TABLE 2—

Description of Variables From the Analyses of How Street Efficacy Is Related to Violent Victimization Across Different Levels of Neighborhood Disadvantage: 9-, 12-, and 15-Year-Old Cohorts of the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, 1995 and 1999

Variables	Description	Data Collected
Dependent: violent victimization	A dichotomous measure based on 7 items from the Exposure to Violence instrument29 asking youths if, in the past year, they had ever been hit, slapped, or beaten up; attacked with a weapon; chased; shot at; shot; or sexually assaulted; and whether someone had threatened to seriously hurt them. Items were summed and dichotomized to differentiate those reporting 1 or more violent victimizations and no violent victimizations in the past year.	Wave 2
Neighborhood-level: concentrated disadvantage	A standardized scale based on 6 items from the US Census: percentage of residents living below the poverty level, receiving public assistance, unemployed, aged younger than 18 years, and percentage of female-headed households and African American residents. Higher scores reflected more disadvantage. Three additional variables were created to represent “low disadvantage” neighborhood clusters, representing the lowest 25th percentile of scores on the continuous variable; “high disadvantage” neighborhoods in the highest 25th percentile; and “moderate disadvantage” neighborhoods that fell between the two.	1990 US Census
Independent: street efficacy	A standardized scale based on 5 items assessing youths’ ability to avoid or successfully navigate dangerous places and situations in their neighborhoods.26 Participants were asked if they feel safe alone or with friends, are able to travel safely to school or around their neighborhoods, and can avoid gangs and fights in their neighborhoods. For each item, participants were given 2 parallel statements and asked which best applied to them and whether it was true or very true. We summed and standardized responses to each of the 5 sets of items; higher scores reflect more street efficacy.	Wave 2
Control
Demographics	Sex, age, race/ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic, and Other)	Wave 1
Family SES	A standardized scale based on a principal components analysis of caregiver reports of household income, maximum education level of themselves and their partner, and the type of employment of the primary caregiver and his or her partner. Higher scores represent greater SES.	Wave 1
Family attachment	A standardized scale based on 6 summed items from the Provision of Social Relations instrument.30 Youths rated on a 3-point scale (from not true to very true): I know my family will always be there for me; sometimes I’m not sure I can rely on family (reverse coded); my family tells me they think I am valuable; my family has confidence in me; my family helps me find solutions to problems; and I know family will always stand by me.	Wave 1
Parental warmth	A standardized scale based on 9 summed items rated by research staff using the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment.31 During in-home interviews, staff recorded whether they observed caregivers talking to children at least twice, answering children’s questions, encouraging children, mentioning children’s skills, praising children at least twice, using a nickname for children, voicing positive feelings for children, caressing or kissing the children, and responding positively to interviewers’ praise of children.	Wave 1
Parental supervision	A standardized scale based on summed responses by caregivers to 13 dichotomous items on the Home Observation survey31 including whether they set curfews, ensured children had supervision after school, had contact with children’s friends and teachers, set rules about homework, and spoke to their children about drugs and alcohol.	Wave 1
Low self-control	A standardized scale32 based on summed responses by caregivers to 17 items on the Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impulsivity Temperament survey,33 each rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Sample items included children’s trouble controlling their impulses or resisting temptation and their tendency to act on the spur of the moment, give up easily, or get bored easily.	Wave 1
Peer delinquency	A standardized scale based on youths’ responses to 11 items from the Deviance of Peers instrument.34 Participants reported the proportion of their peers (1 = none of them; 2 = some of them; 3 = all of them) who engaged in 11 violent and property offenses in the past year, including fighting, attacking others with weapons, robbery, theft, property damage, motor vehicle theft, and drug sales.	Wave 1
Previous violence	A dichotomous variable indicating whether youths reported ever engaging in at least 1 of 7 violent acts reported on the Self-Report Delinquency Questionnaire,34 including hitting others, attacking someone with a weapon, being involved in a gang fight, using a weapon or force to get money or things from people, throwing objects at people, and threatening to physically hurt others.	Wave 1
Unstructured time	A standardized scale based on 4 items taken from the Routine Activities survey35 asking youth how often they ride around in a car or motorcycle for fun, hang out with friends, go to parties, and go out after school or at night. Responses were based on a 5-point Likert scale (from “never” to “almost every day”).	Wave 2

Note. SES = socioeconomic status.