Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Soc Sci Med. 2021 Jan 15;272:113705. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113705

The Influence of Neighborhood Violent Crime on Child-Rearing: Integrating Neighborhood Ecologies and Stratified Reproduction Approaches

Brooke V Jespersen a,*, Vanessa M Hildebrand b, Jill E Korbin a, James C Spilsbury c
PMCID: PMC7986388  NIHMSID: NIHMS1671893  PMID: 33571945

Abstract

While relationships between neighborhood violent crime and adverse child outcomes are well-established, less is known about how neighborhood violent crime influences child-rearing strategies. To address this gap, we blend neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction frameworks and examine interview data collected in 2014–2015 from 107 adult caregivers residing in three low and three elevated violent crime neighborhoods in Cleveland, OH, USA. Our objective is to examine how perceptions of neighborhood violent crime and its relationship to self-reported child-rearing practices vary by level of neighborhood violence. We find that, although caregivers in low and elevated violent crime neighborhoods shared the perception of neighborhood violent crime as a concern, their narratives of child-rearing practices differed. Caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods were more likely than their low violent crime counterparts to describe in experience-near terms how violent crime threatened their children’s well-being. To protect children, caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods reported engaging in severely constrained child-rearing strategies. These constraints have unintended consequences. While they may protect children in the short-term, they may also reproduce inequities by reducing family quality of life in other ways. These findings advance understanding of how neighborhood violent crime differentially affects child-rearing. We integrate neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction frameworks to capture how social inequities interact in neighborhood settings to constrain child-rearing and perpetuate inequities over time.

Keywords: Violent Crime, Parenting, Neighborhood, Stratified Reproduction

Introduction

Mounting evidence underscores the importance of neighborhood context for child safety and well-being (Barnes et al., 2006; McDonnell, 2007). For families living in neighborhoods with elevated violent crime rates, however, child safety may be an elusive goal. Research suggests that neighborhood violence poses a number of challenges for families. Aside from bodily harm, neighborhood violence is associated with family stress (Conger et al., 1994), intensive monitoring of children (Letiecq & Koblinsky, 2004), constrained mobility (Carver et al., 2010; Haas et al., 2018; Furstenberg, 1993), and adverse effects on children’s cognitive development (Margolin & Gordis, 2000), educational attainment (Harding, 2009), and mental health (Berton & Stabb, 1996; Garbarino et al., 1991). Moreover, caregivers’ efforts to provide safety for children are complicated by the association of neighborhood violent crime with child maltreatment (Daley et al., 2016; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1998; Molnar et al., 2003; Morris et al., 2019).

The relationship between neighborhood violence and adverse child outcomes, however, is not deterministic. Research demonstrates that caregivers adapt child-rearing strategies to protect children from neighborhood violence (Anderson, 1999; Elliott & Aseltine, 2012; Furstenberg et al., 1999; Letiecq & Koblinsky, 2004; Roche, Ensminger, & Cherlin, 2007). These strategies are deeply influenced by social location, including race, class, and gender. For example, research suggests that mothers of color protect children by teaching them how to navigate racism (Collins, 2005) and that African American and poor parents more intensively monitor their children than their White and wealthier counterparts (Eliott & Aseltine, 2012; Jarrett, 1997). Caregivers’ strategies to protect children may buffer them from the risks of neighborhood violent crime (Clark, 1983; Furstenberg, 1993; Jarrett, 1997) or perpetuate social inequities (Dearing, 2004; Elliott & Aseltine, 2012). Research on the influence of neighborhood violent crime on child-rearing, however, has been limited by an under-examination of how child-rearing practices vary by level of neighborhood violence. Furthermore, researchers have struggled to reconcile neighborhood-based approaches with the broader power structures and intersecting categories of identity that shape human experience.

In this article, we investigate the neighborhood violent crime and child-rearing nexus by blending a neighborhood ecologies framework with that of stratified reproduction, an anthropological framework exploring how inequities of race, class, and gender make raising and nurturing children challenging for particular groups (Colen, 1995). Our objective is to examine how perceptions of neighborhood violent crime and its relationship to self-reported child-rearing practices vary by level of neighborhood violence. To this end, we compare semi-structured interviews with 107 adults caregivers in low versus elevated violent crime neighborhoods in Cleveland, OH, USA. Caregivers, unprompted by interviewers, described how they adjusted their child-rearing strategies to protect children from neighborhood violence. Based on differences in low and elevated violent crime neighborhood caregivers’ narratives, we argue that inequities of geographic place, race, class, and gender produce differential options for child-rearing. These differential options for child-rearing, in which caregivers must choose between protecting children from neighborhood violence and reducing family quality of life in other ways, illustrate how extraordinarily challenging it is to raise safe, healthy, and happy children when residing in neighborhoods with elevated violent crime rates and other forms of disadvantage. We, therefore, propose integrating neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction frameworks to capture the complex context of child safety and well-being. Together, these frameworks enhance understanding of how social inequities interact in neighborhood settings to constrain child-rearing and perpetuate inequities over time.

Background

Neighborhood Ecologies

Researchers have investigated the relationship between place and child-well-being through an ecological framework. An ecological framework, first promoted by Bronfenbrenner (1979), situates child development as nested in families, neighborhoods and communities, and the larger socio-cultural environment. Thus, from an ecological perspective, numerous factors at multiple levels of the ecology interact to influence child development (Bronfenbrenner et al.,1984; Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993). Neighborhood is one level that has garnered attention, in part, because it is geographically bounded and therefore compatible with mixed-method and multi-level research (e.g., Coulton et al., 2007; Maguire-Jack & Font, 2017), and because social and economic inequities tend to cluster at the neighborhood level (Freisthler et al., 2006).

Neighborhood ecologies highlight how structural characteristics and social processes of neighborhoods are associated with child well-being (Sampson et al., 1997; Shaw & McKay, 1942). Neighborhood structural characteristics refer to the social and economic structure of urban settlement patterns. For example, neighborhood-level poverty and unemployment rates are associated with adolescent delinquent behavior (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Ludwig, Duncan, & Hirschfield, 2001) and with child maltreatment (Deccio et al., 1994; Freisthler et al., 2006; Maguire-Jack, 2014). Neighborhood social processes refer to interactions, relationships, and trust among neighbors. For example, neighborhood social networks—an indicator of social ties—are associated with positive mental and physical health outcomes, as well as healthy child development (Berkman, 1982; Berkman et al., 2000; Bowlby, 1988).

The neighborhood ecologies framework has drawn important attention to the role of place in shaping child well-being. However, this approach has under-examined how inequitable power dynamics beyond neighborhoods influence residential selection into neighborhoods, caregiver experiences within neighborhoods, and ultimately life chances. In principle, neighborhood ecologies considers multiple levels, including the broader socio-economic environment; however, in practice, this approach largely focuses on neighborhoods. For example, research on “neighborhood effects” has considered how residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods adversely affects individual-level outcomes (e.g. Wilson, 1987), but it has struggled to account for how inequities associated with individual-level characteristics, like race and class, select individuals into and keep them in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Coulton et al., 2007; Duncan et al., 2004). Moreover, the neighborhood ecologies framework is not necessarily intersectional (Roy, 2018). Neighborhood research has tended to include multiple neighborhood characteristics in models predicting individual outcomes, but has not fully explored how intersecting categories of identity, including race, class, and gender, and systems of oppression simultaneously shape experience (Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1989). To address these limitations, critical theorists contend that neighborhood ecologies research must critically engage the broader socio-economic processes outside neighborhoods that shape life chances (Manley et al., 2013; Mayer, 2003; Slater, 2013), as well as resources for raising children. As we explore in the next section, the framework of stratified reproduction is one way to incorporate broader power dynamics and intersecting categories of identity into neighborhood ecologies research.

Stratified Reproduction

Stratified reproduction is a useful tool for conceptualizing how inequitable power structures and intersecting categories of identity influence child-rearing. Anthropologist Shellee Colen (1995) coined the term “stratified reproduction” to describe disparities in the ability of people of different races, classes, and genders to raise their children. Stratified reproduction was later defined by anthropologists Ginsberg and Rapp as “the power relations by which some categories of people are empowered to nurture and reproduce, while others are disempowered” (1995, p.3). The meaning of reproduction here is broad, encompassing biological and social aspects of creating and sustaining life. While most stratified reproduction research has focused on literal procreation (e.g. Braff, 2013; Castañeda, 2008; Inhorn & Birenbaum-Carmeli, 2008; Rapp, 1999; Singh, 2016), we follow Colen (1995) by exclusively examining reproduction as nurturance and child-rearing.

Central to stratified reproduction research is recognition that social and political-economic structures, as well as cultural ideologies, privilege and support the reproductive experiences of the “ideal” family (i.e. White, middle class, heterosexual, married caregivers) (Braff, 2013; Fleuriet, 2008; Lewin, 1995; Mullings, 1995). These macro-level structures, and the inequities associated with them, make it extraordinarily challenging for caregivers who do not meet the “ideal” to raise safe, healthy, and happy children. For example, Colen compared the child-rearing experiences of wealthy White women in New York City and the West Indian women in their employ. While White women had the financial means to hire the West Indian women as nannies, West Indian women had to immigrate to New York to find work to support their families. This meant that West Indian women were unable to care for their own children or have as many children as they might have liked because they were busy caring for wealthy White women’s children. Inequities related to the race, class, gender, and migration status of the West Indian women, thus, constrained their options for child-rearing. Colen (1995) argued that these differential child-rearing options and experiences constitute stratified reproduction.

The stratified reproduction framework also illuminates how inequities associated with race, class, and gender are perpetuated over time and across generations. Processes of stratified reproduction do not simply reflect inequities, but are contributing factors to “intensifying the inequalities on which [stratified reproduction] is based” (Colen, 1995, p.78). While similar to intersectionality theory in that it considers how multiple categories of identity simultaneously shape experience (Crenshaw, 1989), stratified reproduction goes a step further to describe the reproduction of social stratification (Ginsberg & Rapp, 1991). The term reproduction, thus, takes on a meaning beyond that of literal child-bearing and child-rearing; it investigates how systems of social stratification are maintained or even exacerbated over time. For instance, Shi argues that processes of stratified reproduction deepen social stratification in China, where elites circumvent birth regulations and have unplanned births. While many socially marginalized couples are unable to register their unplanned children for citizenship status and social benefits, elites have the resources to legitimate their offspring’s births, thereby transferring their status to their children and reproducing a new generation of elites (Shi, 2016). This research not only illustrates that inequities in reproduction exist, but helps us conceptualize how systems of social stratification are perpetuated (Colen, 1995).

Integrating Neighborhood Ecologies and Stratified Reproduction

By examining child-rearing in relation to neighborhood violent crime, this article seeks to integrate neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction approaches to capture the complex context of child safety and well-being. First, the neighborhood ecologies approach helps us to understand that geographic place is an important factor in shaping processes of stratified reproduction. While stratified reproduction research has effectively considered how inequities of race, class, and gender make raising children challenging for particular groups, it has not as effectively examined how inequities of geographic place undermine child-rearing. We argue that inequities of geographic place (e.g. elevated violent crime neighborhoods) are a contributing factor to constrained options for child-rearing.

Second, stratified reproduction addresses limitations of the neighborhood ecologies framework. While neighborhood ecologies research has documented that neighborhood-level and individual-level inequities influence child well-being, it has not as effectively engaged the social and political-economic structures that select families into and keep families in disadvantaged neighborhoods, as well as constrain options for child-rearing. The stratified reproduction framework enhances neighborhood ecologies by making evident the intersecting and inequitable power structures that make raising and nurturing children challenging for particular groups. Moreover, stratified reproduction helps us to understand how unequal neighborhood conditions contribute to the perpetuation of inequities over time. Critical engagement with unequal power dynamics, including those that lie outside neighborhoods, may be key to better understanding the mechanisms that connect neighborhood conditions and child well-being.

Methods

This research draws on the study “Neighborhood factors and child maltreatment: A mixed-methods study (NIH Grant R01HD077002),” which investigated the association between neighborhood conditions and child maltreatment in Cleveland, OH, by using quantitative and qualitative interview data with adult neighborhood residents, as well as census-level administrative data.

Sample

The sample included 400 adult residents who cared for at least one child under the age of 18 years in 20 Cleveland neighborhoods (i.e. census tracts). Caregivers were included if they met the following criteria: 18 years of age or older; parent or guardian of at least one child under the age of 18 years; and ability to understand English.

Procedures for creating the sample have been described elsewhere (Spilsbury et al., 2018); briefly, the 20 neighborhoods were selected via stratified random sampling to represent various structural characteristics linked to child maltreatment during a similar investigation twenty years prior (Coulton et al., 1995). A block group within each census tract was selected at random and adult residents within each block were selected via a standardized, randomized procedure for visiting and recruiting households. Households were excluded from the study after interviewers made three additional visits at different times of day and different days of the week without speaking to the resident. A total of 6,295 occupied housing units were approached in 2014–2015, and interviewers spoke with an adult in 79.6 percent of these units. Of contacted homes, 82.0 percent were ineligible because there were no children in the home or because they did not speak English, 9.6 percent refused screening, and 0.4 percent dropped out or were removed from the study before completing study procedures. This produced our total initial sample of 400 adult caregivers in 20 neighborhoods (20 per neighborhood).

All caregivers provided written informed consent before participating, completed two 45-minute interviews, and were compensated for their time with a $50 gift card. The study was approved by Case Western Reserve University’s Institutional Review Board.

During interviews, neighborhood violent crime emerged as a prominent concern. We therefore created a stratified subsample of caregivers living in low and elevated violent crime neighborhoods post hoc in order to understand how perceptions of violent crime and its relationship to child-rearing varied by level of neighborhood violence. Low violent crime neighborhoods were defined as those with a violent crime rate in the 25th percentile for all of Cleveland (a rate of 0.00 to 1.08 violent crime reports per 100 population). Elevated violent crime neighborhoods were defined as those with a violent crime rate above the 75th percentile for all of Cleveland (a rate of 2.55 to 12.02 violent crime reports per 100 population) (NEOCANDO, 2018). Violent crime rate includes homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Three study neighborhoods were classified as low violent crime and three study neighborhoods were classified as elevated violent crime. To facilitate comparison between African American and White caregivers, caregivers who identified as a race other than African American or White were excluded from analysis. Previous research suggests that child-rearing strategies amidst violent crime vary by race (Elliott & Aseltine, 2012; Roche, Ensminger, & Cherlin, 2007). Moreover, caregivers who identified as a race other than African American and White comprised only 10.8 percent (n=13) of the sample, which was insufficient to draw comparisons. This produced a total subsample of 107 caregivers.

Fifty-five (n=55) caregivers lived in low violent crime neighborhoods, while fifty-two (n=52) caregivers lived in elevated violent crime neighborhoods. The low violent crime sample was predominantly female (89 percent) and White (67 percent), with an average age of 34 years. Sixty-two percent had greater than a high school education and 36 percent lived below the federal poverty line. The elevated violent crime sample was predominantly female (85 percent) and African American (73 percent), with an average age of 35 years. Thirty-seven percent had greater than a high school education and 67 percent lived below the federal poverty line.

The neighborhoods in which caregivers lived also differed. In low violent crime neighborhoods, African Americans comprised 12 percent of the population. The poverty rate was 20 percent, the unemployment rate was eight percent, and 29 percent of residents lived in female-headed households. Forty-four percent owned their own homes. In elevated violent crime neighborhoods, African Americans comprised 66 percent of the population. The poverty rate was 52 percent, the unemployment rate was 20 percent, and 70 percent of residents lived in female-headed households. Thirty-eight percent owned their own homes.

Procedure

Interviews were conducted by university-level research assistants in study caregivers’ homes. Interviews included scale items and closed and open questions regarding neighborhood conditions, neighbor relations, child-rearing, and child maltreatment. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim by university-level research assistants.

Coding and analysis, as it relates to violent crime, occurred in two steps. First, all interviews were coded in Dedoose (© 2018 Dedoose, LLC), a commercially available software for mixed-methods data, by two independent coders. Coding discrepancies were reconciled by a third. Four questions elicited responses that were coded as violent crime: What are challenges in your neighborhood? What are three bad things about your neighborhood for raising children? Why do residents leave your neighborhood? And how do drugs and alcohol affect your neighborhood? Questions were open-ended, meaning that caregivers identified violent crime as a concern without prompting from interviewers. All codes related to violent crime were compiled into one dichotomous variable: identified violent crime as a concern.

Second, narrative analyses of entire interview transcripts were conducted by the authors to assess how caregivers described violent crime and how they connected it to child-rearing. Examining the influence of violent crime on narratives of child-rearing was not an initial goal of our study, thus, caregivers were not asked directly about violent crime. However, some caregivers volunteered supplementary descriptions of violent crime and child-rearing throughout interviews. Given previous research suggesting that violent crime influences child-rearing (e.g. Anderson, 1999; Furstenberg et al., 1999), we believe it is valuable to explore caregivers’ narratives of raising children in relation to violent crime, even though we did not directly ask caregivers about this phenomenon.

Narratives of violent crime and associated influences on child-rearing were coded using an inductive thematic approach, meaning that codes emerged from the data and were not established a priori (Bernard, Ryan, & Wutich, 2017). All interview excerpts in which caregivers mentioned violent crime were examined. Excerpts in which caregivers provided detailed examples of violent crime or described how violent crime influenced child-rearing were then isolated. Mentions of violent crime as a concern without examples or connections to child-rearing were not coded. From these excerpts, inductive thematic codes were identified. Inductive thematic codes focused on types of violent crime examples (e.g. experience-near and experience-distant), as well as types of strategies for protecting children (e.g. sequestering children; providing additional supervision). After inductive thematic codes were identified, excerpts were reviewed again by the authors to ensure codes fit the data. Lastly, types of strategies for protecting children were organized into two broader codes, modified and constrained child-rearing, which are explained below in the results section.

Results

Forty-two percent (n=23) of caregivers in low violent crime neighborhoods and 69 percent (n=36) of caregivers in high violent crime neighborhoods identified violent crime as a concern. A subset of caregivers who identified violent crime as a concern volunteered supplementary examples of violent crime and its relationship to child-rearing. Among caregivers in low violent crime neighborhoods, 14 caregivers provided examples of violent crime and 15 described child-rearing strategies in relation to violent crime. Among caregivers in high violent crime neighborhoods, 21 provided examples of violent crime and 25 described child-rearing strategies in relation to violent crime.

Narrative analysis revealed two types of violent crime examples employed by caregivers: experience-distant and experience-near. Experience-distant refers to examples of violent crime that were hypothetical or based on hear-say, as opposed to personal experience, while experience-near refers to examples derived from personal experience or the experience of someone known to the caregiver. In addition, narrative analysis revealed two primary ways that caregivers altered their child-rearing strategies in response to violent crime: modified and constrained child-rearing. Modified child-rearing refers to the limiting or adjusting of normal activities in an effort to protect children, while constrained child-rearing refers to drastic curtailing or elimination of activities in order to protect children. These are not necessarily distinct strategies, but points on a continuum of constrained options for child-rearing.

Low Violent Crime Neighborhoods

Of the 14 caregivers in low violent crime neighborhoods who provided examples of violent crime, 71 percent (n=10) employed experience-distant examples. In other words, caregivers in low violent crime neighborhoods tended to support their concerns about violent crime by providing examples about which they had heard, but not experienced themselves.

There’s a kid that was growing pot in his apartment…He got killed. That whole situations was a little bit sketchy, I didn’t know what was going on. [African American female, age 36]

You know, I’m not in a gang. But I can only imagine the kinds of things that really are going on, you know…There’s an artist who was killed here a few years back. Like, because he was just out too late. [White female, age 29]

Others justified their concerns about violent crime by providing hypothetical examples.

I mean you realize, you really could get shot in the head. Like it’s really not a great realization when you realize it, and it has happened to people…[White female, age 29]

Well, clearly safety. I mean, you never know. We are in the city. I wouldn’t want him to get snatched, you know. You just never know. [African American female, age 34]

Narratives of violent crime in interviews, therefore, were not necessarily tied to personal experiences. Instead, caregivers referenced general feelings of uncertainty due to awareness of violent crime and provided examples of violent events about which they had been informed.

In turn, caregivers’ experience-distant awareness of violent crime led them to modify their child-rearing practices. Of the 15 caregivers who connected violent crime to child-rearing, 53 percent (n=8) provided descriptions of modified child-rearing, or ways that they limited or adjusted their normal activities in order to enhance children’s safety. Modified child-rearing most often took the form of boundary making, such as no longer going out after dark or restricting children’s activities to designated areas.

I guess it puts a fear of what if, you know. That’s why I can’t let my daughter go further than you know certain places and just because you don’t know. [White female, age 38]

So, if you live here, you know you don’t like-you’re-everything ends at dark. You go home. And I-I don’t think that that’s really great for raising kids. [White female, age 29]

Caregivers also compensated for safety concerns by providing extra supervision, making sure to keep an eye on children when playing in the front yard or at the park.

…If I’m outside with [my daughter] I watch her…I never take my eyes off her, because I think if there’s like drug dealers and that sort of stuff around, then, I feel like, she’s much more likely to get grabbed, kidnapped-…put into like, terrible situations like human trafficking. [White female, age 29]

…The bad things [about this neighborhood] would be the not being able to let your children play outside…unsupervised [African American female, age 34]

Overall, caregivers’ safety concerns did not lead them to prevent children from partaking in normal activities; instead, caregivers modified the scope of these activities or compensated for potential threats with additional supervision.

Elevated Violent Crime Neighborhoods

Of the 21 caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods who provided examples of violent crime, 62 percent (n=13) employed experience-near examples. Caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods, thus, tended to support concerns about violent crime by describing how it had directly affected them or someone they knew. For some caregivers, encounters with violent crime—especially gun violence—had rendered their homes unsafe.

There’s always shooting. That’s a bad thing…Yeah, when that bullet came through the house, that is a bad thing. [African American female, age 33]

I don’t know what happened, all I know, they had a shootout. Shot somebody’s house up and next thing you know they retaliated at my house which, yeah, they retaliated at my house because I’m from [identifier]. [African American female, age 49]

Others described acts of violence against their neighbors:

She was parked in her driveway, at her home, getting her groceries out, taking them inside, and some dudes jumped out a car and just beat her up for no reason. She wasn’t bothering nobody, she was just taking her stuff in the house. [White female, age 37]

Sometimes neighborhood children were casualties of violence which made caregivers fearful for their own children.

You’re even scared to have your kids even outside playing because, I mean there was shooting two houses down from me. Some boy got killed not two, like a month ago. My kids is always down there playing. If they was playing that day they would probably would’ve got shot or worse, you know, might not even be here because of the people. [African American female, age 33]

Caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods, therefore, were intimately acquainted with the consequences of violent crime in their neighborhoods and provided concrete, personally-derived examples to support their safety concerns.

In recounting experience-near examples of violent crime, caregivers described how it constrained their child-rearing practices. Of the 25 caregivers who connected violent crime to child-rearing, 88 percent (n=22) provided descriptions of constrained child-rearing, or ways that they drastically curtailed or eliminated activities in order to protect their children. In contrast to the low violent crime sample, caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods did more than adjust routines or activities. They undertook comparatively drastic measures to protect children, which primarily occurred in four ways: 1) sequestering children; 2) eschewing neighborhood resources; 3) avoiding neighbors; and 4) mistrusting the police.

First, nine caregivers reported strategically sequestering their children to prevent them from being injured or killed. This included forbidding children to play outside in the yard because of neighborhood shootings.

[We have] gangs, jumping, racial [violence], I mean, we lay and listen to gunshots at night…because of the combination of those [things] my children cannot go outside and play and be, have a normal childhood. They have to…stay in or stay under my thumb or else…you’ll lose your kids to the badness of this. [African American female, age 23]

Others argued that sequestering children was necessary because violent crime rendered the outdoors unsafe.

My children are unsafe…There’s no safety…My children, they can’t come outside. They can’t come outside without an adult being out here with them, period, because it’s, when you’re doing drive-bys it’s just, mmm. I hate to talk about it because it’s crazy and it scares me. Every day you’ll see…kids in the house…And that’s sad ‘cause their summer’s been destroyed because of the things that go on over here. And I’d rather have them safe in [here] than…laying out there hurt. [African American female, age 33]

One of the challenges is just the shooting and violence, like nobody wants to go outside because they feel like people are gonna shoot, and it’s very random [African American female, age 49]

Given their experience-near encounters with violence, it was necessary to keep children indoors to protect them, even amidst recognition that it reduced quality of life.

Second, five caregivers reported attempting to mitigate threats to safety by eschewing neighborhood resources. Caregivers identified areas intended for children, including playgrounds and recreational centers, as sites for shootings. This was due, in part, to gang-related violence.

The kids can’t go to the playground because of [gang rivalries]. Yesterday there was shooting at the park. [African American female, age 49]

You don’t even feel safe to even go up there to the park or anything. My kids were at the park the one day and they were like, “Mom, these people rode by in three cars and this one boy had a big ol’ gun out the window.” [African American female, age 33]

Due to the accessibility of weapons, caregivers also avoided using neighborhood resources out of fear of other children.

These children, they have guns. My son told me once the boy had a gun in the [recreational center]. [African American female, age 27]

If you’re gonna allow all this disruption, violence, drugs, guns, inside of the [recreational center], what good is it serving the community?…It’s just as much drugs, fighting, violence at the [recreational center] as it is on the corner. [White female, age 37]

The typically “safe” areas—those designated as spaces for children—thus became potential sites of violence. Some caregivers avoided them to protect their children.

Third, 11 caregivers reported fearing their neighbors and avoiding them. Descriptions of avoiding neighbors typically arose in response to a set of hypothetical scenarios in which caregivers were asked what they would do if they witnessed specific problematic behavior in their neighborhoods, ranging from suspected child maltreatment to destruction of property. Caregivers reported that they would not intervene out of fear of retaliation.

I wouldn’t even let [my neighbors] know I was looking…They retaliate around here. They just actually, they set the house on fire down at the end of the street. [White female, age 38]

See they do a thing over here called retaliation. You call the police on them, they’ll retaliate. You call anything on them, they’ll retaliate. They ain’t got to know who you are or why you did it, but they’ll retaliate. And if that means get you, your grandchild, your kid, that’s what it means. [African American female, age 33]

In addition to future retaliation, consequences of intervention could be instant, maybe lethal.

Sometimes you’re scared to say something to these people…’cause they can kill you. [African American female, age 52]

People now is scared of these little teenagers…They’re heartless. They don’t care, they would kill you and all that…I wouldn’t even get involved…I wouldn’t be worried about me, I’d be worried about my teenager. [African American female, age 21]

Directly intervening in suspected cases of maltreatment or adolescent misbehavior, thus, was a risky undertaking, one that could result in injury, destruction of property, even death. To protect themselves and their children, caregivers reported avoiding interactions with neighbors.

Lastly, while some caregivers suggested they would call the police instead of intervening directly, the notion that the police existed “to protect and serve” (The USA City Police official motto) was contested by five caregivers, who reported mistrusting the police. Caregivers expressed mistrust by doubting the police force’s reliability and describing the police as perpetrators of violence.

I just look at it as a safety issue because it’s so many things happenin’ to innocent people. Like, ok you’re 16, 17. But you don’t wanna be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because you’re old enough to be outside. You’re standin’ on your porch and somethin’ happens, or walkin’ down the street. So maybe if the curfew was enforced, just to keep ‘em safe becau-…you can’t even be safe from the police sometimes…[African American female, age 44]

Unless you have a big backyard where you can put things for [your children] to do, it’s just really not much for them to do and all they see is violence. People hurting each other, police killing everybody, that’s all they see. [White female, age 38]

One caregiver questioned the consequences of calling the police, in reference to the 2014 death of Tamir Rice, a twelve year-old, African American boy who was shot and killed by Cleveland police at a playground while playing with a toy gun (Dewan & Oppel, 2015).

I don’t wanna put a call into the police ‘cause look what happened last time, you know? [African American female, age 28]

While mentions of police throughout interviews were not uniformly negative, concerns about neighborhood violent crime for a subset of caregivers included the very people purported to contribute to safety. Skepticism of police was one way they protected their children.

Discussion

We propose that integrating the frameworks of neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction is one way to capture the complex context of child safety and well-being. The neighborhood ecologies framework underscores the centrality of geographic place in shaping child well-being and provides a site for potential intervention (Kimbrough-Melton & Melton, 2015). Meanwhile, stratified reproduction situates nurturance and child-rearing within the broader power structures and intersecting categories of identity that privilege some caregivers’ ability to raise children, while making it challenging for others. Together, these frameworks enhance understanding of how social inequities interact in neighborhood settings to constrain child-rearing and ultimately perpetuate inequities over time.

The importance of critically investigating how unequal neighborhood conditions differentially shape child-rearing is supported by our findings. Although caregivers in low and elevated violent crime neighborhoods shared the perception of neighborhood violent crime as a concern, their narratives of child-rearing in relation to violent crime differed. Caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods were more likely than their low violent crime counterparts to recount experience-near examples of violent crime that constrained their child-rearing. Their interview narratives were punctuated by stories of playground shootings, bullets ripping through houses, and the gun-related deaths of neighbors’ children. Consequently, caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods could not afford to take for granted presumably “safe” neighborhood spaces. They engaged in constrained caregiving strategies—including sequestering children, eschewing neighborhood resources, avoiding neighbors, and mistrusting the police—in order to protect children. In contrast, caregivers in low violent crime neighborhoods were more likely to provide experience-distant examples of violent crime that led them to modify their child-rearing. Modified child-rearing practices, such as creating boundaries or providing extra supervision, suggest that perceptions of violent crime did limit caregivers in low violent crime neighborhoods, but not nearly as much as it limited those in elevated violent crime neighborhoods. We argue that differential child-rearing options and experiences on the basis of neighborhood residence constitute stratified reproduction.

The integrated frameworks of neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction help us to understand how extraordinarily challenging it is to raise safe, healthy, and happy children when residing in neighborhoods with elevated violent crime rates and other forms of disadvantage. Protecting children is often assumed to be a basic parental task. For families in elevated violent crime neighborhoods, however, inequities of geographic place constrain caregivers’ ability to protect children and to raise them in their preferred manner. The constraints reported by caregivers are consistent with previous literature on raising children amidst community violence (Clark, 1983; Furstenberg et al., 1999; Jarrett, 1997; Spilsbury, 2005). It is particularly interesting to examine these constraints through the integrated frameworks of neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction because they highlight how differences in child-rearing cannot necessarily be attributed to individual choice or belief, but may be strategic responses to inequities in one’s environment (Fleuriet, 2008).

The integrated neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction frameworks also help us to conceptualize how inequities of geographic place intersect with inequities of race, class, and gender to produce differential options for child-rearing. Previous research suggests that child-rearing strategies to keep children safe vary by race (Elliott & Aseltine, 2012; Roche, Ensminger, & Cherlin, 2007). We anticipated that White and African American caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods would report different experiences of child-rearing in relation to neighborhood violent crime. However, White and African American caregivers reported similar constraints on child-rearing. The exception was the strategy of mistrusting police, which was almost exclusively reported by African American caregivers and was directly related to racism.

Despite limited differences between White and African American caregivers within elevated violent crime neighborhoods, it is important to note that the elevated violent crime sample is predominantly African American women living below the poverty line in predominantly poorer, African American neighborhoods. The concentration of violent crime in poorer, African American neighborhoods is neither coincidence nor accident. Instead, it reveals how political economic forces in USA City have intersected with historical patterns of racism—via systematic racial practices in housing, redlining by banks, and massive public housing projects (Massey & Denton, 1993; Rothstein, 2017)—to select African Americans into and keep them in neighborhoods with concentrated disadvantage. These findings suggest that inequities of geographic place, race, class, and gender jointly influence options for child-rearing. The stratified reproduction framework will be enhanced by incorporation of place, while the neighborhood ecologies framework will be enhanced through critical attention to the intersecting and inequitable power structures beyond neighborhoods that make raising and nurturing children challenging for particular groups.

Moreover, these findings advance understanding of how unequal neighborhood conditions contribute to the perpetuation of inequities over time. While some researchers have found that child-rearing adaptations buffer the effects of elevated neighborhood violence on children (e.g. Clark, 1983; Furstenberg, 1993; Jarrett, 1997), our findings align with Elliott and Aseltine’s (2012) insight that families can serve as sites where inequities are both resisted and reproduced. It is clear from caregivers’ narratives that they are dedicated to protecting children despite residing in elevated violent crime neighborhoods. The constrained child-rearing strategies caregivers employ to keep children safe, however, may have unintended consequences. For example, the strategies of sequestering children and avoiding neighborhood resources suggest that families are confined indoors, potentially exacerbating family stress (Evans, 2003; Diez Roux & Mair, 2010; Haas et al., 2018). The strategies of avoiding neighbors and mistrusting police suggest that informal and formal support systems go underutilized. These by-products of constrained child-rearing strategies may in and of themselves adversely affect quality of life for children and families, and they may perpetuate social inequities in new ways. For instance, constraints on child-rearing suggest factors implicated in increased child maltreatment risk, such as increased family stress due to constrained mobility (Haas et al., 2018; Thompson, 1995) and reduced willingness to intervene on behalf of children due to fear of neighbors (Freisthler & Maguire-Jack, 2015; Molnar et al., 2016).

The value of integrating neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction frameworks, therefore, is not only that they draw attention to how unequal neighborhood conditions make raising safe, healthy, and happy children challenging for particular groups. They highlight how unequal neighborhood conditions intersect with inequities of race, class, and gender to reproduce social inequities over time in dynamic ways. In the current study, neighborhood violent crime contributes to processes of stratified reproduction by constraining child-rearing. Constraints on child-rearing, in turn, deepen or perpetuate processes of stratified reproduction by adversely affecting quality of life for children and families (e.g. fostering the conditions in which maltreatment is more likely to occur).

Study Limitations

Our sample is small and focused on adults who were caregivers of children under the age of 18 years in a single urban context. Findings, therefore, are not necessarily generalizable to suburban or rural settings. Moreover, caregivers were not directly asked about the influence of violent crime on child-rearing. Only a subset offered additional examples of violent crime and descriptions of its influence on child-rearing as they responded to more general questions about their neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the fact that caregivers, unprompted by interviewers, vocalized their concerns about violent crime and its impact on their children warrants important consideration.

Conclusion

These findings advance understanding of how unequal neighborhood conditions like violent crime differentially shape options for and experiences of child-rearing. Caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods were more likely than their low violent crime counterparts to describe in experience-near terms how violent crime threatened their children’s well-being and constrained their child-rearing. We argue that differential child-rearing options and experiences on the basis of neighborhood residence constitute stratified reproduction. The integration of neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction frameworks illustrates how challenging it is to raise safe, healthy, and happy children when residing in neighborhoods with elevated violent crime rates and other forms of disadvantage. Moreover, these integrated frameworks highlight how unequal neighborhood conditions intersect with inequities of race, class, and gender to reproduce social inequities in dynamic ways. In conclusion, we propose integrating neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction frameworks to capture how social inequities interact in neighborhood settings to constrain child-rearing and consequently perpetuate inequities over time.

Table 1.

Sample Description by Level of Neighborhood Violent Crime

Neighborhood Violence Level
Low (n=55) Elevated (n=52)
Gender (n, %)
 Female 49 (89) 44 (85)
 Male 6 (11) 8 (15)
Race (n, %)
 African American 18 (33) 38 (73)
 White 37 (67) 14 (27)
Poverty (n, %)
 Above poverty line 35 (64) 17 (33)
 Below poverty line 20 (36) 35 (67)
Education (n, %)
 Greater than high school 34 (62) 19 (37)
 High school or below 21 (38) 33 (63)
Age (mean +/− SD) 34 +/− 8.18 35 +/− 10.77
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Caregiver Narratives by Level of Neighborhood Violent Crime

Neighborhood Violence Level
Low Elevated
Provided Examples (n, %) n = 14 n = 21
 Experience-Distant 10 (71) 8 (38)
 Experience-Near 4 (29) 13 (62)
Connected Violent Crime to Child-Rearing (n, %) n =15 n = 25
 Modified Child-Rearing (n, %) 8 (53) 4 (16)
  Boundary-Making 6 (40) 4(16)
  Extra Supervision 5(33) 1 (4)
Constrained Child-Rearing (n, %) 7 (47) 22 (88)
  Sequestering Children 1 (7) 9 (36)
  Eschewing Resources 2 (13) 5 (20)
  Avoiding Neighbors 6 (40) 11 (44)
  Mistrusting Police 2 (13) 5 (20)
Open in a new tab

Note: Some caregivers reported both modified and constrained child-rearing strategies, while others reported multiple sub-strategies within the categories of modified and constrained child-rearing. Thus, the total number of caregivers who reported modified or constrained strategies and the sum of caregivers who reported sub-strategies within those two categories are not congruent.

Highlights.

Examines child-rearing adaptations in elevated and low violent crime neighborhoods

Caregivers in elevated violent crime neighborhoods reported more severe constraints

Constraints suggest child-rearing adaptations may resist and reproduce inequities

Integrates neighborhood ecologies and stratified reproduction frameworks in analysis

Shows how inequities of place make protecting children challenging for some groups

Acknowledgements:

This study was supported by grant R01 HD077002 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD. We thank Sarah Rubin for her helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Anderson E (1999). Code of the Street. W. W. Norton. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes J, Katz I, Korbin JE, & O’Brien M (2006). Children and families in communities: Theory, research, policy and practice. John Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkman LF (1982). Social network analysis and coronary heart disease. Advances in Cardiology, 29, 37–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, & Seeman TE (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium . Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 843–857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernard HR, Wutich A, & Ryan GR (2017). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches, 2nd ed. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  6. Berton MW, & Stabb SD (1996). Exposure to violence and post-traumatic stress disorder in urban adolescents. Adolescence, 31, 489–498. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowlby J (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  8. Braff L (2013). Somos muchos (we are so many): Population politics and “reproductive othering” in Mexican fertility clinics. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 27(1), 121–138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bronfenbrenner U (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by design and nature. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bronfenbrenner U, Moen P, & Garbarino J (1984). Child, family, and community. In Parke R (Ed.), Review of child development research (pp. 283–328). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bursik RJ Jr., & Grasmick HG (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carver A, Timperio A, Hesketh K, & Crawford D (2010). Are children and adolescents less active if parents restrict their physical activity and active transport due to perceived risk? Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1799–1805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Castañeda H (2008). Paternity for sale: Anxieties over “demographic theft” and undocumented migrant reproduction in Germany. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 22(4), 340–359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cicchetti D, & Lynch M (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of community violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for children’s development. Psychiatry, 56, 96–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark R (1983). Family life and school achievement. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Colen S (1995). “Like a mother to them”: Stratified reproduction and West Indian childcare workers and employers in New York. In Ginsburg F, & Rapp R (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction (pp.78–98). University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Collins PH (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  18. Collins PH (2005). The meaning of motherhood in Black culture and Black mother–daughter relationships. In Baca Zinn M, Hondagneu-Sotelo P, & Messner MA (Eds.), Gender through the prism of difference (3rd ed., pp. 285–295). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Conger RD, Ge X, Elders GH Jr., Lorenz FO, & Simons RL (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541–561. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Coulton CJ, Korbin J, Chow J, & Su M (1995). Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Dev 66, 1262–1276. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Coulton CJ, Crampton DS, Irwin M, Spilsbury JC, & Korbin JE (2007). How neighborhoods influence child maltreatment: A review of the literature and alternative pathways. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1117–1142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Crenshaw K (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum. [Google Scholar]
  23. Daley D, Bachmann M, Bachmann BA, Pedigo C, Bui MT, & Coffman J (2016). Risk terrain modeling predicts child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 62, 29–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dearing E (2004). The developmental implications of restrictive and supportive parenting across neighborhoods and ethnicities: Exceptions are the rule. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 555–575. [Google Scholar]
  25. Deccio G, Horner WC, & Wilson D (1994). High-risk neighborhoods and high-risk families: Replication research related to the human ecology of child maltreatment. Journal of Social Service Research, 18, 123–137. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dedoose Version 7.0.23, 2016. Web Application for Managing, Analyzing, and Presenting Qualitative and Mixed Method Research Data. SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC, Los Angeles. www.dedoose.com. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dewan S, & Oppel RA (2015, January). In Tamir Rice case, many errors by USA City police, then a fatal one. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/us/in-tamir-rice-shooting-in-USACity-many-errors-by-police-then-a-fatal-one.html
  28. Diez Roux AV, & Mair C (2010). Neighborhoods and health. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1186, 125–145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Duncan GK, Magnuson K, & Ludwig J (2004). The endogeneity problem in developmental studies. Research in Human Development, 1(1–2), 59–80. [Google Scholar]
  30. Elliott S, & Aseltine E (2012). Raising teenagers in hostile environments: How race, class, and gender matter for mothers’ protective carework. Journal of Family Issues, 34(6), 719–744. [Google Scholar]
  31. Evans GW (2003). The built environment and mental health. J. Urban Health 80, 536–555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fleuriet KJ (2008). La tecnología y las monjitas: Constellations of authoritative knowledge at a religious birthing center in south Texas. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 23(3), 212–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Freisthler B, & Maguire-Jack K (2015). Understanding the interplay between neighborhood structural factors, social processes, and alcohol outlets on child physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 20(4), 268–277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Freisthler B, Merritt DH, & LaScala EA (2006). Understanding the ecology of child maltreatment: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Child Maltreatment, 11, 263–280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Furstenberg FF (1993) How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods. In Wilson WJ (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 231–258). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  36. Furstenberg FF Jr., Cook TD, Eccles J, Elder GH Jr. & Sameroff A (1999). Managing to make it. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Garbarino J, Kostelny K, & Dubrow N (1991). What children can tell us about living in danger. American Psychologist, 46, 376–383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ginsberg F, & Rapp R (1991). The politics of reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 311–343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ginsburg FD, & Rapp R (Eds.). (1995). Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction. University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Haas BM, Berg KA, Schmidt-Sane MM, Korbin JE, & Spilsbury JC (2018). How might neighborhood built environment influence child maltreatment? Caregiver perceptions. Social Science and Medicine, 214, 171–178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Harding DJ (2009). Collateral consequences of violence in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Social Forces, 88(2), 757–784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Inhorn MC, & Birenbaum-Carmeli D (2008). Assisted reproductive technologies and culture change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 177–196. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jarrett RL (1997). African American family and parenting strategies in impoverished neighborhoods. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 275–288. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kimbrough-Melton RJ, & Melton GB (2015). “Someone will notice, and someone will care”: How to build Strong Communities for children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 67–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Letiecq BL, & Koblinsky SA. (2004). Parenting in violent neighborhoods: African-American fathers share strategies for keeping kids safe. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 715–734. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lewin E (1995). On the outside looking in: The politics of lesbian motherhood. In Ginsburg F, & Rapp R (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction (pp.103–121). University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ludwig J, Duncan GJ, & Hirschfield P (2001). Urban poverty and juvenile crime: Evidence from a randomized housing-mobility experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 655–680. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lynch M & Cicchetti D (1998). An ecological-transactional analysis of children and contexts: The longitudinal interplay among child maltreatment, community violence, and children’s symptomatology. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 235–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Maguire-Jack K (2014). Multilevel investigation into the community context of child maltreatment. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 23, 229–248. [Google Scholar]
  50. Maguire-Jack K, & Font SA (2017). Community and individual risk factors for physical child abuse and child neglect: Variations by poverty status. Child Maltreatment, 22(3), 215–226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Manley D, van Ham M, Bailey M, & Maclennan D (2013). Neighbourhood effects or neighbourhood-based problems? A policy context. Springer Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  52. Massey D, & Denton N (1993). American apartheid. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mayer M (2003). The onward sweep of social capital: Causes and consequences for understanding cities, communities and urban movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 110–132. [Google Scholar]
  54. McDonnell JR (2007). Neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and children’s safety. Social Indicators Research, 83, 177–199. [Google Scholar]
  55. Margolin G, & Gordis EB (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445–479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Molnar BE, Buka SL, Brennan RT, Holton JK, & Earls F (2003). A multilevel study of neighborhoods and parent-to-child physical aggression: Results from the project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods. Child Maltreatment, 8, 84–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Molnar BE, Goerge RM, Gilsanz P, Hill A, Subramanian SV, Holton JK, … Beardslee WR (2016). Neighborhood-level social processes and substantiated cases of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 41–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Morris MC, Marco M, Maguire-Jack K, Kouros CD, Bailey B, Ruiz E, & Im W (2019). Connecting child maltreatment risk with crime and neighborhood disadvantage across time and place: A Bayesian spatiotemporal analysis. Child Maltreatment, 24(2), 181–192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Mullings L (1995). Households headed by women: The politics of race, class, and gender. In Ginsburg F, & Rapp R (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction (pp.122–136). University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  60. NEOCANDO, 2018. EOCANDO 2010+ system, Northeast Ohio Data Collaborative. http://neocando.case.edu/neocando/
  61. Rapp R (1999). Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  62. Roche KM, Ensminger ME, & Cherlin AJ (2007). Variations in parenting and adolescent outcomes among African American and Latino families living in low-income, urban areas. Journal of Family Issues, 28(7), 882–909. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rothstein R (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing Co. [Google Scholar]
  64. Roy AL (2018). Intersectional ecologies: Positioning intersectionality in settings-level research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 161, 57–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Sampson R, Raudenbush S, & Earls F (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 227, 918–924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Singh HD (2016). Fertility control: Reproductive desires, kin work, and women’s status in contemporary India. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 31(1), 23–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Shaw CR, & McKay HD (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago University Press. [Google Scholar]
  68. Shi L (2016). The new rich and their unplanned births: Stratified reproduction under China’s birth-planning policy. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 31(4), 537–554. DOI: 10.1111/maq.12352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Slater T (2013). Your life chances affect where you live: A critique of the “cottage industry” of neighbourhood effects research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 367–387. [Google Scholar]
  70. Spilsbury JC (2005). “We don’t really get to out in the front yard”—Children’s home range and neighborhood violence. Children’s Geographies, 3(1), 79–99. [Google Scholar]
  71. Spilsbury JC, Gross-Manos D, Haas BM, Bowdrie K, Richter F, Coulton CJ, 2018. Change and consistency in descriptions of child maltreatment: A comparison of caregivers’ perspectives 20 years apart. Child Abuse Negl. 82, 72–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Thompson RA (1995). Preventing child maltreatment through social support: A critical analysis. SAGE Publications [Google Scholar]
  73. Wilson WJ (1987). The truly disadvantaged. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES