code of the street

7/25/2019 CODE of the Street

1/26

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Research in B r i e f

The Code of the Street andAfrican-American Adolescent Violence

F EB.

0 9

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij


2/26

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

Laurie O. Robinson

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Kristina Rose

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

This and other publications and productsof the National Institute of Justice can befound at:

National Institute of Justicewww.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Office of Justice ProgramsInnovation Partnerships Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov


3/26

FEB. 09

The Code of the Street and African-American Adolescent Violence

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of theU.S. Department of Justice.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Justice (grant num-ber 2005IJCX0035), the National Institute of Mental Health (MH48165,

MH62669), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (02913602).Additional funding for this project was provided by the National Institute onDrug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and theIowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station (Project #3320).

NCJ 223509


4/26

R E S E A R C H I N B R I E F / F E B . 0 9

ABOUT THIS REPORTThe code of the streettheory, developed by Yaleprofessor Elijah Anderson,presents an explanation forhigh rates of violence amongAfrican American adoles-cents. Observing life in aPhiladelphia African Americanneighborhood, Anderson sawthat economic disadvantage,separation from mainstreamsociety, and racial discrimina-tion encountered by someAfrican American adolescentsmay lead to anti social atti-

tudes and to violent behavior.This Research in Briefpresents research exploringAndersons thesis; research-ers conducted repeatedinterviews with more than800 African American ado-lescents (ages 10 to 15) andtheir primary caregivers inGeorgia and Iowa over a twoyear period. The researcherslooked for developmentalrelationships between neigh-borhood and family character-istics, reported experienceswith racial discrimination,expressed street code valuesand self reported violent be-havior in young people.

What did theresearchers find?The results generally supportAndersons original observa-tions: the stress of living in apoor and violent environmentcan cause young people toadopt the code of the streetas a lifestyle guide. This, inturn, is a powerful predictorof violent conduct, amplifiedby the effects of negativeneighborhood characteristics.

Why is this researchimportant?Andersons theory presentsa bridge between the envi-ronmental and cultural factorsexamined in many previousstudies of urban violence.The research discussed inthis report emphasizes theneed to consider this theoryin future studies withinAfrican American house-holds, neighborhoods andcommunities.

ii


5/26

T H E C O D E O F T H E S T R E E T

Eric A. Stewart and Ronald L. Simons

The Code of the Street and African-American Adolescent Violence

About the Authors

Eric A. Stewart is an As-sociate Professor in theCollege of Criminologyand Criminal Justice at

Florida State University, amember of the NationalConsortium on ViolenceResearch and a NationalInstitute of Justice W.E.B.DuBois Fellow. Ronald L.

Simons is a DistinguishedResearch Professor of

Sociology and a ResearchFellow with the Institute

for Behavioral Research atthe University of Georgia.

For several decades, re-searchers have studied therace/violence relationship. Anumber of explanations havebeen put forth to clarify theforces at play behind thisrelationship. 1 Elijah Ander-son, a professor of sociologycurrently at Yale Univer-sity, 2 presents a compellingargument for the high ratesof violence among AfricanAmerican adolescents. In hiscode of the street thesis, 3Anderson argues that theeconomic disadvantage,social dislocation and racialdiscrimination encountered

S YNOPSIS OF THE S TREET CODE

by Elijah Anderson

Of all the problems besetting thepoor, inner city black community,none is more pressing than thatof interpersonal violence andaggression. It wreaks havocdaily with the lives of commu-nity residents and increasinglyspills over into downtown andresidential middle class areas.Muggings, burglaries, carjackingsand drug related shootings, allof which may leave their victims

by some African Americanadolescents foster deviant,anti social attitudes (i.e., astreet code) and develop-mental pathways that arerelated to violent behavior.(See Synopsis of the StreetCode.)

This Research in Brief looksat the results of researchinto the validity of the codeof the street theory. The

authors reviewed two wavesof surveys with more than800 African American ado-lescents (ages 10 to 15) andtheir primary caregivers

or innocent bystanders dead, arenow common enough to concernall urban and many suburban resi-dents. The inclination to violencesprings from the circumstances oflife among the ghetto poor thelack of jobs that pay a living wage, the stigma of race, the fallout fromrampant drug use and drug traf-ficking, and the resulting alienationand lack of hope for the future.

Continued on page 2

1


6/26


Continued from page 1Simply living in such an environ-ment places young people atspecial risk of falling victim to ag-gressive behavior. Although thereare often forces in the community that can counteract the negativeinfluences by far the mostpowerful being a strong, loving,

decent (as inner city residentsput it) family committed to middleclass values the despair is per-vasive enough to have spawnedan oppositional culture, that ofthe streets, whose norms areoften consciously opposed to those of mainstream society.These two orientations decentand street socially organize the

community, and their coexistencehas important consequences forresidents, particularly childrengrowing up in the inner city.Above all, this environment means that even youngsters whose homelives reflect mainstream values and the majority of homes in thecommunity do must be able tohandle themselves in a streetoriented environment.

This is because the street culturehas evolved what may be called acode of the street, which amounts to a set of informal rules govern-ing interpersonal public behavior,including violence. The rules pre-scribe both a proper comportmentand the proper way to respond

if challenged. They regulate theuse of violence and so supply arationale that allows those whoare inclined to aggression toprecipitate violent encounters in

an approved way. The rules havebeen established and are enforcedmainly by the street oriented,but on the streets the distinctionbetween street and decent isoften irrelevant; everybody knows that if the rules are violated, thereare penalties. Knowledge of thecode is thus largely defensive; itis literally necessary for operatingin public. Therefore, even thoughfamilies with a decency orientationare usually opposed to the valuesof the code, they often reluctantlyencourage their childrens familiar-ity with it to enable them to negoti-ate the inner city environment.

At the heart of the code is theissue of respect loosely defined

as being treated right or granted the deference, or props, onedeserves. However, in the trouble-some public environment of theinner city, as people increasinglyfeel buffeted by forces beyond their control, what one deserves in the way of respect becomes moreand more problematic and uncer- tain. This in turn further opens theissue of respect, or street cred-ibility, to sometimes intense inter-personal negotiation. In the streetculture, especially among youngpeople, street cred is viewed asalmost an external entity that ishard won but easily lost, and somust constantly be guarded; it ishigh maintenance, and is never se-cured once and for all but dependson a series of performances thateffectively answer challenges and transgressions by others.

2


7/26


It is in this way that ones streetcredibility is established, andwhen possessed and success-fully claimed, it works to deteradvances; with the right amount,a person can avoid being both-ered in public. In fact, the rulesof the code provide a frameworkfor negotiating street credibility.The person whose very appear-ance including his clothing,demeanor and way of moving deters transgressions can feel that he possesses, and may beconsidered by others to pos-sess, a measure of respect; he isreminded of this by the way he is treated and regarded. Hence, if heis bothered and advances againsthis person are made, not only mayhe be in physical danger, but hehas been disgraced or dissed(disrespected) and often feelsvulnerable to further, and possiblymore serious, advances.

Though many of the forms thatdissing can take might seem petty to middle class people (maintain-ing eye contact for too long, forexample), on the streets, beingdissed is always consequential.Particularly to those investedin the street code, such actionsbecome serious indications of the other persons intentions; leftunanswered, they can seriouslyerode ones street credibility. Con-sequently, young people becomevery sensitive to advances andslights, which could well serve asa warning of imminent physicalconfrontation or danger.

This hard reality can be traced to the profound sense of alien-ation from mainstream societyand its institutions felt by manypoor, inner city black people,particularly the young. The codeof the streets is actually a culturaladaptation to a profound lackof faith in the police and thejudicial system. The police aremost often seen as representing the dominant white society andnot caring to protect inner cityresidents. When called, they maynot respond, which is one reasonmany residents feel they must beprepared to take extraordinarymeasures to defend themselvesand their loved ones against thosewho are inclined to aggression.Lack of police accountability hasin fact been incorporated into thelocal status system: the personwho is believed capable of takingcare of himself is accorded acertain deference, which trans-lates into a sense of physical andpsychological control. Thus thestreet code emerges where the

influence of the police and thejustice system ends and personalresponsibility for ones safety isfelt to begin. When respect for thecivil law erodes, street justicefills the void, thus underscoring the need for street credibility tooperate on the streets of the localcommunity. Exacerbated by theproliferation of drugs and easy ac-

cess to guns, this volatile situationpromises those with unassailablestreet credibility, often the streetoriented minority, the opportunity to dominate the public spaces.

3


8/26


in Georgia and Iowa (seeSampling Methodology).The survey asked aboutdelinquent behavior, experi-ence with racial discrimina-tion, and certain attitudesassociated with the code ofthe street. The authors alsolooked at geographic, familyand economic factors in theenvironments of these youngpeople. They examinedwhether neighborhood andfamily characteristics, racialdiscrimination and adoptionof street code values predictlater violent behavior.

The study discussed herereinforces a line of researchstressing the importance oflooking at the developmentalliving conditions and expe-riences that shape urbanculture and contribute toviolence. 4 Among the studysfindings:

n Andersons theory is gener-ally supported by this study.

n The data suggest thatneighborhood characteris-tics (specifically, a climateof violence and economicdisadvantage) increaseviolent behavior.

n Young people who hadexperienced racial discrimi-nation were more likely toengage in violent behavior.

n Living in a family that isdecent a family thatshares mainstream Ameri-can values appears tolower the risk of violentconduct.

n Living in the opposite of adecent family a streetfamily does not ap-pear to raise the risk ofviolent conduct in the firstand second waves of thestudy. This may indicatethat street families appearto encourage their childrento represent street valuesonly on the surface (as aprotective mechanism) andnot in practice.

n Most significantly, thestudy showed that ayouths expressed streetcode attitude is a develop-mental predictor of violentbehavior two years later.It seems that those whointernalized the code andactually lived by it weremore likely to be involvedin later reported acts ofviolence.

These findings are discussedin greater detail in the Con-clusions section (p. 14).

4


9/26


S AMPLING M ETHODOLOGY

Characteristics of the SampleThis study is based on the first two waves of data from the Family andCommunity Health Study (FACHS), a multisite investigation in Georgiaand Iowa of neighborhood and family effects on an individuals healthand development. FACHS was conducted by the Center for Family Re-search at the University of Georgia. The first wave, which was collectedin 1997, consisted of 867 African American adolescents (400 boys and467 girls; 462 in Iowa and 405 in Georgia) ages 10 to 13 years old and their primary caregivers. In the second wave, which was collected in1999, 738 of the adolescents (now ages 12 to 15) and their caregiverswere again surveyed. This represents a retention rate of 85 percentfrom 1997 to 1999. Analyses indicated that the families who did notparticipate in wave 2 did not differ significantly from those who partici-pated with regard to caregiver income and education or target childsage, gender, school performance or delinquency. Complete data for thevariables used in this study were available for 720 families.

In Georgia, families were recruited from portions of the Atlanta met-ropolitan area, such as South Atlanta, East Atlanta, Southeast Atlantaand Athens. In Iowa, all study participants resided in two metropolitanurban communities: Waterloo and Des Moines.

Sampling StrategyThe sampling strategy for FACHS was designed to meet the studysgoal of investigating the effects of neighborhood characteristics on the functioning of children and families. The families were recruitedfrom neighborhoods that varied as to demographic characteristics (i.e.,percent African American) and economic level (i.e., percent of familieswith children living below the poverty line). The final sample of familiesrecruited involved participants who ranged from extremely poor tomiddle class. The sampling strategy yielded a relatively representativeset of communities with sufficient variability in economic status to allowdetection of significant relations between community characteristicsand outcome variables.

In both Georgia and Iowa, families were drawn randomly from rostersand contacted to determine their interest in participation. Of the families

on the rosters who could be located, interviews were completed with72 percent of eligible Iowa families and just over 60 percent of eligibleGeorgia families.

5


10/26

R E S E A C H I N B R I F / F E B . 0 9R E S E A RR C H I N B R I EE F /

CompensationRespondents were reimbursed for participating in the study. Primarycaregivers received $100 and target children received $70. The reim-bursement levels reflected the different amounts of time required ofeach family member for participation.

Characteristics related to adoption of thestreet codeNeighborhood character-istics. Anderson argues thatthe high rates of poverty,joblessness, violence, racialdiscrimination, alienation,mistrust of police and hope-lessness that typify many dis-advantaged neighborhoodshave instilled anti socialattitudes and values in someresidents. Although mostfamilies who reside in dis-advantaged neighborhoodsare law abiding, everyone inthe neighborhood learns orknows the rules of the streetcode to be followed and pos-sible penalties for violatingthese rules. Adolescents arelikely to be taught violent be-havior, to witness violent actsand to have role models whodisplay high levels of aggres-sion and violence. As a result,these youngsters present abravado or a sense of pride inbeing tough, present a violentidentity and protect them-selves and their close friends

with threats of violence or

with actual violent behavior.Living in such circumstancesplaces adolescents at in-creased risk for falling victimto violence. As more peopleadopt defensive behaviors,the level of violence tends toescalate and the number ofpeople who rely on violence

increases. 5

Decent and street families.Another aspect of the codeof the street thesis distin-guishes between decentand street families 6 livingin disadvantaged AfricanAmerican neighborhoods.

As Anderson notes, mostfamilies in disadvantagedAfrican American neighbor-hoods are decent people.Decent families value hardwork and self reliance, andencourage their children toavoid trouble. These families

tend to accept mainstreamvalues and try to instill thesevalues in their children. Be-cause of the dangers found indisadvantaged environments,decent families tend to be

66


11/26


authoritative and watchfulin their parenting styles andare cognizant of unfavorablepeers and problem behaviorsthat may be presented bytheir own children.

On the other hand, Andersonindicates that street familieshave lives that are disorga-nized and filled with anger,hostility, physical altercationsand other anti social behav-iors. Street families may fre-quently engage in ineffectiveparenting strategies, suchas yelling, poor supervision,verbal insults, and the harshand inconsistent disciplineentrenched in the code ofthe street. Anderson sug-gests that street families maysocialize their children accord-ingly. They may encouragetheir children to follow thestreet code and adopt theattitude that violence canbe used to gain or maintainrespect. For these parents,the code of the street mayprovide meaning and pridein their lives, as their socialidentities are entwined withthe street culture.

Racial discrimination.Anderson also discussesthe harmful effects of racialdiscrimination and its role infostering the street code. Hesuggests that experience withracial discrimination fosters

perceptions of injustice, help-lessness and despair amongAfrican American adoles-cents. Those who experiencediscrimination come to per-ceive the system, and thosewho represent it, as unfair.They believe that they cannotrely on authorities to preventreoccurrences. These per-ceptions may serve to justifythe adolescents violationof mainstream beliefs andvalues. They come to believethat they must take mattersinto their own hands to pro-tect themselves, leading touse of street code behaviorsas a means of self defense.In addition, victims of dis-crimination may perceive fewoptions for addressing theirsituations because report-ing such events may makethem be seen as weak andinvite further victimization.The risk associated with suchoutcomes may lead adoles-cents to protect themselvesby adopting unconventionalbeliefs and by exhibiting anti-social behaviors.

Testing the code of thestreet thesisTo test the code of the streettheory, interviews with adoles-cents and their caregivers wereexamined. Various factors,including the adoption of street

77


12/26


Exhibit 1.Study Controls

The control variables used in this study included family socioeconomic status (SES); family structure; number of children perhousehold; target childs gender, association with violent peers, school attachment and experience with stress; and neighbor-hood type and location.

Family SESMeasured by primary caregiver education level and family income. These two items werestandardized and summed to form a composite measure of family SES.

Family structureA dichotomous variable denoting households in which there were two caregivers in the homein comparison with single caregiver homes (1=two caregiver family, 0=one caregiver family).

Number of children per

household

Set as the aggregate number of children under the age of responsibility residing in the home

of the primary caregiver more than half of the time.Target gender A dichotomous variable, with 1=male and 0=female (the reference group).

Association with violent peersMeasured by three items adapted from the National Youth Survey Family Study (NYSFS),awhich asked respondents how many of their close friends had engaged in violent acts. Theresponses to the items were summed to obtain a total score regarding the extent to which therespondents friends engaged in violent behavior.b

School attachmentMeasured by a 12 item scale that indicated the extent to which the respondents cared aboutschool and had positive feelings toward school. The items were summed to create an index ofschool attachment.c

Strain (stress level)Measured by the summed total of affirmative responses to 15 events that may cause strain oremotional discomfort, such as breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend or failing a class.d

Urban A dichotomous variable indicating neighborhoods located in a city (=1) with nonurban neigh-borhoods (=0) as the reference group.

South A dichotomous variable indicating neighborhoods located in the southern United States, i.e.,Georgia (=1) with Midwestern, i.e., Iowa, neighborhoods (=0) as the reference group.

a NYSFS follows a group of individuals originally surveyed in 1976 when they were between the ages of 11 and 17 years oldto look at their changing attitudes, beliefs and behaviors about topics such as career goals, involvement with community andfamily, violence, drugs and social values. See Elliott, D.S., D. Huizinga, and S. Menard,Multiple Problem Youth: Delinquency,Substance Use, and Mental Health Problems, New York: Springer Verlag, 1989. For other publications on the NYSFS, see http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/NYSFS/currentresearchers/menardpublications.html.

b The alpha coefcient for the scale was .68.

c The alpha coefcient was .79.

d The KR20 coefficient was .77.

8


13/26


code values, were analyzedto see if they predict laterviolent behavior. The authorscontrolled for a variety of fac-tors that have been shown toaffect violent behaviors (seeexhibit 1).

Measuring neighborhoodcharacteristics . Two in-dexes were constructedto represent neighborhoodcharacteristics: neighborhoodviolence and neighborhooddisadvantage. Neighborhoodviolence measured the extentto which violent acts (e.g.,fights, gang violence, drugviolence, robbery, homicideand aggravated assaults)were reported to be a prob-lem within the neighborhood.The neighborhood disad-vantage index was formedusing five census variables asmarkers of economic disad-vantage: proportion of house-holds headed by women,proportion of persons onpublic assistance, proportionof households below thepoverty level, proportion ofpersons unemployed and pro-portion of African Americans. 7

Measuring family charac-teristics . To identify familycharacteristics, a behavioralrating system based onobservations was used to as-sess the quality of behavioral

exchanges and interactionsbetween family members.Ratings of family interac-tions relied on the ability oftrained observers to judgeoverall characteristics of theindividuals and groups beingobserved. 8 Fourteen differ-ent rating scales were usedto identify family character-istics. 9 The decent familycategory was measured us-ing seven of the observed be-haviors (consistent discipline,child monitoring, positivereinforcement, quality time,warmth and support, induc-tive reasoning and pro socialbehavior). 10 The street fam-ily category was measuredusing the remaining sevenobserved behaviors (incon-sistent and harsh discipline,hostility, physical attacks, pa-rental violence, verbal abuse,anti social behavior and childneglect). 11

Measuring racial discrimi-nation . Racial discriminationwas measured using theadolescents responses to13 items from the Sched-ule of Racist Events, a listof experiences with racialdiscrimination developed inthe 1990s. 12 These itemsassessed how often theadolescents reported per-ceived experiences withvarious discriminatory events

99


14/26


over the past year. Questionsincluded:

n How often has someoneyelled a racial slur or racialinsult at you just becauseyou are African American?

n How often have the policehassled you just because

you are African American?

n How often has someonethreatened you physicallyjust because you areAfrican American?

Other items focused on dis-respectful treatment by sales

clerks, false accusations byauthority figures and exclusionfrom social activities becauseof being African American. 13

Measuring adoption of thestreet code. Adoption of thestreet code was measuredwith a seven item, self report

scale on which adolescentswere asked to indicate theextent to which they thoughtit was justifiable or advanta-geous to use violence incertain situations (1=stronglydisagree to 4=stronglyagree). Statements included:

n When someone disrespectsyou, it is important thatyou use physical force or

aggression to teach him orher not to disrespect you.

n If someone uses violenceagainst you, it is impor-tant that you use violenceagainst him or her to geteven.

n People will take advantage

of you if you dont let themknow how tough you are.

n People do not respect aperson who is afraid tofight physically for his orher rights.

n Sometimes you need to

threaten people in order toget them to treat you fairly.

n It is important to showothers that you cannotbe intimidated.

n People tend to respect aperson who is tough andaggressive. 14

Measuring violent behav-ior . Self reported violentbehavior was measuredusing eight questions toassess violent offending.Respondents answered aseries of questions regardinghow often during the preced-ing year they had engagedin various violent acts (e.g.,physical assault, threatening

10


15/26


others, bullying others, using sample reported engaging inviolent behavior during thelast year.

a weapon and robbing others). Nearly 28 percent of the

Exhibit 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the Study Variables

Mean S.D. Self-ReportedViolent Behavior T2

ControlsFamily SES 12.57 4.14 .05

Family Structure (1=two parents) .52 .50 .03

Target Gender (1=male) .46 .50 .16a

Number of Children 2.67 1.32 .06

Violent Peers 4.21 1.72 .23a

School Attachment 27.39 5.48 .15a

Strain 6.23 2.67 .04Urban .52 .48 .05

South .49 .46 .08b

Self Reported Prior ViolentBehaviorT1

1.46 1.91 .45a

Family Characteristics

Decent Family 19.87 3.47 .15a

Street Family 16.12 5.48 .03

DiscriminationRacial Discrimination 21.76 6.64 .12a

Neighborhood Characteristics

Neighborhood Violence 11.56 4.37 .12a

Neighborhood Disadvantage .03 1.00 .09b

Dependent Variables

Street CodeT2 17.22 3.61 .25a

Self Reported Violent BehaviorT22.18 3.29

ap < .01,bp < .05

N =720

11


16/26


Relating adoption of the street code toviolent behaviorDescriptive statistics andbivariate correlations for allvariables included in this studyare presented in exhibit 2. Theresults show that neighbor-

hood violence, neighborhooddisadvantage, experiencewith racial discrimination andadoption of the street codeare significantly related tolater reported violent behavior.Furthermore, belonging todecent families has a signifi-cant and negative association

with self reported violence;but surprisingly, belongingto street families does notat all appear to be related toviolent behavior reported twoyears later.

Measures with significantrelationships to violentbehavior

.Analyses were

performed to examine theeffects of neighborhoodcontext, family characteris-tics, racial discrimination andstreet code adoption on laterviolent behavior. The resultsin exhibit 3 indicate that be-ing male, associating withviolent peers, having a his-tory of violent involvement,experiencing discrimination,living in a neighborhoodcharacterized by violence anddisadvantage, and adopting

the street code are significantpredictors of later reportedviolent behavior. Conversely,being attached to school andliving in a decent family aresignificant predictors of notengaging in violent behavior.

Exhibit 4 graphically presentsthe results of an advancedlogistical regression analysiswith six variables. Of the vari-ables examined, adopting thestreet code had the strongesteffect on violence. This isconsistent with Andersonsassertion that the code ofthe street is highly related toelevated levels of violence. 15

Indeed, only prior violentbehavior had a stronger pre-dictive effect from the first tosecond interviews two yearslater (see exhibit 2).

Further, a reciprocal effectsmodel, used to estimatethe directional relationshipbetween violent behavior andthe code of the street (seeexhibit 5), indicated that whilethe standardized path coef-ficient from violent behav-iorT2 to street code T2 (.10) issignificant, the coefficientfrom street code to violentbehavior (.25) is significant toa higher degree. Additionalanalysis (using the equality ofcoefficient test) 16 confirmedthat the path from streetcode to violent behavior is

12


17/26


Exhibit 3. Regression Coefficients of Self-Reported Violent Behavior T2 onControl, Family, Discrimination, Neighborhood and Street Code Variables

Model 1

Coef. S.D. z -value

Independent Variables

Controls

Family SES .013 .081 .160

Family Structure (1=two parents) .063 .052 1.211

Target Gender (1=male) .237 .053 4.472a

Number of Children .017 .019 .895

Violent Peers .189 .056 3.375a

School Attachment .191 .055 3.537a

Strain .021 .034 .618

Urban .024 .028 .857

South .042 .041 1.024Self Reported Prior Violent BehaviorT1 .467 .036 12.972

a

Family Characteristics

Decent Family .160 .053 3.019a

Street Family .034 .059 .576

Discrimination

Racial Discrimination .102 .053 1.925b

Neighborhood Characteristics

Neighborhood Violence .101 .052 1.942b

Neighborhood Disadvantage .092 .053 1.736b

Code of the Street

Street CodeT2 .246 .052 4.731a

Overdispersion parameter .545 .141 3.865a

ModelX 2 (df) 198.17(16)

PseudoR2 .259

ap = < .01,bp=< .10

N =720

Standardized coefficient weights are presented.

13


18/26

D e c e n t

F a m i l y S

t r e e t

F a m i l y R

a c i a l

D i s c r i m i n a t

i o n N e i g h b o r h o

o d

V i o l e n c e N e i g h

b o r h o o d

D i s a d v a n t a

g e S t r e e

t

C o d e T 2


Exhibit 4. Negative Binomial Regression Coefficients of Self-ReportedViolent Behavior T2 on Family, Discrimination, Neighborhood and StreetCode Variables

.25

.20

.15

.10

.05

.00

.05

.10

.15

.20

.25

.10 .10 .09

.03

.16

significantly different fromand stronger than the pathfrom violent behavior tostreet code. This findinglends support to the notionthat adopting the street codeleads to delinquent behaviorrather than delinquent behav-ior leading to the adoption ofthe street code.

Conclusions . Drawing oninsights from Andersonscode of the street thesis,this study examined whetherneighborhood problems, fam-ily characteristics, racial dis-crimination and street codevalues explain violent behav-ior. The results were general-ly consistent with Andersons

thesis. They suggest thatfamily characteristics, racialdiscrimination, neighborhoodcontext and street code val-ues are significant predictorsof violence.

In particular, being raised ina decent family appearsto lower the risk of beinginvolved in violence. Thissuggests that decent familiesserve an important socializingfunction in reducing violentbehavior and victimization.

An unexpected finding wasthat the street familyvariable was not related toself reported violent behaviortwo years later. This may

14


19/26


Exhibit 5. Model Showing the Reciprocal Relationship Between StreetCode and Self-Reported Violent Behavior

Street CodeTime 1

.47a Street CodeTime 2

.27a .25a .10b

Self-ReportedViolent Behavior

.42a Self-ReportedViolent Behavior

Notes:N = 720,X2= 2.61, p = .151, GFI = .99, AGFI= .98, RMSEA = .042Coefficients are standardized.Measurement error correlation is controlled.The Squared Multiple Correlation was .27 for Street CodeT2and .23 for Self Reported

Violent BehaviorT2ap < .01,bp < .05

suggest that although streetfamilies may encourage theirchildren to adopt and pres-ent the street code, they donot directly influence themto engage in later violence.Thus, it is possible that streetfamilies use the threat ofviolence, the code, as a

form of deterrence. Althoughstreet families embrace thestreet code, they may use vi-olence only when necessary.If this is the case, relianceon street justice may deterwould be perpetrators from

attacking because of fearof retribution and escalatinglevels of violence, and mightactually serve to preventsome violence. 17

A third finding was that re-ported experience with racialdiscrimination significantlypredicted self reported vio-lent behavior. Experiencingdiscrimination may lead toa perception that society isunfair, and victims of discrim-ination may come to believethat aggression and violence

15


20/26


are legitimate mechanismsfor solving grievances. Thisfinding suggests that con-ceptual frameworks andcomprehensive explanationsfor violence among AfricanAmericans may be incom-plete if they do not accountfor experience with racialdiscrimination.

The results also suggestthat neighborhood structuralconditions may influenceviolent behavior. Specifically,neighborhood violence andneighborhood disadvantageare significant predictors ofadolescent violence. Severalother studies have observedthat a disproportionatenumber of individuals livingin disadvantaged and danger-ous neighborhoods see theirchances of gaining conven-tional success and respectas limited. 18 Therefore, dis-advantaged, high crimeneighborhoods may generatealternative routes to gainingrespect, such as adopting thecode of the street and engag-ing in violent lifestyles. 19

Last, and most important,the study showed that anindividual adolescents adop-tion of the street code (asopposed to simply beingpart of a street code family)is a powerful antecedent ofviolence. The results point to

an amplifying effect, whereneighborhood problemsfoster violence and adopt-ing the street code furtherincreases the risk of violence.This result adds to the grow-ing literature that describeshow neighborhood character-istics combine with deviantcultural codes to perpetuateviolence in communities (inthis case, African Americancommunities). 20

Researchers interested instudying the race/violencerelationship should appreci-ate elements of Andersonscode of the street thesis.Andersons thesis bridgesthe environmental culturaldivide inherent in many urbanviolence studies. It is hopedthat the findings in thisstudy will encourage betterunderstanding and increasedinterest in how neighborhoodconditions, family character-istics, racial discriminationand street code values worktogether to inflame violentbehavior.

Notes1. See, e.g., Elliott, D.S., SeriousViolent Offenders: Onset, Devel-

opmental Course, and Termina-tion The American Society ofCriminology 1993 PresidentialAddress, Criminology, 32 (1) (Febru-ary 1994): 121; Farrington, D.P.,Predictors, Causes, and Correlates

16


21/26


of Male Youth Violence, in Crimeand Justice: A Review of Research,vol. 24, ed. Michael Tonry and MarkH. Moore, Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press, 1998: 421475; Hawk-ins, D.F., J.H. Laub, J.L. Lauritsen,and L. Cothern, Race, Ethnicity,and Serious and Violent JuvenileOffending, Juvenile Justice Bulletin,Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, June2000, NCJ 181202; Moore, M.H.,and M. Tonry, Youth Violence inAmerica, in Crime and Justice: AReview of Research, vol. 24, ed.Michael Tonry and Mark H. Moore,Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1998: 126; Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Preven-tion, Report to Congress on JuvenileViolence Research, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, 1999, NCJ 176976;Reiss, A.J., and J.A. Roth, Under- standing and Preventing Violence,Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1993.

2. At the time he developed histheory discussed here, ProfessorAnderson was affiliated with the

University of Pennsylvania.

3. Anderson, E., The Code of theStreets, Atlantic Monthly 273 (5)(May 1994): 8094; Anderson, E.,Code of the Street: Decency, Vio- lence, and the Moral Life of the InnerCity, New York: W.W. Norton andCompany, 1999.

4. Anderson, Code of the Street

(see note 3). See also Bruce, M.A.,V.J. Roscigno, and P.L. McCall,Structure, Context, and Agency inthe Reproduction of Black on Black

Violence, Theoretical Criminology2 (1998): 2955; Kubrin, C.E., andR. Weitzer, Retaliatory Homicide:Concentrated Disadvantage andNeighborhood Culture, Social Prob- lems, 50 (2) (May 2003): 157180;Sampson, R.J., and W.J. Wilson,Toward a Theory of Race, Crime,and Urban Inequality, in Crime andInequality, ed. John Hagan and RuthD. Peterson, Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press, 1995: 3754.

5. Anderson, Code of the Street (seenote 3). See also Baumer, E., J. Hor-ney, R.B. Felson, and J.L. Lauritsen,Neighborhood Disadvantage andthe Nature of Violence, Criminology41 (1) (February 2003): 3972; Oliver,W., The Violent Social World of BlackMen, New York: Lexington Books,1994.

6. Anderson used the terms de-cent and street to characterizethe families that he studied. The au-thors of this Research in Brief are inno way imposing a moral judgmentby suggesting that decent familiesare good and street families arebad.

7. Factor analysis indicated that

these variables loaded on a singlefactor for the block group areas(BGAs) in the sample. The itemswere standardized and combinedto form a measure of disadvantage.The alpha coefficient was .89.

8. Melby, J., R.D. Conger, R. Book,M. Rueter, L. Lucy, D. Repinski, S.Rogers, B. Rogers, and L. Scara-mella, Iowa Family Interaction Rating

Scales, Ames, IA: Iowa Youth andFamilies Project, 1998.

9. The statistical program AMOS(Arbuckle, J.L., and W. Wothke,

17


22/26


AMOS Users Guide Version 4.0,Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation,1999) was used to create singlefactor, latent variables for the decentand street family constructs. Eachof the observed indicators of thelatent variable was specified as alinear combination of a latent factorplus random measurement error. Ineach case, assessment of the overallmeasurement models demonstratedthat the items selected to measurethe theoretical constructs decentand street were statisticallysignificant.

10. Maximum likelihood estimationanalysis indicated that the itemsloaded on a common construct andranged from .55 to .88. The correla-tions between the items rangedfrom .48 to .89. The alpha coefficient

was .81.

11. Maximum likelihood estimationanalysis indicated that the itemsloaded on a common construct andranged from .53 to .89. The correla-tions between the items rangedfrom .47 to .91. The alpha coefficientwas .84. The correlation betweendecent and street families is .49.

12. Landrine, H., and E.A. Klonoff,The Schedule of Racist Events: AMeasure of Racial Discriminationand a Study of Its Negative Physicaland Mental Health Consequences,Journal of Black Psychology 22 (2)(1996): 144168.

13. The alpha coefficient for thescale was .85.

14. The alpha coefficient for thismeasure was .78 for the first set ofinterviews and .80 for the secondset of interviews. It is clear that

this measure of Andersons codeof the street may not capture all ofthe complexities he identified. Mostimportant to the research discussedhere are the attitudinal componentsof the code of the street.

15. Anderson, Code of the Street(see note 3).

16. Paternoster, R., R. Brame, P.Mazerolle, and A. Piquero, Usingthe Correct Statistical Test for theEquality of Regression Coefficients,Criminology 36 (4) (November 1998):859866.

17. This conclusion is supportedby Kubrin and Weitzer, RetaliatoryHomicide: Concentrated Disadvan-tage and Neighborhood Culture(see note 4).

18. Bruce et al., Structure, Context,and Agency in the Reproduction ofBlack on Black Violence (see note4); Kubrin and Weitzer, RetaliatoryHomicide: Concentrated Disadvan-tage and Neighborhood Culture(see note 4).

19. Anderson, Code of the Street(see note 3); Bruce et al., Struc-

ture, Context, and Agency in theReproduction of Black on BlackViolence (see note 4); Oliver, TheViolent Social World of Black Men(see note 5).

20. Bruce et al., Structure, Context,and Agency in the Reproduction ofBlack on Black Violence (see note4); Kubrin and Weitzer, RetaliatoryHomicide: Concentrated Disadvan-tage and Neighborhood Culture(see note 4); Sampson and Wilson,Toward a Theory of Race, Crime,and Urban Inequality (see note 4).

18


23/26


Additional readingBaron, S.W., L.W. Kennedy,and D.R. Forde. Male StreetYouths Conflict: The Role ofBackground, Subcultural, andSituational Factors. JusticeQuarterly 18 (2001): 759789.

Baumrind, D. The Influ-

ence of Parenting Style onAdolescent Competence andSubstance Use. Journal ofEarly Adolescence 11 (1991):5695.

Bellair, P.E. Social Interac-tion and Community Crime:Examining the Importance of

Neighbor Networks. Crimi- nology 35 (1997): 677701.

Bellair, P.E., V.J. Roscigno,and T.L. McNulty. LinkingLocal Labor Market Oppor-tunity to Violent AdolescentDelinquency. Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delin-

quency 40 (2003): 633.Berkowitz, L. FrustrationAggression Hypothesis:Examination and Reformula-tion. Psychological Bulletin106 (1989): 5973.

Bernard, T.J. Angry Aggres-sion Among the Truly Disad-vantaged. Criminology 28(1990): 7396.

Cao, L., A. Adams, and V.J.Jensen. A Test of the Black

Subculture of Violence The-sis: A Research Note. Crimi- nology 35 (1997): 367379.

Cloward, R., and L. Ohlin.Delinquency and Opportu- nity. Glencoe, IL: Free Press,1960.

Cohen, A.K. Delinquent Boys.

Glencoe, IL: Free Press,1955.

Courtwright, D.T. ViolentLand: Single Men and SocialDisorder from the Frontier tothe Inner City. Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1996.

DuBois, W.E.B. The Philadel- phia Negro: A Social Study.Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1899(reprinted 1996).

Fagan, J., and D.L. Wilkin-son. Firearms and Youth

Violence. In Handbook ofAntisocial Behavior, ed. DavidStoff, James Brieling, andJack D. Maser. New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1997.

Furstenberg, F.F., T.D. Cook,J. Eccles, G.H. Elder, Jr., andA. Sameroff. Managing toMake It: Urban Families andAdolescent Success. Chi-cago: University of ChicagoPress, 1999.

19


24/26


Hawkins, D.F. EditorsIntroduction. In ViolentCrime: Assessing Race andEthnic Differences, ed. Dar-nell F. Hawkins. New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.

Hawkins, D.F., J.H. Laub, J.L.Lauritsen, and L. Cothern.Race, Ethnicity, and Seriousand Violent Juvenile Offend- ing, Juvenile Justice Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention, 2000.

Jarrett, R.L. AfricanAmerican Children, Families,and Neighborhoods: Qualita-tive Contributions to Un-derstanding DevelopmentalPathways. Qualitative Soci- ology 20 (1997): 275288.

Luckenbill, D.F., and D.P.Doyle. Structural Position

and Violence: Developing aCultural Explanation. Crimi- nology 27 (1989): 801818.

Markowitz, F.E., and R.B.Felson. Social DemographicAttitudes and Violence.Criminology 36 (1998):117138.

McCord, J., and M.E. Ens-minger. Racial Discrimina-tion and Violence: A Longitu-dinal Perspective. In ViolentCrime: Assessing Race and

Ethnic Differences, ed. Dar-nell F. Hawkins. New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.

Miller, W.B. Lower ClassCulture as a GeneratingMilieu of Gang Delinquency.Journal of Social Issues 14(1958): 519.

Simons, R.L., Y. F. Chen,E.A. Stewart, and G.H. Brody.Incidents of Discriminationand Risk for Delinquency: ALongitudinal Test of StrainTheory With an AfricanAmerican Sample. JusticeQuarterly 20 (2003): 827854.

Sullivan, M.I. Getting Paid:Youth Crime and Work in theInner City. New York: CornellUniversity Press, 1989.

Tedeschi, J., and R.B. Felson.Violence, Aggression, andCoercive Action. Washington,

DC: American PsychologicalAssociation Books, 1994.

Wilkinson, D.L. Guns , Vio- lence, and Identity AmongAfrican American and LatinoYouth. New York: LFB Schol-arly Publishing, 2003.

Wolfgang, M.E., and F. Fer-racuti. The Subculture ofViolence: Towards an Inte- grated Theory of Criminology.London: Tavistock, 1967.

20


25/26

The National Institute of Justice is theresearch, development, and evaluation

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NIJs mission is to advance scientific research,

development, and evaluation to enhance the

administration of justice and public safety.

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice Programs,

which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics;

the Community Capacity Development Office;

the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention;

and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing,

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and

Tracking (SMART).


26/26

F EB.

0 9

S . D

e p a r

t m e n

t o f

J u s t

i c e

fi c e o

f J u s t

i c e

P r o g r a m s

ti o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f J u s t i c e

s h i n g t o n , D

C 2 0 5 3 1

fi c i a l

B u s i n e s s

a l t y f o r

P r i v a t e U s e

$ 3 0 0

P R E S O R

T E D S T A N D A R D

P O S T A G E & F E E S P A I D

D O J / N I J

P E R M I T N O

. G

9 1

* N C J ~ 2 2

3 5 0 9

*

code of the street

Documents