Community Resilience Trajectories and Their Association with Adolescent Violence: A Latent Transition Analysis

Background A growing body of research has suggested that disadvantaged neighborhoods are associated with elevated youth violence, but most studies focus on static conditions and rely on variable-centered approaches that examine neighborhood indicators in isolation, failing to capture the multidimensional nature of community conditions. Whether longitudinal patterns of community resilience are differentially associated with youth violence remains underexplored. This study uses a person-centered approach to examine how community resilience trajectories from early childhood to adolescence are associated with concurrent youth violence at age 15.

Methods This study uses Wave 5 (age 5), Wave 9 (age 9), and Wave 15 (age 15) data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 3,593). Community resilience was measured using 10 standardized indicators spanning economic development, collective efficacy, physical infrastructure, and community safety. Step 1: Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified three community resilience profiles at each wave — Economy-Led Resourced, Socially Connected/Economically Constrained (Connected/Constrained), and Consistently Moderate-Low — followed by a 3-3-3 Latent Transition Analysis (LTA) with partial measurement invariance. Step 2: The 27 joint trajectory patterns were collapsed into eight trajectory groups. Step 3: A BCH-weighted approach linked trajectory groups to three continuous youth violence outcomes with W matrix diagonal values ranging from .70 to .89. An adjusted model controlled for child sex, parenting stress, and peer delinquency.

Results The unconditional model fit the data adequately (LL = −27,554.39; AIC = 55,176.77; BIC = 55,387.12). Eight trajectory groups were identified: Stable Economy-Led Resourced (40.9%), Stable Moderate-Low (20.3%), Stable Connected/Constrained (3.0%), Improving to Economy-Led Resourced (8.7%), Declining from Economy-Led Resourced (10.1%), Improving from Connected/Constrained (7.9%), Declining into Connected/Constrained (4.3%), and Mixed/Other (4.9%). The Declining group showed substantially higher aggression (M = 6.59) and rule-breaking (M = 3.39) than the Stable Economy-Led Resourced group (M = 1.93, M = 0.75; all p < .001). Declining youth also showed significantly higher violence than Improving youth across all three outcomes (aggression: Δ = 1.85, p = .018; rule-breaking: Δ = 1.02, p = .026; delinquency: Δ = 1.39, p = .025). After covariate adjustment (LL = −26,197.83; AIC = 52,473.65; BIC = 52,714.94), the cost of decline remained significant across all outcomes (aggression p = .022, rule-breaking p = .013, delinquency p = .008). The declining-versus-improving contrast strengthened after adjustment (aggression: Δ = 2.45, p = .030; rule-breaking: Δ = 1.25, p = .039; delinquency: Δ = 2.57, p = .011). Decliners did not assimilate to Stable Moderate-Low violence levels (all p < .034). Notably, improving youth fully caught up to Stable Economy-Led Resourced levels after adjustment (all p > .13), suggesting community improvement can offset earlier disadvantage.

Conclusions and Implications Community resilience trajectories are significantly associated with adolescent violence after accounting for individual-level risk factors. Youth in declining communities show elevated violence that exceeds what their destination community profile would predict. Meanwhile, community improvement is associated with violence levels comparable to stably resourced communities. Findings underscore the need for place-based prevention strategies that both prevent community deterioration and sustain improvement efforts.