Section iv behavioral assessment

IV.EnvironmentalAssessments 275
IV.EnvironmentalAssessments
Section IV
Environmental
Assessments
The assessments in this section measure the
following family, home, and community influences
related to youth violence:
A. Disciplinary Practices
B. Family Communication
C. Family Conflict and Hostility
D. Family Relationships
E. Parent-Child Relationships
F. Parental Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior
and Aggression
G. Parental Involvement
H. Parental Monitoring and Supervision
I. Quality of Life
J. Collective Efficacy
K. Community Involvement
L. Community Resources
M. Exposure to Violence
N. Fear of Crime
O. Neighborhood Cohesion
P. Neighborhood Disorganization
Q. Neighborhood Integration and Exchange
R. Neighborhood Satisfaction
S. Social Control

276 IV.EnvironmentalAssessments
DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES
Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
A. Disciplinary
Practices
A1. Authoritative
Parenting Index; 16
items
Measures children’s
perceptions of their
parents’ level of
demanding and
responsive behaviors.
Students aged 8-18. Internal consistency:
Responsiveness .85;
Demandingness .71
to .77.
Jackson, Henriksen &
Foshee, 1988
A2. Consistency of
Discipline—
Rochester Youth
Development Study;
7 items
Measures the extent to
which the parent
maintains consistent
consequences and follows
through with them.
Matching version for
youth.
Youths initially in
grades 7-8 in 1988,
and followed into
adulthood. Parents of
the youths.
Internal consistency:
Youth .65; Parents
.85.
Stern, Smith & Jang,
1999
Adapted from Krohn,
Stern, Thornberry &
Jang, 1992
A3. Positive
Parenting
Practices—
Rochester Youth
Development Study;
5 items
Measures the frequency
with which parents reward
the child’s good behavior
with praising, hugging, or
similar responses.
Matching version for
youth.
Youths initially in
grades 7-8 in 1988,
and followed into
the youths.
Youth .79; Parents
.70.
Adapted from Krohn,
Stern, Thornberry &
Jang, 1992
A4. Positive
Parenting
Practices—Chicago
Youth Development
Study; 6 items
Measures the frequency of
parental rewards (e.g.,
winking, verbal praise,
hugs, and special
privileges) for good
behavior. Matching
version for youth.
Youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
Primary caregivers of
the youths.
Youth .85; Parents
.84.
Tolan, Gorman-Smith
& Henry, 2000
B. Family
Communication
B1. Reactivity in
Family
Communication; 3
items
which parents and
children perceive that
emotional states
experienced by one
person in a family spread
easily to other family
members.
Middle school
students, grades 6-8,
and their parents.
Youth .58; Parents
.66.
Multisite Violence
Prevention Project,
2004b
Adapted from Henry,
Chertok, Keys &
Jegerski, 1991
C. Family Conflict
and Hostility
C1. Family Conflict
and Hostility—
Rochester Youth
Development Study;
3 items
which the parent reports a
climate of hostility and
conflict within the family.
Parents of youths
initially in grades 7-8
in 1988, and followed
into adulthood.
Not available. Thornberry, Krohn,
Lizotte, Smith &
Tobin, 2003
D. Family
Relationships
D1. Family
Relationship
Characteristics; 39
items
Measures four aspects of
family relationship
characteristics thought to
distinguish risk for serious
antisocial behavior:
cohesion, beliefs about
family, structure, and
deviant beliefs.
Children and
adolescents aged
6-17.
.72 to .91.
Tolan, Gorman-Smith,
Huesmann & Zelli,
1997
E. Parent-Child
Relationship
E1. Parental-Child
Attachment—
Rochester Youth
Development Study;
11 items
Measures the degree of
warmth and lack of
hostility in the parent-child
relationship.
Youths initially in
grades 7-8 in 1988,
and followed into
the youths.
Youth .87; Parents
.81.
Thornberry, Lizotte,
Krohn, Farnworth &
Jang, 1991
Adapted from Hudson,
1982

E. Parent-Child
Relationship
(Continued)
E2. Attachment to
Parents—Seattle
Social Development
Project; 4 items
Measures students’
perceptions of how close
they feel to their fathers
and mothers.
.76.
Arthur, Hawkins,
Pollard, Catalano &
Baglioni, 2002
E3. Family
Bonding—
Individual Protective
Factors Index; 6
items
Measures family bonding
and communication.
Students in grades
7-11.
.58 (Gabriel, 1994).
Phillips & Springer,
1992
F. Parental
Attitudes
F1. Parental Attitudes
Toward Discipline—
Chicago Youth
Development Study;
12 items
which a parent disengages
or avoids providing
consequences for a child’s
behavior (avoidance of
discipline), and a parent’s
perception of how
effective their discipline is
in controlling the child’s
behavior (discipline
effectiveness).
youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
.84.
Tolan, Gorman-Smith
& Henry, 2000
Toward Drug Use—
Seattle Social
Development
Project; 3 items
Measures youths’
perceptions of their
parents’ attitudes about
drinking and smoking.
.78.
Arthur, Hawkins,
Pollard, Catalano &
Baglioni, 2002
Toward Antisocial
Behavior—Seattle
Social Development
Project; 3 items
Measures youths’
perceptions of how their
parents would feel if they
stole, drew graffiti or
picked a fight with
someone.
.70.
Arthur, Hawkins,
Pollard, Catalano &
Baglioni, 2002
Toward Use of
Aggression; 10 items
Measures the mother’s
values regarding use of
aggression to solve
problems.
Mothers of children
in kindergarten.
.55.
Dodge, Pettit & Bates,
1994
F5. Parental Support
for Fighting; 10
items
perception of their
parents’ support for
aggressive and non-
aggressive solutions as a
means of resolving
conflicts.
Middle school
students, grades 6-8.
Aggressive solutions
.62; Non-aggressive
solutions .66.
Multisite Violence
Prevention Project,
2004a.
Adapted from Orpinas,
Murray & Kelder, 1999

G. Parental
Involvement
G1. Parental
Involvement in
School; 18 items
Assesses parental
involvement with the
child’s schoolwork,
teacher and school
activities, as well as
teacher involvement with
the parent.
Middle school
students, grades 6-8,
and their parents.
For Students:
Parent involvement
with child .75; Parent
involvement with
teacher/school .74;
Teacher involvement
with parent .69.
For Parents:
Parent involvement
with child: .81; Parent
involvement with
teacher/school .76;
Teacher involvement
with parent .79.
Multisite Violence
Prevention Project,
2004b
Adapted from Eccles &
Harold, 1993 (Parent
Version); and Smith,
Connell, Wright, et al.,
1997 (Student Version)
G2. Parental
Involvement—
Rochester Youth
Development Study;
11 items
Measures how often
parents report being
involved with their
children in a range of
prosocial activities.
Parents of youths
into adulthood.
.74.
Adapted from Stern &
Smith, 1995
G3. Parental
Involvement—
Chicago Youth
Development Study;
12 items
Measures the degree to
which the parent is
involved in the child’s life.
Youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
the youths.
Youth .79; Caregivers
.78.
Gorman-Smith, Tolan,
Zelli & Huesmann,
1996
G4. Prosocial
Parental
Involvement—
Seattle Social
Development
Project; 7 items
perceptions of the
opportunities and rewards
offered by and
experienced with their
parents.
Opportunities .76;
Rewards .78.
Arthur, Hawkins,
Pollard, Catalano &
Baglioni, 2002
H. Parental
Monitoring and
Supervision
H1. Parental
Supervision—
Rochester Youth
Development Study;
4 items
which the youth feels that
his parents are aware of
his whereabouts, friends
and activities.
Youths initially in
grades 7-8 in 1988,
and followed into
adulthood.
.56.
Bjerregaard & Smith,
1993
H2. Parental
Supervision—
Seattle Social
Development
Project; 8 items
perceptions of what rules
their parents have
established and how
closely their parents
monitor those rules.
.83.
Arthur, Hawkins,
Pollard, Catalano &
Baglioni, 2002
I. Quality of Life I1. Stressful Urban
Life Events Scale; 15
items
Measures stressful life
events experienced in the
past year (e.g., poor
grades, family illness or
death, robbery).
Elementary school
Stress due to negative
life events .55; Stress
due to neighborhood
violence .61 (Tolan &
Gorman-Smith,
1991).
Tolan, Miller &
Thomas, 1988
Adapted by Attar,
Guerra & Tolan, 1994

I. Quality of Life
(Continued)
I2. Stressful Life
Events—Rochester
Youth Development
Study; 18 items
Measures number of
stressful life events
experienced in the past 30
days, such as the death of
someone close to them, a
family member getting in
trouble with the law, or
getting a new
boyfriend/girlfriend.
Youths initially in
grades 7-8 in 1988,
and followed into
the youths.
Not available. Stern & Smith, 1995
(Parent Version)
Thornberry, Krohn,
Lizotte, Smith &
Tobin, 2003 (Youth
Version)
J. Collective
Efficacy
J1. Collective
Efficacy—Chicago
Neighborhood
Study; 10 items
Measures informal social
control, willingness to
intervene, and social
cohesion in a
neighborhood.
Urban residents,
aged 18 and older.
.80 to .91.
Sampson,
Raudenbush & Earls,
1997
K. Community
Involvement
K1. Community
Involvement—
Chicago Youth
Development Study;
4 items
which children and their
caregivers are comfortable
and engaged in their
neighborhoods.
Youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
the youths.
Youth involvement
.49; Caregiver
involvement .62.
Tolan, Gorman-Smith
& Henry, 2001
K2. Community
Involvement—
Seattle Social
Development
Project; 9 items
perceptions of the
opportunities and rewards
for prosocial activities in
their communities.
Opportunities .78;
Rewards .85.
Arthur, Hawkins,
Pollard, Catalano &
Baglioni, 2002
L. Community
Resources
L1. Community
Resources in
Neighborhood—
Chicago Youth
Development Study;
13 items
Measures availability and
use of resources in the
community (e.g., relatives,
grocery stores, clinics,
public transportation).
Youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
the youths.
Youth resources .58;
Caregiver resources
.74.
Tolan, Gorman-Smith
& Henry, 2001
M. Exposure to
Violence
M1. Children’s
Exposure to
Community
Violence; 12 items
Measures frequency of
exposure (through sight
and sound) to violence in
one’s home and
neighborhood.
African-American
males aged 12-16.
.84.
Richters & Martinez,
1990
M2. Victimization
Scale; 135 items
Measures exposure to
violence and victimization
in one’s home, school,
and neighborhood.
Middle school
Not available. Nadel, Spellmann,
Alvarez-Canino,
Lausell-Bryant &
Landsberg, 1991
N. Fear of Crime N1. Fear of Crime—
Chicago Youth
Development Study;
13 items
Measures fear of being the
victim of a violent crime in
the home and/or
neighborhood, the impact
of such fear, and steps
taken to protect oneself
from crime.
Youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
Fear of crime .86;
Measures taken to
cope with fear of
crime .77.
Gorman-Smith, Tolan
& Henry, 2000

O. Neighborhood
Cohesion
O1. Neighborhood
Cohesion; 8 items
which residents feel a
sense of belonging in the
neighborhood and share
the same values as their
neighbors.
Urban residents,
aged 18 and older.
.68
Perkins, Florin &
Rich, 1990
Adapted by Houston
Community
Demonstration Project,
1993
P. Neighborhood
Disorganization
P1. Neighborhood
Disorganization—
Rochester Youth
Development Study;
17 items
Measures the parent’s
perception of crime,
dilapidation, and
disorganization in his/her
neighborhood.
Parents of youths
into adulthood.
.95.
Thornberry, Krohn,
Lizotte, Smith, &
Tobin, 2003
P2. Neighborhood
Disorganization—
Seattle Social
Development
Project; 5 items
perception of crime,
fighting, physical
deterioration, and safety in
their communities.
Students aged 11-18 Internal consistency:
.79.
Arthur, Hawkins,
Pollard, Catalano &
Baglioni, 2002
P3. Perceived
Community
Problems—Chicago
Youth Development
Study; 14 items
which youth and their
caregivers feel certain
negative qualities are
problems in their
communities (e.g., unkept
front yards, vacant lots,
noise, vandalism).
Youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
the youths.
Youth perceptions
.78; Caregiver
perceptions .84.
Tolan, Gorman-Smith
& Henry, 2001
P4. Neighborhood/
Block Conditions; 13
items
Measures residents’
perceptions of
neighborhood conditions
(e.g., severity of
problems, sense of
safety).
Urban residents,
aged 18 and older.
.90.
Perkins, Florin &
Rich, 1990
Adapted by Houston
Community
1993
Q. Neighborhood
Integration and
Exchange
Q1. Neighborhood
Integration—
Rochester Youth
Development Study;
7 items
which neighbors are
familiar with one another
and interact on a routine
basis.
Parents of youths
into adulthood.
.85.
Thornberry, Krohn,
Lizotte, Smith &
Tobin, 2003
Q2. Sense of
Belonging—Chicago
Youth Development
Study; 6 items
caregivers feel a sense of
loyalty and identity to their
neighbors.
Youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
the youths.
Youth belonging .52;
Caregiver belonging
.76.
Tolan, Gorman-Smith
& Henry, 2001
Q3. Reciprocated
Exchange—Chicago
Neighborhood
Study; 5 items
Measures the relative
frequency of social
exchange within the
neighborhood on issues
of consequence for
children.
Urban residents,
aged 18 and older.
.65.
Sampson, Morenoff
& Earls, 1999

Q. Neighborhood
Integration and
Exchange
(Continued)
Q4. Community
Support—Chicago
Youth Development
Study; 6 items
caregivers feel
comfortable with people in
their neighborhoods, ask
their advice, and interact
with them.
Youths initially in
grades 6 and 8 in
1990, and followed
into adulthood.
the youths.
Youth support .61;
Caregiver support
.80.
Tolan, Gorman-Smith
& Henry, 2001
Q5. Intergenerational
Connections—
Chicago
Neighborhood
Study; 5 items
Measures
intergenerational
connections and active
support of neighborhood
children by parents and
other adults.
Urban residents,
aged 18 and older.
.74.
Sampson, Morenoff
& Earls, 1999
R. Neighborhood
Satisfaction
R1. Neighborhood
Satisfaction; 4 items
Measures residents’
attitudes toward their
neighborhood (e.g., good
place to live).
Urban residents,
aged 18 and older.
.70.
Perkins, Florin &
Rich, 1990
Adapted by Houston
Community
1993
S. Social Control S1. Neighborhood
Action/Willingness to
Intervene; 6 items
Measures perceived
likelihood that someone
will intervene when
presented with a problem
in the neighborhood (e.g.,
break up a fight, stop drug
selling).
Urban residents,
aged 18 and older.
.71.
Perkins, Florin &
Rich, 1990
Adapted by Houston
Community
1993
S2. Social Control of
Children—Chicago
Neighborhood
Study; 3 items
Measures general aspects
of social cohesion and
neighborhood control in
situations involving
children.
Urban residents,
aged 18 and older.
.72.
Sampson, Morenoff
& Earls, 1999

SCALES AND ASSESSMENTS
A1. Authoritative Parenting Index
We asked other kids what THEIR mothers are like. Listed on this page is what these other kids said. Now we
want to know what YOUR mother is like. Put an X to show if what the other kids said is Just like, A lot like,
Sort of like, or NOT like your mother or step-mother.
Just like A lot like Sort of like Not like
Responsiveness
1. She is always telling me what to do. 4 3 2 1
2. She makes rules without asking what I think. 4 3 2 1
3. She makes me feel better when I am upset. 4 3 2 1
4. She is too busy to talk to me. 4 3 2 1
5. She listens to what I have to say. 4 3 2 1
6. She likes me just the way I am. 4 3 2 1
7. She tells me when I do a good job on things. 4 3 2 1
8. She wants to hear about my problem. 4 3 2 1
9. She is pleased with how I behave. 4 3 2 1
Demandingness
1. She has rules that I must follow. 4 3 2 1
2. She tells me times when I must come home. 4 3 2 1
3. She makes sure I tell her where I am going. 4 3 2 1
This index measures children’s perception of their parents’authoritative behavior on two dimensions:
responsiveness and demandingness. Items measuring indicators of parental warmth, acceptance,
involvement, and intrusiveness comprise the responsive dimension. The demanding dimension includes
items measuring indicators of parental supervision, assertive control, monitoring, and permissiveness.

Just like A lot like Sort of like Not like
4. She makes sure I go to bed on time. 4 3 2 1
5. She asks me what I do with friends. 4 3 2 1
6. She knows where I am after school. 4 3 2 1
7. She checks to see if I do my homework. 4 3 2 1
Note. Students who do not live with their mother or father are asked to answer the questions for their
grandmother, aunt or other adult with whom they live. When used with younger children (grades 3-5), an
oversized mock up of the scale is used to show children how to mark their choice. When used with
adolescents, “kids” is replaced with “students” in the instructions.
Scoring and Analysis
Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items for Responsiveness should be reverse coded. Point values
for all items are summed. Intended range is 16 to 64, with high scores indicating a high level of authoritative
parenting behavior.

A2. Consistency of Discipline—Rochester Youth Development Study
Often Sometimes Seldom Never
Parent Items
1. How often do you give up when you ask your child 4 3 2 1
to do something and he/she doesn’t do it?
2. How often does your child get away with things? 4 3 2 1
3. When your child is punished, how often does the 4 3 2 1
punishment work?
4. How often do you feel that you can correct your 4 3 2 1
children’s behavior?
5. Once a punishment has been decided, how often 4 3 2 1
can your child get out of it?
6. How often do you have to ask your child to do the 4 3 2 1
same thing more than once?
7. How often does your child get punished sometimes, 4 3 2 1
but not other times, for doing the same thing?
Youth Items
1. Once your parent decides a punishment, how often 4 3 2 1
can you get out of it?
2. How often do you get away with things? 4 3 2 1
3. How often do you get punished sometimes, 4 3 2 1
but not other times, for doing the same thing?
These items measure the extent to which a parent maintains consistent consequences and follows
through with them. Corresponding items for youth measure the extent to which the youth feels that the
parent maintains consistent consequences and follows through with them.

4. How often does your parent have to ask you to do the 4 3 2 1
same thing more than once?
5. When you get punished, how much does the kind of punishment you get depend on your parent’s mood?
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5
Totally Mostly About half on mood Mostly on Totally on
on mood on mood half on your behavior your behavior your behavior
Parent and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are summed and then divided by the total
number of items (7 for parent; 5 for youth). Intended range of scores is between 1 and 4 (parent), and 1 and
4.2 (youth). Higher scores indicate a greater frequency of positive parenting.

A3. Positive Parenting Practices—Rochester Youth Development Study
Parent Items
When your child has done something that you like or approve of, how often do you …
1. Say something nice about it or praise your child for it? 1 2 3 4
2. Give your child something like a hug, kiss, or pat on the 1 2 3 4
back for it?
3. Give your child some reward for it, like a present, 1 2 3 4
money, or food?
4. Give your child a special privilege, like staying up 1 2 3 4
late or a special activity?
5. Go someplace or do something special with your 1 2 3 4
child as a reward?
Youth Items
When you have done something that your parent likes or approves of, how often does she/does he …
1. Say something nice about it or praise you for it? 1 2 3 4
2. Give you something like a hug, kiss, or pat on the 1 2 3 4
back for it?
3. Give you some reward for it, like a present, money, 1 2 3 4
or food?
These items measure the frequency with which parents reward the child’s good behavior with
praising, hugging, or similar responses. Corresponding items measure the youth’s report of the frequency
with which parents reward the child’s good behavior with praising, hugging, or similar responses.

4. Give you a special privilege, like staying up late or 1 2 3 4
a special activity?
5. Go someplace or do something special with you as 1 2 3 4
a reward?
Parent and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values
are summed and then divided by the number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score
indicating a greater frequency of positive parenting.

A4. Positive Parenting Practices—Chicago Youth Development Study
Parent Items
In the past 12 months, when your youth did something that you liked or approved of, how often did you …
Almost Almost
never Sometimes always
1. Give him a wink or a smile? 1 3 5
2. Say something nice about it; praise or approval? 1 3 5
3. Give him a hug, pat on the back, or kiss for it? 1 3 5
4. Give him some reward for it, like a present, extra money, 1 3 5
or something special to eat?
5. Give him some special privilege such as staying up late, 1 3 5
watching TV, or doing some special activity?
6. Do something special together, such as going to the movies, 1 3 5
playing a game, or going somewhere special?
Youth Items
When you have done something that your parents like or approve of, how often does your caregiver …
Almost Almost
1. Give you a wink or smile? 1 3 5
2. Say something nice about it; praise or approval? 1 3 5
3. Give you a hug, pat on the back, or kiss for it? 1 3 5
These items measure the frequency of parental rewards (e.g., winking, verbal praise, hugs, and special
privileges) for good behavior. Comparable items are administered to youth.

Almost Almost
4. Give you some reward for it, like a present, extra 1 3 5
money or something special to eat?
5. Give you some special privilege such as staying up late, 1 3 5
watching TV, or doing some special activity?
6. Do something special together, such as going to the movies, 1 3 5
playing a game, or going somewhere special?
Parent and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values
are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Intended range is 1-5, with higher scores
indicating a greater sense of positive parenting.

B1. Reactivity in Family Communication
Almost
Never Rarely Sometimes Often always
1. Family members jump to conclusions 1 2 3 4 5
when we talk.
2. I know what other members of my family 1 2 3 4 5
will say before they finish saying it.
3. We interrupt one another when we talk 1 2 3 4 5
or argue.
Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the total number
of items. Intended range is 1-5, with higher scores indicating greater reactivity in family communication.
Emotional reactivity is the tendency for emotional states to be contagious among family members. In
reactive families, multiple family members will become emotionally aroused if a single family member is
upset. These items measure this characteristic of families.

C1. Family Conflict and Hostility—Rochester Youth Development Study
1. How often has there been quarreling or arguing 1 2 3 4
in your household?
2. How often do family members lose their temper 1 2 3 4
or blow up for no good reason?
3. How often have there been physical fights in the 1 2 3 4
household, like people hitting, shoving, throwing
objects at each others, threatening with a weapon,
and so forth?
Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the total number
of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a higher level of hostility and
conflict within the family.
These items measure the extent to which the parent reports a climate of hostility and conflict within
the family. Respondents are asked to indicate how often hostile situations have occurred in their families
in the past 30 days, not including their children’s fights with each other.

D1. Family Relationship Characteristics
Strongly Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree agree
1. Family togetherness is very important. 1 2 3 4
2. Kids should value a close relationship with their family 1 2 3 4
and not have to be asked to spend time at home.
3. No matter what, family members should stick together. 1 2 3 4
4. Family members should be able to speak their minds 1 2 3 4
with one another.
5. Parents should teach their children what they need 1 2 3 4
to know to make it in the world.
6. Children should always talk to their parents with respect. 1 2 3 4
7. Kids should obey their parents even when they don’t 1 2 3 4
agree with them.
8. Parents should expect kids my age (kid’s ______age) 1 2 3 4
to do some work around the house.
9. Kids my age (kid’s _____age) should call home if 1 2 3 4
they think they might be late.
10. Kids my age (kid’s _____age) should clean up for 1 2 3 4
themselves without having to be told.
11. It’s O. K. to lie to someone if it will keep you out of 1 2 3 4
trouble with them.
12. It’s O. K. to steal something from someone who is 1 2 3 4
rich and can easily replace it.
This assessment measures four aspects of family relationship characteristics thought to distinguish risk
for serious antisocial behavior: cohesion, beliefs about family, structure, and deviant beliefs. Youth and
their parents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with various statements about their family.

Strongly Strongly
13. It’s O. K. to skip school every once in awhile. 1 2 3 4
14. It’s O. K. to fight if the other guy says bad enough 1 2 3 4
things about you or your family.
Almost
Not at Hardly True always or
all true true a lot always true
15. My family knows what I mean when I say something. 1 2 3 4
16. My family and I have the same views about what is right 1 2 3 4
and wrong.
17. I am able to let others in the family know how I 1 2 3 4
really feel.
18. My family and I have the same views about 1 2 3 4
being successful.
19. I’m available when others in the family want to 1 2 3 4
talk to me.
20. I listen to what other family members have to 1 2 3 4
say, even when I disagree.
21. Family members ask each other for help. 1 2 3 4
22. Family members like to spend free time with each other. 1 2 3 4
23. Family members feel very close to each other. 1 2 3 4
24. We can easily think of things to do together as a family. 1 2 3 4
25. Family members attend church, synagogue, Sunday 1 2 3 4
school, or other religious activities fairly often.
26. We often talk about the religious meaning of Christmas, 1 2 3 4
Passover, or other holidays.

Almost
Not at Hardly True always or
all true true a lot always true
27. My family expects too much of me. 1 2 3 4
28. My family doesn’t care about me. 1 2 3 4
29. I often don’t understand what other family members are 1 2 3 4
saying.
30. If someone in the family has upset me, I keep it to myself. 1 2 3 4
31. I have trouble accepting someone else’s answer to a 1 2 3 4
family problem.
32. My family doesn’t let me be myself. 1 2 3 4
33. I am tired of being blamed for family problems. 1 2 3 4
34. The children make the decisions in our family. 1 2 3 4
35. It is hard to identify the leaders in our family. 1 2 3 4
36. It is hard to tell who does which household chores. 1 2 3 4
37. I sometimes get headaches or other aches and pains 1 2 3 4
after I fight with my family.
38. I sometimes use feeling sick to get out of doing something. 1 2 3 4
For Parent Version: In addition to the preceding items, the following item is added.
Strongly Strongly
39. When you feel someone is out to get you, it’s better to 1 2 3 4
get them first.

This measure includes four subscales assessing aspects of family relationships, including structure, cohesion,
beliefs about family, and deviant beliefs. All subscales are scored by computing means scores of the items
listed.
Cohesion: Includes items 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. A maximum score of 4 indicates
more cohesion among family members.
Beliefs about Family: Includes items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. A maximum score of 4 indicates more
positive beliefs about the family.
Structure: Includes items 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38. A maximum score of 4 indicates
more family structure.
Deviant Beliefs: Includes items 11, 12, 13 and 14 (and item 39 for Parent version). A maximum score of 4
indicates greater sense of deviant beliefs.

E1. Parental-Child Attachment—Rochester Youth Development Study
Parent Items
How often would you say that …
1. You get along well with your child? 4 3 2 1
2. You feel that you can really trust your child? 4 3 2 1
3. You just do not understand your child? 4 3 2 1
4. Your child is too demanding? 4 3 2 1
5. You really enjoy your child? 4 3 2 1
6. Your child interferes with your activities? 4 3 2 1
7. You think your child is terrific? 4 3 2 1
8. You feel very angry toward your child? 4 3 2 1
9. You feel violent toward your child? 4 3 2 1
10. You feel proud of your child? 4 3 2 1
11. You wish your child was more like others that 4 3 2 1
you know?
These items measure the degree of warmth and lack of hostility in the parent-child relationship.
Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which each statement is true for them.

Youth Items
How often would you say that …
1. You get along well with your parent? 4 3 2 1
2. You feel that you can really trust your parent? 4 3 2 1
3. Your parent does not understand you? 4 3 2 1
4. Your parent is too demanding? 4 3 2 1
5. You really enjoy your parent? 4 3 2 1
6. You have a lot of respect for your parent? 4 3 2 1
7. Your parent interferes with your activities? 4 3 2 1
8. You think your parent is terrific? 4 3 2 1
9. You feel very angry toward your parent? 4 3 2 1
10. You feel violent toward your parent? 4 3 2 1
11. You feel proud of your parent? 4 3 2 1
Parent and youth items are scored separately. Point values are assigned as indicated above. Youth items 3, 4,
7, 9 and 10 are reverse coded; parent items 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are reverse coded. Point values are summed
and then divided by the number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a
higher level of attachment.

E2. Attachment to Parents—Seattle Social Development Project
1. Do you feel very close to your mother? NO! no yes YES!
2. Do you share your thoughts and feelings NO! no yes YES!
with your mother?
3. Do you feel very close to your father? NO! no yes YES!
4. Do you share your thoughts and feelings NO! no yes YES!
with your father?
Items 1-4 are scored as follows:
YES! = 4
yes = 3
no = 2
NO! = 1
Point values for all items are added. Higher scores indicate higher levels of parental attachment.
These items measure students’perceptions of how close they feel to their fathers and mothers, and
whether they share their thoughts and feelings with their parents. Respondents are asked to indicate how
strongly they feel each sentence is true for them. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for
them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.

E3. Family Bonding—Individual Protective Factors Index
1. I can tell my parents the way I feel about things. YES! yes no NO!
2. My family expects too much of me. YES! yes no NO!
3. Sometimes I am ashamed of my parents. YES! yes no NO!
4. My family has let me down. YES! yes no NO!
5. I like to do things with my family. YES! yes no NO!
6. I enjoy talking with my family. YES! yes no NO!
Items 1, 5 and 6 are scored as follows:
YES! = 4
yes = 3
no = 2
NO! = 1
All other items are reverse coded. Point values for all items are added. Blank items are excluded, with the
scale score adjusted for the number of items completed when two or few items are blank. The maximum
obtainable score of 24 indicates a strong family bond. A minimum score of 6 indicates a weak family bond.
These items measure family bonding and communication. Respondents are asked to indicate how
strongly they feel each sentence is true for them. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for
them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.

F1. Parental Attitudes Toward Discipline—
Chicago Youth Development Study
Almost
never Sometimes Often
Avoidance of Discipline
1. Do you hesitate to enforce the rules with your child because 1 3 5
you fear he might then harm someone in your household?
2. Do you feel that you must be careful not to upset your child? 1 3 5
3. Do you feel that other family members must be careful not 1 3 5
to upset your child?
4. Do you feel that it is more trouble than it is worth to ask your 1 3 5
child to help you?
5. Do you think that your child will take it out on other children 1 3 5
if you try to make him obey you?
6. Do you leave your child alone because of his moodiness? 1 3 5
7. Do you think that your child will try to get back at you if 1 3 5
you try to make him obey you?
Discipline Effectiveness
8. If you punish your child, does his behavior get worse? 1 3 5
9. When you are by yourself, do you have much difficulty 1 3 5
controlling your child?
10. When other adults are present, do you have much 1 3 5
difficulty controlling your child?
These items measure two aspects of parental attitudes toward discipline. The first set of items assess
the extent to which a parent disengages or avoids providing consequences for a child’s behavior
(Avoidance of Discipline). The second set of items assess a parent’s perception of how effective their
discipline is in controlling the child’s behavior (Discipline Effectiveness).

Not Half of the
really time Usually
11. If your child is punished, does the punishment work? 1 3 5
12. Is the discipline you use effective for your child? 1 3 5
Avoidance of Discipline: Reverse code items 1-7 and then compute a mean score.
Discipline Effectiveness: Reverse code items 8-10 and then compute a mean score of items 8-12.

F2. Parental Attitudes Toward Drug Use—
Seattle Social Development Project
How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to …
1. Drink beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey or gin) regularly?
■■ Very wrong ■■ Wrong ■■ A little bit wrong ■■ Not wrong at all
2. Smoke cigarettes?
3. Smoke marijuana?
Point values are assigned as follows:
Very wrong = 4
Wrong = 3
A little bit wrong = 2
Not wrong at all = 1
Point values should be summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher scores indicate
greater parental concern about drug use.
These items measure youths’perceptions of their parents attitudes about drinking and smoking.
Respondents are asked to indicate how wrong their parents feel certain behaviors are for them.

F3. Parental Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior—
Seattle Social Development Project
How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to …
1. Steal anything worth more than $5?
2. Draw graffiti, or write things or draw pictures on buildings or other property
(without the owner’s permission)?
3. Pick a fight with someone?
Very wrong = 4
Wrong = 3
A little bit wrong = 2
Not wrong at all = 1
Point values are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher scores indicate greater
parental concern about antisocial behavior
These items measure youths’perceptions of how their parents would feel if they stole, drew graffiti or
picked a fight with someone. Respondents are asked to indicate how wrong their parents feel certain
behaviors are for them.

F4. Parental Attitudes Toward Use of Aggression
For each item, decide whether you agree or disagree, then choose a number between 1 and 7 using the
following scale.
1. I let my child watch adventure television shows that have killing and violence in them.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
Definitely Neutral Definitely
disagree agree
2. If my child were teased by other kids at school, I would want my child to defend himself/herself even if it
meant hitting another child.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
3. When my child does something wrong, talking about it with him/her helps more than spanking.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
4. If my child gets into a fight with another child, I won’t try to stop it because my child has to show that
she/he can defend herself/himself.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
5. It is important to keep a gun at home to protect the family.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
6. Sometimes a physical fight might help my child have a better relationship with other children.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
These items measure a mother’s values regarding the use of aggression to solve problems. Mothers
are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with ten statements.

7. It would bother me if my child saw one adult hit another in real life.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
8. If I found out my child hit another child, I would be very disappointed, no matter what the reason.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
9. I wouldn’t mind if my child got a reputation as the “toughest” kid in school.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
10. I believe that television violence has a bad effect on children.
■■ 1 ■■ 2 ■■ 3 ■■ 4 ■■ 5 ■■ 6 ■■ 7
disagree agree
Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items 3, 7, 8 and 10 are reverse coded. Point values are summed
and then divided by the number of items for each respondent. Higher scores indicate a greater acceptance of
using aggression for problem solving.

F5. Parental Support for Fighting
Does your parent tell you these things about fighting?
Yes No
Aggressive Solutions
1. If someone hits you, hit them back. 0 1
2. If someone calls you names, hit them. 0 1
3. If someone calls you names, call them names back. 0 1
4. If someone asks you to fight, hit them first. 0 1
5. If you can’t solve the problem by talking, it is best to solve it through fighting. 0 1
Non-Aggressive Solutions
6. If someone calls you names, ignore them. 0 1
7. If someone asks you to fight, you should try to talk your way 0 1
out of a fight.
8. You should think the problem through, calm yourself, and 0 1
then talk the problem out with your friend.
9. If another student asks you to fight, you should tell a teacher or someone older. 0 1
10. No matter what, fighting is not good; there are other ways to solve problems. 0 1
These items measure a student’s perception of his or her parent’s support for aggressive and non-
aggressive solutions as means of resolving conflicts. Students are asked to respond “yes” or “no” to each
item based on what their parents tell them about fighting.

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the number of
items in each subscale. Intended range is between 0 and 1.
Aggressive Solutions: High values indicate the perception of strong parental support for aggression or fighting
in response to conflict.
Non-Aggressive Solutions: High scores indicate the perception of strong parental support for peaceful
solutions to conflict.

G1. Parental Involvement in School
Parent Involvement with Child’s Schoolwork
1. How often do you check your child’s homework?
■■ Never ■■ Once a month ■■ Once a week ■■ Several times a week ■■ Every day
2. How often do you ask your child what he/she did at school?
3. How often do you go over graded papers with your child?
4. How often do you talk with your child about his/her schoolwork?
5. How often do you talk with your child about how she/he behaves at school?
6. How often do you talk with your child about doing his/her best at school?
7. How often do you ask or talk with your child about one of his/her teachers at school?
Parent Involvement with Teacher/School
8. How often do you talk with one of your child’s teachers?
■■ Never ■■ Hardly ever ■■ Sometimes ■■ Often ■■ Very often
9. How often do you attend functions in the school like open house, fund-raisers, PTAmeetings, and the like?
10. How often do you volunteer to help at a school-related function like a field trip, athletic game, or other
event?
These items assess parental involvement with the child’s schoolwork, teacher and school activities, as
well as teacher involvement with the parent. Ratings are made on different types of school activities,
including homework, communication with teachers, and attendance at school events. Respondents can be
either the child or his/her parent.

11. How often to you attend parent-teacher conferences when they are scheduled by your child’s school?
12. How often do you contact your child’s school to request a meeting with a teacher or school official to
discuss your child’s behavior?
13. How often do you call a teacher on the telephone or write a note to the teacher concerning your child’s
schoolwork?
Teacher Involvement with Parent
14. How often does your child’s teacher contact you to request a meeting to discuss your child’s behavior?
15. How often does the teacher provide information to you on how your child is performing in school?
16. How often does the teacher provide information to you in advance on upcoming assignments, projects, or
events for your child at school?
17. How often does the teacher or school provide information to you on how your child is behaving in
school?
18. How often does the teacher provide information on your child’s accomplishments at school?

Items 1-7:
Never = 0
Once a month = 1
Once a week = 2
Several times a week = 3
Every day = 4
Items 8-18:
Never = 0
Hardly ever = 1
Sometimes = 2
Often = 3
Very often = 4
This measure has three subscales, with the score of each calculated by summing the responses and then
dividing by the total number of items in each subscale.
Parent Involvement with Child’s Schoolwork: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Parent Involvement with Teacher/School: Items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
Teacher Involvement with Parent: Items 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

G2. Parental Involvement—Rochester Youth Development Study
How often …
1. Are you too busy or unavailable to do things 4 3 2 1
with your child?
2. Does your child do things with other members 4 3 2 1
of the family?
3. Do you play sports or games with your child? 4 3 2 1
4. Does your child help with important decisions? 4 3 2 1
5. Do you go with your child to the movies or some 4 3 2 1
special event?
Sometimes parents take part in activities with their children by attending meetings or events, driving their
children, or being a coach. How involved are you in this activity with your children?
Very Somewhat A little Not at all
involved involved involved involved
6. Organized sports clubs or teams outside of school 4 3 2 1
7. School sports 4 3 2 1
8. School activities like clubs or special events 4 3 2 1
9. Church or religious activities 4 3 2 1
10. Other organized groups like the “Y” or like the 4 3 2 1
Boys and Girls Club
11. Organized musical or singing groups, including in 4 3 2 1
school
These items measure how often parents report being involved with their child in a range of prosocial
activities. Respondents are asked to indicate how often they engage in certain behaviors with their children.

Point values are assigned as indicated above, with item 1 reverse coded. Point values are summed and then
divided by the number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a higher
level of parental involvement.

G3. Parental Involvement—Chicago Youth Development Study
Caregiver Items
More than Within Within
Don’t 1 month last last Yesterday/
know ago month week today
1. When was the last time that you talked with your 1 2 3 4 5
youth about their plans for the coming day?
2. When was the last time that you talked with your 1 2 3 4 5
youth about what he had actually done during the day?
Less than At least At least
Don’t once a once a once a Almost
know month month week every day
3. In the past 12 months, about how often have you 1 2 3 4 5
discussed with your youth his plans for the
coming day?
4. In the past 12 months, about how often have 1 2 3 4 5
you talked with your youth about what he had
actually done during the day?
Hardly
ever Sometimes Often
5. Does your youth help with family fun activities? 1 3 5
6. Does your youth like to get involved in family activities? 1 3 5
7. How often do you have time to listen to your youth, 1 3 5
when he wants to talk to you?
8. Do you and your youth do things together at home? 1 3 5
These items measure the extent to which the parent is involved in the child’s life. Respondents are
asked to indicate how often they engage in certain interactions with their children and how often the child
is involved in family activities. With minor modifications, youth can also complete this assessment.

Hardly
9. Does your youth go with members of the family 1 3 5
to movies, sports events or other outings?
10. How often do you have a friendly talk with your youth? 1 3 5
11. Does your youth help you with chores, errands 1 3 5
and/or other work?
12. How often do you talk with your youth about how he 1 3 5
is doing in school?
Youth Items
More than Within Within
Don’t 1 month last last Yesterday/
know ago month week today
1. When was the last time that you talked with 1 2 3 4 5
your caregiver about what you were going
to do for the coming day?
2. When was the last time that you talked with 1 2 3 4 5
your caregiver about what you had actually
done during the day?
Less than At least At least
Don’t once a once a once a Almost
know month month week every day
3. How often does your caregiver talk to you 1 2 3 4 5
about what you were going to do for the coming day?
4. In the past 12 months, how often has your 1 2 3 4 5
caregiver talked with you about what you
had actually done during the day?

Hardly
5. Do you help with family fun activities? 1 3 5
6. Do you like to get involved in family activities? 1 3 5
7. How often does your caregiver have time to listen to you 1 3 5
when you want to talk with one of them?
8. How often do you and your caregiver do things together 1 3 5
at home?
9. How often do you go with members of the family to 1 3 5
movies, sports events, or other outings?
10. How often do you have a friendly talk with your caregiver? 1 3 5
11. How often do you help with chores, errands and/or other 1 3 5
work around the house?
12. How often does your caregiver talk with you about how 1 3 5
you are doing in school?
Caregiver and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point
values are summed and then divided by the total number of times. Higher scores indicate greater levels of
parental monitoring and involvement.

G4. Prosocial Parental Involvement—Seattle Social Development Project
Opportunities
1. My parents give me lots of chances to do fun NO! no yes YES!
things with them.
2. My parents ask me what I think before most NO! no yes YES!
family decisions affecting me are made.
3. If I had a personal problem, I could ask my mom NO! no yes YES!
or dad for help.
Rewards
4. My parents notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it.
■■ Never or almost never ■■ Sometimes ■■ Often ■■ All the time
5. How often do your parents tell you they’re proud of you for something you’ve done?
■■ Never or almost never ■■ Sometimes ■■ Often ■■ All the time
6. Do you enjoy spending time with your mother? NO! no yes YES!
7. Do you enjoy spending time with your father? NO! no yes YES!
Items 1-3, 6 and 7 are scored as follows:
YES! = 4
yes = 3
no = 2
NO! = 1
These items measure students’perceptions of the opportunities and rewards offered by and experienced
with their parents. Respondents are asked to indicate how much they agree or disagree with seven
statements about their relationship with their mother or father.A“YES!” is checked if the statement is very
true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.

Items 4 and 5 are scored as follows:
All the time = 4
Often = 3
Sometimes = 2
Never or almost never = 1
Point values for all items are added, with a possible total score ranging from 7-28. Higher scores indicate
stronger prosocial parental involvement.

H1. Parental Supervision—Rochester Youth Development Study
1. In the course of a day, how often does your parent 4 3 2 1
know where you are?
2. How often would your parent know who you are 4 3 2 1
with when you are away from home?
Very Not very Not at all
important Important important important
3. How important is it to your parent to know who 4 3 2 1
your friends are?
4. How important is it to your parent to know where 4 3 2 1
you are?
items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a higher level of parental
supervision.
These items measure the extent to which the youth feels that his parents are aware of his or her
whereabouts, friends and activities.

H2. Parental Supervision—Seattle Social Development Project
1. My parents ask if I’ve gotten my homework done. NO! no yes YES!
2. Would your parents know if you did not come NO! no yes YES!
home on time?
3. When I am not at home, one of my parents knows NO! no yes YES!
where I am and who I am with.
4. The rules in my family are clear. NO! no yes YES!
5. My family has clear rules about alcohol and drug use. NO! no yes YES!
6. If you drank some beer or wine or liquor (for example, NO! no yes YES!
vodka, whiskey, or gin) without your parents’
permission, would you be caught by your parents?
7. If you skipped school would you be caught by your NO! no yes YES!
parents?
8. If you carried a handgun without your parents’ NO! no yes YES!
permission, would you be caught by your parents?
YES! = 4
yes = 3
no = 2
NO! = 1
Point values for all items are added, with scores ranging from 8-32. Higher scores indicate higher levels
of positive parental supervision.
These items measure students’perceptions of what rules their parents have established and how
closely their parents monitor those rules. Respondents are asked to indicated the extent to which they
agree or disagree with statements describing their parents supervisory standards and behavior. A “YES!”
is checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false;
and “NO!” if it is very false.

I1. Stressful Urban Life Events Scale
1. During the last year, did you get poor grades on your report card? Yes No
2. During the last year, have you gotten into trouble with a teacher or Yes No
principal at school?
3. During the last year, did you get suspended from school? Yes No
4. During the last year, did your family move to a new home or apartment? Yes No
5. During the last year, has your family had a new baby come into the family? Yes No
6. During the last year, has anyone moved out of your home? Yes No
7. During the last year, did a family member die? Yes No
8. During the last year, did another close relative or friend die? Yes No
9. During the last year, has a family member become seriously ill, injured badly, Yes No
and/or had to stay at the hospital?
10. During the last year, has someone else you know, other than a member of Yes No
your family, gotten beaten, attacked or really hurt by others?
11. During the last year, have you seen anyone beaten, shot or really hurt by someone? Yes No
12. In the past year, did you change where you went to school? Yes No
13. During the last year, have you seen or been around people shooting guns? Yes No
14. During the last year, have you been afraid to go outside and play, or have your Yes No
parents made you stay inside because of gangs or drugs in your neighborhood?
15. During the last year, have you had to hide someplace because of shootings in Yes No
your neighborhood?
These items measure stressful life events. Respondents are asked to indicate if they have experienced
a traumatic event (e.g., moved to a new home, been robbed, lost a family member or close friend) in the
past year

(This scale originally had 23 items, but 8 were dropped in the adaptation by Attar, et al., 1994. )
Point values are assigned as follows: Yes = 1; No = 0. This measure has five subscales, with the score of each
subscale calculated by summing the responses to the items and dividing by the total number of items. The
five subscales are:
Hassles: Includes items 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15. A higher score indicates greater exposure to daily life hassles
during the past year.
Life Transitions: Includes items 4, 5, 6 and 12. A higher score indicates greater exposure to life transitions
Circumscribed Events: Includes items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. A higher score indicates greater exposure to
discrete stressful events during the past year.
Violence: Includes items 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15. A higher score indicates greater exposure to violence during
the past year.
School Problems: Includes items 1, 2 and 3. A higher score indicates greater experience with school problems

I2. Stressful Life Events—Rochester Youth Development Study
Parent Items
In the past 30 days …
1. Did you get married? Yes No
2. Did you get divorced or separated? Yes No
3. Did you get back together with a spouse or partner? Yes No
4. Has anyone in your family had a serious accident or illness? Yes No
5. Has anyone in your family abused alcohol, including you? Yes No
6. Has anyone in your family abused other drugs, including you? Yes No
7. Has anyone in your family been laid off temporarily from his or her job? Yes No
8. Has anyone in your family lost their job permanently? Yes No
9. Has your child been placed in foster care or in the care of others? Yes No
10. Did anyone in your family or a close friend die? Yes No
Youth Items
In the past 30 days …
1. Did you fail a course at school? Yes No
2. Did you get suspended or expelled from school? Yes No
3. Did you break up with your boyfriend/girlfriend? Yes No
4. Did you have a big fight or problem with a friend? Yes No
These items measure stressful life events experienced in the last 30 days, such as the death of
someone close, a family member getting in trouble with the law, or getting a new boyfriend/girlfriend.

5. Did anyone you were close to die in the past 30 days? Yes No
6. Have you had a major illness or were you hospitalized? Yes No
7. Did you get a new boyfriend/girlfriend? Yes No
8. Did you start hanging around with a new group of friends? Yes No
Parents and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are assigned as follows:
Yes = 2
No = 1
Point values for all responses are added. Higher scores indicate higher levels of stress in the parent or
child’s life.

J1. Collective Efficacy—Chicago Neighborhood Study
Social Control
1. If a group of neighborhood children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, how likely
is it that your neighbors would do something about it?
■■ Very likely ■■ Likely ■■ Neither likely ■■ Unlikely ■■ Very unlikely
nor unlikely
2. If some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, how likely is it that your neighbors
would do something about it?
nor unlikely
3. If there was a fight in front of your house and someone was being beaten or threatened, how likely is it
that your neighbors would break it up?
nor unlikely
4. If a child was showing disrespect to an adult, how likely is it that people in your neighborhood would
scold that child?
nor unlikely
5. Suppose that because of budget cuts the fire station closest to your home was going to be closed down by
the city. How likely is it that neighborhood residents would organize to try to do something to keep the
fire station open?
nor unlikely
Social Cohesion
6. People around here are willing to help their neighbors.
■■ Strongly agree ■■ Agree ■■ Neither agree ■■ Disagree ■■ Strongly disagree
nor disagree
These items measure informal social control, willingness to intervene, and social cohesion in a
neighborhood. Residents are asked about the likelihood that their neighbors can be counted on to
intervene in various situations and the level of trust they feel for their neighbors.

7. This is a close-knit neighborhood.
nor disagree
8. People in this neighborhood can be trusted.
nor disagree
9. People in this neighborhood generally don’t get along with each other.
nor disagree
10. People in this neighborhood do not share the same values
nor disagree
Social Control
Very likely = 5
Likely = 4
Neither likely nor unlikely = 3
Unlikely = 2
Very unlikely = 1
Social Cohesion
Strongly agree = 5
Agree = 4
Neither agree nor disagree = 3
Disagree = 2
Strongly disagree = 1
Items 9 and 10 are reverse coded. Point values for all responses are summed. Intended range is 10-50,
with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived collective efficacy in a neighborhood.

K1. Community Involvement—Chicago Youth Development Study
Strongly Strongly
agree Agree Neither Disagree disagree
1. I regularly stop and talk with people in my 1 2 3 4 5
neighborhood.
2. I know most of the names of people on my block. 1 2 3 4 5
True False
3. I am involved in neighborhood or block organizations 1 2
that deal with neighborhood issues or problems.
4. I have done volunteer work in the last year to benefit 1 2
my neighborhood.
Reverse code items 1 and 2; recode items 3 and 4 as follows: 1 = 4; 2 = 2. Once items have been recoded,
point values for all items are summed and then divided by the total number of items. A higher score indicates
greater comfort and engagement in the neighborhood.
These items measure the extent to which children and their caregivers are comfortable and engaged in
their neighborhoods. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with several
statements about their communities.

K2. Community Involvement—Seattle Social Development Project
Opportunities
1. There are lots of adults in my neighborhood I NO! no yes YES!
could talk to about something important.
Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your community?
2. Sports teams Yes No
3. Scouting Yes No
4. Boys and girls clubs Yes No
5. 4-H clubs Yes No
6. Service clubs Yes No
Rewards
7. My neighbors notice when I am doing a good NO! no yes YES!
job and let me know about it.
8. There are people in my neighborhood who encourage NO! no yes YES!
me to do my best.
9. There are people in my neighborhood who are proud NO! no yes YES!
of me when I do something well.
These items measure students’perceptions of the opportunities and rewards for prosocial activities in
their communities. Respondents are asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with statements
about the presence of supportive adults and the availability of sports and other community activities. A
“YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is
somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.

Items 1, 7, 8 and 9 are scored as follows:
YES! = 4
yes = 3
no = 2
NO! = 1
For items 2-6, point values are: Yes = 1; No = 0. Point values for all items are added. Higher scores
indicate higher levels of community involvement.

L1. Community Resources in Neighborhood—
Chicago Youth Development Study
True False
1. I have relatives living in my neighborhood. 1 2
2. There is a grocery store in or near my neighborhood. 1 2
3. There is a church or synagogue that I could attend in my 1 2
neighborhood.
4. There is a clinic or other medical services near my neighborhood. 1 2
5. There are entertainment places in my neighborhood. 1 2
6. There are parks that we can use in or near my neighborhood. 1 2
7. Public transportation is convenient for me to use. 1 2
8. There are neighborhood or block organizations that deal with 1 2
neighborhood issues or problems.
9. There is a school in this neighborhood. 1 2
10. We regularly do our shopping in my neighborhood. 1 2
11. I attend religious services in my neighborhood. 1 2
12. When I need medical services, I use those in the neighborhood. 1 2
13. I use the recreational facilities available in my neighborhood. 1 2
These items measure the availability and use of resources in the community (e.g., relatives, grocery
stores, clinics, public transportation) for youth and their adult caregivers. Respondents are asked to
indicate whether each statement is true or false for their neighborhoods.

Resources Available to Adult Caregiver: Items 9 and 11 are not included in calculating the score. Items 1-8,
10, 12 and 13 should be reverse coded. Compute a mean score from these items.
Resources Available to Youths: Items 9 and 11 are not included in calculating the score. Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 12 and 13 should be reverse coded. Compute a mean score from these items.

M1. Children’s Exposure to Community Violence
1. I have heard guns being shot.
■■ Never ■■ Once or twice ■■ A few times ■■ Many times
2. I have seen somebody arrested.
3. I have seen drug deals.
4. I have seen someone being beaten up.
5. My house has been broken into.
6. I have seen somebody get stabbed.
7. I have seen somebody get shot.
8. I have seen a gun in my home.
9. I have seen alcohol such as beer, wine, or hard liquor in my home.
10. I have seen gangs in my neighborhood.
11. I have seen somebody pull a gun on another person.
These items measure the frequency of exposure (through sight and sound) to violence in one’s home
and neighborhood. Respondents are asked to indicate how often they have seen or heard certain things
around their home and neighborhood (not on TV or in movies).

12. I have seen someone in my home get shot or stabbed.
Never = 1
Once or twice = 2
A few times = 3
Many times = 4
Point values are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Intended range is 1-4, with a
higher score indicating more frequent exposure to acts of crime and violence.

M2. Victimization Scale
Never Once Sometimes Often
At school, how often have you been …
1. Hit by a student 1 2 3 4
2. Hit by school staff 1 2 3 4
3. Kicked or pushed by a student 1 2 3 4
4. Kicked or pushed by school staff 1 2 3 4
5. Badly beaten up 1 2 3 4
6. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1 2 3 4
7. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1 2 3 4
8. Threatened with a gun 1 2 3 4
9. Verbally or emotionally abused by a student; 1 2 3 4
that is, being called names or having things said to
you that make you feel bad about yourself or afraid
10. Verbally or emotionally abused by school staff 1 2 3 4
11. Sexually harassed by a student 1 2 3 4
12. Sexually harassed by school staff 1 2 3 4
13. Sexually assaulted 1 2 3 4
14. Robbed 1 2 3 4
This scale measures exposure to violence and victimization in the home, at school, and in the
community. Respondents are asked to indicate how often they have seen or experienced certain behaviors
since the beginning of the school year.

At school, how often have you seen others being …
9. Verbally or emotionally abused by a student 1 2 3 4
14. Robbed 1 2 3 4
15. In a fight after drinking or getting high 1 2 3 4
In your neighborhood, how often have you been …
1. Hit 1 2 3 4
2. Kicked 1 2 3 4
3. Pushed or shoved 1 2 3 4

8. Shot at 1 2 3 4
9. Verbally or emotionally abused, that is, being 1 2 3 4
called names or having things said to you that
make you feel bad about yourself or afraid 1 2 3 4
10. Sexually harassed 1 2 3 4
12. Robbed 1 2 3 4
In your neighborhood, how often have you seen others being …
1. Hit 1 2 3 4
2. Kicked 1 2 3 4
8. Shot at 1 2 3 4
9. Verbally or emotionally abused 1 2 3 4

12. Robbed 1 2 3 4
At school, how often have you heard of other students being …
9. Verbally or emotionally abused by a student, 1 2 3 4
that is, they were called names or had things
said to them that made them feel bad about
themselves, or afraid
10. Shot at 1 2 3 4

15. Robbed 1 2 3 4
In your neighborhood, how often have you heard of others being …
1. Hit 1 2 3 4
2. Kicked 1 2 3 4
8. Shot at 1 2 3 4
12. Robbed 1 2 3 4
At home, in the past, how often have you been …
1. Hit 1 2 3 4
2. Kicked 1 2 3 4

8. Shot at 1 2 3 4
12. Robbed 1 2 3 4
At home, in the past, how often have you seen other family members being …
1. Hit 1 2 3 4
2. Kicked 1 2 3 4
8. Shot at 1 2 3 4

12. Robbed 1 2 3 4
At school, how often have you done these things?
1. Hit or kicked someone 1 2 3 4
2. Pushed or shoved someone when you were angry 1 2 3 4
3. Badly beaten somebody up 1 2 3 4
4. Carried a knife or sharp weapon or other blade 1 2 3 4
5. Threatened someone with a knife or sharp weapon 1 2 3 4
6. Attacked someone with a knife or sharp weapon 1 2 3 4
7. Carried a weapon 1 2 3 4
8. Threatened someone with a gun 1 2 3 4
9. Verbally or emotionally abused someone, that is, 1 2 3 4
said something that made them feel bad about
themselves, or afraid
10. Sexually harassed someone 1 2 3 4
11. Sexually assaulted someone 1 2 3 4
12. Robbed someone 1 2 3 4
13. Been suspended 1 2 3 4
14. Gotten into a fight after drinking or getting high 1 2 3 4
Outside of school, how often have you done these things?
1. Hit or kicked someone 1 2 3 4

2. Pushed or shoved someone when you were angry 1 2 3 4
3. Badly beaten somebody up 1 2 3 4
4. Carried a knife or sharp weapon or other blade 1 2 3 4
5. Threatened someone with a knife or sharp weapon 1 2 3 4
6. Attacked someone with a knife or sharp weapon 1 2 3 4
7. Carried a weapon 1 2 3 4
8. Threatened someone with a gun 1 2 3 4
9. Verbally or emotionally abused someone, 1 2 3 4
that is, said something that made them feel bad
about themselves, or afraid
10. Sexually harassed someone 1 2 3 4
11. Sexually assaulted someone 1 2 3 4
12. Robbed someone 1 2 3 4
13. Been suspended 1 2 3 4
14. Gotten into a fight after drinking or getting high 1 2 3 4
Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items are scored by domain (school, community, family) and by
whether violence is direct or vicarious. More specific timeframes can be used with this measure (e.g., past 30
days, past 3 months, past 6 months).

N1. Fear of Crime—Chicago Youth Development Study
How afraid are you of being attacked or robbed …
Not A little Somewhat Very
fearful fearful fearful fearful
1. At home in your house or apartment? 1 2 3 4
2. On the streets of your neighborhood during the day? 1 2 3 4
3. Out alone at night in your neighborhood? 1 2 3 4
4. Out with other people at night in your neighborhood? 1 2 3 4
Has a fear of crime caused you to…
No Yes
5. Limit the places or the times that you go shopping? 0 1
6. Limit the places or the times that you will work? 0 1
7. Limit the places that you will go by yourself? 0 1
8. Purchase a weapon for self-protection? 0 1
9. Install a home security system or install protective 0 1
devices such as bars on the windows, buzzers on
windows and/or doors, etc.?
10. Move to a different place to live? 0 1
11. Do you have a rifle in your home? 0 1
12. Do you have a shotgun in your home? 0 1
13. Do you have a handgun in your home? 0 1
These items assess a subject’s fear of being the victim of a violent crime in their home and/or
neighborhood and the impact of such fear on the places they go. They also assess the measures taken to
protect oneself from crime.

items.
Fear of Crime: Compute the mean score of items 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Measures Taken To Cope with Fear of Crime: Compute the mean score of items 5-10. Items 11-13 are
retained to assess firearm ownership.

O1. Neighborhood Cohesion
No
Agree Disagree opinion
1. People on this block do not share the same values. 1 3 2
2. I have almost no influence over what this block is like. 1 3 2
3. If there is a problem on this block, people who live here 1 3 2
can get it solved.
4. My neighbors and I want the same things for the block. 1 3 2
5. I feel at home on this block. 1 3 2
6. People on this block generally do not get along. 1 3 2
7. Occasionally, I visit with neighbors inside their homes. 1 3 2
8. Occasionally, my neighbors visit with me inside my home. 1 3 2
Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 should be reverse coded (Agree = 3;
Disagree = 1; No opinion = 2). Point values for all responses are summed and then divided by the total
number of items. Blank items are not counted in the total number of responses. Higher scores indicate higher
levels of a sense of belonging, cohesion, and shared values among neighbors on a block.
These items measure the extent to which residents feel a sense of belonging in the neighborhood and
share the same values as their neighbors. Respondents are asked if they agree or disagree with
descriptions of themselves or the people who live on their block.

P1. Neighborhood Disorganization—Rochester Youth Development Study
Thinking of your neighborhood, how much of a problem is …
A big Sort of a Not a
problem problem problem
1. High unemployment? 3 2 1
2. Different racial or cultural groups who do not get along 3 2 1
with each other?
3. Vandalism, buildings and personal belongings broken and torn up? 3 2 1
4. Little respect for rules, laws and authority? 3 2 1
5. Winos and junkies? 3 2 1
6. Prostitution? 3 2 1
7. Abandoned houses or buildings? 3 2 1
8. Sexual assaults or rapes? 3 2 1
9. Burglaries and thefts? 3 2 1
10. Gambling? 3 2 1
11. Run down and poorly kept buildings and yards? 3 2 1
12. Syndicate, mafia or organized crime? 3 2 1
13. Assaults and muggings? 3 2 1
14. Street gangs or delinquent gangs? 3 2 1
15. Homeless street people? 3 2 1
These items measure a parent’s perception of crime, dilapidation, and disorganization in his/her
neighborhood. Respondents are presented with a list of problems that may occur in neighborhoods and
asked to indicate to what extent that problem exists anywhere around their home or within 4 or 5 blocks.

A big Sort of a Not a
16. Drug use or drug dealing in the open? 3 2 1
17. Buying or selling stolen goods? 3 2 1
items. The intended range of scores is 1-3, with a higher score indicating a higher level of neighborhood
crime, dilapidation and disorganization.

P2. Neighborhood Disorganization—Seattle Social Development Project
How much do each of the following statements describe your neighborhood?
1. Crime and/or drug selling. NO! no yes YES!
2. Fights. NO! no yes YES!
3. Lots of empty or abandoned buildings. NO! no yes YES!
4. Lots of graffiti. NO! no yes YES!
5. I feel safe in my neighborhood. NO! no yes YES!
Items 1-4 are scored as follows:
YES! = 4
yes = 3
no = 2
NO! = 1
Item 5 is reverse coded. Point values for all items are added. Higher scores indicate higher levels of
perceived disorganization in the community.
These items measure students’perception of crime, fighting, physical deterioration, and safety in their
communities. Respondents are asked to indicate to what extent five statements accurately describe their
neighborhood. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true;
“no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.

P3. Perceived Community Problems—Chicago Youth Development Study
Strongly Strongly
1. Dirty or unkempt front yards are a problem 1 2 3 4 5
on my block.
2. There is a public park near to my block. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Vacant lots are a problem on my block. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Morning noise is quite irritating on my block. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Night noise is quite irritating on my block. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Abandoned or boarded-up homes are a 1 2 3 4 5
problem on my block.
7. Vandalism is a problem in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Burglary is a problem in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Homelessness is a problem in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Crime has gotten worse in my neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5
in the last few years.
A Pretty A A serious
little Some much lot problem
11. Gangs are a problem in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Graffiti is a problem in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Drugs are a problem in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
These items measure the extent to which youth and their caregivers feel certain negative qualities are
problems in their communities (e.g., unkempt front yards, vacant lots, noise, vandalism). Youth and their
caregivers are asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with fourteen statements about their
neighborhoods.

A Pretty A A serious
little Some much lot problem
14. Violent crime is a problem in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
items. The intended range of scores is 1-5, with a higher score indicating a higher level of neighborhood
crime, dilapidation and disorganization.

P4. Neighborhood/Block Conditions
No A minor A serious
1. Property damage? Is that … 1 2 3
2. Drug dealing? Is that … 1 2 3
3. Groups of young people hanging around? Is that… 1 2 3
4. Physical assaults of people on the street? Is that … 1 2 3
5. Organized gangs? Is that … 1 2 3
6. Physical fighting? Is that … 1 2 3
7. Gunshots? Is that … 1 2 3
8. Lack of supervised activities for youth? Is that … 1 2 3
9. Feeling unsafe while out alone on your block during the day? Is that … 1 2 3
10. Feeling unsafe while out alone on your block during the day? Is that … 1 2 3
11. Inadequate recreational facilities available for young people? Is that… 1 2 3
12. Feeling unsafe in your home? Is that … 1 2 3
13. Poor city services, like trash pick-up and police response? Is that … 1 2 3
Point values for responses are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Blank items should not
be counted in the number of responses. Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived problems in
residents’neighborhood.
These items measure residents’perceptions of neighborhood conditions (e.g., severity of problems,
sense of safety). Respondents are given a list of common urban problems and are asked to indicate the
extent to which each is a problem on their block.

Q1. Neighborhood Integration—Rochester Youth Development Study
How many people who live in your neighborhood …
A lot Some A few None
1. Do you know by sight? 4 3 2 1
2. Do you know by name? 4 3 2 1
3. Do you talk to on a regular basis? 4 3 2 1
How often do you and other people who live in your neighborhood …
4. Borrow things like tools or recipes from each other? 4 3 2 1
5. Ask each other to watch your children when you are 4 3 2 1
not at home?
6. Have a talk with each other? 4 3 2 1
7. Ask each other to drive or take your children somewhere? 4 3 2 1
items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a higher level of routine
neighborhood interaction.
These items measure neighborhood integration. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which
neighbors are familiar with one another and interact on a routine basis.

Q2. Sense of Belonging—Chicago Youth Development Study
Strongly Strongly
1. I feel like I belong to the neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I feel loyal to the people in my neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I would be willing to work together with 1 2 3 4 5
others on something to improve my neighborhood.
4. I like to think of myself as similar to the 1 2 3 4 5
people who live in this neighborhood.
5. Overall, I am very attracted to living in this 1 2 3 4 5
neighborhood.
6. Given the opportunity, I would like to move 1 2 3 4 5
out of this neighborhood.
Caregiver’s Sense of Belonging: Reverse code items 1, 2, 4 and 5; then compute a mean score from these four
items. Ignore item 3.
Youth’s Sense of Belonging: Reverse code items 1, 2, 4 and 6; then compute a mean score from these four
items. Ignore item 3.
These items measure the extent to which youth and their caregivers feel a sense of loyalty and identity
to their neighbors. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements about
their neighborhoods.

Q3. Reciprocated Exchange—Chicago Neighborhood Study
1. About how often do you and people in your neighborhood do favors for each other? By favors we mean
such things as watching each other’s children, helping with shopping, lending garden or house tools, and
other small acts of kindness?
■■ Very often ■■ Often ■■ Sometimes ■■ Rarely ■■ Never
2. How often do you and people in this neighborhood have parties or other get-togethers where other people
in the neighborhood are invited?
3. When a neighbor is not at home, how often do you and other neighbors watch over their property?
4. How often do you and other people in this neighborhood visit in each other’s homes or on the street?
5. How often do you and other people in the neighborhood ask each other advice about personal things such
as childrearing or job openings?
Very often = 5
Often = 4
Sometimes = 3
Rarely = 2
Never = 1
Point values for all responses are summed. Intended range is 5-25, with higher scores indicating higher
frequencies of social exchange within the neighborhood.
These items measure the relative frequency of social exchange within the neighborhood on issues of
consequences for children. Respondents are asked to indicate how often they engage in five interactive
behaviors with their neighbors.

Q4. Community Support—Chicago Youth Development Study
Strongly Strongly
1. I visit with my neighbors in their homes. 1 2 3 4 5
2. If I needed advice about something I could 1 2 3 4 5
go to someone in my neighborhood.
3. I regularly stop and talk with people in my 1 2 3 4 5
neighborhood.
4. I know most of the names of people on my block. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I would feel comfortable asking to borrow 1 2 3 4 5
some food or a tool from people on my block.
6. I would feel comfortable asking people on my 1 2 3 4 5
block to watch my home while I was away.
Reverse code items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Compute a mean score from these five items. Ignore item 6.
These items measure the extent to which youth and their caregivers feel comfortable with people in
their neighborhoods, ask their advice, and interact with them. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent
to which they agree or disagree with several statements about interactions with their neighbors.

Q5. Intergenerational Connections—Chicago Neighborhood Study
1. Parents in this neighborhood know their children’s friends.
nor disagree
2. Adults in this neighborhood know who the local children are.
nor disagree
3. There are adults in this neighborhood that children can look up to.
nor disagree
4. Parents in this neighborhood generally know each other.
nor disagree
5. You can count on adults in this neighborhood to watch out that children are safe and don’t get in trouble.
nor disagree
Strongly agree = 5
Agree = 4
Neither agree nor disagree = 3
Disagree = 2
Strongly disagree = 1
Point values for all responses are summed. Intended range is 5-25, with higher scores indicating higher
levels of intergenerational connections and active support within the neighborhood.
These items measure connections between neighbors and active support of neighborhood children by
parents and other adults. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with
five statements about their neighbors.

R1. Neighborhood Satisfaction
No
Agree Disagree opinion
1. I am satisfied with this block as a place to live. 3 1 2
2. Compared to other blocks in this area, my block is 3 1 2
a good place to live.
3. In the past year, the general conditions on my block 3 1 2
have gotten worse.
4. In the next year, the general conditions on my block 3 1 2
will probably get better.
Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values for all responses are summed and then divided by
the total number of items. Blank items are not counted in the number of responses. Higher scores indicate
higher levels of respondent satisfaction with their block as a place to live and their expectations about the
future for their block.
These items measure residents’attitudes toward their neighborhood (for example, whether or not it is
a good place to live). Respondents are asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with four
statements about neighborhood satisfaction.

S1. Neighborhood Action/Willingness to Intervene
Not at all Somewhat Very
likely likely likely
1. If some 10 to 12 year-old youths were spray painting a street 1 2 3
sign on the block, how likely is it that you or some of your
neighbors would tell them to stop?
2. If a suspicious stranger was hanging around the block, how 1 2 3
likely is it that you or some of your neighbors would notice this
and warn others to be on guard?
3. If someone on your block was playing loud music, how likely is it 1 2 3
that you or some of your neighbors would ask them to turn the
music down?
4. If teenagers were fist-fighting on your block, how likely is it that 1 2 3
you or some of your neighbors would attempt to stop it?
5. If someone on your block was firing a gun, how likely is it that 1 2 3
you or some of your neighbors would do something about it?
6. If drugs were being sold on your block, how likely is it that you 1 2 3
or some of your neighbors would do something about it?
Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values for all responses are summed and then divided by
the total number of items. Blank items should not be counted in the number of responses. Higher scores
indicate higher levels of expressed likelihood that the respondent or a neighbor would intervene when
presented with a problem on their block.
These items measure the perceived likelihood that the resident or a neighbor will intervene when
presented with a problem in the neighborhood (e.g., break up a fight, stop drug selling). Respondents are
presented with six problems that may or may not happen on their block, and asked to determine the
likelihood of a neighbor responding appropriately.

S2. Social Control of Children—Chicago Neighborhood Study
How likely is it that your neighbors can be counted on to “do something” if …
1. Children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner?
nor unlikely
2. Children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building?
nor unlikely
3. Children were showing disrespect to an adult?
nor unlikely
Very likely = 5
Likely = 4
Neither likely nor unlikely = 3
Unlikely = 2
Very unlikely = 1
Point values are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher scores indicate higher
levels of child-centered social control.
These items measure general aspects of social cohesion and neighborhood control. Respondents are
asked to indicate how likely it is that their neighbors can be counted on to “do something” in three
situations involving children.

References
Arthur MW, Hawkins JD, Pollard JA, Catalano RF,
Baglioni AJ. Measuring risk and protective factors
for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent
problem behaviors: the Communities That Care
Youth Survey. Evaluation Review 2002;26(6):575-
601.
Attar BK, Guerra NG, Tolan PH. Neighborhood
disadvantage, stressful life events, and adjustment in
urban elementary-school children. Special issue:
impact of poverty on children, youth, and families.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology
1994:23(4):391-400.
Bjerregaard B, Smith CA. Gender differences in
gang participation, delinquency, and substance use.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology 1993;9:329-
355.
Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Socialization
mediators of the relation between socioeconomic
status and child conduct problems. Child
Development 1994;65:649-665.
Eccles JS, Harold RD. Parent-school involvement
during the early adolescent years. In: Takanishi R
(ed.), Adolescence in the 1990’s: risk and
opportunity. New York, NY: Columbia University
Teachers’College, 1993.
Gabriel RM. Self Enhancement Inc. Violence
prevention program, grades 7, 8 and 9: year 1
evaluation report. Portland, OR: RMC Research
Corporation, 1994. (Unpublished)
Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Henry DB. A
developmental-ecological model of the relation of
family functioning to patterns of delinquency.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2000;16:169-
198.
Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Zelli A, Huesmann LR.
The relation of family functioning to violence
among inner-city minority youths. Journal of Family
Psychology 1996;10:115-129.
Henry D, Chertok F, Keys C, Jegerski J.
Organizational and family systems factors in stress
among ministers. American Journal of Community
Psychology 1991;19(6):931-952.
Houston Community Demonstration Project.
Houston, TX: City of Houston Health and Human
Services Department, 1993. (Unpublished)
Hudson W. The clinical measurement package: a
field manual. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1982.
Jackson C, Henriksen L, Foshee VA. The
authoritative parenting index: predicting health risk
behaviors among children and adolescents. Health
Education & Behavior 1998;25(3):321-339.
Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Description
of measures: cohort-wide student survey, 2004a.
Available from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished)
Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Description
of measures: parent survey, 2004b. Available from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished)
Nadel H, Spellmann M, Alvaarez-Canino T, Lausell-
Bryant L, Landsberg G. The cycle of violence and
victimization: a study of the school-based
intervention of a multidisciplinary youth violence
prevention program. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 1996:12(5 Suppl):109-119.
Orpinas P, Murray N, Kelder S. Parental influences
on students’aggressive behavior and weapon-
carrying. Health Education and Behavior
1999;26(6):774-787.

Perkins DD, Florin P, Rich RC, Wandersman A,
Chavis DM. Participation and the social and
physical environment of residential blocks: crime
and community context. American Journal of
Community Psychology 1990;18(1):83-115.
Phillips J, Springer F. Extended National Youth
Sports Program 1991-1992 evaluation highlights,
part two: Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI)
and risk assessment study. Report prepared for the
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Sacramento, CA: EMTAssociates, 1992.
(Unpublished)
Richters JE, Martinez P. Things I Have Seen and
Heard: a structured interview for assessing youth
children’s violence exposure. Rockville, MD:
National Institute of Mental Health, 1990.
(Unpublished)
Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Earls F. Beyond social
capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for
children. American Sociological Review
1999;64:633-660.
Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F.
Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study
of collective efficacy. Science 1997;277:918-924.
Smith EP, Connell CM, Wright G, Sizer M, Norman
JM, Hurley A, Walker SN. An ecological model of
home, school, and community partnerships:
implications for research and practice. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation
1997;8:339-360.
Stern SB, Smith CA. Family processes and
delinquency in an ecological context. Social Service
Review 1995;69:703-731.
Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Smith CA,
Tobin K. Gangs and delinquency in developmental
perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2003.
Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth
M, Jang SJ. Testing interactional theory: an
examination of reciprocal causal relationships
among family, school, and delinquency. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 1991;82:3-35.
Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Huesmann LR, Zelli A.
Assessment of family relationship characteristics: a
measure to explain risk for antisocial behavior and
depression among urban youth. Psychological
Assessment 1997;9(3):212-223.
Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Henry DB. Chicago
Youth Development Study Parenting Practices
Measure: Instructions for Scaling Technical Report.
Families and Communities Research Group,
Institute for Juvenile Research, Department of
Psychiatry, The University of Illinois at Chicago,
2000. (Unpublished)
Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Henry DB. Chicago
Youth Development Study Community and
Neighborhood Measure: construction and reliability
technical report. Families and Communities
Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, The
University of Illinois at Chicago, 2001.
(Unpublished)
Tolan PH, Miller L, Thomas P. Perception and
experience of types of social stress and self-image
among adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 1988;17(2):147-163.

Section iv behavioral assessment

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Section iv behavioral assessment (20)

More from EDITHA HONRADEZ (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Section iv behavioral assessment