). Provisional mortality data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) demonstrates that roughly 25 individuals aged 14-24 died from firearm-related causes each day in 2022 alone (CDC, 2021). Moreover, firearm mortality has risen nearly 40% for adolescents aged 14-19 between 2018 and 2021, with a corresponding 62% increase in homicides (Roberts et al., 2023). Previous research has noted associations between firearm access and the risk of injury and death among adolescents (Grossman et al., 2005). Firearm carriage, in particular, has been identified as a predictor of youth firearm violence among youth (Carter et al., 2020). Firearm carriage refers to youth carrying a firearm outside of their home for reasons other than recreational reasons (e.g., target shooting; hunting) (Carter et al., 2020). Of note, youth firearm carriage is predictive of firearm violence behaviors even after controlling for criminal justice involvement, substance misuse, and mental health outcomes (Carter et al., 2013; Oliphant et al., 2019). Consequently, researchers have identified socioecological factors associated with youth firearm carriage such as community violence, negative peer affiliation, and retaliatory attitudes (Lee et al., 2020; O’Connor et al., 2023; Oliphant et al., 2019; Sokol et al., 2020). However, neighborhood racialized economic segregation—a predictor of community firearm violence (Krieger et al., 2017; Schleimer et al., 2022; Uzzi et al., 2022)—have not yet been explored as a risk factor for youth firearm carriage. Our study also endeavors to evaluate community violence as a mediator between racialized economic segregation and youth firearm carriage.

Racialized Economic Segregation and Firearm Violence

Racialized economic segregation – which refers to the geographic concentration of high income (80th percentile) white residents relative to low-income, Black residents (20th percentile) – is as an index of structural racism (Krieger et al., 2016). This measure is a more precise assessment of structural racism for small geographic areas compared to broader indices like the residential racial segregation (index of dissimilarity; see Krieger et al., 2016, 2017). Moreover, this measure focuses on the intersection of economic and racial inequities, specifically as they impact Black communities. Akin to other indices of structural racism, such as historical redlining (Benns et al., 2020; Gobaud et al., 2024; Jacoby et al., 2018; Mehranbod et al., 2022) and residential racial segregation (Jay et al., 2022; Knopov et al., 2019), a few studies have documented the association between racialized economic segregation and community firearm violence (Krieger et al., 2017; Schleimer et al., 2022; Uzzi et al., 2022). For instance, Krieger et al. (2017) demonstrated that in Massachusetts, residential racial segregation was a stronger predictor of fatal and non-fatal firearm assaults at the census tract level than either racial or economic segregation alone. Efforts to investigate the socioecological processes that elucidate specific pathways of influence have highlighted community violence as a potential pathway (Lee et al., 2022, 2024). While researchers have examined the link between racialized economic segregation and community firearm violence, it is imperative to extend these investigations to examine its effect on the modifiable risk factors of youth firearm violence, including firearm carriage. To this end, elucidating these upstream socioecological processes can inform firearm violence prevention programs that disrupt the mechanisms undergirding youth firearm carriage.

Community violence as a Mediator

Racialized economic segregation can increase exposure to community violence, including firearm violence (Krieger et al., 2017; Pino et al., 2023; Schleimer et al., 2022; Uzzi et al., 2022). Guided by Framework for the Study of Racism and Health (Williams & Mohammed, 2013), communities with higher levels of racialized economic segregation lack adequate societal resources (e.g., access to quality mental healthcare), social capital (e.g., positive role models), and opportunities for upward social mobility. This type of environment may foster a community where residents engage in survival strategies, which can include violence (e.g., armed robbery), to contend with the consequences of economic constraints (e.g., lack of employment opportunities) and unmet basic social needs (e.g., access to food, housing). Moreover, Gillum and colleagues (2024) developed a socioecological model that elucidates multilevel and multidomain contributors to firearm violence in African American communities. Specifically, their model posits that historical racism and ongoing societal inequities lead to downstream consequences at the community (e.g., hyper-surveillance by police), social (e.g., increased violent victimization in one’s social network), and individual level (e.g., barriers to mental health care following traumatic events), all of which collectively increase firearm violence (Gillum et al., 2024). Thus, both models apply a public health lens and posits that structural racism and its cascading negative effects significantly contribute to youth exposure to community violence..

Exposure to community violence is a significant predictor of youth firearm carriage (Lee et al., 2020; O’Connor et al., 2023; Oliphant et al., 2019; Schmidt et al., 2019; Sullivan et al., 2024). In communities where violence is common due to structural racism, youth most commonly carry firearms for self-protection (Gillum et al., 2024; Oliphant et al., 2019; Sokol et al., 2020). Additionally, in racially segregated communities, mistrust of the police may further increase the likelihood that individuals will take their safety into their own hands (Crifasi et al., 2022; Gillum et al., 2024; Sokol et al., 2022). The Code of the Street Theory further posits that violence is perceived as an accepted way of resolving conflicts (i.e., retaliation) and asserting one’s status or respect especially in Black communities that have contended with socioeconomic disinvestment and institutional alienation (Anderson, 2019; Stewart & Simons, 2010). Moreover, Sullivan and colleagues (2024) found that witnessing violence, violent victimization, cyber-victimization, and in-person victimization were each related to higher odds of gun carriage in a predominantly African American adolescent sample. Thus, community violence may contribute to the development of values that promote toughness, respect, and a readiness to use violence as a means of retaliation or self-defense against future victimization. This dynamic is particularly prevalent among youth in Black communities disproportionately affected by ongoing structural racism, such as racialized economic segregation, which perpetuates cycles of disadvantage and exposure to community violence.

Present study

Our study consists of two objectives. The first objective is to evaluate whether racialized economic segregation is associated with youth firearm carriage, with the hypothesis that this association is positive. The second objective is to evaluate whether community violence mediates the association between racialized economic segregation and youth firearm carriage, with the hypothesis that community violence exposure will operate as a mediator.

Method

Participants

The Flint Youth Injury (FYI) study consists of 599 drug-using youth (i.e., ages 14-24) from a prospective cohort study (Cunningham et al., 2015). Participants were recruited from an emergency department (ED) located in Flint, Michigan. Following their initial enrollment, participants were observed at baseline (wave 1) and subsequently every six months over a two-year span, encompassing a total of five measurement periods (i.e., wave 1 at baseline, followed by waves 2 to 5 via 6-month follow-up intervals). Thus, the objective of the FYI study was to investigate the sequence and characteristics of health behaviors and outcomes among drug-using, urban adolescents who were treated at the ED for reasons both including and excluding immediate violent injury (n = 349 violently injured; n=250 non-violently injured) (Carter et al., 2013; Cunningham et al., 2015). The prevalence of violent crimes in Flint aligns with figures reported in similarly post-industrial urban centers (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report, 2016-2020, 2020). Table 1 offers an overview of the demographic composition of our analytic sample. Participant home addresses were geocoded to census tracts to assess racialized economic segregation. The majority of participants (98%) were from Genesee County (Flint, MI) with the remaining participants resided in surrounding counties (e.g., Wayne County).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables

Predictors M(SD) or N(%)
Gender
 Male 354 (58.8%)
 Female 245 (41.2%)
Age 20.1 (2.42)
Race
 Black/African American 349 (58.2%)
 White American 195 (32.6%)
 American Indian 9 (1.5%)
 Asian American and Pacific Islander 2 (.003%)
 Multi-Race 45 (.08%)
Internalizing Symptoms 0.74 (0.81)
PTSD Diagnosis 61 (10.2%)
Alcohol Use 1.32 (1.24)
Retaliatory Attitudes 1.52 (0.53)
Assault Injury 350 (58.3%)
Community Violence (Wave 1) 1.33 (0.72)
Community Violence (Wave 2) 1.29 (0.77)
Firearm Carriage (Wave 2) 148 (24.7%)
Firearm Carriage (Waves 3 - 5) 181 (30.2%)
Racialized Economic Segregation (2009) 0.11 (0.25)
Open in a new tab

Note. M (SD) reported for ordinal or continuous variables and N (%) reported for nominal variables.

Measures

Youth firearm carriage.

A single item was used to assess whether youth carried a firearm outside of their home from waves 3 to 5 (i.e., “Carried a gun with you when you were outside your home—including in your car? Don’t count the times you’ve carried a gun for hunting or target shooting.”). This is 12- to 24-months after the baseline measurement period. Participants who endorsed higher than “never” received a score of 1 (i.e., firearm carriage instance during the 12- to 24-month follow-up period). A score of 0 indicates that the participant did not carry a firearm from waves 3 to 5. This variable, therefore, reflects firearm carriage at least once within 12 to 24 months after their baseline visit. Using this dichotomized firearm carriage variable, 30.2% of participants carried a firearm outside of their home during the past 12 to 24 months. Lastly, firearm carriage at wave 2 was included as a covariate in the mediation analyses.

Community violence exposure.

Community violence was assessed using 5-items from the Survey of Exposure to Community Violence at wave 2 (ω = 0.81; Richters & Saltzman, 1990). Participants responded on a Likert-type scale of 0 (never) and 3 (many times), and sample items include “I have seen somebody get stabbed or shot” and “my house has been broken into.” Community violence exposure at wave 1 was included as a covariate in the mediation analysis.

Racialized economic segregation.

We utilized the Index of Concentrations at the Extremes (ICErace/income), as detailed by Krieger et al. (2016, 2017), to measure the spatial polarization between low-income (≥ $25,000) non-Hispanic Black and high-income (≤ $100,000) White households within census tracts. This index calculates the ratio of the difference in household proportions to the total number of households, ranging from −1 to 1, where negative values indicate a predominance of high-income White households, positive values suggest a predominance of low-income Black households, and zero indicates either no high-income White households or equal concentrations of both. Using 2000 American Community Survey estimates, we faced the challenge of comparing these to 2010 census tract data, due to decennial revisions of census tract boundaries. We employed the Census Bureau’s tract-level relationship file (Relationship Files, 2023), enabling us to match over 95% of the population in 2010 tracts to their 2000 counterparts, successfully aligning 172 out of 176 tracts for our analysis.

Control variables.

We adjusted for a range of sociodemographic variables at the initial assessment (wave 1), including gender (female vs. male), age, and race (Racial Minoirty vs. White). Additionally, we considered whether the young participants had experienced an assault injury when they first came to the ED. At the start of the study, we evaluated two key mental health concerns: post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and internalizing symptoms such as depression and anxiety as mental health indices were correlated to firearm violence in a prior study (Carter et al., 2013, 2015). To ascertain if participants satisfied the criteria for PTSD, they underwent the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (Sheehan et al., 1998), conducted by a trained research assistant. The assessment of internalizing symptoms over the preceding six months was carried out using the Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). We also examined alcohol use frequency within the prior six months at baseline using a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (four or more times a week) (Saunders et al., 1993), as alcohol misuse has been correlated with youth firearm violence risk behaviors, including firearm carriage (Lee et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2019). We also assessed retaliatory attitudes using the Children’s Perceptions of Environmental Violence (Hill & Noblin, 1991; Lee et al., 2022) and violent behaviors (e.g., fighting, Goldstick et al., 2017) have both been documented as correlates of youth firearm violence. Finally, firearm carriage at wave 2 and community violence at wave 1 were assessed as time-lagged control variables in our analyses.

Procedure

The FYI study was conducted at a Level-1 trauma center in Flint, Michigan. Youth participants (ages 14-24) were recruited if they sought ED treatment for assault injuries and reported drug use in the past six months (Assault-Injured Group, AIG; N = 349). A comparison group (CG; N = 250) of similar drug-using youth, presenting for non-assault reasons, was also recruited. Recruitment spanned from December 2009 to September 2011 and participants provided written consent (or assent with parental consent for those under 18) before completing a screening survey. Criteria for inclusion in the AIG included being intentionally injured by another individual and past 6-month drug use, measured by the NIDA-ASSIST. Exclusions applied for those presenting to the ED due to sexual assault, suicidal behaviors, child maltreatment, inability to consent, being in police custody, or non-English speaking. The CG was proportionally sampled based on age, sex, and recruitment period to minimize biases and to recruit in parallel (to limit seasonal and temporal variation) with the AIG group. Participants underwent baseline surveys and structured interviews (wave 1), with follow-ups at 6 (wave 2), 12 (wave 3), 18 (wave 4), and 24 months (wave 5). All participants in the study received relevant health information brochures and individualized referrals from a clinical social worker if participants met criteria for substance dependence, major depression, or PTSD, or if they self-reported engaging in sexually risky behaviors. The study received ethical approval from the University of Michigan and Hurley Medical Center IRBs, alongside an NIH confidentiality certificate. See Cunningham et al. (2015) for additional information on study procedures.

Analytic approach

Mediation analysis was implemented to evaluate direct and indirect effects of racialized economic segregation on youth firearm carriage via perceptions of community violence (see Figure 1). Indirect effects were estimated using the products of coefficients method (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Bias-corrected bootstrapping was implemented to estimate the sampling distribution of the model coefficients. Moreover, clustered standard errors were used since racialized economic segregation was assessed at the neighborhood level (level 2), while the mediator and outcome were assessed at the individual level (level 1; Cameron & Miller, 2015). We report 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (95% BCI) to determine the statistical significance of direct and indirect effects. We report unstandardized coefficients. Given the binary nature of our dependent variable (i.e., youth firearm aggression), weighted least square mean and variance adjustment estimator was used. Statistical tests were conducted using Mplus (v 8.9; Muthén & Muthén, 2017).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model bridging racialized economic segregation and firearm carriage through perceived community violence.

Results

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Roughly 3 out of 10 youth (30.2%) in our sample carried a firearm outside of their home, with most reported observing at least one form of community violence. Next, we conducted mediation analysis to evaluate whether racialized economic segregation was directly and indirectly associated with youth firearm carriage, with neighborhood disadvantage and exposure to violence as mediators (see Table 2). While traditional model fit indices are not available with the bias-corrected bootstrapping method, model fit without bootstrapping suggested satisfactory model fit (RMSEA = .06, CFI = .99, & SRMR = .03). While the association between racialized economic segregation and firearm carriage was not significant (i.e., direct effect; b = 0.115, 95% BCI [−0.55, 0.71]), racialized economic segregation was associated with community violence exposure (b = 0.33; 95% BCI [0.03, 0.63]), suggesting that youth living in communities with a concentration of low-income Black households (relative to high-income, White households) were exposed to higher levels of community violence. In addition, higher levels of community violence exposure were associated with a higher likelihood of firearm carriage (b = 0.28; 95% BCI [0.11, 0.43]). Lastly, residential racial segregation and youth firearm carriage were indirectly associated through community violence exposure (b = 0.09; 95% BCI [0.01, 0.21]).

Table 2.

Direct and indirect effects

Predictors of Firearm Carrage (Waves 3-5) b (log odds) 95% Bias-Corrected CI
Racialized Economic Segregation 0.115 (−0.549, 0.712)
Community Violence (Wave 2) 0.284 (0.114, 0.433)
Male 0.300 (0.040, 0.567)
Non-White −0.018 (−0.364, 0.321)
Age −0.013 (−0.068, 0.041)
Assault-Injury 0.125 (−0.137, 0.386)
Alcohol Use Frequency 0.009 (−0.077, 0.083)
Violent behaviors 0.101 (−0.124, 0.345)
Firearm Carriage (Wave 2) 0.480 (0.163, 0.781)
Internalizing Symptoms 0.120 (−0.034, 0.264)
PTSD 0.001 (−0.372, 0.363)
Retaliatory Attitudes 0.332 (0.072, 0.597)
Predictors of Community Violence (Wave 2) b 95% Bias-Corrected CI
Racialized Economic Segregation 0.325 (0.031, 0.626)
Male 0.052 (−0.058, 0.157)
Non-White −0.083 (−0.222, 0.050)
Age −0.024 (−0.045, −0.002)
Assault-Injury −0.031 (−0.117, 0.069)
Violent behaviors −0.005 (−0.140, 0.090)
Baseline Community Violence (Wave 1) 0.575 (0.473, 0.685)
Internalizing Symptoms −0.006 (−0.087, 0.073)
PTSD 0.153 (−0.109, 0.395)
Retaliatory Attitudes 0.024 (−0.100, 0.146)
Indirect Effect 0.092 (0.011, 0.214)
Open in a new tab

Note. While traditional model fit indices are not available with the bias-corrected bootstrapping approach and cluster-adjusted standard error, model fit without bootstrapping suggests the mediation model fits the data well (RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.05). CI = Confidence Interval.

Among the control variables, firearm carriage at wave 2 (b = 0.48; 95% BCI [0.16, 0.78]), males (b = 0.3; 95% BCI [0.04, 0.57]), and youth who endorsed higher levels of retaliatory attitudes (b = 0.33; 95% BCI [0.07, 0.6]) were more likely to carry firearms outside of their home. Furthermore, community violence at wave 1 (b = 0.58 95% BCI [0.47, 0.69]) and younger youth (b = −0.02; 95% BCI [−0.05, −0.002) were more likely to be exposed to community violence at wave 2.

Discussion

Our results suggest that one way that structural racism may affect youth firearm carriage is because it increases community violence exposure. Specifically, we found that higher racialized economic segregation – i.e., communities with a higher percentage of low-income Black residents relative to high-income White residents - was associated with higher community violence exposure which was associated with youth firearm carriage. Racialized economic segregation may heighten youth exposure to community violence by diminishing the capacity of institutions (e.g., schools, police) and social networks (e.g., adult residents) to provide necessary support and supervision. This absence of adult guidance may escalate youth engagement in risky behaviors (Ford et al., 2017), thereby heightening vulnerability to community violence exposure. Additionally, neighborhoods contending with racial economic segregation may exhibit lower social capital, which means reduced trust, mutual aid, and cooperation among residents (i.e., weakened informal control), further challenging collective efforts to mitigate community violence (Weisburd et al., 2021). Racialized economic segregation is also associated with less economic opportunity and concentrations of poverty in urban settings both of which are predictors of crime and violence (Krieger et al., 2017). Consequently, youth experiencing elevated levels of community violence may carry firearms for self-protection, driven by an increased fear of victimization (Sokol et al., 2020). Furthermore, Code of the Street theory posits that youth exposed to community violence may learn that firearm carriage garners respect, fear, or enhanced protection, prompting them to carry (Anderson, 2019; Gillum et al., 2024; Sullivan et al., 2024). Thus, the influence of racialized economic segregation on youth firearm carriage is, in part, driven by higher levels of community violence exposure.

The indirect influence of racialized economic segregation on youth firearm carriage through community violence exposure signals a number of foci for youth firearm violence prevention strategies. First, addressing firearm violence requires societal-level interventions that confront the multifaceted manifestations of structural racism. These manifestations include systemic economic disinvestment and isolation in segregated, predominantly Black communities. Reparative solutions focused on reinvesting in these communities are essential (Fields & Raymond, 2021; Uzzi et al., 2024; Whittaker et al., 2024). Challenging policies, programs, and practices that perpetuate structural racism—such as racialized economic segregation—is a critical step toward mitigating the multilevel and multidomain negative downstream effects, such as community violence. This approach treats racism as a root cause of firearm violence and prioritizes the advancement of health equity in a racially just manner. Therefore, our finding underscores the need for reparative solutions that reinvest in Black communities, which have long experienced and continue to endure economic and institutional disinvestment.

Second, firearm carriage, a modifiable risk factor of youth firearm violence, is influenced by higher levels of community violence exposure. Guided by routine activity theory (Miller, 2013), improving high-quality access to organized activities (e.g., extracurricular activities, sports) may limit exposure to community violence and instead increase exposure to prosocial peers and adults (Eisman et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2022). Further, place-based interventions that focus on revitalizing neighborhoods (e.g., greening vacant lots) and modifying public spaces to prevent criminal activities (e.g., crime prevention through environmental design) may reduce youth exposure to community violence (Heinze et al., 2018; Hohl et al., 2019). Place-based remediation strategies deters crime by addressing visible signs of decay and enhancing community engagement in public spaces (Gong et al., 2023; Heinze et al., 2018). For instance, place-based interventions such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design may improve visibility and ownership in neighborhoods to reduce opportunities for crime (Hohl et al., 2019). Individual-focused interventions such as community violence interrupters and hospital violence intervention programs may also be promising strategies for reducing community violence within the context of structural racism (Carter et al., 2016; Chwalisz, 2023; Nofi et al., 2023; Walton et al., 2010; Webster et al., 2022; Whitehill et al., 2014). For instance, Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs (HVIPs) may prevent youth firearm violence by engaging with victims of gun violence directly at the point of medical care for a violent injury to reduce the risk of re-injury and retaliation (Webster et al., 2022). Collectively, these interventions underscore the importance of interventions of addressing the ecological and social consequences of racism to prevent youth firearm carriage within the context of structural racism and community violence.

Lastly, we did not detect a direct association between racialized economic segregation and youth firearm carriage. One might surmise that there are more nuanced, personal experiences that may influence firearm carriage which explains why exposure was associated with carriage. For instance, anticipating violent victimization in one’s neighborhood may contribute to youth firearm carriage (Oliphant et al., 2019), but one may not consider the effects of more upstream and underlying causes of that victimization, and even if they did, carriage allows for a direct and immediate response to a present threat. Self-reports of firearm carriage may, therefore, be influenced by intrapersonal and interpersonal factors, whereas community firearm violence rates may reflect the conditions of broader populations and are more directly influenced by structural factors. Examining place- and individual-level aspects of firearm violence allows for a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between structural factors and personal experiences, thereby informing nuanced and effective strategies for youth firearm violence prevention strategies (Neblett, 2023).

Our research enhances the understanding of the effects that racialized economic segregation has on youth firearm carriage, but our study has several limitations that somewhat reduce its contributions. First, our investigation was confined to youth living in an urban setting known for its elevated level of violent crime. Moreover, the adolescents participating in our study disclosed substance use in the past six months, were seeking care in an urban emergency department, and did not include non-English speaking youth. Consequently, the generalizability of our findings is limited. Nonetheless, our study does provide some insights into how racialized economic segregation contributes to firearm carriage among youth, especially through community violence exposure. Our findings are also likely most pertinent to young populations in areas marked by significant violence, a situation common in many economically distressed smaller cities within the U.S. Second, it is critical to acknowledge that our analysis relies on data that was gathered more than a decade ago. Yet, recent datasets have also continued to identify racialized economic segregation and community firearm violence (Schleimer et al., 2022; Uzzi et al., 2022). This consistency underscores the need for continued investigation into the socioecological consequences of firearm carriage, an area where there remains a significant gap in the data. In addition, the issues of racialized economic segregation, community violence, and firearm carriage have not changed much or increased over the last decade suggesting that our results generalize to the present. Finally, although our study explores the long-term effects of racialized economic segregation on youth firearm carriage, future studies incorporating quasi-experimental methodologies (e.g., instrumental variable analysis) could enhance the capacity to make causal inferences. These limitations notwithstanding, to our knowledge, our research is one of the first to investigate the connections between racialized economic segregation and firearm carriage via community violence using a longitudinal frame of reference.

Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that racialized economic segregation is associated with higher levels of community violence exposure which, in turn, increase the likelihood of youth firearm carriage. Our findings signal potential directions for strategies to prevent youth firearm carriage – i.e., a key risk factor of firearm violence (Oliphant et al., 2019). Our research highlights the critical need for place- and people-based interventions to counteract the deleterious effects of racialized economic segregation on youth firearm carriage. Yet, while place-based and people-based strategies play a critical role in curbing community violence, addressing the underlying root causes, namely, structural racism, is imperative to addressing the racial inequities observed in firearm carriage and violence. Addressing these structural factors is essential for effectively reducing racial disparities in youth firearm violence.

Funding.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The corresponding author (Daniel B. Lee) received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for this research (NICHD; 1R03HD112613-01).

Footnotes

Ethnical Approval. The FYI Study was approved by the University of Michigan (HUM00026787) and Hurley Medical Center IRBs (IRBNet ID: 177665) and an NIH certificate of confidentiality (COC) was obtained.

Competing Interests. The authors declare no competing interests.

There is no conflict of interest to disclose for any of the authors in this study.

References

  1. Aaronson D, Faber J, Hartley D, Mazumder B, & Sharkey P (2021). The long-run effects of the 1930s HOLC “redlining” maps on place-based measures of economic opportunity and socioeconomic success. Regional science and urban economics, 86, 103622. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson E (2019). Code of the Street. In Orum A (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0495 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benns M, Ruther M, Nash N, Bozeman M, Harbrecht B, & Miller K (2020). The impact of historical racism on modern gun violence: Redlining in the city of Louisville, KY. Injury, 51(10), 2192–2198. 10.1016/j.injury.2020.06.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cameron AC, & Miller DL (2015). A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372. 10.3368/jhr.50.2.317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carter PM, Mouch CA, Goldstick JE, Walton MA, Zimmerman MA, Resnicow K, & Cunningham RM (2020). Rates and correlates of risky firearm behaviors among adolescents and young adults treated in an urban emergency department. Preventive Medicine, 130, 105891. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carter PM, Walton MA, Newton MF, Clery M, Whiteside LK, Zimmerman MA, & Cunningham RM (2013). Firearm Possession Among Adolescents Presenting to an Urban Emergency Department for Assault. Pediatrics, 132(2), 213–221. 10.1542/peds.2013-0163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carter PM, Walton MA, Roehler DR, Goldstick J, Zimmerman MA, Blow FC, & Cunningham RM (2015). Firearm Violence Among High-Risk Emergency Department Youth After an Assault Injury. Pediatrics, peds.2014–3572. 10.1542/peds.2014-3572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carter PM, Walton MA, Zimmerman MA, Chermack ST, Roche JS, & Cunningham RM (2016). Efficacy of a Universal Brief Intervention for Violence Among Urban Emergency Department Youth. Academic Emergency Medicine, 23(9), 1061–1070. 10.1111/acem.13021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS): Fatal and Non-Fatal Injury Data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars [Google Scholar]
  10. Chwalisz N (2023). Beating the Gun—One Conversation at a Time? Evaluating the Impact of DC’s “Cure the Streets” Public Health Intervention Against Gun Violence. Crime & Delinquency, 00111287231160735. 10.1177/00111287231160735 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Crifasi CK, Williams RG, Booty MD, Owens-Young JL, Webster DW, & Buggs SAL (2022). Community perspectives on gun violence and safety: The role of policing in Baltimore City. Journal of Criminal Justice, 83, 101964. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101964 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cunningham RM, Carter PM, Ranney M, Zimmerman MA, Blow FC, Booth BM, Goldstick J, & Walton MA (2015). Violent Reinjury and Mortality Among Youth Seeking Emergency Department Care for Assault-Related Injury: A 2-Year Prospective Cohort Study. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(1), 63–70. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Derogatis LR, & Melisaratos N (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595–605. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisman AB, Lee DB, Hsieh H-F, Stoddard SA, & Zimmerman MA (2018). More Than Just Keeping Busy: The Protective Effects of Organized Activity Participation on Violence and Substance Use Among Urban Youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(10), 2231–2242. 10.1007/s10964-018-0868-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. FBI Supplementary Homicide Report, 2016-2020. (2020). Federal Bureau of Investigations. https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/downloads [Google Scholar]
  16. Fields D, & Raymond EL (2021). Racialized geographies of housing financialization. Progress in Human Geography, 45(6), 1625–1645. 10.1177/03091325211009299 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ford JA, Sacra SA, & Yohros A (2017). Neighborhood characteristics and prescription drug misuse among adolescents: The importance of social disorganization and social capital. International Journal of Drug Policy, 46, 47–53. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gillum TL, Hampton CJ, & Coppedge C (2024). Using the Socio-Ecological Model to Understand Increased Risk of Gun Violence in the African American Community. Psychological Reports, 00332941241256635. 10.1177/00332941241256635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gobaud AN, Morrison CN, Branas CC, Jacoby S, Kramer M, & Adkins-Jackson PB (2024). Measuring the effect of historical structural racism on community firearm violence in US cities. Social Science & Medicine, 361, 117355. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldstick JE, Carter PM, Walton MA, Dahlberg LL, Sumner SA, Zimmerman MA, & Cunningham RM (2017). Development of the SaFETy Score: A Clinical Screening Tool for Predicting Future Firearm Violence Risk. Annals of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 707–714. 10.7326/M16-1927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldstick JE, Cunningham RM, & Carter PM (2022). Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 386(20), 1955–1956. 10.1056/NEJMc2201761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gong CH, Bushman G, Hohl BC, Kondo MC, Carter PM, Cunningham RM, Rupp LA, Grodzinski A, Branas CC, Vagi KJ, & Zimmerman MA (2023). Community engagement, greening, and violent crime: A test of the greening hypothesis and Busy Streets. American Journal of Community Psychology, 71(1–2), 198–210. 10.1002/ajcp.12622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Heinze JE, Krusky-Morey A, Vagi KJ, Reischl TM, Franzen S, Pruett NK, Cunningham RM, & Zimmerman MA (2018). Busy Streets Theory: The Effects of Community-engaged Greening on Violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62(1–2), 101–109. 10.1002/ajcp.12270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hill HM, & Noblin V (1991). Children’s Perceptions of Environmental Violence. Howard University. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hohl BC, Kondo MC, Kajeepeta S, MacDonald JM, Theall KP, Zimmerman MA, & Branas CC (2019). Creating Safe And Healthy Neighborhoods With Place-Based Violence Interventions. Health Affairs, 38(10), 1687–1694. 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00707 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jacoby SF, Dong B, Beard JH, Wiebe DJ, & Morrison CN (2018). The enduring impact of historical and structural racism on urban violence in Philadelphia. Social Science & Medicine, 199, 87–95. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.05.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jay J, Kondo MC, Lyons VH, Gause E, & South EC (2022). Neighborhood segregation, tree cover and firearm violence in 6 U.S. cities, 2015–2020. Preventive Medicine, 165, 107256. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kegler SR, Simon TR, Zwald ML, Chen MS, Mercy JA, Jones CM, Mercado-Crespo MC, Blair JM, Stone DM, Ottley PG, & Dills J (2022). Vital signs: Changes in firearm homicide and suicide rates—U.S. 2019–2020 (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/117140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Knopov A, Rothman EF, Cronin SW, Franklin L, Cansever A, Potter F, Mesic A, Sharma A, Xuan Z, Siegel M, & Hemenway D (2019). The Role of Racial Residential Segregation in Black-White Disparities in Firearm Homicide at the State Level in the United States, 1991-2015. Journal of the National Medical Association, 111(1), 62–75. 10.1016/j.jnma.2018.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Krieger N, Feldman JM, Waterman PD, Chen JT, Coull BA, & Hemenway D (2017). Local Residential Segregation Matters: Stronger Association of Census Tract Compared to Conventional City-Level Measures with Fatal and Non-Fatal Assaults (Total and Firearm Related), Using the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE) for Racial, Economic, and Racialized Economic Segregation, Massachusetts (US), 1995–2010. Journal of Urban Health, 94(2), 244–258. 10.1007/s11524-016-0116-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Krieger N, Waterman PD, Spasojevic J, Li W, Maduro G, & Van Wye G (2016). Public Health Monitoring of Privilege and Deprivation With the Index of Concentration at the Extremes. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2), 256–263. 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee DB, Hsieh H-F, Stoddard SA, Heinze JE, Carter PM, Goldstick JE, Cunningham MC, Cunningham RM, & Zimmerman MA (2020). Longitudinal pathway from violence exposure to firearm carriage among adolescents: The role of future expectation. Journal of Adolescence, 81, 101–113. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee DB, Schmidt CJ, Heinze JE, Carter PM, Cunningham RM, Walton MA, & Zimmerman MA (2022). Retaliatory attitudes as mediator of exposure to violence and firearm aggression among youth: The protective role of organized activity involvement. Developmental Psychology, 58(5), 990–1002. 10.1037/dev0001339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee DB, Stallworth P, Cunningham RM, Walton MA, Neblett EW, & Carter PM (2024). Residential Racial Segregation and Youth Firearm Aggression: Neighborhood Disadvantage and Exposure to Violence as Mediators. Youth & Society, 56(8), 1468–1490. 10.1177/0044118X241256367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, & Fritz MS (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mehranbod CA, Gobaud AN, Jacoby SF, Uzzi M, Bushover BR, & Morrison CN (2022). Historical redlining and the epidemiology of present-day firearm violence in the United States: A multi-city analysis. Preventive Medicine, 165, 107207. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller J (2013). Individual Offending, Routine Activities, and Activity Settings: Revisiting the Routine Activity Theory of General Deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(3), 390–416. 10.1177/0022427811432641 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2017). Mplus User’s Guide (Eigth Edition). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  39. Neblett EW (2023). Racism measurement and influences, variations on scientific racism, and a vision. Social Science & Medicine, 316, 115247. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Nofi CP, Roberts BK, Cornell E, Tijerina M, Tussing O, Henry MC, & Sathya C (2023). Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs to Reduce Firearm Injuries in Children: A Scoping Review. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 58(11), 2212–2221. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2023.04.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. O’Connor KE, Sullivan TN, & Ross KM (2023). Individual- and Peer-Level Risk and Protective Factors for Gun Carriage Among Adolescents Living in Low-Income Urban Communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(7–8), 5564–5590. 10.1177/08862605221124252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Oliphant SN, Mouch CA, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Hargarten S, Jay J, Hemenway D, Zimmerman M, Carter PM, & for the FACTS Consortium. (2019). A scoping review of patterns, motives, and risk and protective factors for adolescent firearm carriage. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42(4), 763–810. 10.1007/s10865-019-00048-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pino EC, Jacoby SF, Dugan E, & Jay J (2023). Exposure to Neighborhood Racialized Economic Segregation and Reinjury and Violence Perpetration Among Survivors of Violent Injuries. JAMA Network Open, 6(4), e238404. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Richters JE, & Saltzman W (1990). Survey of children’s exposure to community violence (National Institute of Mental Health; ). [Google Scholar]
  45. Roberts BK, Nofi CP, Cornell E, Kapoor S, Harrison L, & Sathya C (2023). Trends and Disparities in Firearm Deaths Among Children. Pediatrics, 152(3), e2023061296. 10.1542/peds.2023-061296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, De La Fuente JR, & Grant M (1993). Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption-II. Addiction, 88(6), 791–804. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Schleimer JP, Buggs SA, McCort CD, Pear VA, Biasi AD, Tomsich E, Shev AB, Laqueur HS, & Wintemute GJ (2022). Neighborhood Racial and Economic Segregation and Disparities in Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Journal of Public Health, 112(1), 144–153. 10.2105/AJPH.2021.306540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Schmidt CJ, Rupp L, Pizarro JM, Lee DB, Branas CC, & Zimmerman MA (2019). Risk and protective factors related to youth firearm violence: A scoping review and directions for future research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42(4), 706–723. 10.1007/s10865-019-00076-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, Hergueta T, Baker R, & Dunbar GC (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59 Suppl 20, 22–33;quiz 34-57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sokol RL, Carter PM, Goldstick J, Miller AL, Walton MA, Zimmerman MA, & Cunningham RM (2020). Within-Person Variability in Firearm Carriage Among High-Risk Youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 59(3), 386–393. 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sokol RL, Kumodzi T, Cunningham RM, Resnicow K, Steiger M, Walton M, Zimmerman MA, & Carter PM (2022). The association between perceived community violence, police bias, race, and firearm carriage among urban adolescents and young adults. Preventive Medicine, 154, 106897. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stewart EA, & Simons RL (2010). Race, Code of the Street, and Violent Delinquency: A Multilevel Investigation of Neighborhood Street Culture and Individual Norms of Violence*. Criminology, 48(2), 569–605. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00196.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sullivan TN, Ross KM, O’Connor KE, Walsh CS, & Bishop D (2024). Relations Between Violence Exposure and Gun Carriage: Identifying Protective Factors Among African American Youth Living in Low-Income Urban Communities. Youth & Society, 56(8), 1396–1424. 10.1177/0044118X231172531 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Uzzi M, Aune KT, Marineau L, Jones FK, Dean LT, Jackson JW, & Latkin CA (2022). An intersectional analysis of historical and contemporary structural racism on non-fatal shootings in Baltimore, Maryland. Injury Prevention. 10.1136/ip-2022-044700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Uzzi M, Whittaker S, Esposito MH, Dean LT, Buggs SA, & Pollack Porter KM (2024). Racial capitalism and firearm violence: Developing a theoretical framework for firearm violence research examining structural racism. Social Science & Medicine, 358, 117255. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Walton MA, Chermack ST, Shope JT, Bingham CR, Zimmerman MA, Blow FC, & Cunningham RM (2010). Effects of a Brief Intervention for Reducing Violence and Alcohol Misuse Among Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, 304(5), 527–535. 10.1001/jama.2010.1066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Webster DW, Richardson J, Meyerson N, Vil C, & Topazian R (2022). Research on the Effects of Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs: Observations and Recommendations. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 704(1), 137–157. 10.1177/00027162231173323 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Weisburd D, White C, Wire S, & Wilson DB (2021). Enhancing Informal Social Controls to Reduce Crime: Evidence from a Study of Crime Hot Spots. Prevention Science, 22(4), 509–522. 10.1007/s11121-020-01194-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Whitehill JM, Webster DW, Frattaroli S, & Parker EM (2014). Interrupting Violence: How the CeaseFire Program Prevents Imminent Gun Violence through Conflict Mediation. Journal of Urban Health, 91(1), 84–95. 10.1007/s11524-013-9796-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Whittaker S, Swope CB, & Keene D (2024). Rethinking the effects of gentrification on the health of Black communities in the United States: Towards a racialized health framework. Journal of Urban Affairs, 0(0), 1–23. 10.1080/07352166.2023.2268761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Williams DR, & Mohammed SA (2013). Racism and Health I: Pathways and Scientific Evidence. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(8), 1152–1173. 10.1177/0002764213487340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES