Women's Danger Management Strategies in an Inner-City Housing Project

Author(s): Robin L. Jarrett and Stephanie M. Jefferson

Source: Family Relations, Vol. 53, No. 2, Special Issue on Low-Income and Working-Poor Families
(Mar., 2004), pp. 138-147
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700257
Accessed: 20-07-2015 20:31 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Women's DangerManagementStrategiesin an Inner-CityHousing
Project*
Robin L. Jarrett** and Stephanie M. Jefferson

The danger management strategies of low-income African American women who live in a public housing communitychar-
acterized by chronic violence are examined. Based on qualitative interviews with 18 single mothers, we explored the violent
communitydangers with which women contend, the nature of this violence, the strategies used to deal with communityviolence,
and their benefitsand costs to family and communitylife. Findings show that multiple types of violence characterizedlife in the
communityand that this violence has specific physical locations, a particular set of actors, and a temporal rhythm.Women's
responses to violence were nonconfrontationalandfamily focused in nature. These efforts were effective in keeping women and
their children safe, but did not reduce the prevalence of violence.

cholarlydiscussionsof impoverishedAfricanAmerican
inner-city communities document the chronic violence
that characterizes these settings. Gang warfare, drug
wars, physical assaults,and other forms of interpersonalviolence
are a part of daily life (Popkin, Gwiasda,Olson, Rosenbaum,&
Buron,2000; Puntenney,1997). Neighborhoodeffects models (e.g.,
resource, collective socialization,epidemic) derived from demo-
graphicdatahave addressedhow particulareconomic (joblessness),
compositional(concentrationof impoverishedresidents),andorgan-
izational (breakdown of informal social controls) features of
inner-city communities contribute to crime and violence
(Sampson,2001b;Skogan,1990;Wilson, 1987).Further,proponents
of neighborhoodeffects models argue that families living in such
communitiesare impairedin their abilityto create stabledomestic
lives (Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Wilson). These models have
contributedto our understandingof chronic communityviolence
becausethey highlightthe contextualunderpinnings of ongoingvio-
lence, shifting away from individualisticexplanations.They also
suggestthe consequencesof communitycontextfor family life and
identifythe processesby whichfamiliesaredestabilized.
We argue that these models are limited in a fundamental
way: Community-levelneighborhoodeffects models are overly
deterministicin their imputationof family instability. They tell
us nothing about the personal strategies that families use to
buffer themselves from the real challenges of community vio-
lence (Jarrett,1994, 1997).
Several recent qualitativestudies concentrateon the personal
experiences of poor African American families, specifically
*Theresearchreportedin this articlewas supportedby a FacultyScholarAwardfromthe
W. T. Grant Foundationand Hatch and Center for Advanced Studies Funding from the
University of Illinois. Early foundationalwork for the article was supportedby a National
Science Foundation Award for the Study of Race, Urban Poverty, and Social Policy
(NorthwesternUniversity);a grant from the Social Science Research Council's Programon
the Urban Underclass; and a Visiting Scholar Award from the Russell Sage Foundation.
Members of the Social Science Research Council's Working Group on Communities and
Neighborhoods,FamilyProcesses,andIndividualDevelopmentand the MacArthurFoundation
Working Group on Successful Pathways throughMiddle Childhood helped stimulate ideas
expressedin this article.With greatculturalcompetencyand sensitivity,VerdaHestercollected
the datareportedhere.Doris Houstonexpertlyassistedwithdataanalysis.Specialappreciationis
extendedto the women who willingly sharedtheirlives with us.
women, and describe how they respond to chronic community
violence (Popkin etal., 2000; Puntenney, 1997; Wolfer, 2000).
These studies focused on public housing projects where crime
and violence are intensified in dense and isolated settings, and
they revealed that women use multiple coping strategies to deal
with community violence. Nonconfrontational and family
focused in nature,key strategiesallow women to maintainviable
family lives in the midst of ongoing violence. Although these
studies explored an understudiedarea (Wolfer) and identified
how women's strategies facilitate viable family life, they have
critical limitations. They did not specifically consider the impli-
cations of their micro-level findings for larger community-level
explanatoryframeworks.Moreover, given the limited numberof
recent qualitative studies, it is unclear how common the
described coping strategies are.
Our purpose was to examine how a group of poor African
American women living in a public housing project manage the
chronic violence that pervadestheir community.We addresseda
critical gap in the field: that between community-level and
micro-level explanatory frameworks. Insights gleaned were
used to examine neighborhoodeffects models critically and to
contribute to the growing body of qualitative studies of adult
coping in response to ongoing violence.
We organizedour discussion aroundseveral issues. First, we
review neighborhoodeffects models that detail how economic,
compositional, and organizational characteristics of inner-city
African American communities promote chronic violence. We
also include qualitative studies that describe how women living
in communities characterized by chronic violence cope with
these conditions. Next, we describe our qualitative study that
addresseshow women, despite the often inhospitablesettings in
which they live, cope with chronic community violence. We
present narrativesfrom African American women to illustrate
the types and natureof communityviolence, the multiple coping
strategiesthat women use to deal with communityviolence, and
the benefits and costs of these strategies. Finally, we discuss
how our findings can be used to elaborate community-level
explanations and how they contribute to the growing body of
qualitativeresearchon women's coping strategies.

**Addresscorrespondenceto: Dr. RobinJarrett,Departmentof Humanand Community Review of the Literature

Development, University of Illinois, D269 Bevier Hall, MC-180, 905 S Goodwin Avenue,
Urbana,IL 61801.

Key Words: African American, coping strategies, family, public housing, violence,
NeighborhoodEffects Models
women.
Community-levelneighborhoodeffects models have identi-
fied how economic, compositional, and organizational condi-
(Family Relations, 2004, 53, 138-147) tions promote deviant activities such as crime and violence in
2004, Vol. 53, No. 2 Family Relations

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
inner-city African American communities. Key tenets of these
models are based on analyses derived from demographicdata,
including census reports of family composition, employment,
overall poverty, school participation,unemployment,and crime;
police records of homicides, robbery,and strangerassaults; and
survey reports of violent and property victimization (Caughy,
O'Campo, & Brodsky, 1999; Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-
Rowley, 2002). Economic, compositional, and organizational
features of inner-city communities each facilitate violence in
specific and interrelatedways.
Economic conditions. Research has documenteda relation-
ship between high rates of poverty and social problems (Crane,
1991; Jargowsky, 1994; McLanahan& Sandefur, 1994). Social
problems such as violence, crime, and incivility are dispropor-
tionately found in African American communities with high
levels of poverty (Freeman, 1995; Patillo, 1998; Sampson,
2001b). Since the mid-1980s,increasingneighborhoodimpoverish-
ment in the inner city has been matched by escalating rates of
crime and violence (Coulton, 1996; Freeman, 1995; Wilson,
1987, 1996).
Several critical factors are cited to explain the high levels of
poverty characterizingpoor African American communities and
related social problems. They include the decline in entry-level
jobs, the relocation of jobs away from the inner city, and the
mismatch between job requirements and employee skills
(Jargowsky, 1997; Wilson, 1987, 1996). One of the processes
by which larger structuralchanges in the economy have directly
impacted inner-citycommunitiesis throughthe creation of local
economies. They include informal economies characterizedby
unregulated"off -the-books" work and illegal undergrounddrug
economies that offer residents alternativesources of income in
the midst of widespreadjoblessness and economic insecurity.
Drug economies in particularhave contributedto high rates of
violence in inner-city communities (Boyum & Kleiman, 1995).
Compositional conditions. The internal make up of inner-
city African American communities is anotherfactor contribut-
ing to crime and violence. Inner-city communities tend to be
homogeneous with respect to race and social class (Wilson,
1987). Unlike European American (and to a lesser degree,
Latino) communities,African Americancommunitiesare highly
segregated along racial lines. For example, 1990 census data
indicated that non-Hispanic Blacks representedalmost half of
the 8.4 million residentswho lived in high poverty communities
(those with poverty rates> 40%). When regional areas were
considered, the Midwest (the location of the currentstudy) had
the highest concentrationsof African Americansin high-poverty
communities (Jargowsky,1997; Massey & Denton, 1993).
Not only are inner-city communities segregatedby race but
also by social class. Impoverished African American commu-
nities are composed of large numbers of impoverished, often
welfare-reliant female-headed households. Working- and
middle-class families are absent or resident in small numbers
(Wilson, 1987). The geographic concentrationof impoverished
African American families in high-poverty areas has implica-
tions for crime and violence. These communities lack a critical
mass of middle-class families who transmitconventional values
and serve as role models for mainstreambehaviors (Jencks &
Mayer, 1990; Wilson, 1987). In the absence of middle-class
neighbors, poor families become isolated from conventional
values and behaviors.This vacuum is filled by a predatorystreet
culture in which deviant behaviors, including crime and
violence, are endorsed (Reiss, 1986; Wilson, 1987, 1996).
2004, Vol. 53, No. 2
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Organizational conditions. Neighborhood effects models
consider the role of social organization in inner-city African
American communities. A key feature of community social
organization, social control, is associated with the prevalence
of crime and violence (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Sullivan,
1996). Social control, or the ability of a community to regulate
itself based on conventional principles, depends on several
factors (Sampson, 2001a; Sampson & Groves, 1989). Shared
values, high levels of trust among residents, willingness to
intervene in the deviant behaviors of coresidents, and active
community engagement help residents collectively act to main-
tain social order.All of these conditions are greatly attenuatedin
impoverished inner-city communities. Instead, street-oriented
values contentiously coexist with conventional ones; neigh-
boring relations are typified by mistrust;residents are unwilling
to challenge the criminal or delinquentbehaviors of their neigh-
bors; and residents are disengaged from local organizationsand
institutions (Skogan, 1990). In the absence of strong internal
controls, crime and violence dominate impoverished inner-city
communities.
In addition to hypothesizing about the economic, composi-
tional, and organizationalfeaturesof inner-citycommunitiesthat
facilitate crime and violence, discussions of neighborhood
effects models outline community impacts on family life.
According to neighborhood effects models (e.g., collective
socialization, epidemic), female heads of household, lacking
other helping adults, are unable to properly supervise their
children. Therefore, children are exposed to deviant adults and
peers and are likely to engage in delinquent activities (Brooks-
Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997; Crane, 1991; Gephart, 1997;
Jencks & Mayer, 1990). Poor African American families are
deficient in other ways in these models. In the absence of
conventional work, welfare-reliant and marginally employed
parentsfail to acquire skills emphasizedin gainful employment,
such as "planfulness,"discipline, organization,and regularized
routines that are transferredto family life (Wilson, 1987, 1996).
Consequently, parents are unable to develop orderly domestic
practices and other organized patterns of family life. Further,
adults, like their children,are more likely to engage in streetlife
that includes exposure to-and in some cases, participationin-
criminal and violent activities.
Studies of Coping WithinInner-CityHousing Projects
In contrast to community-level explanations that hypothe-
size about the causes and consequences of chronic community
violence, several recent studies have examined how poor and
often single African American women living in public housing
projects respond to chronic community violence. These studies
have been conducted with families in Chicago, a city known for
its concentration of segregated public housing projects
(Jargowsky, 1997). In one study of 25 mothers, Wolfer (2000)
conducted open-ended interviews with women living in the
Henry HornerHomes (actual name). A high-rise public housing
developmentlocated in a semi-industrialarea on Chicago's Near
West Side, the complex was identified as a high-violence area
based on police reports of violent interpersonal crimes. The
interview topics covered women's personal experiences with
violence and witnessing or hearing about violent incidents in
the community. Critical strategies identified included avoiding
dangerous areas, managing interpersonal relationships, and
psychologically dealing with the aftermath of violent
139
experiences.Wolfer concludedthat women used coping strategies
that were tailored to fit the range of violent experiences in their
lives.
In another study, Popkin and her colleagues (2000) used
multiple methods (qualitative interviewing and participant
observation)to examine safety, housing, and community issues
among various residents, including women, who lived in three
public housing projects in Chicago (including Henry Horner
Homes). All were dense multistoryunits located in impoverished
West Side and South Side communities. Rampant gang- and
drug-relatedcrime and violence threatenedthe largely female
and minor populationsliving in the housing projects.A common
response for women living in the complexes was to downplay
the impact of victimization, sometimes noting how they had
"become conditioned" to the violence. Other strategiesentailed
minding one's business and the using of alcohol and or illegal
drugs to addressfear.
Puntenney (1997) studied the impact of gang violence on
women's work and child care decisions. The studywas conducted
in an unnamedpublichousingprojecton the SouthSide of Chicago
and included in-depth interviews with 56 women receiving
welfare. Drug- and gang-relatedviolence characterizeddaily life
in the largelyfemale-dominatedcomplex.Puntenneyidentifiedkey
strategiesthatwomen used to keep themselvessafe: retreatinginto
the home, distancing from neighbors, withdrawal from some
elements of community life and cautious participationin other
aspects, and strictattentionand constantoversightof the environ-
ment. Otherstrategiesfocused on keeping childrensafe: monitor-
ing children'sdaily activities,chaperoningyoung childrenon their
rounds in the community, and restrictingchildren's movements
within the local community.Many women rejected employment
opportunitiesin order to be available to protect their children.
Puntenneyconcluded that although managementstrategieswere
useful for keeping women and their childrensafe, they impeded
women's work efforts and movementout of poverty.
In summary, the findings from these recent studies of
women's coping strategies in Chicago public housing commu-
nities are comparable, despite some differences in substantive
foci. In fact, two of the studies were located in the same housing
project. They revealed that women's coping behaviors were
nonconfrontationaland family focused. Explicit in descriptive
accounts of women's strategies was the issue of costs and
benefits;key strategieshelped to keep women and their children
safe but did little to decrease larger community violence.
IntegratingCommunity-and Micro-LevelExplanatory
Frameworks
Community-level frameworks that hypothesize about the
causes and consequences of chronic community violence and
micro-level qualitative studies that explore individual responses
to chronic community violence have strengths and limitations.
The concentration on the community context of poverty and
related social problems (such as crime and violence) represents
a major strength of neighborhood effects models. Replacing
dated models that focused on individualexplanationsof poverty
and social problems, neighborhoodeffects models highlight the
powerful role of context on social behavior (for examples see
Brooks-Gunn etal., 1997; Caughy etal., 1999; Sampson &
Morenoff, 2002; Tienda, 1991).
Neighborhood effects models also have identified inter-
related, economic, compositional, and organizational features
140
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of communities that contribute to chronic violence (e.g., drug
economies, high concentrationsof impoverished residents, and
attenuatedsocial control). This level of specificity suggests com-
plex relationshipsand processes that are associated with crime
and violence; yet, key problems plague these models. Neigh-
borhood effects models have narrowly and deterministically
conceptualized the relationship between neighborhood condi-
tions and family processes and outcomes to include only nega-
tive processes and outcomes. Moreover, neighborhood effects
models have failed to include in their formulations personal
strategies that buffer families from the negative impact of
chronic community violence.
Micro-level qualitativestudies have made considerablecon-
tributionsto our understandingof how poor African American
women respond to chronic community violence. Findings from
qualitative studies identify the variety of coping strategies that
women use to overcome the potentially destabilizing impact of
chronic community violence on family life. Firsthandaccounts
reveal the personal agency exhibited by women despite the
constraints that chronic community violence imposes. Further,
by exploring the experiences of a contemporary cohort of
women, recent qualitative studies address issues that have been
neglected for over 30 years (for example, see an earlier study,
Rainwater, 1970). However, micro-level studies that focus on
coping strategieshave two majorlimitations.First,recent studies
of poor African American women's coping strategies within
public housing complexes are few in number. Consequently, it
is unclear how common the identified coping strategies are.
Second (although clearly recognizing that women's behaviors
are responses to larger community conditions), qualitative stud-
ies of women's coping strategies have not fully integratedtheir
empirical findings with neighborhoodeffects models.
In light of the limitations of both community-level explana-
tory frameworksand micro-level empirical studies, we sought to
integrate community-level explanations on the causes and
consequences of chronic community violence with recent quali-
tative data on how poor African Americanwomen cope with this
violence. By doing so, two goals are accomplished. First, the
inclusion of women's coping strategies will help better specify
neighborhood effects models that currently ignore critical
interveningprocesses. This addition should result in more valid
explanatory frameworks. Second, qualitative studies typically
use small samples, and their findings have been criticized for
their lack of generalizability.The inclusion of additionalquali-
tative data from this study will add to the cumulativeknowledge
base of qualitative studies of poor African American women's
coping strategies.In tandemwith recent studies, our findingscan
begin to identify patternsacross studies.
Research Design
Research Focus and Framework
The data came from a study of single African American
women living in a Chicago housing project and examines how
poor women with young children coped with individual and
neighborhood impoverishment. Using an interpretativeframe-
work that focuses on the lived experience of women, central
importance to individuals' everyday experiences is recognized
and attentionis given to the meanings that individuals attribute
to their actions and the logic of their choices (Seccombe, 1999;
Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). Although an interpretativeframework
Family Relations
recognizes that daily life is influenced by larger social and
economic forces, it gives primacy to the role of personal agency
(Fine & Weis, 1998). Within the boundaries of social life,
individuals actively develop purposeful behaviors and attribute
meaning and significance to them. From the perspective of our
participants, an interpretative framework considers women's
concerns about safety, their views about the violence that
pervadedthe community, and the meaning of the coping strate-
gies that they used. Thus, an interpretativelens sees women's
coping strategies as an active, if not creative, response to the
dangerouscommunities in which they lived.
Sample
The sample included 18 single women who resided in the
Beecher Street public housing complex (pseudonym). Selection
criteriawere based on profiles of women who were consideredto
be at risk for persistent poverty: unmarriedor never-married
mothers who received public assistance and who lived in a
high-poverty community in Chicago. Women ranged in age
from 20 to 40 years of age (M = 30; SD = 7.06). Of the single
women, four lived with significant other males, and all of the
women had at least one preschool-aged child. Women were
chosen from the Head StartProgramlocated in the public hous-
ing complex; Head Start programs were used because they
served low-income families with young children.
The NeighborhoodSetting
The housing complex was located in the Southwood
community (pseudonym), an area characterized by severe
economic and social problems. In 1990, this community was
99% African American and remained so in 2000. In 1990,
unemploymentrates ranged from 55% to 66% yearly. By 2000,
only 38.3% of the community was employed. In 1990, median
family incomes, which were around $5,500, ranked among the
lowest in the nation. By 2000, median family incomes were
$10,640-still extremely low in real dollars. The community
was heavily populated by families with children. For example,
in 1990, almost 50% of the populationwas made up of children
< 18. By 2000, 74.1% of local households had children< 18.
Impoverished female-headed households dominated the
community. Based on 1990 statistics, almost three-fifthsof the
families were single-parent, female-headed units with chil-
dren< 18; by 2000, that figure increased to 84%. Housing in
the community was characterizedby high vacancy rates, over-
crowding, and a low percentage of owner-occupiedbuildings
(Erbe, 1996; U.S. Census Bureau,2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d).
Because of the povertyand dense housing structures,crime was a
majorconcernfor families living there.The firstyear for which an
annualreportprovidedan index of crimes by specific community
area was 1998. For that year, there were 6 murders,15 reported
criminal sexual assaults, 63 robberies, 1,777 aggravatedassaults
and battery, 100 burglaries, and 236 thefts in the community
(ChicagoPolice Department,1998).
The Housing Project Setting
The Beecher Streethousingcomplex began as public housing
designed for low-income families. As part of an effort to change
the socioeconomic composition of the complex to include more
workingfamilies, the two 141-unitbuildingswere remodeledand
designatedin 1991 as "mixed-income"housing. Despite the goal
2004, Vol. 53, No. 2
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of making the Beecher Street housing complex mixed-income
public housing, impoverishedfamilies dominated the complex.
Several factors contributedto this pattern.Priority was given to
families who lived in the complex before it was designated as a
mixed-income project and to families who lived in other nearby
housing projects. Further, working families were limited to 5
years of residency. As working families moved out of the
complex, they were replaced by low-income families. By the
1990s, nearly 70% of the families were low income (Chicago
Housing Authority, 1992).
Procedures
In-depth individual interviews. Taped interviews were
conducted with the women between the winter of 1997 and the
winter of 1999 by a female African Americanresearchassistant.
Various topics were covered, including participants' life
histories, family routines, neighboring relations, intergenera-
tional relations, household budgets, parentingand childrearing,
male-female relations,work and welfare histories,residentiallife
histories, and neighborhoodresources.Conversationalin nature,
the topically guided, open-ended interviews allowed women to
discuss what they deemed were the importantdimensions of the
targetedtopics (Burgess, 1984; Spradley, 1979).
Data analysis. The transcribedinterviewswere coded using
Ethnograph (Seidel, 1998), a qualitative data management
program.Initialcodes were based on the topical areasguidingthe
researchand were expandedto include otherunexpectedinforma-
tion thatemerged(Taylor& Bogdan, 1998). Key issues andthemes
were identifiedfor each area following the coding process. Par-
ticularattentionwas given to similaritiesand differencesbetween
participants.To achieve reliability,threecodersindividuallycoded
the data.Differencesin coding were discussedby the coders as a
group.The datawere recodeduntil intercoderreliabilityreacheda
minimumof 90% (Miles & Huberman,1994).
The interview data were used to address four specific
questions that detailed the coping strategies that women used
to manage chronic community violence. Questions included:
What are the violent community dangers that women contend
with? What is the nature of violence in the community? What
strategiesdo women use to deal with communityviolence? What
are the benefits and costs to family and community life of the
strategiesthat women use?
Findings
Based on the four guiding research questions, our findings
are organized aroundfour key themes that illuminate women's
strategies for managing violence and the implications of these
strategies for family and community life.
Violence in the Southwood Community
Women were clear on the dangersposed to themselves and
their children by living in the high-crime Southwood commu-
nity. When asked about their safety concerns, Estelle and Betty
identified a common danger in the Southwood community:
shootings. According to Estelle, "I have concerns like some-
times there be a lot of shooting aroundhere." In a more specific
manner,Betty identified a shooting that occurredclose to home,
saying, "The little incidents that's been going on, [like] that boy
getting shot down there at the gas station... across the street
from the school, right up there on the corner."
141
 A great deal of communityviolence was attributedto gangs.
Many of the women mentionedthe ubiquityof gang violence in
the community.In fact, they typically describedgang violence as
a "war." For example, Dorothy maintainedthat "There's a gang
war [and] ... the teenagers don't get along here."
Another form of interpersonalviolence concerned abduc-
tions. Women were concerned that their children would be
kidnapped. According to Beatrice, "There's a lot going on in
the neighborhoods... folks grabbingpeople's kids, stuff of that
nature." Drugs were frequently implicated in interpersonal
violence, including abductions. Anna offered a cogent account
of the characterof drug users and sellers and their propensityfor
violence:
The drug users, the drug sellers ... I don't trustthem kind of
people at all. I don't like them to be aroundkids. You never
know what they'll do to kids. They get high off that stuff
and they might grab your kids.
Both Betty and Estelle were familiar with the many
robberiesand thefts that occurredin the Southwood community.
Reflecting on her own concern with thefts and similar concerns
of other residents, Betty reportedthat "There is some concern
[about] crimes like stealing and robbery and forced entry into
buildings." Estelle's account was similar: "We have had
incidents aroundhere, getting robbed or something like that."
Some community violence was specifically directed at
women. The large numbers of households headed by single
females made women especially vulnerable to male predation.
Carol pointed to the particularisticrelationshipbetween gender
and violence, saying, "You have single women that's coming in
[the building] at night. You see [men] standing by themselves.
You might have a rapist over there."
In a frightening story, Linda recounted how she was
harassed by an unknown man as she carried out a domestic
errand:
Saturdaymorning... this car pulled up, but [the guy] ain't
saying nothing. He just looked at [me] ... He act like he
know me. So, I goes to the store. I come back ... So, I'm
walking ... and this guy pulled up ... He was like "you been
dodging me all mother-fuckingyear. Tell me your mother-
fucking name" ... I had got scared... So, I keep going ... So,
I come in and tell my boyfriendand I got scared... I had got
butterfliesin my stomach.
What was significantabout some women's accounts of male
predationwas the link to male views of female "enticement."As
noted when she describedthe rapist in the area, Carol was clear
on her lack of provocation,stating, "I know that I'm not doing
anything wrong to attract anybody." The power of physical
attractionalso was suggested in Katrina's comments: "I don't
wear tight clothes out in the street. I don't want to entice any-
body. I don't flirt with men. I don't engage in conversationtoo
much on the street."
The Nature of Community Violence
As women identified the types of violent activities that
occurred in the community, they illuminated its particular
characteristics.They viewed violent activities as having specific
physicallocations,a particularset of actors,anda temporalrhythm.
Location of violence. The immediate building was consid-
ered relatively safe for many women. A guard located at the
142
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
front lobby of the building monitored all persons entering the
Beecher Street housing project. Linda indicated that she felt
safe in the building relative to outside of the building, stating,
"I feel safe in the building.We have securityin the building. But
when I go outside the building I have to worry about what's
going to happen."Beatrice expandedon Linda's observationsby
saying, "[It's safe] inside the building, inside activity ... [It's
dangerous] outside of the building, the playgrounds, going to
the store."
For Elaine, the neighborhood safety-dangerboundary was
separatedonly by a street. She said, "The crime, it's not right
here on this immediate block." Anna elaborated:
The building I'm in is pretty good. We have tight security.
We have good management in the building. But, on the
outside, over on the other side of the street, is a lot of
guys hanging out, selling drugs, shooting craps and what
have you, and just hanging out in the streets all the time at
night.
Several women identified specific locations beyond the
complex that were considered dangerous.For example, Mercer
Street was viewed as a particularlyviolent area. According to
Elaine, "Shootings [happen] more frequently on Mercer
Street...Young children choose to shoot each other and ... kill
each other over there a lot." Vicky identified the nearby play-
ground as a danger zone:
I don't consider the playground on the corner too safe
because that's where they do most of the shooting and
fighting... Across the street, over in RichardsPark, I don't
consider that safe over there neither. 'Cause they do all
kinds of stuff over there.
Beatriceelaboratedby saying, "[Gangbanging],it's not withinthis
area. It's right across from us in the next neighborhood."
Perpetratorsof violence. Women were able to quickly iden-
tify the perpetratorsof community violence. According to some
of the women, the most violent activities were committed by
outsiders. Carol believed that "A lot of people ... come into the
neighborhoodand commit crimes." Estelle, who had lived in the
housing project for many years, held a similar view:
It's not so much Beecher Street project, this little area we
have right here. It's not the people over here that basically
cause the trouble. It's the people that come over here and
they cause the trouble with the shooting, the firing. It's not
the people in these buildings. They come aroundhere with
this.
Even the local gangbangerswere seen as relatively benign
by some of the women. For example, Beatricecommentatedthat,
"Gangbangersnot real bad within this area." Lilly's views
amplified her neighbor's account: "I'm just really concerned
about gangbangers coming from the other building to this
complex."
Yet, local residentswere not free of blame. Carolwent on to
explain their role in local violence. She maintainedthat neigh-
bors sometimes brought outsiders into the community: "The
neighborhoodis fine in itself. It's the people that want to bring
the neighborhooddown. But, it's the other people that live here
that have friends that come over and want to bring the neighbor-
hood down."
Carol also identified specific categories of people within the
building who were perceived as troublesomeand violence prone.
Family Relations
Unsupervised adolescents were identified as a major source of
communityviolence. "They got teenagersrunningaroundin the
elevators, drinking, and smoking blunts [marijuana].I would
bust their funky butts if they truly ask me."
Timing of violence. Another significant feature of violence
in the communitywas its temporalrhythm.Women were know-
ledgeable about the times in the community that were relatively
safe, and the times that were especially dangerous. Vicky
described the timing of neighborhood safety and danger by
saying "[It's safe] from sun up to sun down. Once the sun
goes down you really can't tell what's gonna' happen. It's not
safe. I feel that it's not safe in the nighttime."
Priscilla offered her view on the neighborhoodsafety clock,
stating, "I think it's safe after 12 in the afternoonuntil 4 or 5 in
the evening."
According to Janice, the late evening hours were particu-
larly dangerous. "Between 11 and 2 in the morning, it's when
they [criminals]out, hanging out, doing whatever." Referringto
patterns of drug dealing and hanging out, Anna's views were
comparable: "It's real hectic ... At night it can get pretty
raggedy." Yet, some of the women, like Tanya, had a less
variable view. She said, "On this block there's times when
they come past and shooting ... No time is safe."
Elaine added nuance to the community safety-dangerclock.
It was not merely the time of day or night, but the dangers
associated with periods of darkness.She recalled when she had
to wait for a bus duringthe dark morninghours, saying:
[When I was] working, I had to go to that bus stop at 4.30,
quarterto 5, every morning.It's darkoutside. You got those
creeps lit up all night, trying to figure out where they're
going to get their next little thing from. They don't care if
they gotta' bust you in the head or whatever.
Violence had its seasonalaspects as well. Women considered
the summermonths when residents spent more time outdoorsas
unusually volatile. During the warm summer days, women and
their children spent a great deal of time on the playground.
However,these activitiesexposed them to danger.Estelle, a long-
time resident, recounted how gunshots disruptedwomen's and
children's summeractivities on the playground:
It's been plenty of times that I have sat in the playground
with my son and a bunch of other women and they kids. It's
basically women out there with they kids. They be so hot in
the apartments.They might stay out there in the summer-
time....There's been a couple of times out there, cracking
up and shooting, and kids on the swings. We all have to run
and try to get in the back door, the front door, however you
could, to try and get your kids to safety. When it gets warm
out here, it gets real bad.
As the various examples demonstrate,life in the Southwood
community was fraught with an array of violent activities. In
most aspects of their daily lives, women had to consider the
possibility of some type of victimization against themselves or
their children. It was within this context that women in the
Beecher Street housing project developed strategies to deal
with chronic community violence.
Responding to Community Violence
Women developed variouscoping strategiesto addresscom-
munity violence. In general, coping strategies entail efforts to
2004, Vol. 53, No. 2
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
deal with a perceived threat(Wolfer, 2000). Dangermanagement
strategies are a subset of coping behaviors specifically targeted
to menacingpeople and risky situationswith the goal of ensuring
personal safety. Danger management strategies included moni-
toring the environment,dangeravoidance, self-imposed curfews,
and cloistering in the home.
Monitoring the environment. Being aware of community
dangersthat potentially led to violence was a fundamentalstrat-
egy that women used. Lilly explained how she maintained an
awareness of her environment. She stated, "I always watch
behind me when I'm walking. I familiarize myself with what's
going on." Similarly, Janice was pointedly watchful of neigh-
borhood youth, saying, "I'll watch if there's a whole bunch of
boys together, a whole bunch of young girls or young guys. I
watch because that's dangerous." Katrinaexpanded her watch-
ing techniques to a range of situations.
I tend to watch behind me to make sure no one's getting too
close to me. Also, I watch for pickpockets on the train.... I
watch people that are watching me too much while I'm on
the train.... I watch other people to see what's wrong with
them.
Katrina'scomments give literal meaning to an often-heardstate-
ment, "watch your back." By being hypervigilantof their sur-
roundings, women were able to identify potential sources of
danger.
Danger avoidance.In large measure,monitoringthe environ-
ment was a cognitive strategythat allowed women to firstidentify
possible sources of danger. However, awarenessof danger typi-
cally was coupled with active avoidancestrategies.Once women
recognizeda dangeroussituation,they knew what to do. Berniece
gave her folk model of what do to when a potentiallydangerous
situationwas detected:
If you see somebody that looks suspicious, don't go there,
common sense in a lot of cases. Like you see a confrontation
happen when you're outside.... Instead of waiting on that
person to go and get whatever or whoever, you remove
yourself from that situation. Common sense will tell you
that something is getting ready to happen. So, you get up
and move. You don't wait for that to happen.
Janice used avoidance when she walked in the neighborhood.
If I see a whole bunch of gangbangersstandingby, I try not
to walk past them. I probably go aroundor anything.... If
it's a fight or something, somebody's fighting, I'm staying
way away. 'Cause when they fighting it might be a gun or
knife. Accidents happen. I don't want to be one of those
statistics. She was shot because she was standingthere.
Other dangerous situations to avoid were described as
uniquely female. Several women believed that becoming too
intimatewith other women in the housing complex led to violent
confrontations. For example, Tanya commented, "That's the
beginning of trouble, sitting in women's houses. By you being
there, that person lying that you said it.... I don't have that.
Don't sit in peoples' houses, don't have a telephone. I choose
not to."
Linda was even more specific about the need to sidestep
sexually compromising situations. She bluntly asserted, "I
don't socialize with the females. I mess with nobody's men. I
just stay to myself. I go to school. I pick up my kids and I come
back."
143
 Not all women avoided relations with neighbors. In some
instances,women establisheda few friendshipswith "nice" neigh-
bors. For example,Janicesaid, "I basicallytalk to people that are
nice, keep to themselves."In anotheraccount,Kathydescribedher
relationshipwith Liz and why it remainedharmoniousas "She
don't be in no trouble.She don't be in a lot of mess. She stick to
herself. She go in and out the building."Distrustand warinessof
people outsideof the immediatefamily andsmallfriendshipcircles
were critical in maintainingsocial order in the close quartersin
which families lived. Betty's comment revealed the seeming
paradox of women's lives: "I get along with everybody in the
neighborhood,basically because I keep to myself."
Self-imposedcurfews. Women's general belief that violence
happened more frequently during early evening and nighttime
hours led to a self-imposed curfew. Viewing evening and night-
time hours as overly dangerous,women made sure they were off
the streets during these times. Lilly noted that "[I] get home
sometime before it's dark," whereas Anna proclaimed, "We
come in at a decent hour. We not on the streets at night."
Sheila's strategy was comparable.She said, "If I'm outside in
front [of the building], it would be before dark. [I] go in the
house and don't come back out."
Sometimes women were unavoidablyout during dangerous
times; yet, these times were infrequent,as Katrina's comment
reveals: "I don't make it a habitof going out late at night because
I can't see that far and [who is] hiding in bushes and different
things." In other instances, women made compromiseswith the
communitysafety-dangerclock. With her children,Bernieceoften
visited her mother,who lived in anothercommunity.Althoughthey
traveledto her mother'shouse by car, the family spent the night
thereif it became too late. Berniecestated,"I usuallystartheading
home frommy mother'shouse,maybe7.30. If I'm thereat a certain
time, I'm usuallynot going home becauseit's gottentoo late."
Cloistering in the home. Anothersafety strategythat women
used entailed relegatinglarge portionsof family life to the home.
To some extent, the home was the logical locus of family
activities given women's domestic and child care responsibil-
ities. However, women in the communityimbued home life with
a special focus on safety. When asked what she did to keep her
family safe, Betty replied, "We stay in the house to ourselves."
Carol offered a sharedresponse, saying "Most of the time I am
in the house.... This is what I do to keep my family safe."
Elaine, one of the older women in the study, further detailed
the importanceof the home, saying:
To put it like that, any time is dangerous.So, you try to keep
a safe environmentin your home. That's the only safe place I
can think of. If you outside, anythingcan happen,anything.
Otherthan churchor the police station,you ain't safe now.
Like Elaine, Katrinabelieved in the safetythatthe home provided,
stating,"Nowadaysyou cannoteven trustthe police.... I'm the one
that looks out for my child's safety. I don't feel thereis no safety
outside my apartment."In light of the many dangersoutside the
home, it was not surprisingthatwomen emphasizedfor themselves
and their childrenlife within the home. In a real sense, the home
was a haven from the dangersof the local community.
The Benefits of Women's Danger Management
Strategies
There were several benefitsto women's dangermanagement
strategies. First, women were able to protect themselves and
144
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
their children from the physical violence in the community.
During the period in which the interviews were conducted,
none of the women or their children became direct victims of
any violent acts. Women's strategies reduced the likelihood of
exposure to victimization.
Second, women's dangermanagementstrategiesencouraged
a sense of efficacy. Women believed that through personal
agency, they could circumvent some of the violence that
pervadedtheir communities. For example, Elaine stated:
Nothing has happenedto me or my kids. But, I don't like the
fact of the shootings.... We done had some days. Fortu-
nately, my kids weren't down there. But, we have some
days where we get off the street and get out the way.
Other women believed that avoiding troublesomerelations with
neighbors accounted for their ability to stay safe in the housing
project. For example, Janice stated:
I don't socialize. So, I don't get in no arguments.I keep to
myself. I don't have a gun or knife. But, as long as you mind
your own business and don't starta mess, you won't have no
problem, no matterwhere you stay.
Anna and her children cloistered in their apartmentafter
dark, and Anna was not "worried" about community dangers.
She said, "Aftera certainhour at night, we not outside nowhere.
So, I'm not worried about other stuff." Cloistering had another
positive aspect. Despite the violence that surroundedthem, some
women were able to make the home a meaningful locus of
activity. These particular families were strengthened through
mundane home activities, such as those described by Lilly:
"We spend time in the house, either watching TV or playing."
Anna's comments elaborated on the family closeness that
cloistering in the home engenderedfor some families:
Like I say, me and my daughter, Keisha, and my son,
Lamont, we pretty close, real close.... My daughter and
son have a very nice relationship with each other. They
talk and they play together and look at TV together and do
a lot of things together.
Elaine shared a comparable account on how the mother-
child bond was bolstered, stating, "Being in this house, keeping
them together, I be in here and keep a close knit with them."
The Costs of Women's Danger Management
Strategies
Real costs markedwomen's danger managementstrategies.
The strategiesthat women used were largely nonconfrontational
and focused on their own families. Monitoringthe environment,
danger avoidance, self-imposed curfews, and cloistering in the
home effectively kept women and their children safe, but they
underminedcollective efforts against community violence. The
often-mentioned pattern of "minding my own business" and
refusing to challenge the deviant behaviors of neighbors as
typified in the comment "I don't say anythingto my neighbors"
both reflect the lack of collective community action.
There were logical reasons for women's failure to collec-
tively rally against community violence. As single mothers,
women were constrainedin the time that they could invest out-
side of the domestic domain. Yet, other reasons explained
women's lack of involvement in collective danger management
efforts: They believed that informal efforts were ineffective and
Family Relations
that formal agencies and politicians were negligent. Without
critical support and realistically fearful, women placed little
stock in their own collective abilities. For example, like several
of the other women, Estelle identifiedthe limits of tenantpatrol:
"I have concerns, like sometimes there be a lot of shooting
around here. But, they have tenant patrol. They do the best
they can.... but they can't stop these people."
Women also noted the impotence of local police. According
to Janice, "We got CHA [Chicago Housing Authority] police
over here. They still shooting like they crazy." Some of the
women were even more cynical of city police. Elaine's com-
ments were telling.
They have police riding aroundhere. They see it [crime],but
they don't see it. You got a lot of them sitting arounddoing
nothing.They be shootingand stuff going down aroundthere
and you looking at a police car sittingout down there.... Why
hadn'the moved? Then you see him messing with somebody
they don't even have to be messing with when the police could
be up therereally tryingto arrestsomebody.It don't make no
sense. It's a lot of stuff to be done.
Carol, who became visibly angered during the interview,
blamed the local alderpersonfor the violence in the Southwood
community.
I would like to see her treatthis neighborhoodas well as she
treats the other [middle-class neighborhood] up ahead....
How come she can't send the police down this way every
day and keep the people out from the building and comers?
It gets deep when you come with this.... I'm not kissing
nobody's ass. As long as I can come into my house, don't
nobody bother me, fine.
Janice provided an even more insightful assessment of the
multifaceted nature of the problem of chronic violence and a
solution that was equally complex. She said:
I would love a police station... more police car patrol.... We
was talkingabouta center,you know, a YMCA.... Jobs, they
supposed to have jobs for the people in the community.
[Alderperson]Miller, I think that's her name, oh please.
They put her in office and she said all this stuff she was
gonna' do. She was gonna' get jobs for Blacks in the Black
communityand it never happened.... People need help with
child care.We wanthouses too. Give us some kind of aid that
will help us get us a house.... We don't ask for much. All we
ask for is to be happyand comfortableand safe.
Discussion
Our goal was to explore how a group of low-income women
living in a public housing complex managedthe chronicviolence
that dominated their communities. We were interested speci-
fically in how the data from our interviews contributedto an
expanded understandingof neighborhood effects models and
findings from recent qualitative studies. We consider our key
contributionsbelow.
Contributionsto NeighborhoodEffects Models
Findings from our qualitative data paralleled the key com-
ponents of neighborhood effects models. Women's accounts
revealed that economic conditions in the Southwoodcommunity
were similar to those specified in neighborhoodeffects models.
2004, Vol. 53, No. 2
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The community was markedby the "concentrationof disadvan-
tage," including jobless and drug economies. Significantly,
women's folk models suggested the relationship between pov-
erty, joblessness, and crime and violence. Their accounts also
mirroredcompositionalfeaturesoutlinedin neighborhoodeffects
models: Southwoodwas disproportionately populatedby welfare-
reliantand marginallyemployed individualsand families and was
almost exclusively African American.The communityalso had a
predatorystreetculturethatposed realdangersto the women (and
their children) who were interviewed. At the organizational
level, consistent with the tenets of neighborhood effects
models, women reportedthat street values were in competition
with conventional values; that they were wary of their neigh-
bors; that they were reluctant to intervene in the deviant
behaviors of other residents; and that they limited their invol-
vement in community activities.
Women' s descriptions of other social aspects of the South-
wood community diverged in critical ways from neighborhood
effects models. Althoughlarge numbersof impoverishedresidents
lived in the community, they were internally differentiatedby
lifestyle. The women in our study lived a family-orientedlife-
style that was in sharp contrast to the street-orientedlifestyle
(e.g., gangbanging) that also existed. Relatedly, as women's
accounts revealed, not all of Southwood's residents were
involved in criminal and violent activities simply because they
were poor, exposed to deviant neighbors,and had relatively few
working- and middle-class neighbors. Women's accounts also
added nuance to our understandingof the community context
itself. Not all segments of the communitywere characterizedby
crime and violence. Instead, there were safe locations or
"niches" within the larger community.
The identification of women's danger management strat-
egies challenges the assertion found in neighborhood effects
models that families living in communities characterizedby
poverty and chronic violence are invariably destabilized. Some
families, such as those described here, were able, albeit with
great effort, to buffer themselves and their childrenfrom the real
dangersthat existed in the community.In summary,our findings
help better specify neighborhoodeffects models. When women's
coping strategies are included in theoretical formulations,they
representinterveningprocesses that mediate the effects of com-
munity conditions on family outcomes.
Contributionsto Existing QualitativeStudies
The data enhance our understandingof women's coping
strategies in critical ways. The types of violent acts that
women confronted in the Southwood community and the
Beecher Street housing project, as well as the nature of that
violence, were identified.In response,women generatedmultiple
danger management strategies to deal with community perils.
Nonconfrontational in nature, monitoring, avoidance, self-
imposed curfews, and cloisteringin the home all reflectedefforts
to evade and not directly confront violence. In many cases,
women were unable to physically or directly challenge the
perpetrators(e.g., men, gangs of youth) who committed much
of the violence within the community. Danger management
strategiesalso were family focused in nature.They were enacted
in the service of the family and not the community. As
such, participants' strategies helped to keep women and their
children safe, but they did little to decrease larger community
violence.
145
 To a large extent, our findings are consistent with existing
findings despite some differences in substantivefoci. This study
revealed strategies that were similar to those described in other
studies (e.g., avoidance, managing interpersonalrelationships,
minding one's business, monitoringthe environment,cloistering
in the home). Significantly, this study and the other studies
specified both the family benefits and community costs of
women's strategies. The similarity in findings is not surprising
given that the housing projects were comparablewith respect to
city location, populationcharacteristics,poverty levels, and pre-
valence of gang and drug violence. However, our explication of
cloistering in the home extended the notion of the home as a
haven. The home was not simply a place to be safe, but it was a
place to create a meaningful, cohesive, and viable family life.
Further, our findings expanded those of others by explicitly
identifying some women's beliefs about sexual attractiveness
and predation.
The common findings across studies, including ours,
contributeto the cumulativeknowledge base concerning danger
management strategies and community context. They suggest
that particulardanger managementstrategies are likely to exist
in particular neighborhood climates, such as housing project
communities. A broad generalizationculled from these studies
suggests that nonconfrontationaland family-based responses to
chronic violence are more likely to prevailin communitysettings
typified by high rates of poverty, low levels of social control,
lifestyle heterogeneity, large numbers of single women and
minor children, and dense living arrangements.Although the
common findings suggest their generalizability to Chicago,
they raise a critical question for larger generalizations beyond
Chicago. Futureresearchis needed to address this question.
Implications for Practitioners
A major goal for practitionerswho work with low-income
African American women is to reduce the violence that women
and their children face on a daily basis. Our findings provide an
opportunityto achieve this goal based on first-handknowledge
of women's daily lives and personal perspectives. We identify
several issues that need to be addressedby practitioners.
Positive acknowledgmentand support of women's coping
efforts. First and foremost, practitionerscan validate women's
current coping strategies. Although women's danger manage-
ment strategieshave limited consequences for reducingviolence
at the communitylevel, they are critical for keeping women and
their children safe. Consequently,women should be recognized
for their positive coping efforts in the service of the family.
Understandingbarriers to collective action. Low-income
residents are described frequently as politically apathetic and
unwilling to participate in community social control efforts.
Our findings clearly indicate that much of women's hesitation
to become active in community violence prevention efforts
derives from fear of retaliation and the lack of support from
formal social control agents. Practitionerscan encourage action
by offering examples of neighborhoodsin which residents have
effectively decreased local violence.
Not blaming the victim.Practitionerswho work in inner-city
communities will benefit from a broader understandingof the
social, economic, and political factors that encourage violence.
For example, drug selling and related violence are, in large part,
a response to the lack of economic opportunities.Similarly,gang
formation and related antisocial activities have their roots in
146
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
limited economic, social, and institutionalresources.Moreover,
although inner-city communities are broadly stigmatized as
dangerous places, it is importantto recognize that most of the
residents are not involved in violent activities. Indeed, law-
abiding residents are the ones who bear the bruntof community
violence.
In light of these three issues, practitionerscan adapta two-
prongedapproachthat (a) facilitates the developmentof informal
groupings of women with common concerns and (b) helps
women to connect to larger agencies outside of the community.
Practitionerscan help women to identify shared concerns as a
way to build trust, the foundation for any collective effort.
Practitionersalso will want to encourage women to share how
they have successfully employed danger managementstrategies
as a way to demonstrateefficacy and to use this sense of efficacy
as the building block for broadercollective efforts.
Practitioners who work with women confronting chronic
neighborhood violence can help women develop stronger
collaborations with formal social control agents, such as the
police and alderpersons.It will be importantto emphasize that
law-abiding citizens in all communities are entitled to a safe
place to live and that the police and political officers are accoun-
table to local residents. Greater involvement in tenant patrols
within the building, reportingviolent activities, and challenging
perpetratorsof violent acts will be viewed as reasonable activ-
ities, if women believe their efforts will be supportedand that
they (and their children) will not be placed in jeopardy. Until
women have this type of support,it is unlikely that they will risk
getting involved in collective social control efforts.
References
Boyum, D., & Kleiman,M. A. (1995). Alcohol and otherdrugs.In J. Q. Wilson &
J. Petersilia(Eds.), Crime (pp. 295-326). San Francisco:Institutefor Contem-
poraryStudies.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., & Aber, J. L. (Eds.). (1997). Neighborhood
poverty: Contextand consequencesfor children (Vol. 2). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., Klebanov, P. K., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do
neighborhoodsinfluence child and adolescentdevelopment?AmericanJournal
of Sociology, 99, 353-395.
Burgess,R. (1984). In thefield: An introductionto field research.Boston: Allen &
Unwin.
Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick,H. G. (1993). Neighborhoodsand crime: The dimen-
sions of effective communitycontrol. New York: Lexington Books.
Caughy, M. O., O'Campo, P. T., & Brodsky, A. E. (1999). Neighborhoods,
families and children: Implicationsfor policy and practice. Journal of Com-
munityPsychology, 27, 615-633.
Chicago HousingAuthority.(1992). Statisticalprofile. Chicago: ChicagoHousing
Authority.
Chicago Police Department.(1998). Reported index crimes by police district.
Retrieved October 9, 2002, from http://www.CityofChicago.org/CAPS/
StatisticsIndexCrimes.html
Coulton, C. C. (1996). Effects of neighborhoods on families and children:
Implicationsfor services. In A. Kahn & S. Kammerman(Eds.), Childrenand
their families in big cities: Strategies for service reform (pp. 87-120).
New York: Columbia School of Social Work.
Crane,J. (1991). Effects of neighborhoodson droppingout of school and teenage
childbearing. In C. Jencks & P. P. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass
(pp. 299-320). Washington,DC: Brookings Institute.
Erbe, W. (Ed.). (1996). Local communityfact book Chicago metropolitanarea.
Chicago: Chicago Review Press.
Fine, M., & Weis, L. (1998). Theunknowncity: Lives of working-classand young
adults. Boston: Beacon Press.
Freeman,R. B. (1995). The labor market.In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.),
Crime (pp. 171-191). San Francisco:Institutefor ContemporaryStudies.
Gephart,M. (1997). Neighborhoods and communities as contexts for develop-
ment. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood
Family Relations
 poverty: Contextand consequencesfor children (Vol. 1, pp. 1-43). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Jargowsky,P. A. (1994). Ghetto poverty among blacks in the 1980s. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management,13, 288-310.
Jargowsky,P. A. (1997). Poverty and place: Ghettos,barrios, and the American
city. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jarrett,R. L. (1994). Living poor: Family life among single-parent, African
AmericanWomen. Social Problems, 41, 30-49.
Jarrett,R. L. (1997). African Americanchildren,family, and parentingstrategies
in impoverishedneighborhoods.QualitativeSociology, 20, 275-288.
Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a
poor neighborhood.In L. E. Lynn, Jr. & M. McGeary(Eds.), Inner-citypoverty
in America (pp. 111-186). Washington,DC: National Academy Press.
Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the
making of the underclass. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
McGabey, R. M. (1986). Economic conditions, neighborhoodorganizationand
urban crime. In A. J. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), Communitiesand crime
(pp. 231-270). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLanahan,S., & Sandefur,G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What
hurts, what helps. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman,A. M. (1994). Qualitativedata analysis: A source-
book of new methods.Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Patillo, M. (1998). Sweet mothersand gangbangers:Managing crime in a Black
middle-class neighborhood.Social Forces, 76, 747-774.
Popkin, S. J., Gwiasda, V. E., Olson, L. M., Rosenbaum, D. P., & Buron, L.
(2000). The hidden war: Crimeand the tragedy of public housing in Chicago.
New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.
Puntenney, D. L. (1997). The impact of gang violence on the decisions of
everyday life: Disjunctions between policy assumptions and community
conditions. Journal of UrbanAffairs, 19, 143-161.
Rainwater, L. (1970). Behind ghetto walls: Black families in a federal slum.
Chicago: Aldine.
Reiss, A. J. (1986). Why are communitiesimportantin understandingcrime? In
A. J. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), Communitiesand crime (pp. 1-34). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Sampson,R. J. (2001a). Crime and public safety: Insights from community-level
perspectiveson social capital. In S. Saegert,J. P. Thompson,& M. R. Warren
(Eds.), Social capital and poor communities(pp. 89-114). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
2004, Vol. 53, No. 2
This content downloaded from 200.16.86.75 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:31:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Sampson, R. J. (2001b). What "community" supplies. In R. Ferguson &
W. T. Pickens (Eds.), Urban problems and community development
(pp. 241-292). Washington,DC: Brookings InstitutionPress.
Sampson,R. J., & Groves,W. B. (1989). Communitystructureand crime:Testing
social organizationtheory.AmericanJournalof Sociology, 94, 774-802.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing
"neighborhood effects": Social processes and new directions in research.
Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443-478.
Seccombe, K. (1999). So you thinkI drive a Cadillac? Welfarerecipients'per-
spectiveson the systemand its reform.NeedhamHeights,MA: Allyn andBacon.
Seidel, J. (1998). The Ethnograph(v. 5.0). Thousand Oaks, CA: Scolari-Sage
PublicationsSoftware.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in
American neighborhoods.New York: Free Press.
Spradley,J. P. (1979). The ethnographicinterview.New York: Holt, Rinehart&
Winston.
Sullivan, M. (1996). Neighborhood social organization:A forgotten object of
ethnographicstudy. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, R. Schweder (Eds.), Ethnography
and humandevelopment:Contextand meaningin social inquiry(pp. 205-224).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introductionto qualitative methods: The
search for meanings (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Tienda, M. (1991). Poor people and poor places: Deciphering neighborhood
effects on poverty outcomes. In J. Haber (Ed.), Macro-micro linkages in
Sociology (pp. 244-262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000a). Households and families. Retrieved October 3,
2002, from http://factfinder.census.gov/serv1
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000b). Profile of general demographic characteristics.
Retrieved October3, 2002, from http://factfinder.census.gov/serv1
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000c). Profile of selected economic characteristics.
Retrieved October3, 2002, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servl
U.S. Census Bureau.(2000d). Profile of selected social characteristics.Retrieved
October 3, 2002, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servl
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass,
and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). Whenwork disappears: The world of the new urbanpoor.
New York: Vintage Press.
Wolfer, T. A. (2000). Coping with chronic communityviolence: The variety and
implications of women's efforts. Violence and Victims,15, 283-301.
147