Perceived Experiences of Community Violence Among Adolescents: A School Survey From Rio de Janeiro,Brazil

Abstract

Community violence (CV) is a global public health problem due to its high frequency and severe consequences. Although CV is one of the leading causes of death among adolescents, little is known about the everyday CV situations that do not lead to death. This study aimed to estimate the frequency of exposure to and involvement in CV situations among adolescent students from public and private schools in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This was a cross-sectional study of 693 individuals in their second year of high school selected through stratified multistage random sampling. Information about their exposure to and involvement in CV was collected through a self-completed multidimensional questionnaire in the classrooms. For approximately 30% of the adolescents, someone close to them had been murdered, and 40% had already seen the corpse of a victim of homicide. Seventeen percent reported having been directly involved in CV situations. Approximately 38%, 13%, and 25% had been victims of robberies, interpersonal aggression, and death threats to either themselves or their relatives, respectively. Many of these situations occurred more than once. In general, CV was more frequently reported by boys and by those who did not live with both parents. Adolescents from higher economic classes experienced more interpersonal aggression and felt a greater need to carry a gun. Those who belonged to the lower economic classes and studied in public schools were more exposed to lethal violence than other students. The results call attention to the very high percentage of adolescent students that are involved in CV situations as well as to the differences in violence rates among population subgroups. Such findings should be considered when planning CV prevention and management actions in schools and other socialization spaces for adolescents.

Keywords

community violence juvenile violence adolescence Brazil

Introduction

Community violence (CV) is a significant public health problem worldwide (Guterman et al., 2000; Ruediger, 2017). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), this type of interpersonal violence involves individuals who are unrelated, and who may or may not know each other, generally taking place outside the home. Usually, it occurs in the neighborhoods where individuals reside and circulate and in schools, nursing homes, and institutions. This type of violence covers homicides as well as nonlethal violent acts such as assaults, fights, crimes, random acts of violence, and engagement in drug trafficking, always involving two or more people (Krug et al., 2002).

Approximately one quarter of all homicides worldwide occur among adolescents (individuals aged 10−19 years) (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2017). Brazil contributes to a significant share of this burden as one of the five countries with the highest homicide rate in this age group. However, lethal violence represents only the tip of the iceberg. According to the WHO, there are approximately 20 to 40 hospitalized victims of youth violence for any one lethal incident (Krug et al., 2002). Regardless, CV primarily affects specific segments of adolescents and young people, namely, males, people of color, those of low education and income, and those dwelling in the outskirts of cities (Farrington et al., 2014; Gallo & Williams, 2005; Krug et al., 2002; Musumeci et al., 2012).

Current homicide rates in Brazil and particularly in Rio de Janeiro reinforce the problem’s relevance, particularly among males, 15 to 29 years of age. The 2017 homicide rate in this population was 130.4 per 100,000 inhabitants in Brazil. Of the 35,783 young people murdered this year, 94.4% (33,772) were male (Cerqueira et al., 2019). The situation is still more worrisome in the State of Rio de Janeiro, where the homicide rate among males in this age group reached 176.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, as opposed to 45.2 per 100,000 inhabitants in the total population. Afro-descendants, those with low education, those from uniparental families, and living in the city outskirts are also more vulnerable (da Silva, 2016; Gallo & Williams, 2005; Musumeci et al., 2012). In 2014, for instance, the homicide rate among males of African descent or multiracial origins was about three times higher than that among white adolescents in Brazil (UNICEF, 2017). Most deaths were motivated by disputes between gangs contending for drug production and distribution points. The lack of preparation among police forces to address this problem and the large illegal circulation of firearms make addressing the situation a daunting task (Faria, 2019). This is made even more challenging given the existing Brazilian public security policies that privilege combating drug cartels at the expense of social policies committed to reducing inequality and improving the living conditions of the adolescent population (Lopes et al., 2015).

Adolescents participating as perpetrators of violent acts is also a worldwide public health problem (Waiselfisz, 2014; WHO, 2015, 2017). The profile of adolescents’ CV perpetrators is similar to those exposed to CV. In Brazil, around 96% of the population in juvenile detention centers are young males (Nascimento et al., 2018). In addition to participating directly in acts of lethal violence (homicides), there is intense involvement of adolescents and young people in nonlethal acts such as robberies, thefts, and assaults with bodily injury (Waiselfisz, 2014). According to Brazil’s Ministry of Human Rights, in 2014, theft and drug trafficking was the leading cause of admission to juvenile detention centers for 21,000 violating adolescents (BRAZIL, 2018).

The impact of CV on adolescents’ lives is also evident considering its immediate nonlethal physical effects (UNICEF, 2017; Wright et al., 2016) as well as its mental health consequences, such as sleep disorders, aggressiveness, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorders (Brady, 2006; Krug et al., 2002; Menard, 2002; Scarpa et al., 2006). Sustained exposure to CV may lead to hazardous health behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and drug abuse, and unsafe sexual practices (Brady, 2006; Menard, 2002), as well as to poor school performance (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008; Lepore & Kliewer, 2013). The high magnitude and harmful consequences of CV have compelled societies to recognize CV as a significant social problem that requires public policies aimed at prevention and control. Particularly for adolescents, one point of concern is the cumulative nature of interpersonal violence characterized by the frequent cooccurrence of family violence, bullying, and CV (Pinto & Assis, 2013; Ximenes et al., 2013).

For the last decade, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization has been proposing actions to reduce violence by promoting a culture of peace and nonviolence in different spaces (Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, 2010). At center stage, the school environment has been considered a key setting for implementing measures aimed at preventing interpersonal violence of any nature and furthering resilience following victimization. Schools are also propitious locations for the early detection of adolescents who are most vulnerable to CV, as well as helping those exposed to CV to handle the risks and adverse consequences (Merces et al., 2016). The social support of teachers and staff has also been recognized as an essential component in addressing the problem (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008; Namy et al., 2017; Scorgie et al., 2017). However, despite scientific evidence and governmental and nongovernmental guidelines aimed at supporting school initiatives, CV is still one of the major challenges faced by teachers in Brazil and elsewhere (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008; Namy et al., 2017; Scorgie et al., 2017).

To better address the problem, situational diagnoses have been recommended to support interventions. However, in Brazil, as in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), school surveys aimed at monitoring exposure to and perpetration of CV among adolescents are rather few. Most studies draw on mortality data and/or are confined to violence reported to police stations, protection services, and shelters. Rarely, if ever, do studies account for unreported cases, much less the perceptions of those involved (Benetti et al., 2006). This drawback is addressed here by studying a representative sample of public and private schools comprising a large and diverse district of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The findings may assist managers and education professionals in implementing policies aimed at preventing violence and better supporting CV victims. In addition, studying the prevalence of different CV situations and related risk groups may also be helpful to similarly sized cities in Brazil and other LMICs.

Methods

Study Design and Setting

This study was a cross-sectional study involving students attending their second year of high school in the IX Administrative Region of Rio de Janeiro (IX–AR). This territorial unit comprises four neighborhoods totaling approximately 191,000 inhabitants and an average per capita income of 3.6 times the monthly minimum wage (equivalent to US$449.34 in 2016) (Instituto Pereira Passos, 2020). Despite having the sixth-highest human development index in the municipality, the region shows a striking pattern of inequality. Middle- and upper-class houses, buildings, and condominiums are surrounded by slums and low-income communities (e.g., Borel, Macacos, and Complexo do Andaraí) marked by critical sanitation conditions, precarious housing conditions, and high levels of violence.

Sampling and Participants

Data collection took place from October 2016 to February 2017. The IX–AR comprises 5 public and 15 private schools, encompassing 29 and 23 second-year high school classes containing 476 and 805 students, respectively. Participants were selected through a complex cluster sampling procedure, stratified according to three groups: private schools with daytime classes, public schools with daytime classes, and public schools with night classes. Twenty-six classes (721 students) were selected with a probability of selection proportional to school size. To ensure enough public school students in some analyses related to the main project’s objectives, we over-sample this stratum and recalculate participants’ weights, accounting for the genuine number of eligible subjects. This sampling scheme implied different sample weights for each school and respective student. All students therein were then invited to take part in the study. Only 28 refused to participate, representing a response rate of 96.1%. The final sample comprised 693 students.

Questionnaires and Variables

To measure the exposure to and involvement of adolescents in CV, we used a structured questionnaire developed by a Brazilian research group that has been studying and working with youth violence for many years (Musumeci et al., 2012). The instrument covers the interviewee’s and her/his peers’ experiences with lethal and nonlethal CV. Exposure to lethal CV throughout the life of the interviewee was assessed in two items. One addressed the experience of someone close to the interviewee being murdered, whereas the other asked whether the respondent had ever seen the corpse of a victim of homicide in her/his neighborhood. Six items covered direct exposure to nonlethal CV experienced in the last 12 months, namely, assault by a known and/or unknown person (two separate questions), robbery, death threat, being pointed at with a firearm, and feeling the need to carry a gun. CV exposure was also investigated indirectly through the involvement of the respondent’s peers in misdemeanors and/or crimes during the previous year. The questionnaire added an item asking about holding a firearm at some point in his/her life. The questions and response levels are provided in three tables presented in the results section.

The CV module was nested in a multithematic questionnaire covering demographic, economic, family, and school-related information. The family’s economic position was assessed using the Brazilian Economic Classification Criterion (CCEB/Critério de Classificação Econômica Brasil), version 2015 (Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa (ABEP), 2016). The CCEB is an index composed of the education of the head of the family, access to public services (running water and paved streets), possession of durable goods, and availability of a domestic employee. Families are classified into seven economic classes (A, B1, B2, C1, C2, D, and E); class A has the highest purchasing power, and class E has the lowest (ABEP, 2016). The other variables are self-explanatory and are presented in the first table of the results section.

Data Analysis

Data analysis consisted of univariate descriptions of the study population, followed by bivariate analyses of the distribution of CV according to demographic, family, socioeconomic, and school variables. Prevalence estimates considered the sample expansion based on the sample weights. Null hypotheses of independence were evaluated using the chi-square test, specifying a significance level (α) of .05 to demarcate rejection. The analyses used the Stata 16 svy suite to address the complex sampling structure (StataCorp, 2019).

Ethics

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Rio de Janeiro State University (CAAE no 48107514.2.0000.5282) and by the State Department of Education. The participating students and their parents signed the informed consent form.

Results

Table 1 shows the study population profile. The gender distribution was fairly even. The mean age was 17.4 years, consistent with the studied school grade. Approximately half of the students declared themselves to be nonwhite (47.9%). Slightly more than half of the interviewees (55.6%) reported not cohabiting with both parents during the study period, and almost one-third lived with their mother only. Most of the students belonged to economic classes B or C. Almost two thirds were students at private schools.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic and School Characteristics of the Study Sample.

Sample characteristics	N	N_exp(a)	%	(CI 95%)
Sex
Male	316	593	46,3	(40,2–52,5)
Female	377	688	53,7	(47,5–59,8)
Age
15 to 16	281	627	49,0	(41,2–56,7)
17 to 19	412	654	51,0	(43,3–58,8)
Ethnicity/skin color
White	318	664	52,1	(44,5–59,5)
Black	114	185	14,5	(11,7–17,8)
Mestizos	236	395	31,0	(25,4–37,2)
Asians	7	10	0,8	(0,3–2,0)
Indigenous	14	21	1,6	(0,9–2,7)
Who live with the adolescent
Mother and father	301	568	44,4	(41,0–48,0)
Only mother	195	378	29,4	(26,2–33,2)
Only father	32	64	5,2	(3,6–7,3)
Mother and stepfather	99	168	13,2	(11,0–15,7)
Father and stepmother	15	27	2,0	(1,2–3,5)
Others	48	74	5,7	(4,1–7,7)
Economic classes (CCEB)
A	90	208	17,3	(13,5–22,0)
B	327	658	55,1	(51,4–58,3)
C	209	319	26,4	(22,5–31,3)
D and E	11	14	1,2	(0,6–2,3)
Type of school
Public (daytime)	289	365	28,5	(24,3–33,0)
Public (evening/nigh school)	99	111	8,7	(7,0–10,8)
Private	305	805	62,8	(57,4–68,0)

Note. CI = Confidence intervals. ^aN_exp= population estimation after sample expansion.

Table 2 shows the pattern of exposure to lethal and nonlethal CV. For approximately 30% of the teenagers, someone close to them had been murdered, and 40% reported seeing the body of a homicide victim in the neighborhood. Physical attacks by known and unknown people had happened to approximately 20% and 14% of the adolescents, respectively. More than a third of the sample had experienced robbery in the last 12 months. Many of these situations happened more than once. Approximately one quarter of the respondents reported that they or a relative had been threatened with death. Similarly, a quarter of the sample felt the need to carry a gun. Five percent had already been threatened with a firearm in the prior 12 months.

Table 2.

Adolescents’ Exposure to Lethal and Nonlethal Acts of Community Violence.

Community violence exposure	N	N_exp(a)	%
Lethal
Had a close relative murdered
No	486	919	72,7	(68,6–76,4)
Yes	197	346	27,3	(23,6–31,4)
Saw a homicide victim’s body in the neighborhood
No	394	730	57,6	(52,6–62,4)
Yes	292	538	42,4	(37,6–47,4)
Non-lethal
Physical assaulted by strangers
Never	596	1.099	86,4	(83,6–88,8)
Only once	53	93	7,3	(5,3–8,7)
Sometimes	30	70	5,5	(3,5–8,7)
Many times	7	10	0,8	(0,3–2,1)
Physical assaulted by a known person
Never	563	1.020	80,2	(75,4–84,3)
Only once	56	124	9,8	(6,4–14,6)
Sometimes	54	103	8,1	(6,0–10,7)
Many times	13	24	1,9	(0,8–4,4)
Had been robbed
No	436	775	61,7	(56,5–66,7)
Yes	240	480	38,3	(33,3–43,5)
Had been targeted or had relatives who were the target of death threats
Never	524	960	75,3	(71,7–78,7)
Only once	88	173	13,6	(10,9–16,8)
Sometimes	56	101	7,9	(5,7–10,9)
Many times	20	40	3,2	(1,9–5,3)
Felt the need to carry a gun
Never	522	949	74,6	(70,7–78,2)
Only once	30	61	4,8	(3,3–7,0)
Sometimes	86	169	13,3	(10,4–16,8)
Many times	49	93	7,3	(5,6–9,4)
Was threatened with a firearm
Never	632	1.162	91,5	(88,3–93,8)
Only once	45	90	7,1	(5,0–9,8)
Sometimes	8	17	1,3	(0,5–3,5)
Many times	1	1	0,1	(0,0–0,6)

Note. ^aSource population after expansion. ^b95% confidence intervals in brackets.

Table 3 shows the frequencies of direct participation in CV and involvement through proximity to peers. Almost one fifth of the sample reported touching a firearm at least once. The most common peer violence involvement situations were having friends involved in aggressive behavior (21.4%), using guns (18.2%), and engaging in robberies (11.7%). In most cases, these incidents occurred more than once.

Table 3.

Frequency of Direct and Indirect Adolescents’ Involvement in Community Violence.

Community violence involvement	N	N_exp(a)	%(b)
Direct
Had touched a firearm
No	580	1.046	82,4	(78,5–85,7)
Yes	107	224	17,6	(14,3–21,5)
Indirect
Had a friend that killed somebody
Never	669	1.242	97,8	(96,6–98,6)
Once	7	11	1,0	(0,4–1,8)
Sometimes	5	9	0,7	(0,3–1,8)
Many times	5	7	0,5	(0,2–1,6)
Had a friend that shot somebody
Never	656	1.220	96,5	(94,5–97,8)
Once	10	17	1,4	(0,6–3,3)
Sometimes	14	20	1,6	(0,9–2,7)
Many times	3	7	0,5	(0,2–1,7)
Had a friend that robbed somebody
Never	600	1.121	88,3	(85,2–90,8)
Once	19	43	3,4	(2,2–4,9)
Sometimes	45	72	5,7	(3,6–8,8)
Many times	22	33	2,6	(1,5–4,5)
Had a friend that physical assaulted somebody
Never	544	992	78,6	(75,2–81,7)
Once	56	115	9,1	(6,9–11,9)
Sometimes	64	122	9,7	(7,3–12,7)
Many times	18	33	2,6	(1,4–4,7)
Had a friend that was shot
Never	622	1.168	92,1	(89,0–94,5)
Once	33	53	4,2	(26–6,7)
Sometimes	23	35	2,8	(1,6–4,6)
Many times	7	11	0,9	(0,3–2,1)
Had a friend that used to carry a gun
Never	555	1.038	81,8	(78,0–85,1)
Once	26	46	3,6	(2,0–6,5)
Sometimes	66	116	9,2	(7,3–11,4)
Many times	39	68	5,4	(3,6–7,9)
Had a friend that threatened someone with a firearm
Never	649	1.208	95,2	(93,0–96,7)
Once	7	14	1,1	(0,5–2,5)
Sometimes	19	29	2,3	(1,3–4,2)
Many times	11	18	1,4	(0,7–2,6)
Had a friend that threatened someone’s life
Never	626	1.158	91,3	(88,1–93,6)
Once	20	42	3,3	(1,8–5,9)
Sometimes	27	41	3,2	(2,1–4,9)
Many times	13	29	2,2	(1,2–4,2)

Note. ^aSource population after expansion. ^b95% Confidence intervals in brackets.

Table 4 shows the distribution of CV according to demographic, family, economic, and school characteristics. Exposure to CV was consistently higher among boys, with more than half having seen the corpse of a murdered person and about a third reporting the need to carry a gun. The percentage experiencing some physical violence caused by someone known or by strangers was also high in this subgroup. Also noteworthy is the frequency of those who have had their lives or their relatives’ lives threatened. Adolescents not living with both parents had consistently higher victimization rates. The greater propensity to be involved in CV in this subgroup was expressed mainly by the reports of having seen the body of a person who was murdered, physical assaults (by friends or strangers), and death threats against oneself or family members.

Having a close relative murdered occurred more often in the lower economic classes (C, D, and E) and among public school students. In contrast, the economically more privileged adolescents had been physically assaulted by strangers and felt the need to carry guns more frequently. Although a third of the students in public schools reported having someone close to them be murdered, those in private schools were more often robbed and more likely to feel the need to carry a firearm.

Table 4 also shows that boys, those not living with both parents, those belonging to economic classes A and B, and those enrolled in private schools were significantly more involved in situations of direct CV (as expressed by taking up firearms). Boys also reported a higher frequency of friends who had assaulted or threatened to kill others. There were no statistically significant differences related to family composition for most situations of peer violence involvement except for walking with armed friends, which occurred more frequently among those not living with both parents. In most situations, peer violence involvement acts did not vary according to economic class or type of school. The exceptions were having a friend who physically assaulted someone, which was more often reported among students from economic classes A and B, and having a friend who was shot, which was most often mentioned by students attending public schools.

Table 4.

Adolescents’ Exposure and Involvement in Community Violence According to Demographic, Familial, Economic, and School Characteristics.

Variables	Sex		Live with		Economic Level		School
Variables	Girls	Boys	Both Parents	Others	A and B	C, D and E	Private	Public
Lethal CV
Had a close relative murdered	29,1	25,6	24,3	29,9	24,2	32,5*	24,1	32,8*
Saw a homicide victim's body in the neighborhood	33,0	53,4^***	37,5	46,3^**	41,7	44,9	40,5	45,7
Non-lethal CV
Had been physical assaulted by strangers	9,0	19,0^**	10,3	16,1^*	15,2	7,8*	13,9	13,1
Had been physical assaulted by a known person	13,1	27,4^**	15,0	23,7^**	21,8	16,7	21,3	17,1
Was robbed	35,7	41,3	34,3	41,4	40,9	32,0	41,7	32,3^*
Had been targeted or had relatives who were the target of death threats	20,9	29,0	18,9	29,4^**	26,0	21,6	25,9	22,5
Felt the need to carry a gun	17,9	34,0^***	22,5	27,9	28,6	19,2^**	28,3	20,5^*
Was threatened with a firearm	6,9	10,3	7,5	9,4	9,4	5,4	8,8	8,1
Direct CV
Had touched a firearm	7,7	29,2^***	11,6	22,5^*	20,8	10,6^***	20,1	13,4^*
Indirect CV (had a friend that…)
killed somebody	2,3	2,0	1,3	2,8	1,6	3,3	1,5	3,3
shot somebody	2,4	4,7	2,5	4,2	3,4	4,5	2,7	4,8
robbed somebody	9,8	13,9	9,6	13,4	11,6	12,1	10,0	14,5
physical assaulted somebody	16,3	27,2^***	17,2	24,8	24,2	14,9**	23,1	18,5
was shot	7,5	8,3	6,6	8,7	8,3	7,3	5,7	11,6^**
used to carry a gun	15,6	21,2	13,1	22,3^*	18,6	17,3	16,5	21,0
threatened someone with a firearm	4,7	5,0	3,5	5,9	4,5	6,1	4,0	6,2
threatened someone’s life	6,3	11,5^*	7,4	9,9	8,6	10,1	9,2	8,0

Note. CV = Community violence. ^*p < .05; ^**p < .01; ^***p <. 001.

Discussion

CV is recognized as a public health problem because of its large magnitude and negative consequences for society. Its adverse effects are especially relevant in crucial periods of human development, such as childhood and adolescence (Krug et al., 2002; Schraiber et al., 2006). As pointed out in the introduction, establishing sound policies and actions for reducing the incidence and repercussions of CV requires knowledge about the spatial and temporal magnitude of CV and its distribution in population subgroups. Although many studies have attempted to address this issue in Brazil and other countries, the literature concentrates on deaths (homicides), which is only a very small part of the problem (Krug et al., 2002; Schraiber et al., 2006). Studies addressing nonlethal violence from the perspective of those involved are rather scarce. This study attempted to fill this gap.

The Brazilian constitution stipulates that the state shall guarantee the protection of children and adolescents, which is a foundational right that the national Child and Adolescent Statute (Estatuto da Criança e Adolescente) also sanctions and promotes. Nevertheless, the high percentages of those exposed to and involved in CV estimated in this study indicate that the reality is far from what the legislation promises. Our findings show that approximately one-third of the adolescents had experienced at least one episode of lethal CV, either by seeing the body of someone who was murdered or having someone close to them be killed. The problem is even more conspicuous considering that one in four students reported a death threat, either against him/herself or against a relative.

The pattern of nonlethal violence also indicates the seriousness of the problem. The similarity between our findings and those from a survey carried out in Rio de Janeiro a decade ago (Musumeci et al., 2012) suggests that state responses aimed at reducing CV have not been very effective in controlling the situation. The number of adolescents who reported the need to carry a gun (25%) is rather alarming since most of the lethal violence in Brazil is perpetrated by firearms (Cerqueira et al., 2019). Also noteworthy is the frequency of adolescents involved with groups that commit misdemeanors and crimes. Considering the role of peers in propagating risky behaviors in this stage of life, having friends who commit acts of CV may be a risk factor for youth violence itself (Merces et al., 2016). These findings suggest that Rio de Janeiro’s security policy, which is primarily focused on ostensible policing, drug criminalization, and arresting those that reach the so-called “age of criminal responsibility,” may not be sufficient to curb the violence unfolding among adolescents and youth. Measures that promote the improvement of living conditions and reduce inequalities in security policies are also required (Ciconello, 2019; Ramos, 2016). Increasing access to education, jobs, decent housing, and health services would most likely help to reduce CV (CDC, 2020; Murray et al., 2013; Reichenheim et al., 2011).

Exposure and involvement with peers that commit CV partly reproduced the scenario detected in similar surveys that indicate gender and social inequalities as important factors explaining the occurrence and distribution of violence (Benetti et al., 2006; Finkelhor et al., 2015; Krug et al., 2002; Moreira et al., 2013; Scarpa, 2001; Zavaschi et al., 2002). Differences between boys’ and girls’ exposure to CV may be explained by some psychosocial factors, especially those related to traditional Brazilian society’s repercussions for educational practices among adolescents’ parents. Compared to girls, boys tend to have lower parental supervision, are more encouraged to use alcohol, and have parental approval to go out with friends at an earlier age. Such practices expose boys more often to CV, especially those related to drug trafficking, assaults, fights, confrontations with the police, and so on.

A culture that promotes courage and aggressiveness when facing opponents as characteristics of masculinity also leads to naturalizing and encouraging the participation of male adolescents in different forms of violence (Câmara et al., 2007). According to Formiga and Diniz (2011), cultural norms centered on individualism may also support young people’s violent behaviors, especially those of males. Risk-taking behaviors that are legitimized are another characteristic of this period of life that may reinforce the acceptance of male violence (Pereira & Silva, 2016; Sousa et al., 2016).

Several situations were also more likely among those living with only one parent. Although the dissolution of the biparental family does not necessarily have negative impacts on the lives of children and adolescents, single parenthood may aggregate factors that foster violence. This vulnerability combines with others at the macro level, such as lower incomes and living in areas of the city that are more remote, more socially disorganized, and less serviced. The absence of governmental assistance in terms of security, housing, health, and education in such territories opens the area up to the activities of drug traffickers and armed paramilitary groups (militias) engaging adolescents in gangs. In addition, single-parent families usually provide less supervision. Working many hours to meet their basic needs, women (mostly) have less time to care for and supervise the activities of their children, further contributing to manipulation and cooption by organized crime (da Silva, 2016; Feitosa, 2016; Hidalgo et al., 2009).

The differences in the types of CV that affect adolescents across income levels and school types are also noteworthy. Adolescents in the privileged classes tended to suffer more physical attacks by strangers, and be more inclined to use guns. These findings may reflect the CV experienced by residents of Rio de Janeiro in the past decades. Although it was originally restricted to the outskirts of the city, CV has now reached the more privileged areas of Rio de Janeiro. The characteristics of urbanization and housing policies in Rio de Janeiro, where luxury homes share space with slums and low-income communities in the same neighborhood, also explain the exposure to violence in all social classes (Gomes, 2003). However, it is evident that the most impoverished adolescents and public school students are the most vulnerable to be exposed to lethal violence, indicating that the most severe forms of violence have clear social determinants.

It is quite striking that adolescents from the more privileged classes who attend private schools were those who mostly reported contact with firearms. This should be discussed in light of certain characteristics at the individual (adolescents) and local (territory) levels, as well as in the context of the social and political upheavals that have been troubling Brazil in recent years. In the present study, many adolescents from private schools live in neighborhoods with a large contingent of military and ex-military personnel, which may facilitate their access to firearms. The social and political scenario of recent years in our country may also contribute to the large number of adolescents who had access to guns. In Brazil, as in other countries across the Americas, government support for personal gun use to keep crime at bay has been significant (Giroux, 2017; Mazui, 2019). Although this position contradicts a growing body of literature pointing to a positive correlation between firearm circulation and violence rates (Lee et al., 2017; Webster et al., 2016), arguments supporting the civilian use of weapons may take root in more conservative communities such as those where many of the private schools that took part in our study are located (Faria, 2019).

The results of this study should be analyzed in light of its limitations and strengths. One constraint concerns the possible underestimation of the number of students who had taken part in criminal activities, as the adolescents may have omitted information in fear of negative repercussions and reprisals by the schools (Benetti et al., 2006; Musumeci et al., 2012; Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014; Zavaschi et al., 2002). Therefore, to reduce this problem, we opted to use self-administered questionnaires rather than face-to-face interviews. This approach may have fostered valid responses by reducing the embarrassment felt by the adolescents in replying to questions regarding committing unlawful acts. In addition, to better estimate adolescents’ involvement in CV, we used a set of items addressing her/his involvement with peers who may have committed an act of violence. As mentioned, we assumed that many of the positive responses to these oblique questions would extend to deeds performed by the respondents themselves in collaboration with friends. Although peer delinquency and violence involvement are known risk factors for youth violence perpetration, they remain an indirect way to assess potential involvement, and caution is warranted in drawing direct comparisons.

Regarding the positive aspects, we highlight the fact that the study covered public and private schools representing a vast region of Rio de Janeiro that is similar to many other regions of the city in terms of the student profile. It thus offers a quite varied and comprehensive panorama and may still provide an insightful picture despite not fully covering the city. Another important point was the aggregation of questions about peer acts of violence. According to several studies (Brady, 2006; Jackson et al., 2015; Menard, 2002; Musumeci et al., 2012), an indirect approach to gaining information about violence by asking about acts committed by friends instead of by the interviewee tends to be more sensitive for identifying serious criminal situations (Farrington et al., 2014; Formiga & Diniz, 2011; Sousa et al., 2016). Finally, focusing on adolescent exposure to and participation in violence and evaluating perceptions is also a strength; this approach may have uncovered a large proportion of CV that would have otherwise not been recorded in official statistics.

This study reveals a disturbing scenario affecting adolescents in the second-largest Brazilian city. The high percentages of exposure to lethal violence, whether directed at the students, their relatives, or other people, indicate that the problem is part of these adolescents' daily lives. The presence and availability of firearms should cause substantial alarm and rekindle the need to resume the debate about carrying guns. Decreasing CV is not a simple task due to its complexity and relationship to macrostructural and community factors involving cultural and economic diversity, social inequalities, drug trafficking, and the presence of paramilitary groups in communities. Addressing the problem thus requires networking, and schools are an essential link for taking actions to prevent violence and reinforce resilience. Policies that promote a culture of peace and solutions developed by students and teachers should be encouraged where they already exist and established where they do not. Permanent training for educators to promote a “qualified listening” environment geared toward tolerance and respect for ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic, and all other aspects of human differences is also an important element in fostering understanding (BRAZIL, 2010). Strategies aiming at reducing CV should also be tailored to cultural and social contexts since actions geared toward one setting may not work in another. We must appreciate that specific findings, while important in understanding the unique experiences of individuals or groups, are not necessarily applicable to all society. To this end, broader initiatives would require a more comprehensive situational diagnosis. Beyond the region studied here, future studies estimating the exposure to and perpetration of CV in more extensive and representative samples (e.g., in Rio de Janeiro or Brazil as a whole) would be particularly beneficial. In addition to determining the extent of the problem, these studies are essential for evaluating the effectiveness of public policies and other actions aimed at reducing CV.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by a grant from the Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro - FAPERJ (grant number: E-26/010.002590/2014). M.E.R. was partially supported by the Brazilian National Research Council (Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa, CNPq), grant number 301381/2017-8. C.L.M was partially supported by the Brazilian National Research Council, grant number: 302663/2015-0; and FAPERJ, grant number: E-26/202.842/2017.

ORCID iDs

Stella R. Taquette

Luciane Stochero

Emanuele S. Marques

Author Biographies

Claudia L. de Moraes, PhD, is an associate professor at the Institute of Social Medicine/Rio de Janeiro State University, and a senior professor at the Medical School/Estácio de Sá University. She earned her PhD in Public Health from the National School of Public Health/Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (BR). Her research focuses on the epidemiology of interpersonal violence and related psychosocial events, and maternal and child health.

Érika B. dos Santos, MSc, is the technician responsible for the epidemiological surveillance of meningoencephalitis and immunopreventable diseases at the Municipal Health Department of Nova Iguaçu, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. She earned her MSc in Public Health from the Rio de Janeiro State University (Brazil). Her research focuses on the epidemiology of interpersonal violence.

Michael E. Reichenheim, PhD, is an associate professor at the Institute of Social Medicine/Rio de Janeiro State University. He earned his PhD in Public Health from the University of London (UK). His research focuses on the epidemiology of interpersonal violence and related psychosocial events, and validation of measurement tools with a specific focus on cross-cultural adaptation processes.

Stella R. Taquette, PhD, is a full-time professor at the Faculty of Medical Sciences/Rio de Janeiro State University. She earned her PhD in Medicine from the São Paulo University. Her research focuses on the adolescence, sexuality, IST-AIDS, gender, violence, bioethics, medical education, and qualitative research methodologies.

Luciane Stochero, MSc, earned her MSc in Public Health from the Rio de Janeiro State University (Brazil). Her research focuses on the epidemiology of interpersonal violence.

Emanuele S. Marques, PhD, is a professor at the Institute of Social Medicine/Rio de Janeiro State University. She earned her PhD in Public Health from the Rio de Janeiro State University (Brazil). Her research focuses on the epidemiology of interpersonal violence, nutritional epidemiology, breastfeeding, and cross-cultural adaptation of measurement tools.

References

Aisenberg

, & Herrenkohl

(2008). Community violence in context: risk and resilience in children and families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 23(3), 296-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507312287

Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa (ABEP). (2016). Critério Brasil 2015 e atualização da distribuição de classes para 2016 .

Benetti

S. P. C.

, Gama

, Vitolo

, Silva

M. B.

, & D’Ávila

(2006). Violência comunitária, exposição às drogas ilícitas e envolvimento com a lei na adolescência. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica , 37, 279-286.

Brady

S. S.

(2006). Lifetime community violence exposure and health risk behavior among young adults in college. Journal of Adolescent Health , 39(4), 610-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.03.007

BRAZIL. (2010). Linha de cuidado para a atenção integral à saúde de crianças, adolescentes e suas famílias em situação de violências: orientação para gestores e profissionais de saúde .

BRAZIL. (2018). Letalidade infanto-juvenil: dados da violência e políticas públicas existentes . Secretaria Nacional de Proteção dos Direitos da Criança e Adolescente. Ministério dos Direitos Humanos.

Câmara

S. G.

, Sarriera

J. C.

, & Carlotto

M. S.

(2007). Fatores associados a condutas de enfrentamento violento entre adolescentes escolares. Estudos de Psicologia 12, 213-219.

CDC. (2020). Risk and protective factors . https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

Cerqueira

, Lima

R. S.

, Bueno

, Alves

P. P.

, Reis

, Cypriano

, & Armstrong

K. C.

(2019). Atlas das violências: retratos dos municípios brasileiros . Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).

10.

Ciconello

(2019). A política de segurança pública do Rio de Janeiro é ineficiente e financeiramente insustentável . Rede de Observatórios da Segurança/CESeC.

11.

da Silva

M. R.

(2016). Família monoparental na atualidade e seus fatores determinantes . Fundação de Ensino Eurípides Soares da Rocha, Marília (SP).

12.

Faria

(2019). Percentual de brasileiros favoráveis a armas dobra em sete anos, mas maioria ainda é contra. Folha de São Paulo .

13.

Farrington

D. P.

, Ttofi

M. M.

, Crago

R. V.

, & Coid

J. W.

(2014). Prevalence, frequency, onset, desistance and criminal career duration in self-reports compared with official records. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health , 24(4), 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1930

14.

Feitosa

E. F. M. A.

(2016). A incidência da alienação parental na família monoparental. Conteúdo Jurídico .

15.

Finkelhor

, Turner

H. A.

, Shattuck

, & Hamby

S. L.

(2015). Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. JAMA Pediatrics , 169(8), 746-754. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0676

16.

Formiga

N. S.

, & Diniz

A. S.

(2011). Estilo da orientação cultural e condutas desviantes: testagem de um modelo teórico. Psicologia em Pesquisa UFJF 5, 2-11.

17.

Gallo

A. E.

, & Williams

L. C. A.

(2005). Adolescentes em conflito com a lei: uma revisão dos fatores de risco para a conduta infracional. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática , 7, 81-95.

18.

Giroux

H. A.

(2017). White nationalism, armed culture and state violence in the age of Donald Trump. Philosophy & Social Criticism , 43(9), 887–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453717702800

19.

Gomes

M. F. C. M.

(2003). Sonhos urbanos e pesadelos metropolitanos: violência e segregação na cidade do Rio de Janeiro, Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales (Vol. 7, pp. 131). Universidad de Barcelona.

20.

Guterman

N. B.

, Cameron

, & Staller

(2000). Definitional and measurement issues in the study of community violence among children and youths. Journal of Community Psychology , 28(6), 571-587. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(200011)28:6<571::AID-JCOP3>;3.0.CO;2-Q

21.

Hidalgo

, Menéndez

, Sánches

, Lorence

, & Jiménez

(2009). La intervención con familias en situación de riesgo psicosocial. Aportaciones desde un enfoque psicoeducativo. Apuntes de Psicología , 27, 413-426

22.

Instituto Pereira Passos. (2020). População Residente e Estimada - Brasil, Estado do Rio de Janeiro e Município do Rio de Janeiro e Regiões Administrativas (RA) - 2000/2010/2013-2016/2020 (Vol. 2020). Instituto Pereira Passos.

23.

Jackson

, Chou

, & Browne

(2015). Protective factors against child victimization in the school and community: An exploratory systematic review of longitudinal predictors and interacting variables. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 18(3), 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015611675

24.

Krug

E. G.

, Dahlberg

L. L.

, Mercy

J. A.

, Zwi

A. B.

, & Rafael

(2002). World report on violence and health . WHO.

25.

Lee

L. K.

, Fleegler

E. W.

, Farrell

, Avakame

, Srinivasan

, Hemenway

, & Monuteaux

M. C.

(2017). Firearm laws and firearm homicides: A systematic review. JAMA Internal Medicine , 177(1), 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7051

26.

Lepore

S. J.

, & Kliewer

(2013). Violence exposure, sleep disturbance, and poor academic performance in middle school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 41(8), 1179-1189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9709-0

27.

Lopes

C. S.

, Moraes

C. L.

, Junger

W. L.

, Werneck

G. L.

, Ponce de Leon

A. C.

, & Faerstein

(2015). Direct and indirect exposure to violence and psychological distress among civil servants in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: A prospective cohort study. BMC Psychiatry , 15, 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0487-9

28.

Mazui

(2019). Mourão: governo foi eleito com pauta de apoio à posse de armas .

29.

Menard

(2002). Short- and long-term consequences of adolescent victimization. Youth Violence Research Bulletin .

30.

Merces

A. F. D.

, Mendes

A. C.

, Celestino

A. P.

, Brandão

L. M. S.

, & Silva

S. P.

(2016). As ações de promoção da solidariedade/cultura de paz e prevenção à violência à criança e adolescente na AP 5.1 sob à ótica da saúde. Revista Saúde em Foco (Rio de Janeiro) , 1(1).

31.

Moreira

D. P.

, Vieira

L. J. E. S.

, Pordeus

A. M. J.

, Lira

S. V. G.

, Luna

G. L. M.

, & Silva

J. G.

et al. (2013). Exposição à violência entre adolescentes de uma comunidade de baixa renda no Nordeste do Brasil. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva , 18(5), 1273-1282. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232013000500012

32.

Murray

, Cerqueira

D. R. d. C.

, & Kahn

(2013). Crime and violence in Brazil: Systematic review of time trends, prevalence rates and risk factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 18(5), 471-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.003

33.

Musumeci

, Ramos

, Paris

L. L.

, Ribeiro

, & Alvadia Filho

(2012). Juventude, violência e polícia [Youth, violence and police: Results of the sample survey]. CESeC, Rio de Janeiro.

34.

Namy

, Carlson

, Norcini Pala

, Faris

, Knight

, Allen

, Devries

, & Naker

(2017). Gender, violence and resilience among Ugandan adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect , 70, 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.06.015

35.

Nascimento

, Uziel

A. P.

, & Hernandez

J. G.

(2018). Young men in juvenile detention centers in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Gender, sexuality, masculinity and health implications. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 34(2), e00177916. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00177916

36.

Educação

Organização das Nações Unidas para a

, & a. C. e. a. C.

(2010). Cultura de paz: da reflexão à ação; balanço da Década Internacional da Promoção da Cultura de Paz e Não Violência em Benefício das Crianças do Mundo . Associação Palas Athena.

37.

Pereira

C. L.

, & Silva

S. S.

(2016). Adolescente em conflito com a lei: revisando as contribuições de variáveis sociais, familiares e individuais. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia , 16, 757-771.

38.

Pinto

L. W.

, & Assis

S. G.

(2013). Violência familiar e comunitária em escolares do município de São Gonçalo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia , 16, 288-300. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-790X2013000200006

39.

Ramos

(2016). Violência e polícia: Três décadas de políticas de segurança no Rio de Janeiro. Boletim Segurança e Cidadania , (21).

40.

Reichenheim

M. E.

, de Souza

E. R.

, Moraes

C. L.

, de Mello Jorge

M. H. P.

, da Silva

C. M. F. P.

, & de Souza Minayo

M. C.

(2011). Violence and injuries in Brazil: The effect, progress made, and challenges ahead. The Lancet , 377(9781), 1962-1975. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60053-6

41.

Ruediger

M. A.

(2017). Educação em alvo: os efeitos da violência armada nas salas de aula . FGV.

42.

Scarpa

(2001). Community violence exposure in a young adult sample: lifetime prevalence and socioemotional effects. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 16(1), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016001003

43.

Scarpa

, Hurley

J. D.

, Shumate

H. W.

, & Haden

S. C.

(2006). Lifetime prevalence and socioemotional effects of hearing about community violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 21(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505281661

44.

Schraiber

L. B.

, D'Oliveira

A. F. P. L.

, & Couto

M. T.

(2006). Violência e saúde: estudos científicos recentes. Revista de Saúde Pública , 40, 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102006000400016

45.

Scorgie

, Baron

, Stadler

, Venables

, Brahmbhatt

, Mmari

, & Delany-Moretlwe

(2017). From fear to resilience: Adolescents’ experiences of violence in inner-city Johannesburg, South Africa. BMC Public Health , 17(Suppl 3), 441. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4349-x

46.

Sickmund

, & Puzzanchera

(2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 National Report . National Center for Juvenile Justice.

47.

Sousa

G. V.

, Bortolini

J. P. G.

, & Miranda

A. L. V.

(2016). A criminalidade juvenil e a relação entre risco e cultura. UniCEUB , 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5102/pic.n1.2015.5412

48.

StataCorp. (2019). Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. StataCorp LLC.

49.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2017). A familiar face: violence in the lives of children and adolescents . UNICEF.

50.

Waiselfisz

J. J.

(2014). Mapa da violência: os jovens do Brasil . Garamond.

51.

Webster

D. W.

, Cerdá

, Wintemute

G. J.

, & Cook

P. J.

(2016). Epidemiologic evidence to guide the understanding and prevention of gun violence. Epidemiologic Reviews , 38(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv018

52.

WHO. (2015). Preventing youth violence: an overview of the evidence . WHO.

53.

WHO. (2017). The global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health (2016–2030). A roadmap based on evidence and country experience: Perspectives . WHO.

54.

Wright

A. W.

, Austin

, Booth

, & Kliewer

(2016). Exposure to community violence and physical health outcomes in youth: A systematic review. Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 42(4), 364-378. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsw088

55.

Ximenes

L. F.

, Assis

S. G.

, Pires

T. O.

, & Avanci

J. Q.

(2013). Violência comunitária e transtorno de estresse pós-traumático em crianças e adolescentes. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica , 26, 443-450. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722013000300003

56.

Zavaschi

M. L.

, Benetti

, Polanczyk

G. V.

, Soles

, & Sanchotene

M. L.

(2002). Adolescents exposed to physical violence in the community: A survey in Brazilian public schools. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública , 12(5), 327-332. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1020-49892002001100006