Social causes of violence: crafting a science agenda 9780912764269

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
PREFACE (page vii)
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS (page ix)
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION (page 1)
CHAPTER 2 THE SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHY OF VIOLENCE (page 6)
CHAPTER 3 THE COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL CONTEXT (page 13)
CHAPTER 4 CORE SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS (page 21)
CHAPTER 5 SOCIAL GROUPS (page 32)
CHAPTER 6 SOCIAL CONTINGENCIES (page 43)
CHAPTER 7 SOCIAL RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE (page 56)
CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL CONFLICTS AND DISPUTES (page 68)
CHAPTER 9 CRAFTING SCIENCE POLICY (page 72)
CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSION (page 82)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (page 83)
ENDNOTES (page 97)
REFERENCES (page 103)

Citation preview

! including that by gangs. Although particular events and episodes should be understood in context, research that seeks to identify common features of group violence (e.g., organizational structure, social response, timing, duration) can help to explain the routine ways that violence by collectivities manifests itself and why. It is important to study these linkages and how they interact with societal response and community change.

42

CHAPTER 6 | SOCIAL CONTINGENCIES or situation, a number n any social context

a . of contingencies may In any social context or situation, a number of contin- come into play to

; . enaviors iea g to

gencies may come into play to promote or shape behav-

promote or shape

iors leading to violence. In a memorandum prepared for behaviors leadina t the ASA Violence Workshop, McDowall noted the impor- violence. tance of physical instruments, such as firearms, illicit drugs, and mass media 1n influencing violent acts. The factors affecting use of these instruments are complex. While none by themselves necessarily causes violence, under particular social conditions and contexts, they may affect the likelihood, frequency, and degree of violent behavior. Particularly given the dramatic rise in youth violence (and youth risk for violence), all three of these contingencies deserve special attention. The contingent role of guns, drugs, and the mass media

is evident from even a brief consideration of aggregate statistics. For example, while guns are widely available in

society, and clearly not all are used in crimes, they are involved in approximately 40 percent of violent incidents (NCVS 1994, p.83). Similarly, even though not all drinking episodes are followed by violence, numerous studies

show the two are connected (McCord 1993). Further, while violence flows from only a small fraction of the 28 million Americans estimated in the Institute of Medicine report to be taking illegal drugs one or more times a year (Gerstein and Harwood 1990, p. 90), there is no doubt that drugs play a role in the production of violence. Finally, even with what might be considered a neutral factor like the mass media, social science studies show links between viewing violence on television and aggression. GUNS AND VIOLENCE

No issue has raised greater public concern or been more widely associated with increases in violence than the

43

G use and prevalence of guns.>* Researchers have extenuns produce an sively examined various aspects of guns in our society,

enormous amount of including acquisition, possession, and ownership of guns; the injury in violence. patterns of gun use; the role of assailants and victims in gun use; effects of firearms on violence rates and on crime reduction; deterrent effects of weapons; costs to society of gun use; and the impact of gun control regulation. While much remains to be done, our understanding of the role of firearms in violence has been significantly advanced from

| these studies.

The Presence and Impact of Guns

Guns produce an enormous amount of the injury in violence. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS 1994, p. 83), in 1992 over 900,000 violent crimes involved guns, and approximately 80 percent of these crimes involved handguns. Furthermore, the majority of these gun crimes were assaults that did not involve theft or rape. Although guns are used in different forms of violent acts beyond assaults (e.g., in almost half of the

, robberies), guns are most strongly linked to homicides: The 1994 Uniform Crime Reports indicated that 70.0 percent of all murders involved a gun—for a total of 15,456 such murders. In sharp contrast, only 12.7 percent of all murders were perpetrated by knives or other instruments (UCR 1995, p. 18). National and selected city data consis-

tently show that about two thirds of family homicides, homicides among friends, and stranger homicides involve guns (Riedel and Zahn 1983; Zahn 1993).

44 ,

Demographic Patterns in Firearm Homicides

The use of guns in homicides is not evenly distributed across population subgroups. As pointed out in the section

on social demography, death and injury in criminal violence from firearms are especially pronounced in the younger age groups and among minorities. Based on data from 1979 to

1989, Fingerhut, Ingram, and Feldman (1992, p. 3048)

reported that firearm homicide is the second leading cause

of death for 15 to 19 year olds, and it is increasing more Firearm homicide is rapidly than any other cause of death. Also, these data show the second leading that, regardless of the level of urbanization, young Black cause of death for 15

males are at far greater risk of injury and death in gun- fo 19 year olds, and if related incidents than any other demographic group. The is Increasing more NAS Violence Report indicated that in 1989 the risk of gun rapidly than any other homicides for Blacks outnumbered Whites in the age group cause of death. from 15 to 19 by a factor of 11:1 (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 257). In addition to bearing a disproportionate burden as

murder victims by gunshot, young Black males are also more likely to be perpetrators of gun-related violence.

Attributes Associated with Gun Violence

Scientific research also suggests that people who use guns in violent attacks are more violent than those who use other types of weapons (Kleck 1991, p. 166, 171). A reanalysis of prison survey data from 1982 by Wright and Rossi

(1986, pp. 108-109) indicated that, in general, "the gun owners in this sample committed armed crime at a much higher rate than the nonowners." As a group, gun users tended to own more guns, they tended to keep their guns loaded and carry them habitually (usually for defensive purposes), and they tended to fire their guns frequently. More-

over, most of the men in the study had used a gun in the course of committing a crime for which they were convicted "most frequently to intimidate the victim." But, emphasizing self-protection, few of these men reported that they planned to fire their weapons. RESEARCH DIRECTIONS*

Important directions for research on guns and violence should include the following: *This section of the report builds on the working memorandum prepared by David McDowall for the 1993 ASA Violence Workshop.

45

QO Gun acquisition and ownership. While we know

Imp ortant research that gun ownership and use vary widely across the United remains to be done States, more nuanced data are needed about its distribuon the factors that tional properties by locale. Currently there is little infor-

influence gun mation about firearm density for units smaller than broad ownership, patterns of regions of the nation. Data aggregated at the level of cities carrying and using or other small areas are essential to illuminating structural guns, and variations in issues related to guns and violence and to making inter-

attitudes toward gun area comparisons. Future research should examine the

control. prevalence of firearms in certain groups (e.g., their seeming greater presence among the young) and the routes of access to illegal firearms.>> Also, studies should be undertaken on the organizational dynamics of the illicit market

in guns, related violence, and the impact of different police enforcement tactics in different locales.

Q Availability of guns. Much more research is needed about the relative contribution of gun availability to violence rates, net of other variables. The few existing studies are only suggestive (e.g., Cook 1979; McDowall 1990); more refined estimates would be desirable. For example, it is essential to examine the differential effects of gun own-

ership across different social contexts, including selfdefense. Important research remains to be done on the factors that influence gun ownership, patterns of carrying and using guns, and variations in attitudes toward gun control. Research on cultural or group norms (e.g., of youths generally or youth gangs) and their impact on possession and use of guns should be included in any agenda of work.

QO Lethality of weapons. While we know that gun attacks have a higher probability of killing victims than do other weapons,** we need to better understand what these data mean. Research (e.g., Wright, Rossi, and Daly 1983,

p. 189-212) suggests that the properties of weapons account for at least some of the differences in the lethality

of guns (see also Roth 1994a). Future research should examine the extent to which lethality is due to the instru46

ment itself in contrast to the intentions and motivations of

the attacker. Also, the widespread availability of guns for Desp ite ambiguity in

self defense suggests the need to study the purposes the nexus between underlying acquisition and use of guns and whether over- drugs and violence,

all self defense reduces or increases violence. available data point fo drugs as a factor in

DRUGS AND VIOLENCE violence. The use of drugs, including alcohol, is a second major contingency affecting the occurrence of violence. Even if

gaps in knowledge exist about the precise connection between drugs and violence, available evidence suggests that the two are related (Goldstein 1990, p. 300; BJS Drug Report 1992, p. 5). As the NAS Violence Report empha-

sized, "[t]he link among alcohol, other psychoactive drugs, and violence turns out to be not an example of straightforward causation, but rather a network of interacting processes and feedback loops" (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 183).

The Presence and Impact of Drugs Despite ambiguity about the nexus between drugs and violence, available data point to drugs as a factor in violence. The NAS Violence Report noted that 60 percent of arrestees were found to have used at least one illegal drug

proximal to their arrest (Roth 1994b, p. 3). Similarly, based on a study of 414 homicides in New York, Goldstein (1993) reported that 53 percent were drug-related, with 32 percent involving crack cocaine. Further, he found that 39 percent of all homicides (74 percent of drug-related homicides) occurred in the course of drug distribution (see also Goldstein, Brownstein, and Ryan 1992). Also, as reported

by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS Drug Report 1992, p. 6), the vast majority of assailants (79 percent) in drug-related homicides knew their victims in comparison to non-drug related homicides (48 percent). In addition, handguns were much more likely to be involved in drug

47

M versus non-drug related homicides (80 percent in contrast uch of the drug- to 47 percent).

related violence flows

not from biological Violence in the Drug Market factors per se, but from Research shows that violence is inextricably linked to

social conditions the market place for drugs. Goldstein (1985) emphasized surrounding drug use that violence stems from transactional disagreements or and the presence of turf wars in drug trafficking. Violence relating to the mardrugs in illicit markets. ket can occur in such situations as robbery for drugs or stealing money from the seller or the buyer; the intrusion

of new organizational units into older established drug markets; punishment over the quality of drugs or unwillingness to share; and attacks on police, informants, or witnesses (Reiss and Roth 1993, pp. 202-203; Roth 1994b, p. 5; BJS Drug Report 1992, p. 5). While there is only limited information on specific aspects of this market in relation to violence (and little to distinguish this illegal market from the potentially greater proclivity of drug buyers and sellers for violence), the data underscore its importance as a social context.

Drug Use and Violence

Extant studies on the effects of illegal drugs on the manifestation of violence underscore the complexity of these connections and the importance of social, situational, and cultural factors in mediating these links. Much of the drug-related violence flows not from biological factors per se, but from social conditions surrounding drug use and the presence of drugs in illicit markets. For example, Goldstein's study (1985) showed that approximately 75 percent of the drug-related homicides were related to

drug trafficking. In comparison, only 15 percent of the drug-related homicides were related to the pharmacological effects of the drugs themselves on the offender. Based on these and other data, Goldstein (1993, p. 93) saw no

empirical basis for public fears that drugs produced “crazed killers' due to their use of illicit substances." 48

There is much more research on alcohol, a legal drug,

and violence than on illegal drugs. Studies suggest the The links between possibility of a link between alcohol use and violence alcohol and violence (see, e.g., Collins 1993; Fagan 1993).°° Summarizing must be understood in research over several decades, the NAS Violence Panel light of a range of found that alcohol was used by the offender or victim factors, including immediately before more than half of all violent events. situational and The NAS Violence Report stressed, however, that these cultural dynamics. data alone do not "demonstrate that alcohol use increases the risk of violence" (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 184). Analysts caution about drawing inferences of causality from

co-occurrence (McCord 1993) and emphasize that the links between alcohol and violence must be understood in light of a range of factors, including situational and cul-

tural dynamics. For example, Roth (1994b, p. 5) noted that "[c]onnections between drinking and violence have been identified by researchers in many countries with pre-

dominantly European cultures. But they have not been found in many tribal and folk societies, even where binge drinking is common." RESEARCH DIRECTIONS*

Important directions for research on drugs and violence should include the following:

QO Context of drug distribution. While studies to date

help to explain how the drug market links to violence, much more research is needed on the social structure and context of drug distribution. A priority topic for research is the connection between drug dealing and violence. Data suggest that violence varies according to the type of "business" or drug market (crack cocaine and heroin, for exam-

ple, have very different market structures, with more

*Troy Duster and Joan McCord led the 1993 ASA Violence Workshop in identifying research opportunities regarding drugs and violence.

49

layers in the organization of the heroin market). Yet, stud-

While we know that ies should examine how these variable markets actually violence may occur operate, points of origin and destination in the market, and

because of the the implications of these features for violence (including business aspect of its locations). Also, studies should address whether drug drug transactions, markets promulgate rules that are likely to legitimize the larger economic use of violence and whether drug markets may mature and issues are also at stake change in their need for violence. Finally, research must

that may lead to turn to whether drug markets attract people with different

violence. propensities for or norms about violence. O Economic aspects of drug violence. While we know that violence may occur because of the business aspect of drug transactions, larger economic issues are also at stake that may lead to violence. Further studies should examine how alternative illegal economies (including drug sales) function to provide a livelihood, and how economic needs and incentives may lead to the use of vio-

lence. Research must identify and assess the links between such secondary markets as renting storefronts or providing lookout jobs and a community's adjustment to illegal markets, irrespective of the violence engendered

(Fagan 1992, p. 135). Similarly, the overall economic impact of drug dealing, which provides for new lifestyles or brings income to families at a level that could not be easily matched from work in the legal labor market, needs further investigation.

QO Community context of drug-related violence. Beyond drug trafficking per se, other dynamics in the community may create the conditions ripe for drug-related

_ violence. Much more research is needed on the interactions between changes in the community and in the drug market over time. The influx of the crack market in the 1980s, for example, and the transition to new organizational structures may have produced more violent activity generally in the community. The contours of such violence (including indirect effects like bystander shootings) 50

and the frequency and location of their occurrence require S . attention. Further studies should focus on the impact of tudies to date have such factors as outmigration of stable families with ties to paid insufficient the legitimate economy, loss of economic opportunities in attention fo contextual neighborhoods, reduction of job access and job networks, factors that may link and breakdown of social institutions (including justice- violence and drug use. related ones) and moral authority in the community on drug-related violence (Fagan 1992, p. 134; Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 203-204; Roth 1994b, p. 6).

QO Drug use and violence. Future research should examine the links between drug use, including alcohol use, and violence. Studies to date have paid insufficient attention to contextual factors that may link violence and drug use. Further work is needed on when, where, and by whom violence-related drug consumption occurs; whether the involvement in drug use is situational or habitual; and whether cultural norms justify its use. Research on the ‘social function of alcohol/illicit drug use and the availability of social networks of support among different groups and in different communities can help to explain the conditions under which co-occurrence of consumption and violence occurs. So too our understanding of the drug/ alcohol connection to violence requires studies of incidents in which drinking or drugs are not related to violence, so that these events can be distinguished from those which do produce violent acts. MASS MEDIA AND VIOLENCE

The third contingency that may affect the expression of

violence is the media. Research on media influence has focused largely on television "because it has become the most extensively used medium, especially among children" (Garofalo 1990, p. 322). The fact that almost all American households have at least one television points to

the potential pervasiveness of its impact on individuals and groups and the power of its socialization effects on

51

youths (see, e.g., Simon 1995, pp. 80-82).

Research shows the The influence of television violence has received conconnections of siderable research attention since 1969 when the Surgeon television violence to General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television aggressive attitudes and Social Behavior began its work. Based on an assessand behaviors over ment of the literature and commissioned studies, that time and across Advisory Committee issued the first major report and five demographic groups. companion volumes in 1972 demonstrating a strong association between exposure to television violence and social behavior in children and youth. © Ten years later, in 1982,

the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH 1982) undertook an analogous report reaching the very same conclusion. Similarly, in 1992, the American Psychological Association took another ten-year look at the relationship between media violence and aggressive behavior and emphasized that research shows the connections of television violence to aggressive attitudes and behaviors over time and across demographic groups.

An excellent overview and synthesis of scientific research on the linkages between television viewing, aggression, and violence was published by Donnerstein, Slaby, and Eron (1994, pp. 219-250).°’ In a paper prepared for the ASA Workshop, Zahn (1993, p. 9) appropriately reminded us that "the effects [of television violence]

are not uniform for all children or for all people since some are more prone to be affected by violence than others." Yet, data from laboratory and field studies, including longitudinal research, yield "one overriding finding: The mass media are significant contributors to the aggressive behavior and aggression-related attitudes of many children, adolescents, and adults" (Donnerstein, Slaby, and Eron 1994, p. 219). In 1993, the NAS Violence Panel made similar obser-

vations. Based on a meta-analysis of 188 studies and 1,126 comparisons between 1957 and 1990 by Comstock

and Paik (1990), the NAS Panel emphasized that the

52

effects of television on violence are quite substantial:

"Overall, the vast majority of studies, whatever their The relationship methodology, showed that exposure to television violence between media resulted in increased aggressive behavior, both contempo- images and popular raneously and over time" (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 371). views of violence,

The dominant conclusion from the NAS Violence perceptions of the Panel and other study groups underscores the role of tele- dangers of violence, vision violence as a contingency affecting aggressive and and even solutions fo violent behavior.°® Especially because of the potential the violence problem influence of television on the socialization of our youth, are fopics ripe for

continuing research on how and in what ways the mass research. media and television link to violence remains key. As shown below, the scope of this research should focus not just on adverse consequences of violence coverage in television and other media forms but also on the potential role of the media in encouraging prosocial behavior. RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Important directions for research on media influences and violence should include the following: QO The when and why of media impact on violence. Future research should focus on the effects of different media forms (e.g., TV news, TV programming, movies, videos, videogames, newspaper depictions) on violence, how circumstances surrounding violence depictions affect its impact, who is likely to be affected by violent messages, and in what ways. The relationship between media images and popular views of violence, perceptions of the dangers of violence, and even solutions to the violence problem are topics ripe for research. Studies too could

usefully examine how youth culture depicted by the media, including in advertising, may encourage crime and violence (Short 1995). While studies have focused on the influence of media

violence on children, consistent with the recommendations of the APA Violence and Youth Report (1993, p. 67-

53

More 68), more research is necessary on which children are research is most susceptible to media violence and why, and on what necessary on which factors insulate the young from potentially adverse conse-

children are most quences. Study of the media should further examine the susceptible fo media nature and duration of its impact and the long-term socialviolence and why, and ization effects on manifestations of aggression and vioon what factors insulate lence. Also, the relative contribution of media exposure

the young from (especially TV) in relation to other forms of witnessing potentially adverse violence (e.g., in the home, school, or neighborhood) must

consequences. be unraveled.

O Linkages between media violence and fear. The dominance of violence in the media both as news and as "entertainment" contributes to public perceptions of risk in familiar settings (e.g., the home) and in frequently used public places (e.g., schools, public transportation). Much more research is needed not only about how mass communication may reinforce a sense of the social acceptability or prevalence of violence but also about how it may reinforce fears about personal vulnerability or the randomness of violence. Studies should examine how and under what circumstances fear is likely to result from media depictions of violence, the factors that explain different understandings and perceptions of violence and risk, and the

relationship between mass media exposure and other sources of information (e.g., peer groups, family networks) that may inflate or reduce fear about violence and victimization.

QO The role of media in creating norms against violence. Also, it is important to better understand how mass communication can be used to prevent violence and exaggerated concerns about vulnerability and fear. There needs

to be much more research, including evaluation studies, that addresses the potential use of television programming for reducing and preventing violence as well as for altering stereotypes regarding violent offenders. For example,

consistent with the recommendations of the NAS Child

54

Abuse and Neglect Report (UCAN 1993, p. 354-355) and

the APA Violence and Youth Report (1993, p. 35), the The media can play media can play an important role in substantive program- an important role in ' ming as well as in providing information and disseminat- substantive ing research knowledge about violence prevention. The programming as well impact of such strategies on public attitudes, perceptions, as in providing awareness, and behaviors should be rigorously and sys- information and

tematically assessed. disseminating research knowledge about violence prevention.

55

White much of our CHAPTER 7

consideration of SOCIAL RESPONSE TO violence has focused V| OC) LF N C E on cause and the social

and behavioral While much of our consideration of violence has dynamics underlying focused on cause and the social and behavioral dynamics occurrence, it is also underlying occurrence, it is also important to reflect on important to reflect on what we know about social response. Formal and informal what we know about responses include intervention and social control mecha-

social response. nisms for dealing with violent expressions as well as prevention strategies. Here too, social scientific research offers important knowledge and generates critical working hypotheses.

The primary social institution charged with dealing with violence is the criminal justice system. Generally speaking, the goal of criminal justice institutions and agents (e.g., police, courts, and corrections) is to ensure public safety by deterring violence or by punishing, incapacitating, or rehabilitating offenders. Most typically, the

criminal justice system is studied in terms of its law enforcement functions. From this perspective, the system

is comprised of multiple organizations and decisional points starting with the occurrence of an event and contact

with the police and ending with some form of disposition.?” Especially the police, though, play an important role in prevention as well as enforcement. POLICING

The social science literature on policing is sizable and spans several decades (e.g., Banton 1964; Skolnick 1966; Reiss and Bordua 1967; Wilson 1968; Black and Reiss 1970; Reiss 1971; Manning 1977; Rumbaut and Bittner 1979; Smith 1986; Sherman 1986, 1992; Skogan 1990; Skolnick and Fyfe 1993). Studies have focused on a wide range of topics including police-citizen encounters, the use of discretion, the impact of organizational constraints 56

on policing, the effects of excessive force, and variations R in policing across communities in relation to crime gener- esearch suggests ally, including violent crime. This research adds to our important variations understanding of policing as a social response to violence in police behavior by

and shows the importance of attending to context and city and

community. neighborhood. Community Differences in Policing

Despite similarities in the culture and functions of policing over time and location, research suggests impor-

tant variations in police behavior by city and neighborhood (Geller and Scott 1991; Horvath 1987). For example,

based on a study of policing in sixty neighborhoods in three large U.S. cities, Smith found that arrests were more

likely in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods and that police were more likely to use "coercive force" against

suspects in primarily "non-White" or racially mixed neighborhoods and in transient locations (1986, p. 329). Furthermore, Smith (p. 328) observed an "ecological con-

tamination" or stereotyping extending to all persons within a neighborhood: Independent of the crime type, Blacks were handled more coercively in Black than in

White neighborhoods. The potential for differential behavior by police is also suggested by the fact that police were far less inclined to report victimizations of Blacks in

either Black or White neighborhoods.” (See also Hagan

1994, p. 150-151; HRY 1993, pp. 160-161.) | The Context of Policing Domestic Violence Domestic violence is the most prevalent form of violent

crime encountered by the police (Sherman 1992, p. 1). Until recently, police were reluctant to make arrests for such domestic assaults,” and health and social service institutions were equally hesitant to intervene. In 1981-82,

Sherman undertook a field experiment in Minneapolis which used randomized arrest, counseling, and separation of the couple after reported episodes of spouse assault. The 57

F results of this experiment and the ones that followed in six or domestic other cities attest to the complexity of dealing with violence

violence, arrest alone and the limitations of oversimplified responses that are not has little effect on aligned with contextual circumstances (Sherman 1992).

those who have less While arrest was ostensibly effective in Minneapolis, stake in conformity data from the six other cities suggest that the impact of and who already feel arrest varies in different communities, neighborhoods, and excluded from or subgroups of the population. This research showed that, for disaffected with the unemployed males of low socioeconomic status, mandatory

system. arrest without incarceration seems to escalate violence, instead of deterring it. This pattern suggests that, for domestic violence, arrest alone has little effect on those who have less stake in conformity and who already feel excluded from or disaffected with the system (Sherman 1992, pp. 154-187; Sherman and Smith 1992).

The Context of Proactive Enforcement Extant research has also examined proactive enforcement strategies and the importance of context (see, e.g., Hagan 1994, pp. 145-147; Sherman 1986, pp. 362-372). As

might be expected, when aggressive methods are used, results vary by situation and circumstance. Sherman (1986, pp. 370-371) reported that greatly enhanced police presence

(termed saturation patrol) has some positive effects on crime reduction: Based on controlled experiments in Kansas City and Indianapolis, he found that deploying gunintercept patrols in high-crime neighborhoods substantially

reduces homicide and gun-related crimes (Butterfield 1994). Across contexts, however, there are indicators that such effects may be temporary (lasting only as long as the intervention) and may only displace crime to other loca-

tions. For example, research tracking street sweeps and crackdowns on the illicit drug market showed that markets are displaced to other locations and may return after intenSive strategies abate (BJS Drug Report 1992, p. 152; Reiss and Roth 1993, pp. 209-210).

58

Community Policing and Fear-reduction F | | Some of the mixed effects of proactive enforcement nhanced interaction have led to community policing, which embraces a variety ofp olice in the of prevention strategies more fully integrated into neigh- community oealie 0 borhood life (Skogan 1990; Skolnick and Bayley 1986; reduce significantly Skolnick and Fyfe 1993; Sherman 1986; Bursik and Gras- fear of crime in

mick 1993). Yet, studies of the effects of community targeted policing on crime reduction yield inconclusive results. For neighborhoods. example, research shows no decrease in victimization in Houston and Newark after the introduction of community policing in selected neighborhoods (Bursik and Grasmick

1993, p. 175). Nevertheless, enhanced interaction of police in the community seems to reduce significantly fear of crime in targeted neighborhoods (Skogan 1990, pp. 89124). As Skogan (1990, p. 117) observed about Newark,

service." | "both social and physical disorder went down, fear of

crime went down, neighborhood satisfaction went up, and

residents were more satisfied with the quality of police

INCARCERATION

As a societal response, incarceration seeks to reduce violence and punish violent offenders. Beyond the goal of ret-

ribution, prisons aim to reduce violence through incapacitation and deterrence. Research indicates that about 55 percent of the inmate population is incarcerated for vio-

lent crimes, mainly in state prisons where most violent offenders are institutionalized (M. Cohen, Miller, and Ross-

man 1994, p. 147; J. Cohen and Canelo-Cacho 1994, p. 297). As the NAS Violence Report indicated, "[b]etween 1975 and 1989, the inmate population nearly tripled, while reported annual violent crime levels varied around the level of about 2.9 million" (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 292). The

erowing use of incarceration clearly reflects not just increases in the offending population and rates of offending

but also public policies that favor incarceration as a

59

response strategy (J. Cohen and Canelo-Cacho 1994, p.

The central issue is not 311). whether violent crime

increases if The Effects of Incarceration on Violence incarceration is totally Extant research questions the effects of incarceration on eliminated, but whether violence. The NAS Violence Report (Reiss and Roth 1993, marginal changes in p. 291) emphasized that the central issue is not whether vioincarceration policy lent crime increases if incarceration is totally eliminated (of

produce a net course, it does), but whether marginal changes in incarcerareduction in violence. tion policy produce a net reduction in violence. Thus far, studies have consistently found that the reduction of crime that can be directly attributed to incarceration (known as

"Incapacitative effects") are relatively small (see, e.g., Greenberg 1975; Petersilia and Greenwood 1978; Van Dine, Conrad, and Dinitz 1979). Although Cohen and Canela-Cacho (1994, p. 355) expressed concerns about underestimates, they reported that "the reduction in violent crimes due to incapacitation is estimated to have been very modest—only 5 to 10 percent of potential violent crimes prevented."*?

Over the past two decades, there has been an emphasis on identifying and selectively incarcerating "dangerous populations" in order to control violence in society (Hagan 1994, p. 158-164). Extant studies raise questions about the logic, validity, and feasibility of this approach. In reanalyzing the 1982 Rand Selective Incapacitation data (Greenwood and Abrahamse 1982), Visher (1986) cautioned that far more work is needed to identify characteristics of highrate offenders and to develop predictive tools before any crime-reduction effects through selective incapacitation are

warranted. Also, researchers question whether work on criminal careers (Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, and Visher 1986) supports the strategy of selective incapacitation: As Hagan (1994, p. 164) observed, despite a concentrated pattern of

highly active offenders, the ability to predict offending is limited, and criminal careers tend to be short-lived, are not specialized, and "age out" at relatively young ages. 60

General Deterrent Effects T | 7 Also, there is no empirical basis for the contention that here is no empirical

; , ; , , , basis for the

incarceration for violent crime deters the expression of vio- .

lence by others. In 1978, the National Academy of Sciences contention that Panel on Deterrence and Incapacitation found little support incarceration for

; violentCohen, crimeand deters for a deterrence effect ;(Blumstein, Naginthe 1978).44 So too, in 1993, the NAS Violence Panel (Reiss expression of violence

and Roth 1993, p. 293) emphasized that, although by others. "[m]ethodological problems prevent sound estimates of

deterrence effects. . . . the flat trend in violent crimes between 1975 and 1989 in the face of a tripling in the average prison time served per crime is not compatible with any substantial deterrence effect. .. ." The fact that incarceration does not seem to deter violent crime, coupled with the very real possibility of exposure to and learning about violence in prison, raises for many analysts (e.g., Hagan 1994, pp. 166-167; Blumstein 1995) questions about the effectiveness and efficiency of prisons as a primary response strategy. RESEARCH DIRECTIONS*

Study of the criminal justice system as a "formal" response to crime and violence should continue. Yet, our knowledge about the impact of societal response 1s relatively limited, in part because research has focused almost exclusively on the criminal justice system and on specific

criminal justice responses rather than on the broader "response environment." Scientific research on other response sectors like the mental health, public health, and

social service systems is also necessary. How society responds to violence, the full spectrum of formal and infor-

mal responses, the conditions that shape or change these responses, and the links among them are all integral to

*Rosemary Gartner and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., led the 1993 ASA Violence Workshop in identifying research opportunities regarding organized response to violence.

61

understanding the manifestation and control of violence.

Much more research Important directions for research on organized responses

is needed on to violence should include the following: community policing

and other efforts to CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

deter violence through QO Policing. Given that the police are the law enforceP arinership s with ment professionals most in touch with the public, continued

communities. study of their role and changing role is essential. We know that policing can affect the reduction of fear and potentially

the reduction of violence in a community. Yet, future research must examine the circumstances under which these effects occur. For example, research should focus on the impact of intensifying police efforts or of overpolicing

certain groups (e.g, protestors, minority groups). Also, much more research is needed on community policing and

other efforts to deter violence through partnerships with communities. In addition, new studies can illuminate what mix of structures and policing strategies are effective given the diversity of community needs. QO Crime reduction and control. While the extant liter-

ature provides important insights and hypotheses about crime reduction and prevention strategies, further study is needed about the effects of long-term incarceration, and the

impact of different sanctioning and correctional policies. Given the crisis of prison overcrowding and what seem to be modest incapacitative effects based on incarceration, research on the efficacy of prison and the impact of alterna-

tives remains key. As the NAS Criminal Careers Panel observed, "it is still uncertain, whether time spent in prison

has an individual deterrent effect on some offenders, in terms of reducing their postincarceration criminal activity, or a criminogenic effect, in terms of increasing individual crime rates and lengthening criminal careers" (Blumstein et al. 1986, p. 204).

QO Crime control and the prediction of violence. The distance already traveled in building knowledge about pun-

62

ishment and incarceration only underscores the value of a

long-term research agenda. Extensive research is needed on Ex ensive research is the social and situational factors affecting the probability of needed on the social violent acts, both first-time occurrences and repeated inci- and situational factors

dents. For example, the next phase of research should affecting the examine different forms of "criminal careers" and distin- probability of violent guish the criminal careers of serious offenders (i.e., "career acts, both firsttime

offenders") from "low-rate," less dangerous offenders occurrences and (Visher 1986). Also essential are further studies of criminal repeated incidents. careers (Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, and Visher 1986) over a diverse set of environments and for different offenders and offense types (see also Cohen 1983, p. 75). In addition, methodological research should be done that assesses the reliability, validity, and comparability of data and measurements used to predict high-rate, violent offenders. These same points were emphasized by Chaiken, Chaiken, and Rhodes (1994, p. 279) in synthesizing research on prediction for the NAS Violence Panel (see also S. Gottfredson and D. Gottfredson 1986). QO The social organization of criminal justice. Far too neglected to date, future research should examine the criminal justice system itself in order to illuminate how different parts of the system affect each other. Studies are needed that assess the effects on criminal justice institutions of policy

changes addressed to violence. For example, research should address what happens to the workforce of a criminal

justice organization, its operating goals, and its effectiveness when it turns from an enforcement to a prevention emphasis or vice versa. It is important for research to focus

not only on parts of the system but also on interaction effects across agencies of law enforcement and crime con-

trol. Also, it is important to examine the extent to which economic, political, and social factors shape the development of criminal justice policies relating to violence as well as the impact of these policies.*°

63

D MENTAL HEALTH AND PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS oP ve popular QO) Violence and the role of the mental health system.

. Over the yearsconclude researchers have sought to unravel studies that ; the proconceptions, most

most contributes Do,

mental disorder ot pensity for violence among the mentally ill (e.g., Mona-

han and Steadman 1994) and the factors that explain when

minimally to violence. and why the mental health system versus the criminal jus-

tice system is invoked (e.g., Teplin 1984; Warren 1982). Despite popular conceptions, most studies conclude that mental disorder at most contributes minimally to violence (Menzies and Webster 1989; Mulvey 1994). A recurrent theme in this work, however, is the importance of focusing research on social contexts in which violence occurs and by which it is handled. Further work is essential on such

issues as the impact of deinstitutionalization on the increasing number of mentally ill persons living in abject circumstances, patterns of interaction between the criminal justice and mental health systems over time*® (e.g., Steadman and Morrissey 1987), the determinants of more or less serious violence (e.g., Mulvey and Lidz 1993), and the role of dangerousness predictions in the handling of both mental illness and violence (e.g., Monahan 1981, 1992; Monahan and Shah 1989; Shah 1990).

Q Violence and its impact on public health institutions. Beyond the criminal justice and mental health systems, public health institutions most directly deal with

violence on a day-to-day basis. The enormous burden placed on emergency room and rehabilitation facilities from gun injuries alone has made violence a major public

health problem and a crucial arena for further study. Future research should emphasize the frequency and forms of violence most typically handled by health-care facilities and how health professional and organizations go about the process of dealing with this work.

O Public health as a response strategy. The public health system is well positioned to play a role in violence

prevention and intervention. As the NAS Child Abuse64

Neglect Report (UCAN 1993, p. 20) emphasized, private

practitioners, community health clinics, and hospitals are Lite is known about often the first points of contact for abused children (and by how health-care analogy for other victims of violence), but little is known professionals and about how health-care professionals and institutions func- institutions function fo tion to detect, observe, intervene in, or potentially prevent detect, observe, violent behavior. We need more research, for example, on infervene in, or

the effect of doctor-patient relationships on attributing potentially prevent responsibility for intentional injury, and on whether care- violent behavior. givers are likely to identify violence as a cause of injury. Increased study is needed on how different aspects of the health delivery system perform as intervention points and the effectiveness of different response strategies (including referrals) in preventing recurrences. QO) Public health perspectives on risk. Analytic techniques and methods used in epidemiology can further our understanding of the risk factors (places, times, and circumstances) associated with violence, and help to identify those persons and groups most at risk. Further research should examine how public health institutions define violence (e.g., how doctors record information on child abuse in emergency rooms), how they attribute injuries to violence, and how record keeping and data collection systems are constructed and used. While public health procedures

may not be designed to deal with individual violent , offenders, as Moore et al. (1994, p. 183) emphasized, they may be valuable in identifying "aggregate patterns of violence that might be alleviated by preventive social interventions." SOCIAL SERVICES AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Q Detection and response. Because social service agencies and social organizations routinely deal with people in their everyday lives, they too are sites for detecting

and handling violence. To date, there is little research

65

mapping the probability of detecting violence by persons

New studies should working in these settings and how they deal with indicaaddress the role of tors of violence. Much more research is needed on how social service agencies child protective services operate and the effects of their and organizations in practices on identifying child abuse. New studies should confronting violence address the role of social service agencies and organizaand the factors that tions in confronting violence and the factors that account account for different for different response and coping mechanisms (including response and coping avoidance) used by professionals and other personnel. mechanisms.

QO Impact of intervention programs. Over recent years a variety of intervention strategies have evolved to

reduce the incidence of violence. Research, however, directed to understanding the role of social service agencies and workers as intervention points and the impact of violence reduction programs has been largely absent. Rigorous evaluations, for example, should be undertaken of

the intended and unintended consequences of parental training programs and other strategies to reduce the incidence of child abuse (see also UCAN 1993, pp. 268-278). So too, while the shelter movement and other programs for abused women have existed for over a decade, systematic evaluations of their effectiveness are largely absent. Research should also address the full range of responses (e.g., arrests, treatment, shelters) to incidents of family violence and the impact of various counselling and treatment programs (e.g., anger control programs for abusers, the effects of peace bonds, the effects of stalking bonds) provided by the social service system and by public interest, voluntary, religious, or private enterprise groups (see also Reiss and Roth 1993, pp. 246-247). A SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE

The complexity of violence requires attention to the full spectrum of contexts that deal with violence and the interactions and interplay among them. Currently, research on response mechanisms tends to be concentrated on only one

66

type of organized response—and frequently on only one

subset (e.g., policing and arrests). There is a possibility not Our understands ng of only that this approach may yield an unrepresentative sense societal response

of the range of violence experienced by victims or wit- would be enriched by nesses, but also that agencies and organizations themselves research frameworks select certain types of cases to which to respond. In reality, that take full account organized responses to any form of violence are interrelated of the complexities of

and interdependent. The role of one context or set of our social world. responses conditions the probability of actions by others and vice versa.

An agenda of research on violence must allow for the accumulation of systematic evidence on various organized responses, and for evaluation of the range of organized responses simultaneously. To this end, it is important to develop integrated models that consider response strategies across formal legal institutions and processes, public and private sector organizations, and even informal voluntary associations. Earlier we emphasized that a full under-

standing of the determinants of violence requires consideration of a range of situational and contextual factors. So too our understanding of societal response would be enriched by research frameworks that take full account of the complexities of our social world.

67

Research that CHAPTER 8 considers violence SOCIAL CONFLICTS AND within a broader DISPUTES landscape of disputes

can inform our Much of the violence in society occurs between people understanding of the who have some degree of contact or association. The Unisituational factors that form Crime Reports (UCR 1995, p. 17) and the National lead to violence and Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS 1994, p. 56) indicate what mediates their that, in 40 percent or more of the crime incidents (47 per-

effects. cent with homicide), victims and assailants have a personal connection (e.g, relative, friend, neighbor). It is reasonable to assume that, in some large fraction of these situations, violence reflects the escalation of a conflict or dispute. Even in situations where a direct personal relationship does not exist, often a perceived dispute or generalized sense of being wronged precipitates violence. A CROSS-CUTTING RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE

Analyzing violence from the vantage of disputing can

enhance our explanatory models and also yield some promising strategies for prevention and intervention. Research that considers violence within a broader landscape of disputes can inform our understanding of the situational factors that lead to violence and what mediates their effects. Much more needs to be known about the cumulative processes and circumstances through which grievances, disputes, and attributions of blame act on individuals as catalysts that produce violence rather than more

acceptable forms of behavior. Except for instances of predatory crime, violence typically occurs as an outcome of social events or interactions—often starting with a real

or perceived disagreement, building to a dispute, and transforming into violent conflict.

A research agenda that considers violence within a framework of conflicts, disputes, and the potential for dis-

pute resolution focuses attention on the conditions that 68

lead individuals and groups to express violence, the fac- R tors that affect its manifestation and inhibition, and the igorous research impact of various formal and informal responses (e.g., should emphasize within the community, neighborhood, school, or criminal what gives rise to justice system) on its promotion or reduction.*’ Such a disputes between

framework can illuminate how violence evolves from individuals, between everyday social exchanges among intimates, acquaintan- groups, and within ces, colleagues, co-workers (e.g., for youths, other stu- and across dents; for adults, other employees), or even occasional communities. contacts (e.g., local merchants). Also, it can illuminate how individual- or group-level grievances (e.g., based on

inequalities in the distribution of power and resources) may take their form in hate crimes (e.g., xenophobia, homophobia, racism), inter-group violence, and other forms of collective aggression. RESEARCH DIRECTIONS*

Important directions for research on social conflicts and disputes should include the following:

O The sources of conflict giving rise to violence. We need to better understand the nature of grievances that lead to violence. Rigorous research should emphasize what gives rise to disputes between individuals, between groups, and within and across communities and should

examine differences in the frequency, concentration, or type of conflicts associated with violence. Also, studies should address variations in conflict by age, gender, ethnicity, or social class as well as by time and location. For example, in some cultures "dissing" or feeling the disrespect of others is so significant that a youth being "dissed"

through an odd look or a critical comment about one's mother or girlfriend can provoke a violent response.”®

*Richard B. Felson and Margaret A. Zahn led the 1993 ASA Violence Workshop in identifying research opportunities for examining violence from the perspective of conflicts and disputes.

69

QO The transformation of disputes into violence. We

We know far too know far too little about how people handle their disputes litle about how people and the conditions that account over time for the transforhandle their disputes mation of disputes into violent events. Extensive research and the conditions that is needed about the circumstances under which individu-

account over time for als or groups feel hurt or perceive their situations as the transformation of unjust, see their grievance as serious, attribute blame to disputes info violent others, and turn to violent expressions. The causal vari-

evens. ables that inhibit or encourage disputes erupting into violence, and the role that anger and other emotions play in the decisionmaking processes that culminate in violence require further investigation. Research should also address how learned strategies of problem solving and dispute resolution can effectively serve to reduce the proclivity for violence or buffer its effects.

Q Social factors accelerating the transformation of disputes. We need much more knowledge about the social norms and values, often internalized at a very young age, that influence the expression of different forms of disput-

ing behavior and the escalation of disputes into violent conflict. Strongly held norms and standards in different age, gender, race, ethnic, or religious groups can affect how disputes are handled. For example, further research should address the role of prejudice in the manifestation of violence between people of different groups as well as the role of empathy, commitment, and identification with both in-groups and out-groups. Also, the impact of deeply

held cultural norms about such issues as face-saving or defending one's honor in aggressive encounters vis-a-vis individuals or other groups deserves attention. In certain situations or contexts, the escalation to violence and demonstrations of power (e.g., not appearing weak, bullying) may even enhance social status in a group.

QO The role of third parties. Third parties are often involved or present during violent encounters; yet, our knowledge of their role is very limited.*? Future research

70

~ should examine how the presence or intervention of other

persons—and the norms they espouse or the social influ- Further study across ence they exert—can contribute to the escalation or reduc- target groups should

tion of violence. Much more study is needed about the be directed fo role of third parties as mediators, mentors, guardians, prevention and allies, witnesses or bystanders, socializing agents, and intervention efforts in alternative agents of punishment or social control. Studies, place, what works,

for example, examining how third parties such as the and what does not. police handle the expressions of grievances by individuals

or groups (e.g., protests, rallies) can add to our understanding of the factors that may promote or inhibit the manifestation of violence.

QO) Mechanisms for reducing dispute-generated violence. A key area for research is the growing number of dispute resolution programs (e.g., in schools, in the workplace, in neighborhoods and communities, and in courts) and the processes whereby conflicts can be resolved and the probability of violence reduced. Initial research on

conflict resolution and mediation programs for youth point to their effectiveness in reducing violence, especially in the school (Carnegie Quarterly 1994). Further study across target groups should be directed to prevention and intervention efforts in place, what works, and what does not. In particular, programs aimed at family violence should be a high priority for rigorous, systematic evaluation.

71

Wie CHAPTER 9 comparatively small in CRAFTING SCIENCE POLICY

absolute dollars, a long history that y Loe gee . ;

federal support for The preceding chapters provide an overview of key violence research has research findings on violence and substantive areas lor a

; further investment in science. The absolute numbers of vio-

dates back to the earl lent events, their pervasiveness, and the greater risk of cer-

1950s. tain individuals or groups to engage in violence or be victims of it are reasons enough to make violence a major research priority. This chapter of the Report focuses on science policy issues and recommendations that are important for crafting a research agenda on violence. RESEARCH SUPPORT IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

While comparatively small in absolute dollars,°° federal support for violence research has a long history that dates back to the early 1950s. At that time, the primary federal agency taking the lead was the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). By 1967, the NIMH had established the Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency (now called the Violence and Traumatic Stress Research Branch). NIMH was joined in 1969 by the Department of Justice's National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (now known as NIJ—the National Institute of Justice). The National Science Foundation (NSF), especially through its Law and Social Science Program, provided only limited support for violence research in the 1970s but enhanced its investment in basic research in the 1980s, although in absolute dollars NIMH and NIJ had more resources available to allocate to violence. In 1988, the NIJ, NSE and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) sought to step back from the aggregation of work produced on violence and asked the National Academy of Sciences to convene a Panel of experts to assess this research. The NSF was interested in having the NAS Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behav-

72

ior review the current state of knowledge and offer research priorities. The more mission-oriented agencies, B, the late 1980s, NIJ and CDC, hoped that the NAS Violence Panel would recognition of the provide a cogent analysis of how to prevent and control need for a better violent crime, including the resulting injuries and deaths. understanding of The four volumes published by the NAS Violence Panel violence and during 1993 and 1994 contributed to accomplishing these mechanisms of goals and helped to galvanize interest in relevant federal prevention can also be agencies and scientific societies, such as the American seen in the activities of

Sociological and Psychological Associations. a few major private By the late 1980s, recognition of the need for a better foundations. understanding of violence and mechanisms of prevention

can also be seen in the activities of a few major private foundations, particularly the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of

New York. The MacArthur Foundation signalled strong | interest by collaborating with NIJ on a planning effort that

has led to a major initiative entitled “The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods.” The Carnegie Corporation, through especially its Council on Adolescent Development, focused on what creates risks of violence for youth by undertaking a series of conferences and publications. While in the 1980s, especially NIJ, NIMH, NSE, and the CDC were supporting violence research, by the 1990s

other institutes within the National Institute of Health (NIH) also joined in funding violence-related work. The

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),

and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) all supported studies reflecting _ these agencies’ priorities and mandates. Although the NSF Law and Social Science Program had urged a national science initiative?! on violence as early as 1988, it was not until 1993 that a framework for inter-agency coordination was in evidence.

73

THE TIMELINESS OF A NATIONAL INITIATIVE The time is ripe for a

sustained national From even this brief overview it is clear that over the research initiative on years several federal agencies have supported violence

violence. research, sometimes at quite meaningful levels. The time is ripe for a sustained national research initiative on violence with strong collaboration across federal research agencies and, to the extent possible, the involvement of private foundations.>*

Why a national initiative now? First, a body of scien-

tific knowledge is in place that already signals future directions and next steps. Second, there is a cadre of researchers whose work directly or indirectly seeks to unravel the complex processes—both human and social— that produce violence. Third, particularly with the recent funding of a consortium/center for research on violence

by the National Science Foundation, a major piece of infrastructure is in place for further catalyzing and stimulating work on violence.>- Fourth, there is much accumulated experience within federal agencies about what may or may not work as vehicles for basic and applied research support and how they should be managed.

Recently progress has been made in fostering interagency coordination on violence research. In the fall of 1993, an Interdepartmental Working Group emphasizing health, justice, and education concerns sought to create a policy blueprint on violence, including needed research.

As an outgrowth of this effort, by June 1994 an Interagency Violence Research Working Group was established to develop a coordinated research agenda across over twenty Federal agencies.>* Also, in 1994, the Depart-

ment of Housing and Urban Development and _ the National Institute of Justice indicated that they would con-

tribute funding to NSF's National Consortium for Research on Violence. By the end of 1995, plans solidified for a joint initiative by the National Institute of Health and

the Department of Justice. While additional steps (e.g.,

74

direct involvement of the White House Office of Science

and Technology Policy) could further help to establish a A: a fundamental national research initiative,>- current indicators of inter- level, stable funding is

agency cooperation are encouraging. the basic ingredient— the DNA—for

FUNDING PRIORITY ISSUES producing important What must be considered in launching a major research en of new initiative on violence and in providing enhanced support mn edge about for a social science research agenda? We start with the violence. working assumption that federal science policy on violence must seek to build fundamental knowledge, promote genuine multi-disciplinary efforts, and develop essential tools and resources based on effective coordination across and among federal research agencies. The preceding chap-

ters mapped core areas and outlined key empirical and methodological challenges involved in such work. In this

chapter, we focus on research support, data resource needs, and scientific capacity that also must be considered in making violence a science priority.” 6 RESEARCH SUPPORT

Enhanced Individual-investigator Support The intermittent nature of funding for violence and the overall small size of grants have produced gaps and fragmentation in our knowledge and hampered our ability to draw comprehensive inferences. Far too frequently studies have been interrupted or altered or important follow-up designs have languished. Also, research has typically progressed with strong divisions of labor, often by topic (e.g., family violence, gangs, drugs) or by discipline. Thus, sus-

tained support. for individual-investigator and team projects should enhance essential research. In addition, it should permit asking new questions and promoting fresh directions. At a fundamental level, stable funding is the

basic ingredient—the DNA—for producing important streams of new knowledge about violence. 75

ior i tment in ; ee ; ;

A. tNMulti-dimensional Studies . A national initiative on violence should create an envi-

necessary fo mount ; . , and maintain large. . ; scale science over rae ; ; . long periods of time. ; ; . violence research is

ronment where both funders and researchers are better able to grapple with unraveling the causes of violence as a

multi-level and multiply determined phenomenon. Such an initiative should permit greater attention to the varieties

of violent forms—their dynamics and origins—and to neglected issues and areas. Despite the recognition by "bench" scientists, policymakers, and the public that violence requires broad-based and multi-disciplinary study, such work is far too rare in the literature.

Large-scale Sustained Projects A major investment in violence research is necessary to mount and maintain large-scale science over long periods

of time. A few major projects already underway show a commitment to long-term multi-level, multi-method, and multi-disciplinary work. For example, three longitudinal studies of youths (conducted by teams at the University of Colorado, Pittsburgh, and SUNY, Albany) aim to deter-

mine the precursors and pathways that lead to serious delinquency and violence. So too, the MacArthur Founda-

tion-NIJ funded Project in Chicago aims to account for career criminals and law-abiding persons through the long-term study of the changing nature of individuals and

communities. Compatible with these efforts, a coordinated violence initiative has the capacity to promote even

more intentional and incremental planning, provide for continuity in funding, and encourage coordination in implementing major programs of research over time.

New Research Structures A national research initiative on violence also should include the design and development of new structures for fostering research networks or stimulating work other than through large- and small-scale projects. As noted above,

76

the NSF has just launched a major consortium to stimulate

new science on violence, integrate knowledge, transmit There needs to be findings, disseminate and share resources, and train the greater attention fo next generations of scientists. As with the CDC's regional , standardizing the

injury control research centers or NICHD's population measures used fo research centers, support for several new institutional define violence and forms or structures could have a multiplier effect beyond the procedures used fo any single center, consortium, or major research team. collect information on

| violent events.

DATA RESOURCE NEEDS

Improvement of Data Collection Systems An important priority for a research initiative on violence is to improve major data resources and data collections. Science funding must be directed to the measurement and methodological issues involved in bringing extant data

systems into alignment. For example, there needs to be greater attention to standardizing the measures used to define violence and the procedures used to collect information on violent events. Similarly, attention must be paid to

ensuring that there is enough information to analyze the occurrence of violence at a local level and from the vantage

of racial, ethnic, or other population subgroups. Greater coordination by federal agencies could have the potential for enhancing the credibility and reliability of data for research as well as extending the information on violent events across contexts and over time (e.g., from arrest to sentencing to disposition and beyond; from inner city to rural sites).

There is no single national data base that captures all aspects of violent events in one integrated information system. Rather, three nationwide data systems count and classify various aspects of violent behavior: the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) system collects basic information about the most serious crimes committed for events classified by police as crimes, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) collects data on nonfatal violent victim-

77

izations, and the National Center for Health Statistics There is also a need (NCHS) tabulates data annually on homicides from death

fo collect data where certificates. Therefore, it is particularly important to currently very limited strengthen comparability among these data sets. information exists,

such as on child Expansion of Data Systems abuse, hate crimes, In addition to improving extant data systems, there is and violence in also a need to collect data where currently very limited institutional settings information exists, such as on child abuse, hate crimes, like schools. and violence in institutional settings like schools. Administrative records and information from such locations as hospitals, schools, or shelters need to be routinely collected (1.e., within locations, across locations, and over time). Also, attention should be paid to ensuring that these

data can be linked to ongoing data collection systems. Finally, coordinated efforts need to be mounted with public agencies, institutions, and private organizations so that

new forms of data (e.g., community-level measures of poverty, unemployment, family disruption) are collected that can enhance scientific research on populations at risk and on factors that insulate individuals or groups from violence.

Development of New Data Resources As the foregoing indicates, advancements in violence research heavily depend on the quality of routine data collection systems. Also, primary data collection remains essential for understanding violence. In designing such efforts, research teams need to consider comparability of

measures between new data collection and extant data resources and also anticipate the multi-user potential of such work. The use of research workshops, advisory committees, and the like as part of planning and implementation can help to ensure these goals. Whatever the research

method—whether, for example, household surveys, indepth interviews with community leaders, ethnography, or

use of extant data from emergency rooms or police 78

records—the capacity to link primary and secondary data T within and across studies needs to be given a high priority. he information highway is an idea

Enhancements of Data Use whose time has come A national initiative on violence also needs to invest in as the internet and improving and enhancing the availability of data for scien- other advanced tific research. As a matter of sound science policy, data technologies provide sharing and access are important for examining new issues an opportunity fo and testing rival hypotheses, but funds are needed to foster create "archives availability and use. Researchers must have the resources without walls." to prepare data and documentation in a user friendly mode. Also, public archives require core support to ready data sets and provide the capacity to work across them. Data archives need funding to publicize use, develop innovative means of access and communication, and provide training. Most importantly, the information highway is an

idea whose time has come as the internet and other advanced technologies provide an opportunity to create "archives without walls." SCIENTIFIC CAPACITY

Attraction of Scientists to Violence Research Over the years, minimal support for research on violence may have discouraged scientists from gravitating to this field.°’ The overwhelming response in 1995 to NSF's

solicitation for a National Consortium for Violence Research (13 proposals involving more than 140 institutions and 700 researchers) attests to the depth and breadth of interest within the scientific community. Broad-based stable research support, scientific workshops and conferences, and early as well as mid-career postdoctoral opportunities are among the strategies that are important for expanding the numbers of scientists attracted and dedicated to violence research. Support for large-scale and long-term studies is also important to building scientific capacity. Major funding

79

has the potential of capturing the attention of scientists

Special efforts should who are now working on aligned issues or addressing

be directed fo related analytic problems (e.g., researchers studying mob enhancing the behavior or examining what creates a propensity for risk ‘pipeline" of minority taking among youths). Also, it has the advantage of scholars seeking fo attracting researchers from a wide number of disciplines

pursue research to bring their skills, expertise, and methodological careers on violence. strengths to bear in examining violence. Therefore, a major research initiative on violence can not only add new knowledge but also redirect scientific interests to the study of this important human and social phenomenon.

Expanded Participation of Minority Researchers The multidimensional and multi-level nature of violence requires a broad and diverse group of researchers who bring complementary skills and experience to studying individuals, communities, and groups. As in many fields of science, the active engagement of minority investigators enriches the theoretical ideas, sharpens the opera-

tional frameworks, and broadens the methodological Strategies used in violence research. Yet, the number of persons of color and women engaged in violence research is limited.

Special efforts should be directed to enhancing the "pipeline" of minority scholars seeking to pursue research careers on violence. Undergraduate research opportunities

(with strong individual mentoring or involvement in a research team), predoctoral training programs and fellowships, and postdoctoral support are among the strategies that need to be treated as integral to making violence a sci-

ence priority. Such training is essential to ensuring the next generations of skilled scientists generally and minority researchers in particular.

80 |

Specialized Training Programs

As 1s apparent from the above, a major initiative on violence should attend to training as well as research.

Intensive and integrated training that prepares researchers

for multi-level analysis, multi-disciplinary conceptualiza- Without dour key tion, and multi-method inquiry is especially important. fo progress on While scientists with different forms of expertise can violence is building work together, graduate and postdoctoral training pro- specialized grams that develop comprehensive skills can enhance the competencies for research capacity of individuals and groups. Such mecha- advanced study. nisms as research training group awards (RTGs), fellowship training grants at academic sites or coordinated at a national level (like the NIMH predoctoral training awards in mental health to the American Sociological and Psy-

chological Associations), or training supplements to ongoing major research grants can be very effective. Without doubt, key to progress on violence is building specialized competencies for advanced study.

81

Meross the CHAPTER 10

landscape of serious CONC LUSION

issues where serious

science must be done, | This Report shows the magnitude and complexity of research on violence violence in U.S. society, explicates the important ways should be enlarged. that social science has already contributed knowledge, and sets forth a challenging set of research directions. In particular, the Report makes clear the need for a sustained violence initiative to support fundamental research over long spans of time, across social and situational contexts, and at multiple levels of analysis. A number of focal areas are highlighted as particularly important and ripe for a

social science research agenda on violence. In each of these areas, we already have some relevant knowledge, but much more extensive and integrative work is necessary in order to isolate the causes and consequences of violence and determine what insulates or protects individuals, groups, or communities from its occurrence.

Federal support for an expanded social science research agenda on violence ultimately requires an examination of priorities. As we approach the beginning of the 21st century, we face fundamental choices about what we

want our society to be and to become. Without doubt, these are particularly hard times for allocative decisions because policymakers and the public are increasingly aware of the scarcity of resources. In the area of science funding, difficult decisions need to be made about where and how to invest federal dollars to build a knowledge

base important to the social wellbeing and economic progress of our nation. Across the landscape of serious

| issues where serious science must be done, research on violence should be enlarged. Increased funding for a major national violence initiative now can enhance the quality of life and produce real savings in human and social costs well into our future.

82

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SOCIAL CAUSES OF VIOLENCE: CRAFTING A SCIENCE AGENDA CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Violence in America has had devastating effects on virtually all of the core social institutions of society. Crime is rampant, the incidence of child and spouse abuse is staggering, and youth violence is growing at alarming rates. The most vulnerable

members of society—children, youth, the poor, and minorities—are the most affected by violence. However, no sector of society is immune from the violence that permeates families, neighborhoods, cities, and towns. The enormity and pervasiveness of violence in society underscore the necessity of developing a sound base of knowledge about its causes. Despite the comparatively

small investment in social and behavioral science research on violence, there is already a highly useful and relevant body of work. Indeed, what we know about violence reveals both the value of social science research and how much more we need to know to address a problem of such long-term and complex proportions.

Social Dimensions of Violence | For several reasons, sociological research on violence is particularly important: First, individuals are social beings shaped by their social worlds, roles, relationships, and experiences. Second, violence is a social behavior, more probable under certain social situations and conditions than others. Third, perceptions and manifestations of violence are mediated by social change and norms of appropriate behavior. This Report emphasizes these social dynamics.

Framework of the Report The Report builds on an intensive workshop of leading sociologists in violence research held by the American Sociological Association. The purpose of the Report is to highlight the nature of scientific research conducted thus far and identify priority areas for further study. Specifically, the Report focuses on social demography, community contexts, social institutions, social groups, social contingencies, social response, and social conflicts and disputes as they relate to violence. Also the Report examines science policy issues and makes recommendations for crafting a national research initiative on violence.

83

CHAPTER 2. THE SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHY OF VIOLENCE Violence is pervasive in society, but its manifestations are neither random nor the acts of a very few. Even though research on chronic offenders shows that individuals with certain profiles account for a considerable amount of violence, they alone do not explain the high frequency or forms of violence that occur in the United States each year. In order to better understand who is at risk for violence (as perpetrators or victims), the Report examines patterns in the social demography of violence.

The high levels of serious violence appear to be uniquely "American." The United States has a higher homicide rate than any other industrialized nation—nearly double that of Spain, which has the second highest rate. Analysis of demographic patterns also reveals that youth violence is growing at a faster rate than in any other subgroup of society. By far, the most striking feature of recent trends is the large volume and high concentrations of violence among minorities, particularly among young, African-Ameri-

can males. Homicide, for example, is the leading cause of death among African American youths, who account for approximately one-third of all arrests and half of all incarcerations. However, differences in the White/Black victimization rates virtually disappear in higher income neighborhoods. Essentially what appears to be race effects are a function of life conditions of African Americans, conditions of economic deprivation and lack of employment opportunities, and the quality of life in low-income communities.

Research Directions Research is needed over time and place in order to track violence patterns and generate better explanations of violence within and among communities, among youths, and in different racial and ethnic groups. Also needed is stepped up research on gender and violence and on how social change may affect the very definition of violence and account for different rates of violence and victimization among girls and women. In addition, the links between socioeconomic status (SES)—income, education, occupation, and employment status—and violence must be explored. We need to know, for example, how and in what ways components of SES lead to a pro-

pensity for violence or insulate individuals from it. Also, research should further address how and why poverty, inequality, mobility, and other measures of social stratification relate to violence.

84

CHAPTER 3. THE COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL CONTEXT The community is a crucial setting that can insulate or protect people from violence or, conversely, can create or increase risk. Contextual studies that focus on the community, the neighborhood, or other intraurban units of analysis (e.g., the census tract or ward) add importantly to our understanding of risk factors linked to violence. Characteristics of communities such as population density and distribution, locational opportunities (e.g., concentration of crime "hotspots"), economic viability, residential mobility, sense of security, and levels of social organization help to explain

levels of violence. For example, regardless of age, race, or sex, victimization rates are two to three times greater in high density areas. Also, despite the difficulty of isolating the unique effects of concentrated poverty (e.g., the relocation of manufacturing industries, capital disinvestment, migration of skilled and semi-skilled labor, levels of unemployment, concentrations of families below the poverty line), studies demonstrate a strong relationship between economic circumstances and violence: Abject circumstances in communities, together with de facto segregation of populations, create conditions especially ripe for violence.

Research Directions Key to understanding communities and their potential effects on violence is recognizing that many attributes of communities affect and are affected by the people living within them. Research should focus on the effects of living in communities and the self-selection effects of people drawn to living in certain areas. Also, studies should examine community dynamics over time and what distinguishes between increases and decreases of violence in communities. For example, one research priority is to focus on the interaction between violence and fear of violence in a com-

munity and the extent to which either or both stimulate neighborhood decline. Studies are also needed examining individual patterns of change in relation to community life. Work should be directed to such issues as how life transitions of individuals (e.g, unemployment, divorce) interact with communities to produce violence.

CHAPTER 4. CORE SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS Core social institutions can have a critical impact on the occurrence of violence in society. The family and school are key because of their primary role in socializing the young and in developing prosocial behaviors.

85

The Family The family is particularly important with respect to violence outside and inside of the family unit. Research at the community level shows that increased family disorganization is related to high levels of crime. Family factors that are antecedents of violence include prior exposure to physical punishment, alcoholic or criminal parents, and extreme parental stress or conflict. For an individual, such factors are more

compelling than whether or not a family is headed by one or more parents. The effect of family disruption, however, is not uniform: There is a mounting body of research indicating that family disorganization has the most adverse impact on Black

females. Furthermore, the breakdown of communities—e.g., inadequate schools, crowded housing, racial discrimination, and lack of job opportunities—creates con-

ditions ripe for family disruption and stress. ,

Research has also documented the pervasiveness of family violence in American society. The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR 1994), for example, indicate that in 1992, intrafamily homicides accounted for more than 12 percent of all homicides. Women and children are the most frequent victims of intrafamily homicide. Studies have consistently shown that the elements of family structure and disruption that link to violence generally (e.g., poverty, unemployment, excessive drinking) are also associated with family violence.

Research Directions | Continued study is needed on the changing demography and structure of the family (e.g., increases in single, female-headed households; divorce; teenage mothers; female employment; proportion of children living in households below poverty) as they relate to violence. Also, research should examine how family interaction and

dynamics may inhibit or promote the expression of violence within the family or external to it. Sustained study of the intergenerational heritability of violence from a sociological rather than biological perspective has much to offer. Finally, research must unravel the extent to which violence is a function of internal family dynamics or part of a larger picture of contextual conditions affecting family life.

Schools The school is the single social institution where large groups of youths are located and where predatory violence, aggressive behaviors, and conflicts with the potential to escalate into violence can occur. Research has shown that appreciable levels of everyday violence occur in the schools of our country. Recent studies have also indicated that violence in schools is increasing, both in rural and urban areas. 86

Research Directions

Because of the salience of youth violence, the school is a priority context for study. Increased knowledge is needed about why and under what circumstances violence breaks out in certain school situations and what factors within the classroom,

school climate, or organizational structure encourage or discourage violence. In addition to schools as locations of violence, they are also intervention points for violence prevention. Research, for example, should examine how educational programs

affect the general quality of schools (e.g., intensive programs to build reading or leadership skills) and influence the expression of violence. Also, evaluation studies of violence-reduction programs are needed that assess their short- and long-term impact on youths.

Other Institutional Sectors Other social institutions require examination in their own terms and, most importantly, in interaction with others. For example, the church, voluntary and social organizations, the workplace, and the welfare system all affect the lives of individuals and shape their understandings of the norms of appropriate behavior. To date, research on violence has tended to focus on specific social processes and settings without suf-

ficient attention to the links and interactions across social institutions. Since we know that individuals are influenced simultaneously by multiple social roles, institutions, and contexts, future research should be devoted to examining precisely how these contexts interact to produce or inhibit violence.

CHAPTER 5. SOCIAL GROUPS Violence is exhibited not just by individuals operating alone but also by more than one person engaged with others in collective activities that render harm to others. The social group that has received the greatest attention in the social science literature is the gang, but violence emanating from other group structures and collectivities 1s important to study as well.

Gangs Studies show that gangs are increasing in number and that gang violence is escalating, with a higher proportion of incidents involving gang members in their late teens or early twenties. Recent research indicates that more than nine out of ten cities with populations over 100,000 have a gang problem. While fewer smaller cities report gangs, the numbers appear to be growing rapidly even in cities with populations of less than 10,000. Moreover, research shows that for about half of these cit87

1es, gangs emerged only after 1985. Studies to date add to our understanding of the reasons for gang violence: Status concerns, wanting to outdo others, group solidarity, the desire for resources, territori-

ality, racial and ethnic conflict, and even reaction or resistance to social control efforts are among the factors explaining gang violence. Despite popular assumptions, however, studies show no simple relationship between gangs, drugs, and gang violence. It is the rare gang that specializes in specific illegal activities like drug trafficking. Moreover, a consistent finding is that gangs and their proclivity for violence can emerge as a coping mechanism to desperate economic circumstances, weakening of social institutions, and the disintegration of community structures.

Research Directions Research is needed on the relationship between gang-related violence and societal

violence more generally. Basic research on concepts and measures is required in order to enhance the quality of data collection on gang violence across jurisdictions and over time. We need to know why gangs are proliferating, why and how gangs form and change over time, the role of race and ethnicity in gang formation, and why some gangs become entrepreneurial and others do not. Existing research can only offer clues concerning answers to these questions. Most importantly, much more research is needed to explain the lethality of gang violence. Research should determine the extent to which observed increases in gang

violence are accounted for by the increased numbers of gangs, characteristics of gang members, the density or dominance of gangs in particular geographic locations, or the group processes associated with gangs. In comparing community contexts, for example, research must assess the extent to which such factors as residential segregation, loss of capital investment, or high youth unemployment precipitate gangs turning to violence or to activities that take violent forms.

Other Collectivities The high public profile of group-level violence (e.g., social protest transformed into violence, the seemingly random violence of "wilding” groups, or intentional violence by hate or terrorist groups) and the reach of its severity underscore the importance of greater knowledge. Studies show that violence by social groups may be in response to real or perceived threats, may have protective or reformist goals, and may be directed locally or more broadly against individuals, groups, or organizations. A range of social science research suggests that worsening economic conditions, political repression or instability, a perceived sense of injustice, or a struggle of 88

groups for self-identity or power are among the conditions that may precipitate planned or spontaneous expressions of group violence.

Research Directions Much more research is needed about recruitment processes into violent groups or into groups that become violent. Also, studies should be devoted to identifying the factors that produce violent groups or give rise to violence by groups. Research, for

example, should address the extent to which diffusion processes (e.g., mimicry, learning) across groups account for violence. Furthermore, despite popular attraction to high profile episodes of group violence, studies must continue to examine "events" over long spans of time and different spacial units in order to better explain how violence manifests itself and why.

CHAPTER 6. SOCIAL CONTINGENCIES In any social context or situation, a number of contingencies may come into play to promote or shape behaviors leading to violence. Firearms, drugs and alcohol, and the mass media are three such factors that may affect the likelihood, frequency, and degree of violent behavior.

Guns and Violence Guns produce an enormous amount of the injury in violence. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, in 1992 over 900,000 violent crimes involved guns, and approximately 80 percent of these crimes involved handguns. Furthermore, we now know that death and injury in criminal violence from firearms are especially pronounced among youths and minorities: Firearm homicide is the second leading cause of death for 15 to 19 year olds and is increasing. Young Black males are at greater risk of injury and death in gun-related incidents than any other demographic group.

Research Directions While data indicate that gun ownership and use vary widely across the United States, more nuanced studies are needed about its distributional properties by locale.

Future research should also examine the prevalence of firearms in certain groups (e.g., youth) and the routes of access to illegal firearms. In addition, important work remains to be done on the factors that influence gun ownership, patterns of carrying and using guns, and variations in attitudes toward gun control. Studies show that gun

89

attacks have a higher probability of killing victims than do other weapons. Further work must examine the extent to which lethality of guns is due to the properties of the instrument itself in contrast to the intentions and motivations of the attacker.

Drugs and Violence The use of drugs, including alcohol, is a second major contingency affecting the occurrence of violence. Available data point to drugs as a factor in violence. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Violence Panel reported that 60 percent of

arrestees used at least one illegal drug in close proximity to their arrest. Studies show that violence is inextricably linked to the market for drugs (e.g., transactional disagreements, turf wars in drug trafficking). Research indicates that much of the drug-related violence flows not from biological factors per se, but from social conditions surrounding drug use and the presence of drugs in illicit markets. In the case of alcohol and violence, studies suggest the possibility of a link between use and violence. Analysts caution, however, about drawing inferences of causality from co-

occurrence and emphasize that the links between alcohol and violence must be understood in light of a range of factors, including situational and cultural dynamics.

Research Directions A priority topic for research is the connection between drug-dealing and violence. Studies should examine violence that occurs because of the business aspect of drug transactions, and because of the larger economic issues at stake (e.g., maintaining new life styles). Also, research is needed on other dynamics in the community that

can create conditions ripe for drug-related violence. Studies should focus on the impact on drug-related violence of such factors as the outmigration of stable families with ties to the legitimate economy, the loss of economic opportunities in neighborhoods, and the loss of moral authority. Finally, much more attention should be paid to the connection between violence and drug use. Further work is needed on when, where, and by whom violence-related drug consumption occurs, and the conditions under which it leads to violent acts.

Mass Media and Violence The mass media is the third contingency that can affect the expression of violence. Several major reports issued from 1969 to 1993 show the connection of tele-

vision violence to aggressive attitudes and behaviors over time and across demographic groups. While studies also remind us that children and adults vary in

90

the extent to which they are affected by television violence; overall, research demonstrates that the effects of television on violence are quite substantial.

Research Directions Future research should focus on the impact of different media forms (beyond television) on violence and who is likely to be affected by violent messages. The relationship between media images and popular views of violence, perceptions of the dangers of violence, and even solutions to the violence problem are topics ripe for research. In addition, there needs to be more research, including evaluation studies, that examines the potential use of television programming for reducing and preventing violence as well as for altering stereotypes regarding violent offenders.

CHAPTER 7. SOCIAL RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE

lence. ,

While much of the research on violence focuses on cause and the social and behavioral dynamics underlying occurrence, it is also important to consider social response. To date, research on response mechanisms has emphasized the criminal justice system, which is the primary social institution charged with dealing with vio-

Policing

The social science literature on policing is sizable and spans over several decades. Research suggests important variations in police behavior by city and neighborhood.

For example, arrests are more likely in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, and police are more likely to use “coercive force” against suspects in primarily “nonWhite” or racially mixed neighborhoods and in transient locations. Research has also focused on the impact of proactive enforcement strategies and greatly enhanced police presence. While the overall effect of greater police presence (including community policing strategies) on crime reduction is inconclusive, enhanced interaction

of police in communities seems to reduce significantly fear of crime in targeted neighborhoods.

Incarceration Research indicates that about fifty-five percent of the inmate population is incarcerated for violent crimes, mainly in state prisons. Between 1975 and 1989, there was nearly a tripling of the prison population without appreciable levels of reduction in violence. Extant research questions the effects of incarceration on violence. Studies have consistently found that the reduction of crime attributable to incarceration is 91

small. Furthermore, there is no empirical support for the conclusion that incarceration for violent crime deters the expression of violence by others.

Research Directions An agenda of research on organized responses to violence should include not only the criminal justice system but also the mental health system, the public health system, and social service organizations. Each of these institutional settings deals with issues of violence on a routine and regular basis and thus requires study. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Continued research on the criminal justice system remains a priority. For example, important work must be done on the impact of intensifying police efforts or of overpolicing certain groups. Research is also needed on the circumstances under

which policing reduces violence (or fear of violence) in a community and on police efforts to deter violence through partnerships with communities. In addition, further study should focus on the impact of long-term incarceration or different sanctioning policies on individual deterrence. Finally, studies need to address how response strategies to violence affect the social organization of the criminal justice system itself. Research, for example, should consider what happens to the workforce of a criminal justice organization when there is a shift in policies from a prevention to an enforcement emphasis or vice versa. MENTAL HEALTH AND PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS

Beyond the criminal justice system, mental health and public health institutions deal with violence on a day-to-day basis. From a mental health perspective, continuing research must be done on the factors that explain when and why the mental health system versus the criminal justice system is invoked, the impact of deinstitutionalization, and the role of dangerousness predictions in the handling of both mental illness and violence. From a public health perspective, future research should examine the frequency and forms of violence most typically handled by health-care facilities. Studies are needed on how health-care professionals and institutions function to detect, observe, intervene in, or potentially prevent violent behavior. SOCIAL SERVICES AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Social service institutions and organizations are also important sites for detecting

and handling violence. To date, there is little research mapping the probability of 92

detecting violence by persons working in these settings. New studies should address the role of social services agencies and organizations in confronting violence and the factors that account for different response and coping mechanisms. Also, research should examine the role of social service agencies and workers as intervention points and the impact of violence reduction programs.

A Systemic Perspective The complexity of violence requires attention to the full spectrum of contexts that deal with violence and the interactions and interplay among them. Most important is to embark on an agenda of research that examines a range of formal and informal social responses simultaneously. There is a need to develop integrated models that consider response strategies across formal legal institutions and processes, public and private sector organizations, and even informal voluntary associations.

CHAPTER 8. SOCIAL CONFLICTS AND DISPUTES Much of the violence in society occurs between people who have some degree of contact or association. In 40 percent or more of crime incidents, there is a personal connection. Even in situations where a direct personal relationship does not exist, often a perceived dispute or generalized sense of being wronged precipitates violence.

A Cross-cutting Research Perspective Research that considers violence within a broader landscape of disputes can inform our understanding of the situational factors that lead to violence and what mediates their effects. Such a framework can illuminate how violence evolves from everyday social exchanges among intimates, acquaintances, co-workers, or even occasional contacts.

Research Directions

Research should examine the factors that give rise to conflicts and disputes between individuals, between groups, and within and across communities. Also studies are needed on variations in conflict by age, gender, ethnicity, or social class as well as by time and location. Work should examine the circumstances under which individuals or groups feel hurt, see their grievances as serious, attribute blame to oth-

ers, and turn to violent expressions. Analyses should focus on how the presence or intervention of other persons (e.g., friends, family members) can contribute to the escalation or reduction of violence. In addition, research is needed on how learned 93

strategies of problem solving and dispute resolution can reduce the proclivity for violence or buffer its effects. Evaluation studies of dispute resolution programs, including school-based programs for youth, remain an important priority.

CHAPTER 9. CRAFTING SCIENCE POLICY The body of the Report highlights key findings on the social causes of violence and substantive directions for future research. The pervasiveness of violence and the complexity of studying this human social behavior commend it as a priority for science investment.

Research Support in Historical Context

While comparatively small in absolute dollars, federal support for violence research has a long history that dates back to the early 1950s. The primary agency then taking the lead was the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), joined in the late 1960s by the Department of Justice. By the 1980s, the National Science Foundation (NSF), with more limited dollars, increased its attention to support for basic research on violence. Later in the 1980s, key private foundations (particularly the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York) began to direct resources to understanding violence and mechanisms of prevention especially among youths.

The Timeliness of a National Initiative There are several reasons why the time is ripe for a sustained national research initiative on violence with strong collaboration across federal research agencies. First, a body of scientific knowledge is in place that already suggests important next steps. Second, there is a cadre of researchers whose work directly or indirectly seeks to unravel the complex processes that produce violence. Third, particularly with the recently funded National Consortium for Research on Violence by NSF, a major piece of infrastructure is in place for catalyzing and stimulating work on violence. And fourth, there is much accumulated experience within federal agencies about what may or may not work as vehicles for basic and applied research support and how they should be managed. Funding Priority Issues Federal science policy on violence must seek to build fundamental knowledge, promote genuine multi-disciplinary efforts, and develop essential tools and resources based on effective coordination across federal research agencies. Specifically, a 94

sound federal science policy on violence must devote funds to research support, data

resource needs, and scientific capacity. Key recommendations across these areas include the following: RESEARCH SUPPORT

QO Enhanced individual-investigator support. Sustained support for individual-investigator and team projects is essential. Stable funding is the basic ingredi-

ent—the DNA—for producing important streams of new knowledge about violence.

QO Multidimensional studies. A national initiative must invest in unraveling the causes of violence as a multi-level and multiply determined phenomenon.

QO Large-scale sustained projects. A major investment in violence research is necessary to mount and maintain large-scale science over long periods of time. A coordinated violence initiative can promote intentional and incremental planning, provide continuity in funding, and encourage coordination in implementing major research programs.

O New research structures. A national research initiative should support the development of new institutional forms or structures for fostering research networks, stimulating research, and enhancing scientific communication. DATA RESOURCE NEEDS

QO Improvement of data collection systems. Resources are needed to improve major data resources and collections. Greater attention must be directed to standardizing the measures used to define violence and the procedures used to collect information on violent events. Strengthening comparability across the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is particularly important.

QO Expansion of data systems. Funds must be allocated to collect data where currently very limited information exists, such as on child abuse, hate crimes, and violence in institutional settings like schools.

O Development of new data resources. Enhanced support for primary data collection is essential for understanding violence. Researchers need to consider comparability of measures between new and extant data resources, and also anticipate multiple data use.

95

O Enhancements of data use. A national initiative on violence also needs to invest in improving and enhancing the availability of data for scientific research. Researchers and public archives require core support to ensure data sharing and access. Resources should be devoted to using the internet and other advanced technologies as "archives without walls." SCIENTIFIC CAPACITY

Q Attraction of scientists to violence research. Stable support for broadbased research support, scientific workshops and conferences, and early as well as mid-career postdoctoral opportunities are among the strategies that are important to attracting dedicated scientists to violence research.

QO Expanded participation of minority researchers. Special efforts should be

directed to enhancing the "pipeline" of minority scholars seeking to pursue research careers on violence. Support needs include undergraduate research opportunities, predoctoral training programs and fellowships, and postdoctoral support to ensure the next generations of skilled scientists generally, and minority researchers in particular.

Q Specialized training programs. A major initiative on violence must attend to training as well as research. Support is needed for intensive training that prepares researchers for multi-level analysis, multidisciplinary conceptualization, and multi-method inquiry. Funds for research training group awards (RTGs), fellowship training grants, or training supplements to research grants are needed for advancing research on violence.

CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSION This Report shows the magnitude and complexity of violence in U.S. society, explicates the important ways that social science has already contributed knowledge, and sets forth a challenging set of research directions. The Report makes clear the

need for a sustained violence initiative to produce fundamental research. Federal support for a major initiative requires an examination of priorities for allocating scarce resources. Across the landscape of serious issues where serious science must be done, research on violence should be enlarged. Increased funding for a national violence initiative now can enhance the quality of life and produce real savings in human and social costs well into the future.

96

'The report issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior effectively conveys the scope and magnitude of violence in American society (Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and Jeffrey A. Roth, Editors, Understanding and Preventing Violence, National Academy Press, 1993, p. 54). [Hereafter referred to as the NAS Violence Report and cited as Reiss and Roth. ] *In November 1995, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released figures on violent crime for 1994. The overall number of violent offenses (1,864,168) dropped three percent from 1993, and the rate per 100,000 population was down by four percent. Yet, violent crime still remained 29 percent above the 1985 figure. Of the total number of violent offenses in 1994, 60 percent were aggravated assaults, 33 percent were robbery, 13 percent were murder, and six percent were forcible rape. (See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 1994 [Uniform Crime Reports], Washington, DC: Government Printing Office [Hereafter cited as UCR 1995], pp. 10-36.)

Research on fear of criminal victimization indicates that, over time "roughly one-third to one-half of Americans are afraid of their local environment" (Warr 1994, p. 6). These trends have been constant and generally reflect levels of crime over the past two decades. Studies also show that far greater levels of fear are evident among women and the elderly, in part because these groups perceive themselves as more vulnerable and at risk of violence (Warr 1994, pp. 11-14; 1995; Skogan 1986, p. 210). For females, fear is highly correlated with rape, suggesting that rape is the source of greatest fear among women (Warr 1985). Also, coincident with actual risk, the data indicate that fear is more prevalent for Blacks than Whites and that, for both Blacks and Whites, it is more prevalent at lower income levels (Warr 1994, pp. 14-15; Skogan 1995, p. 69).

4Reporting on studies undertaken by private firms, Swisher (1994, p. H1) emphasized that "[a]long with the violence comes the stress it creates, and most polls indicate a higher level of work force fearfulness. A 1993 survey of 600 representative civilian workers by Minneapolis-based Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. on fear and violence, for example, showed that people are more scared than ever before and said that fear had disrupted their performance." >For an extensive review of this literature at all three levels of analysis and for a compelling case for the importance of multi-level research on the social dimensions of violence, see Sampson and Lauritsen 1994; see also Short 1985, 1990a. ®Tn addition to the aforementioned reports, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a Panel to examine the NIH violence-related research portfolio. The Panel held two public sessions in 1993 and issued a report in 1994 (hereafter referred to and cited as NIH Violence Panel Report 1994). Violence perpetrated by legitimate authorities in the name of legitimate ends, as a vehicle of repression, or as a response to violence (see, e.g., Johnson 1986; Kelman and Hamilton 1989) is nonetheless violence and may also affect the expression of violence by individuals and groups. (See also Archer and Gartner 1984; Gartner 1990.)

8Studies of chronic offending among delinquents (e.g., Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin 1972; Shannon 1988) and inmates (e.g., Petersilia, Greenwood, and Lavin 1977; Chaiken and Chaiken 1982) indicate that a relatively small group of individuals commits a considerable amount of crime, that the offending begins early, and that this group is likely to persist in criminal activity (see also Blumstein et al. 1986; Visher 1995). For example, Wolfgang et al.'s study of almost 10,000 males born in Philadelphia showed that six percent of these youths had five or more contacts with the police, and that these offenders accounted for more than half of the crimes and two-thirds of the violent offenses committed by this cohort. Similarly, the Rand inmate studies (Chaiken and Chaiken 1982) showed that about 15 percent of the inmate offenders qualified as violent "predators," and that they tended to be younger, chronically unemployed, and with histories of drug use. (See also, Visher 1995, p. 516-518; Van Dine, Conrad, and Dinitz 1979; Estrich, Moore, McGillis, Spelman 1983.)

97

°Hagan observed that "[c]rime is also a great concern for low-income Hispanic and White Americans, but these patterns are more pronounced, better studied, and more fully documented among African-American youths" (1994, p. 26). 10The NAS Violence Report also indicated that "most victims in single offender-single victim homicides were slain by an offender of the same ethnic status: 86 percent of white victims and 93 percent of black victims" (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 64). This finding is consistent with the 1994 UCR homicide data, which indicated that 85 percent of White and 94 percent of Black victims were slain by persons of their own race (UCR 1995, p. 17).

'lThe literature on females and violence is limited in comparison to that on males. As background for the NAS Violence Panel, Kruttschnitt (1994) undertook an extensive analytic review of research on the links between gender and violence. Most interesting, she reported on an interaction effect between race and gender such that Black women were victims of homicide at about the same rate as White males. The NCVS data (1994, p. 29) indicate that the victimization rates for violent crime is about the same or higher for Black females and White males in the age groups under 35 years old. 12The vast majority of the literature and the national data reports on race and violence focus on White/Black/ other comparisons without distinguishing among other key minority populations (in particular, Latinos/ Latinas, Native Americans, and Asian/Pacific Islanders). Furthermore, as might be expected, efforts to distinguish among ethnic minority subgroups (e.g., Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican; Chinese, Japanese, Korean) is even more rare. 13Mfercer Sullivan found a similar pattern in comparing working class white, Hispanic, and African American communities (1989) and in describing Puerto Ricans in Sunset Park, Brooklyn (1993). Loss of jobs, poverty, and the breakdown of effective family ties and social networks to regain employment all contribute to youths (especially young males) turning to crime and violence. 14S ampson and Lauritsen (1994, pp. 2-3) summarized the particular focus of this approach: "The macrosocial or community level of explanation asks what it is about community structures and cultures that produces differential rates of crime (Byrne and Sampson, 1986; Bursik, 1988; Short, 1990[a]: 11). For example, what characteristics of communities are associated with high rates of violence? Are communities safe or unsafe because of the persons who reside in them or because of community properties themselves? Can changes in

community structure affect violent crime rates?" .

15 Jencks and Peterson's edited volume on The Urban Underclass (1991) includes a number of these key commentators. See also Jencks and Mayer (1990). l6Skogan (1990) reached essentially this conclusion in examining five different studies of neighborhood crime problems in major cities. Quoting the words of a respondent, he powerfully conveyed the effects of the precipitous decline of the economy, in particular the loss of industrial sector jobs, in the most impoverished neighborhoods (pp. 57-61, 172-179): "I can't see any future in Woodlawn, at least not for myself. I can't see staying down here because it's a dead end. . . . It's a dead end because you can't find no jobs down here; you have to go outside the neighborhood to find a job. You look up and down 634d st. and most of the stores that are up in here are boarded up or gone or burned up. So there's really no future here. There's no job opportunities for young people. All we do is sit around or lay around on the streets every day doing nothing. You ought to see them, its all they do is get high, play basketball, walk around doing nothing. [Woodlawn, Chicago]" (p. 175). '7The NAS Violence Report cites several specific examples of such community characteristics: "Quantitative indicators of community disorganization, include high housing density, high residential mobility, high percentages of single-parent families and the occurrence of neighborhood transitions—both economic decline and gentrification. These appear to account for more of the geographic variation in violent victimization rates than do measures of poverty and income inequality" (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 15; see also HRY 1993, p. 75).

98

'8The NAS Violence Report similarly concluded that "[t]hese indicators appear to reflect a breakdown of social capital—the capacity to transmit positive values to younger generations. This breakdown appears in such intangibles as parents’ inability to distinguish neighborhood youth from outsiders, to band together with other parents to solve common problems, to question each other's children, to participate in voluntary organizations and friendship networks, and to watch neighborhood common areas. Single parents who work have less time for such activities and constant family turnover in large multidwelling housing units makes them more difficult to carry out. Many ‘old heads-—community elders who took responsibility for local youth—have left urban communities, and the status of those who remain is diminished by contrast with the rise of successful young entrepreneurs in illegal markets" (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 15). 1% 1994, a major project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods was launched under the direction of Felton Earls (Harvard University), which reflects this need to focus on interaction between individual and community change. 0 According to Skogan, fear may be partially responsible for the "flow of younger, more affluent Blacks into the suburbs" (Frey 1984, cited in Skogan 1986, p. 224), leaving concentrations of unemployable individuals without any hope or access to mainstream institutions within inner cities. *IThe importance of looking across social contexts and situations was a point of emphasis for the NAS Panel on High Risk Youth (see, e.g., HRY 1993, p. 235-244). *2Other "correlates and antecedents of aggressive childhood behavior that are presumed to reflect psychosocial influences: [include] factors associated with large low-income families, poor housing, criminal behavior by parents and siblings, and living in high crime neighborhoods” (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 105). *3For example, the report of the Panel on Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect (UCAN, 1993, p. 1) indicated that "[i]n 1990, case reports involving over 2 million children were made to social service agencies. In the period 1979 through 1988, about 2,000 child deaths (ages 0-17) were recorded annually as a result of abuse and neglect (McClain et al. 1993), and an additional 160,000 cases resulted in serious injuries in 1990 alone (Daro and McCurdy 1991)." These figures represent a "tremendous increase in maltreatment [which is] probably the result of increased reporting, although significant increases in the occurrence rate itself may have occurred as well" (UCAN 1993, p. 6). These estimates are a very conservative measure of actual child victimizations because of general data gathering, methodological, and other information systems-related shortcomings. *4U sing trend data, the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR 1994, p. 285), indicated that the percent of murder victims killed within the family dropped 4 percent between 1980 and 1992. In contrast, the proportion of murders, for example, that were juvenile gang killings increased dramatically over this same period (from .8 percent to 3.6 percent). *°The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS 1994, p. 141) focuses only on reports of crime victimization in specific categories and also does not collect information on children under the age of twelve. 26 Although the surveys undertaken by Straus and Gelles (1990) suggest that men and women engage in martial violence more equally, they emphasize the importance of thinking broadly about what this means. For example, Stets and Straus (1990, p. 165) indicate that women are as violent as men when violence is measured as action, but they indicate that, "when violence is measured by injuries, men are more violent." Conceptualizing serious violence in terms of injury is consistent with a number of studies. For example, Kruttschnitt reports that, while data from courtship and marital violence produce varying rates of injuries, "what does appear consistently from these studies is that men have higher rates of using the most dangerous and injurious forms of violence" (1994, p. 311). *7There is considerable conjecture, but little empirical data, suggesting that violence is more likely among individuals in certain occupational groups (e.g., prison guards, military personnel). *8Statement of Malcolm Klein at a Congressional seminar, "Strategies for Winning the War on Crime," convened by the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), May 8, 1992, as reported inCOSSA Washington Update, May 18, 1992, p. 6. 99

This change over time in the lethality of gang activity is reflected in the literature. In a paper prepared in 1969 for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Klein reported that gang violence is not a major problem. In a reflective paper, "Twenty-five Years of Youth Gangs and Violence," presented in 1992 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Klein noted the variability in gang violence but also emphasized its increase—"things have truly gotten out of hand." 301 evin and McDevitt emphasize that, while hate crimes are perpetrated by individuals, typically they are expressed by groups (1993, pp. 16-18, 99-114). 31One recent example of such research is The Yale Hate Crime Project which was launched by Donald Green and Robert Abelson in 1990. Supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation, this project seeks to unravel the social, economic, and political circumstances giving rise to hate crimes. As part of their research, these investigators are developing predictive models of hate crimes over approximately a hundred year period (1887-1993). 32The NAS Violence Report indicated that the links are less clear between gun availability and nonfatal violent crime: "Even where positive correlations are found between measures of gun availability and nonfatal violent crime, the direction of the causal chain is unclear" (Reiss and Roth 1993, p. 268; see also Kleck 1991, p. 153; Cook and Kleiman 1995).

33The need for work on such issues is consistent with the recommendation of the NIH Violence Panel Report (1994, p. 87): "It would be desirable to understand the role of firearms in increased morbidity and mortality in the United States, as well as how weapons diffuse throughout a community, particularly how handguns get from the factory to a teenager in school." 34R atio estimates of the lethality of guns versus knives range from 2:1 to 5:1 across different studies (Kleck 1991, p. 164; Reiss and Roth 1993, pp. 260-261).

3>Considerable research on violence and alcohol has focused on the links between alcohol and family violence. While some studies suggest that the severity of spouse assault is associated with alcohol (Fagan 1993, p. 173), the overall pattern and permissible inferences are ambiguous. ©The report issued by the Surgeon-General's Committee is entitled, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence (1972). The other reports published on this issue include: "Television and Behavior: Ten years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, Summary Report," (1982) by the NIMH; and in 1992, the report of the American Psychological Association's Committee on Media and Society (authored by Aletha Huston et al.) entitled, Big World, Small Screen: Role of Television in American Society, (1992). 3’The findings from that work formed the basis of the recommendations for the APA Violence and Youth Report (1993, p. 33). 384 1993 poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times shows that the public shares the belief that there is a connection: Nearly four out of five Americans believe violence on television contributes to violence in real life ("79 Percent in Poll Believe TV Violence Spurs Real Mayhem," Washington Post, December 19, 1993, p. A12). Similarly, a 1994 survey that included 15,000 fourth graders reported that approximately 73 percent "think violence makes people act violently" (Scholastic News 1995, p. 4).

Kt is important to keep in mind that, like all social institutions, the criminal justice system is neither the same from place to place or over time. The system is dynamic and is shaped in its goals and operations by both internal and external factors (e.g., resources, crime rates, public attitudes, political priorities). For example, scholars observe that, in recent decades, sentencing goals have shifted from rehabilitation strategies to incapacitation, retribution, and deterrence (Cohen 1983, p. 2; Hagan 1994, p. 158; Blumstein 1983, p. 92; S. Gottfredson and D. Gottfredson 1985). 40Research on policing in communities may add to our understanding of police-citizen encounters more generally. For example, the literature on police violence and deadly force suggests disproportionate numbers of police shootings of Blacks in comparison to Whites (Fyfe 1982; Geller and Scott 1991). Yet, commentators caution about the limits of available information, the problems of interpreting aggregate data, and the need for

100

much more extensive study of the circumstances surrounding such events (e.g.; the greater likelihood of unemployed persons being out on the streets, the presence of a weapon, whether a crime was in process).

417 argely because of statutes enacted in 15 states and the District of Columbia mandating arrests in cases involving misdemeanor domestic battery, police practices have changed, and arrests for all minor assaults increased nationally by 70 percent from 1980 to 1989—an increase largely attributable to domestic violence cases (Sherman 1992, p. 2). 42Over the past two decades, sanction policies imposing mandatory penalties (especially for drug and weapons-related offenses) have been increasingly emphasized as a method of controlling violence. Legislation such the Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 are examples of such enactments. Studies examining the impacts of such policies (e.g., Vincent and Hofer 1994) have reported that the enactments have had the effect of incarcerating large numbers of non-violent offenders as well. More recently, emphasis on mandatory incarceration as a response strategy can be seen in movements in both the state and Federal legislatures to enact "Three Strikes" provisions in crime control legislation. At the Federal level, "Three Strikes" provisions mandate "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for federal offenders with three or more convictions for serious violent felonies or drug trafficking" crimes (U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet, September 26, 1994). In states like California, researchers (e.g., Greenwood et al. 1994) have already begun to measure and predict the effects of such provisions in terms of such factors as violence reduction, the proportion of non-violent offenders who are incarcerated, and the costs. 43 Similarly, from their studies on Franklin County Ohio, Van Dine, Dinitz, and Conrad (1977) predicted only a 17.8 percent reduction in violent crime. However, to obtain this relatively small reduction, they estimated that the prison population would have to be increased by 523 percent. Research by Petersilia and Greenwood (1978) also projected that the imposition of mandatory, five-year prison terms on all convicted felons in Denver would reduce violent crime by a third, but would result in a 450 percent increase in prison populations.

“4with increased policy attention to and use of the death penalty, extant research on its deterrent effects needs to be revisited and further study should also be pursued. Whatever may be the other purposes of capital punishment, as emphasized in the NAS Report on Deterrence and Incapacitation (Blumstein, Cohen, Nagin 1978), there is no indication that the death penalty deters crime (see also Lempert 1981, 1983; Zimring and Hawkins 1986). For example, based on a cross-national comparisons of fourteen cases of the abolition of capital punishment, Archer and Gartner (1984 p. 138) found "no deterrent effect exists at all, and surely no deterrent effect exists whose strength and size could possibly serve as a sufficient justification for capital punishment."

4The expansion of prisons, for example, may be relied on to support the political economy of particular locales. Such activities as building contracts, the employment of a stable prison workforce, and education and training programs for corrections personnel can have an impact on local and regional economies. “©The need for continued research on the interaction between the criminal justice and mental health systems is emphasized in the NIH Violence Panel Report (1994). 471 abor disputes is an area where the development of legal remedies and institutional responses has transformed a once violent form of collective action into a more routinized form of dispute settlement. 48.45 noted in the Carnegie Quarterly special issue on "Adolescent Youth: A Generation at Risk" (1992, p. 12), "Conflicts that used to end in fistfights are now increasingly settled with the use of knives and guns. Often shots are fired over the acquisition of material goods—leather jackets, running shoes, stereos—or in response to a verbal slight—'dissing' in the current slang." 4°The need for more research on the role of third parties was emphasized at the 1993 ASA Violence Workshop, especially in Felson and Zahn's consideration of violence as conflicts and disputes. Sampson and Lauritsen (1994), building upon the work of Felson and Steadman (1983), also called for more research on third parties.

101

° Although NIH invests more money in violence-related research than any other federal agency, the NIH Violence Panel (1994, p. 18) termed the scientific investment in violence as "minuscule" in light of its magnitude as a health problem and relative to the total NIH budget. A similar statement could be made about the total federal investment in violence research. >This call for a national science initiative on "The Determinants of Violent and Deviant Behavior" emphasized interdisciplinary basic research drawing on the social, behavioral, and biological sciences. As the primary agency mandated to advance basic research in these sciences, NSF was envisioned as the lead agency, with strong coordination and involvement of other Federal agencies. At that time, this proposal was not selected by the Foundation as a priority initiative. >*While this Report more explicitly calls for a national research initiative than do other Reports, this recommendation is consistent with the NAS Violence Report (Reiss and Roth 1993, pp. 345-352), the APA Violence and Youth Report (1993, pp. 71-72), and the NIH Violence Panel Report (1994, pp. 17-19).

3s noted above, support for and interest in encouraging basic research on violence at the National Science Foundation is longstanding. Most recently, in 1994, in response to a Congressional request, the NSF examined the feasibility of supporting a center or consortium for research on violence (reporting back to Congress in May 1994), and received report language from the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees urging it to establish a consortium. Throughout the process, NSF pursued wide consultation with the external scientific community, scientific societies, and agency representatives and, after considerable input, issued Guidelines for Submission of Proposals in January 1995. Based on a competitive process of merit review, an award was made to the Carnegie Mellon University as the lead institution to establish a National Consortium on Violence Research under the direction of Alfred J. Blumstein, Principal Investigator. >4When this Working Group was formed, it was co-chaired by Peter B. Edelman, then Counselor to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and sociologist Wendy Baldwin, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institute of Health. >°While the specific organizational framework of a federal violence initiative is beyond the scope of this Report, the topic must be a priority for science policy consideration and decisionmaking. ©The recommendations and priorities flowing from the 1993 ASA Violence Workshop complement those made by other workshops and panels (see, e.g., the NAS Violence Report, the NIH Violence Panel Report; the APA Violence and Youth Report) as well as individual researchers (see, e.g., Parker 1995). >7 Also, the NIH Violence Panel (1994, p. 86) observed that, as with some other areas of scientific inquiry, researchers’ interest in violence may be adversely affected by "the 'stigmatization' of the populations studied."

102

American Psychological Association (APA) Commission on Violence and Youth. 1993. Violence and Youth: Psychology's Response. Vol. I: Summary Report of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1994. “The Code of the Streets.” The Atlantic Monthly, May, 1994, pp. 81-94. Archer, Dane and Rosemary Gartner. 1984. Violence & Crime in Cross-National Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Banton, Michael P. 1964. The Policeman in the Community. New York: Basic Books.

Black, Donald J. and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. 1970. “Police Control of Juveniles.” American Sociological Review 35:63-77. Blau, Judith R. and Peter M. Blau. 1982. “The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime.” American Sociological Review 47:114-29. Block, Carolyn. 1991. “Early Warning System for Street Gang Violence Crisis Areas: Automated Hot Spot Identification in Law Enforcement.” Chicago, IL: Criminal Justice Information Authority. Block, Richard and Carolyn Rebecca Block. 1992. “Community Crime Careers: Concept, Measurement and Analysis.”’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, LA.

Block, Carolyn Rebecca and Richard Block. 1993. “Street Gang Crime in Chicago.” National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Blumstein, Alfred. 1983. “Selective Incapacitation as a Means of Crime Control.” American Behavioral Scientist 27(1):87-108. ———. 1995. “Prisons.” Pp. 387-419 in Crime, edited by J. Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press. Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Christy A. Visher, eds. 1986. Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals..” 2 vols. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, and Daniel Nagin, eds. 1978. Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions and Crime Rates. Washington, DC: Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, National Research Council, National Academy Press. Brantingham, Paul J. and Patricia L. Brantingham, eds. 1981. Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992. Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. [Cited as BJS Drug Report 1992.] Bursik, Robert J., Jr. 1988. “Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Problems and Prospects.” Criminology 26:519-51. Bursik, Robert J., Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York: Lexington Books. Butterfield, Fox. 1994. “A Way to Get the Gunmen: Get the Guns: 2 Cities Experiment with Street Patrols.” New York Times, November 20, p. 22. Byrne, James M. and Robert J. Sampson. 1986. “Key Issues in the Social Ecology of Crime.” Pp. 1-22 in The Social Ecology of Crime, edited by J. Byrne and R. J. Sampson. New York: Springer-Verlag.

103

Carnegie Corporation. 1992. “Adolescent Health: A Generation at Risk.” Carnegie Quarterly 37(4):1-16. ———. 1994. “Saving Youth from Violence.” Carnegie Quarterly 39(1):1-15. Chaiken, Jan M. and Marcia R. Chaiken. 1982. Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Chaiken, Jan, Marcia Chaiken, and William Rhodes. 1994. “Predicting Violent Behavior and Classifying Violent Offenders.” Pp. 217-95 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Consequences and Control, vol. 4, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and J. A. Roth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Cohen, Jacqueline. 1983. “Incapacitation as a Strategy for Crime Control: Possibilities and Pitfalls.” Pp. 1-84 in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 5, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cohen, Jacqueline and José A. Canela-Cacho. 1994. “Incarceration and Violent Crime: 1965-1988.” Pp. 296388 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Consequences and Control, vol. 4, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and J. A. Roth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cohen, Mark A., Ted R. Miller, and Shelli B. Rossman. 1994. “The Costs and Consequences of Violent Behavior in the United States.” Pp. 67-166 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Consequences and Control, vol. 4, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and J. A. Roth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Collins, James J. 1993. “Drinking and Violence: An Individual Offender Focus.” Pp. 221-35 in Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fostering Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by S. E. Martin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Comstock, George A. and Hae Jung Paik. 1990. “The Effects of Television Violence on Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-analysis.” National Academy of Sciences, unpublished report. Panel on the Understanding and

Control of Violent Behavior, Washington, DC. . Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA). 1992. “Seminar Highlights Criminal Justice Research.” COSSA Washington Update, Vol. 11(9), May 18, 1992. Cook, Philip J. 1979. “The Effect of Gun Availability on Robbery and Robbery Murder: A Cross-Section Study of Fifty Cities.” Pp. 743-81 in Policy Studies Review Annual, vol. 3, edited by R. Haveman and B. B. Zellner. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cook, Philip J. and Mark A.R. Kleiman. 1995. “Gun Control.” Pp. 267-93 in Crime, edited by J. Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press. Crutchfield, Robert D. 1995. “Ethnicity, Labor Markets, and Crime.” Pp. 194-211 in Ethnicity, Race, and Crime: Perspectives Across Time and Place, edited by D.F. Hawkins. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Cummings, Scott. 1993. “Anatomy of a Wilding Gang.” Pp. 49-73 in Gangs: The Origins and Impact of Contemporary Youth Gangs in the United States, edited by S. Cummings and D. J. Monti. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Daro, Deborah and Karen McCurdy. 1991. Current Trends in Child Abuse Reporting and Fatalities: The Results of the 1990 Annual Fifty State Survey. Chicago, IL: National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse. Donnerstein, Edward, Ronald G. Slaby, and Leonard D. Eron. 1994. “The Mass Media and Youth Aggression.” Pp. 219-50 in Reason to Hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence & Youth, edited by L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, and P. Schlegel. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

104

Duke, Lynne. 1994. “Confronting Violence: African American Conferees Look Inward.” Washington Post, January 8, p. Al. Eron, Leonard D., Jacquelyn H. Gentry, and Peggy Schlegel, eds. 1994. Reason to Hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence & Youth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Estrich, Susan, Mark H. Moore, and Daniel McGillis, with William Spelman. 1983. “Dealing with the Dangerous Offenders,” Executive Summary, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Fagan, Jeffrey. 1989. “The Social Organization of Drug Use and Drug Dealing among Urban Gangs.” Criminology 27:633-69. ———. 1992. “Drug Selling and Licit Income in Distressed Neighborhoods: The Economic Lives of StreetLevel Drug Users and Dealers.” Pp. 99-146 in Drugs, Crime, and Social Isolation: Barriers to Urban Opportunity, edited by A. V. Harrell and G. E. Peterson. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. —_——. 1993. “Set and Setting Revisited: Influences of Alcohol and Illicit Drugs on the Social Context of Violent Events.” Pp. 161-91 in Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fostering Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by S. E. Martin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Fagan, Jeffrey and Angela Browne. 1994. “Violence between Spouses and Intimates: Physical Aggression Between Women and Men in Intimate Relationships.” Pp. 115-292 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Social Influences, vol. 3, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and J. A. Roth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1994. Uniform Crime Reports (UCR): Crime in the U.S., 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ———., 1995. Uniform Crime Reports (UCR): Crime in the U.S. 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ———. 1994. Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics, 1992: Characteristics of Hate Crimes in 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Felson, Marcus. 1994. Crime and Everyday Life: Insights and Implications for Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Felson, Richard B. and Henry J. Steadman. 1983. “Situational Factors in Disputes Leading to Criminal Violence.” Criminology 21:59-74. Felson, Richard B., William Baccaglini, and George Gmelch. 1986. “Bar-Room Brawls: Aggression and Violence in Irish and American Bars.” Pp. 153-66 in Violent Transactions, edited by A. Campbell and J. J. Gibbs. New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Fingerhut, Lois A. and Joel C. Kleinman. 1990. “International and Interstate Comparisons of Homicide Among Young Males.” JAMA 263:3292-95. Fingerhut, Lois A., Deborah D. Ingram, and Jacob J. Feldman. 1992. “Firearm and Nonfirearm Homicide Among Persons 15 Through 19 Years of Age: Differences by Level of Urbanization, United States 1979 Through 1989." JAMA 267:3048-53. Freeh, Louis J. 1993. Speech by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation before the National Press Club, Washington, DC, December 8. Frey, William H. 1984. “Lifecourse Migration of Metropolitan Whites and Blacks and the Structure of Demographic Change in Large Central Cities.” American Sociological Review 49:803-27. Fyfe, James J. 1982. Readings on Police Use of Deadly Force. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Garofalo, James. 1990. “Crime and the Mass Media: A Selective Review of Research.” Pp. 322-27 in Violence: Patterns, Causes, Public Policy, edited by N. A. Weiner, M. A. Zahn, and R. J. Sagi. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

105

Gamson, William A. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Gartner, Rosemary. 1990. “The Victims of Homicide: A Temporal and Cross-National Comparison.” American Sociological Review 55:92-106. Geller, William A. and Michael S. Scott. 1991. “Deadly Force: What We Know.” Pp. 446-76 in Thinking About Police: Contemporary Readings, 2d ed., edited by C. B. Klockars and S. D. Mastrofski. New

York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. :

Gelles, Richard J. 1990. “Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.” Pp. 106-22 in Violence: Patterns, Causes, Public Policy, edited by N. A. Weiner, M. A. Zahn, and R. J. Sagi. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gerstein, Dean R. and Henrick J. Harwood, eds. 1990. Treating Drug Problem., Vol. 1. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Goldstein, Paul J. 1985. “The Drugs/Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Drug Issues 15:493-506. ———.. 1989. “Drugs and Violent Crime.” Pp. 16-48 in Pathways to Criminal Violence, edited by N. A. Weiner and M. E. Wolfgang. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Commission. |

———. 1993. “Drug Abuse and Violence.” Pp. 87-98 in Drugs & Violence in America. Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium on Crime and Punishment in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Goldstein, Paul J., Henry H. Brownstein and Patrick J. Ryan. 1992. “Drug-Related Homicide in New York: 1984 and 1988." Crime & Delinquency 38:459-76.

Gottfredson, Denise C. 1995. “Creating Safe, Disciplined, Drug-free Schools.” Paper Commissioned by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education and the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, February. Gottfredson, Gary D. and Denise C. Gottfredson. 1985. Victimization in Schools. New York: Plenum Press. Gottfredson, Stephen D. and Don M. Gottfredson. 1985. “Selective Incapacitation?” Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science 478:135-49.

——. 1986. “Accuracy of Prediction Models.” Pp. 212-90 in Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals,” vol. 2, edited by A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. A. Roth, and C. A. Visher. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Graham, Hugh Davis. 1989. “Violence, Social Theory, and the Historians: The Debate over Consensus and Culture in America.” Pp. 329-51 in Violence in America: Protest, Rebellion, Reform, vol. 2., edited by T. R. Gurr. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Greenberg, David F. 1975. “The Incapacitative Effect of Imprisonment: Some Estimates.” Law & Society Review 9:541-80. Greenwood, Peter W. and Allan F. Abrahamse. 1982. Selective Incapacitation. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Greenwood, Peter W., C. Peter Rydell, Allan F Abrahamse, Jonathan P. Caulkins, James Chiesa, Karyn E. Model, and Stephen P. Klein. 1994. Three Strikes and You're Out: Estimated Benefits and Costs of California's New Mandatory-Sentencing Law. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Gurr, Ted Robert. 1979. “Alternatives to Violence in a Democratic Society.” Pp 491-506 in Violence in America: Historical & Comparative Perspectives, rev. ed., edited by H. D. Graham and T. R. Gurr. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.

——. 1989. Violence in America: Protest, Rebellion, Reform. Vol. 2. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hagan, John. 1994. Crime and Disrepute. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

106

Hagan, John and Alberto Palloni. 1990. “The Social Reproduction of a Criminal Class in Working-Class London, circa 1950-1980.” American Journal of Sociology 96:265-99. Hagan, John and Ruth Peterson. 1995. Crime and Inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hagedorn, John M. 1988. People and Folks: Gangs, Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City. Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Hawkins, Darnell F. 1987. “Devalued Lives and Racial Stereotypes: Ideological Barriers to the Prevention of Family Violence among Blacks. Pp. 191-205 in Violence in the Black Family, edited by R. L. Hampton. Lexington, MA: Heath, Lexington Books. ———. 1990. “Explaining the Black Homicide Rate.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5:151-63. ———. 1993. “Inequality, Culture, and Interpersonal Violence.” Health Affairs 12:80-95.

——., 1995. Ethnicity, Race, Class, and Adolescent Violence. The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence: University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Horvath, Frank. 1987. “The Police Use of Deadly Force: A Description of Selected Characteristics of Intrastate Incidents.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 15:226-38. HRY Report: See National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Panel on High-Risk Youth, 1993.

Huston, Aletha C., Edward Donnerstein, Halford Fairchild, Norma D. Feshbach, Phyllis A. Katz, John R. Murray, Eli A. Rubinstein, Brian L. Wilcox, and Diana M. Zuckerman. 1992. Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in American Society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Jankowski, Martin Sanchez. 1991. Islands in the Street: Gangs and American Urban Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Jencks, Christopher and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. “The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor Neighborhood.” Pp. 111-86 in Inner-City Poverty in the United States, edited by L. E. Lynn Jr. and M. G. H. McGeary. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Jencks, Christopher and Paul E. Peterson. 1991. The Urban Underclass. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Johnson, Robert. 1986. “Institutions and the Promotion of Violence.” Pp. 181-205 in Violent Transactions, edited by A. Campbell and J. J. Gibbs. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Kelman, Herbert C. and V. Lee Hamilton. 1989. Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kleck, Gary. 1991. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Klein, Malcolm. 1971. Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ——_——., 1992. “Twenty-Five Years of Youth Gangs and Violence.” Paper prepared for the Panel on Urban Vio-

lence, American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 9.

——. 1995. The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence, and Control. New York: Oxford University Press. Klein, Malcolm W. and Cheryl L. Maxson. 1989. “Street Gang Violence.” Pp. 198-234 in Violent Crime, Violent Criminals, edited by N. A. Weiner and M. E. Wolfgang. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kruttschnitt, Candace. 1994. “Gender and Interpersonal Violence.” Pp. 293-376 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Social Influences, vol. 3., edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and J. A. Roth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Land, Kenneth C., Patricia L. McCall, and Lawrence E. Cohen. 1990. “Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Space?” American Journal of Sociology 95:922-63.

107

Lempert, Richard O. 1981. “Desert and Deterrence: An Assessment of the Moral Bases of the Case for Capital Punishment.” Michigan Law Review 79:1177-231.

——. 1983. “Capital Punishment in the 80's: Reflection on the Symposium.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 74:1101-14. Levin, Jack and Jack McDevitt. 1993. Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and Bloodshed. New York: Plenum Press. Libman-Rubenstein, Richard E. 1979. “Group Violence in America: Its Structure and Limitations.” Pp. 437-54 in Violence in America: Historical & Comparative Perspectives, rev. ed., edited by H.D. Graham and T. R. Gurr. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications. « Lieberson, Stanley and Arnold R. Silverman. 1965. “The Precipitants and Underlying Conditions of Race Riots.” American Sociological Review 30:887-98. Loftin, Colin, David McDowall, and James Boudouris. 1989. “Economic Change and Homicide 1n Detroit, 1926-1979.” Pp. 163-77 in Violence in America: The History of Crime, vol. 1, edited by T. R. Gurr. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lynn, Laurence E. Jr. and Michael G.H. McGeary, eds. 1990. Inner-City Poverty in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Lynch, James. 1995. “Crime in International Perspective.” Pp. 11-37 in Crime, edited by J. Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press. Maltz, Michael, Andrew Gordon, and Warren Friedman. 1991. Mapping Crime in Its Community Setting: Event Geography Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Manning, Peter K. 1977. Police Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Massey, Douglas S. and Shawn M. Kanaiaupuni. 1993. “Public Housing and the Concentration of Poverty.” Social Science Quarterly 74:109-22. Marx, Gary T. and Douglas McAdam. 1994. Collective Behavior and Social Movements: Process and Structure. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. 1988. “Social Movements.” Pp. 695-737 in Handbook of Sociology, edited by N. J. Smelser. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. McAdam, Doug and Kelly Moore. 1989. “The Politics of Black Insurgency, 1930-1975.” Pp. 255-85 in Violence in America: Protest, Rebellion, Reform, vol. 2, edited by T. R. Gurr. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. McClain, Philip W., Jeffrey J. Sacks, Robert G. Froehlke, and Bernard G. Ewigman. 1993. “Estimates of Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect, United States, 1979 through 1988." Pediatrics 91:338-43. McCord, Joan. 1990. “Long-Term Perspectives on Parental Absence.” Pp. 116-34 in Straight and Devious Pathways from Childhood to Adulthood, edited by L. N. Robins and M. Rutter. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ————. 1993. “Considerations of Causes in Alcohol-Related Violence.” Pp. 71-9 in Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fostering Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by S. E. Martin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

McDowall, David. 1990. “Firearms Availability and Homicide Rates in Detroit 1951-1986.” Social Forces 64:1085-1101.

108

McPhail, Clark. 1971. “Civil Disorder Participation: A Critical Examination of Recent Research.’ American Sociological Review 36:1058-73. Menzies, Robert J. and Christopher D. Webster. 1989. “Mental Disorder and Violent Crime.” Pp. 109-36 in Pathways to Criminal Violence, edited by N. A. Weiner and M. E. Wolfgang. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Merry, Sally E. 1979. “Going to Court: Strategies of Dispute Management in an American Urban Neighborhood.” Law & Society Review 13:891-925. Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher. 1994. Violence in America's Public School: The Family Perspective. New York: Louis Harris. Monahan, John. 1981. Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. ———. 1992. “Mental Disorder and Violent Behavior: Perceptions and Evidence.” American Psychologist 47:511-21. Monahan, John and Saleem Shah. 1989. “Dangerousness and Commitment of the Mentally Disordered in the United States.” Schizophrenia Bulletin 15:541-53. Monahan, John and Henry J. Steadman. 1994. ““Toward a Rejuvenation of Risk Assessment Research. Pp. 1-17 in Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment, edited by J. Monahan and H. Steadman. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Moore, Joan W. 1988. “Introduction: Gangs and the Underclass: A Comparative Perspective.” Pp. 3-17 in People and Folks: Gangs, Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City, by John M. Hagedorn. Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. ———.. 1990. “Gangs, Drugs, and Violence.” Pp. 160-76 in Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences, NIDA Research Monograph No. 103, edited by M. De La Rosa, E. Y. Lambert, and B. Gropper. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. ———. 1991. Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Moore, Mark H., Deborah Prothow-Stith, Bernard Guyer, and Howard Spivak. 1994. “Violence and Intentional Injuries: Criminal Justice and Public Health Perspectives on an Urgent National Problem.” Pp. 167-216 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Consequences and Control, vol. 4, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and J. A. Roth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Mulvey, Edward P. 1994. “Assessing the Evidence of a Link Between Mental Illness and Violence.” Hospital and Community Psychiatry 45:663-68. Mulvey, Edward P. and Charles W. Lidz. 1993. “Measuring Patient Violence in Dangerousness Research.” Law and Human Behavior 17:277-88. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Panel on Research on Child Abuse and Neglect. 1993. Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Cited as UCAN. |

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Panel on High-Risk Youth. 1993. Losing Generations: Adolescents in High-Risk Settings. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Cited as HRY.] National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). 1994. Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Institute of Education (NIE). 1978. Violent Schools—Safe Schools: The Safe School Study Report to the Congress. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). 1982. Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, Summary Report. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

109

National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1994. Report of the Panel on NIH Research on Antisocial, Aggressive, and Violence-Related Behaviors and Their Consequences. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. [Cited as NIH Violence Panel Report. ] National School Boards Association. 1993. Violence in the Schools: How America's School Boards are Safeguarding our Children. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. [Cited as NSBA.] Nisbett, Richard E. 1993. “Violence and U.S. Regional Culture.” American Psychologist 48:441-49. Olzak, Susan. 1989. “Analysis of Events in the Study of Collective Action.” Annual Review of Sociology 15:119-41. Padilla, Felix M. 1992. The Gang as an American Enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Parker, Robert Nash. 1995. “Violent Crime.” Pp. 169-85 in Criminology: A Contemporary Handbook, 2d ed., edited by J. F. Sheley. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Petersilia, Joan and Peter W. Greenwood. 1978. “Mandatory Prison Sentences: Their Projected Effects on Crime and Prison Populations.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 69:604-15. Petersilia, Joan, Peter W. Greenwood, and Marvin Lavin. 1977. Criminal Careers of Habitual Felons. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. 1971. The Police and the Public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. 1986. “Why Are Communities Important in Understanding Crime?” Pp. 1-33 in Communities and Crime, vol. 8, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. and David J. Bordua. 1967. “Environment and Organization: A Perspective on the Police.” Pp. 25-55 in The Police: Six Sociological Essays, edited by D. J. Bordua. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Reiss, Albert J., Jr. and Jeffrey A. Roth, eds. 1993. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Reiss, Albert J., Jr., Klaus A. Miczek, and Jeffrey A. Roth, eds. 1994. Understanding and Preventing Violence: Biobehavioral Influences. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. and Jeffrey A. Roth, eds. 1994a. Understanding and Preventing Violence: Social Influences. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ———. 1994b. Understanding and Preventing Violence: Consequences and Control. Vol. 4. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Riedel, Marc and Margaret Zahn. 1983. The Nature and Pattern of American Homicide. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Justice. Roncek, Dennis W. 1981. “Dangerous Places: Crime and Residential Environment.” Social Forces 60:74-96. Roth, Jeffrey A. 1994a. “Firearms and Violence.” National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

——. 1994b. “Psychoactive Substances and Violence.” National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. ———. 1994c. “Understanding and Preventing Violence.” National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Rumbaut, Rubén G. and Egon Bittner. 1979. “Changing Conceptions of the Police Role: A Sociological Review.” Pp. 239-88 in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 1., edited by N. Morris and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sampson, Robert J. 1986. “Crimes in Cities: The Effects of Formal and Informal Social Control.” Pp. 271-311 in Communities and Crime, vol. 8, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 110

———. 1987. “Urban Black Violence: The Effect of Male Joblessness and Family Disruption.” American Journal of Sociology 93:348-82. ———. 1993. “The Community Context of Violent Crime.” Pp. 259-86 in Sociology and the Public Agenda, edited by W. J. Wilson. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94:774-802. Sampson, Robert J. and Janet Lauritsen. 1994. “Violent Victimization and Offending: Individual-, Situational.-, and Community-Level Risk Factors.” Pp. 1-114 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Social Influences, vol. 3, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and J. A. Roth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Scholastic News. 1995. “Stop Fighting.” May 25, p. 4. Schuerman, Leo and Solomon Kobrin. 1986. “Community Careers in Crime.” Pp. 67-100 in Communities and Crime, vol. 8, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shah, Saleem A. 1990. “Dangerousness and Mental Illness: Some Conceptual, Prediction, and Policy Dilemmas.” Pp. 452-63 in Violence: Patterns, Causes, Public Policy, edited by N. A. Weiner, M. A. Zahn, and R. J. Sagi. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Shannon, Lyle W. with Judith L. McKim, James P. Curry, and Lawrence J. Haffner. 1988. Criminal Career Continuity: Its Social Context. New York: Human Sciences Press. Sherman, Lawrence W. 1986. “Policing Communities: What Works?” Pp. 343-86 in Communities and Crime, vol. 8, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

——. 1992. Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas. New York: The Free Press. Sherman, Lawrence, Patrick R. Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger. 1989. “Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place.” Criminology 27:27-55. Sherman, Lawrence W., and Douglas A. Smith, with Janell D. Schmidt and Dennis P. Rogan. 1992. “Crime, Punishment, and Stake in Conformity: Legal and Informal Control of Domestic Violence.” American Sociological Review 57:680-90. Short, James F, Jr. 1985. “The Level of Explanation Problem in Criminology. Pp. 51-74 in Theoretical Meth-

ods in Criminology, edited by R.F. Meier. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. : ——. 1990a. Delinquency and Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ———. 1990b. “Gangs, Neighborhoods, and Youth Crime.” Criminal Justice Research Bulletin 5:1-11. ———. 1995. “Communities, Collectivities, and Delinquency: Past and Present.” Paper prepared for the Clifford R. Shaw Centenary Symposium at the University of Chicago, October 6. Short, James F., Jr. and Fred L. Strodtbeck. 1965. Group Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Short, James F., Jr. and Marvin E. Wolfgang. 1972. Collective Violence. Chicago, IL: Aldine Atherton. Simcha-Fagan, Ora and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1986. “Neighborhood and Delinquency: An Assessment of Contextual Effects.” Criminology 24:667-704. Simon, David R. 1995. Social Problems and the Sociological Imagination: A Paradigm for Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Skogan, Wesley G. 1986. “Fear of Crime and Neighborhood Change.” Pp. 203-29 in Communities and Crime, vol. 8, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1989a. “Communities, Crime and Neighborhood Organization.” Crime and Delinquency 35:437-57.

——. 1989b. “Social Change and the Future of Violent Crime.” Pp. 235-50 in Violence in America: The History of Crime, vol. 1, rev. ed., edited by T. R. Gurr. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

111

——. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York: The Free Press. ——. 1995. “Reactions to Crime and Violence.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 539, special ed., edited by R. D. Lambert and A. W. Heston. Newbury Park, CA: ~ Sage Publications. Skolnick, Jerome H. 1966. Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Skolnick, Jerome H. and David H. Bayley. 1986. The New Blue Line: Police Innovations in Six American Cities. New York: The Free Press. Skolnick, Jerome H. and James J. Fyfe. 1993. Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force. New York: The Free Press. Smelser, Neil J. 1963. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Smith, Douglas A. 1986. “The Neighborhood Context of Police Behavior.” Pp. 313-41 in Communities and Crime, vol. 8, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Smith, Jack C., James A. Mercy, and Mark L. Rosenberg. 1988. “Comparison of Homicides among Anglos and Hispanics in Five Southwestern States.” Border Health 4(1):2-15. Spergel, Irving A. 1984. “Violent Gangs in Chicago: In Search of Social Policy.” Social Service Review 28:199-226. Spilerman, Seymour. 1970. “The Causes of Racial Disturbances: A Comparison of Alternative Explanations.” American Sociological Review 35:627-49. Staub, Ervin. 1989. The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Staub, Ervin and Lori H. Rosenthal. 1994. “Mob Violence: Cultural-Societal Sources, Instigators, Group Processes, and Participants.” Pp. 281-313 in Reason to Hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence & Youth, edited by L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, and P. Schlegel. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Steadman, Henry J. and Joseph P. Morrisey. 1987. “The Impact of Deinstitutionalization on the Criminal Justice System: Implications for Understanding Changing Modes of Social Control.” Pp. 226-48 in Transcarceration: Essays in the Sociology of Social Control, edited by J. Lowman, R. J. Menzies, and T. S. Palys. Aldershot, England: Gower. Stets, Jan E. and Murray A. Straus. 1990. “Gender Differences in Reporting Marital Violence and Its Medical and Psychological Consequences.” Pp. 151-65 in Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and

Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, by M. A. Straus and J. J. Gelles. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1964. Rebellion in a High School. Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books. Straus, Murray A. and Richard J. Gelles. 1990. Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sullivan, Mercer L. 1989. Getting Paid: Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer- | sity Press.

—_——. 1993. “Puerto Ricans in Sunset Park, Brooklyn: Poverty Amidst Ethnic and Economic Diversity.” Pp. 1-25 in In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate, edited by J. Moore and R. Pinderhughes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. 1972. Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

112

Swisher, Kara. 1994. “Working under the Gun: Office Violence Is on the Rise, and Most Firms Aren't Ready to Deal with It.” Washington Post, May 8, p. H1. Taub, Richard P., D. Garth Taylor, and Jan D. Dunham. 1984. Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Teplin, Linda A., ed., 1984. Mental Health and Criminal Justice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Thrasher, Frederic M. 1927. The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Toby, Jackson. 1983. “Violence in School.” Pp. 1-47 in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 4, edited by M. Tonry and Norval Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

——., 1990. “Violence in School.” Pp. 257-70 in Violence: Patterns, Causes, Public Policy, edited by N. A. Weiner, M. A. Zahn, and R. J. Sagi. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ———. 1993/94. “Everyday School Violence: How Disorder Fuels It.” American Educator 17(4):4-9, 44-48. UCAN Report. See National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Panel on Research on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1993. UCR. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports. U.S. Department of Justice. 1994. Fact Sheet. September 26. Van Dine, Stephen, Simon Dinitz, and John Conrad. 1977. “The Incapacitation of the Dangerous Offender: A Statistical Experiment.” Journal on Research in Crime and Delinquency 70:22-34. Van Dine, Steve, John P. Conrad, and Simon Dinitz. 1979. Restraining the Wicked: The Incapacitation of the Dangerous Criminal. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Vincent, Barbara S. and Paul J. Hofer. 1994. The Consequences of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Summary of Recent Findings. Washington, DC: The Federal Judicial Center. Visher, Christy A. 1986. “The Rand Inmate Survey: A Reanalysis.” Pp. 161-211 in Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals,” vol. 2, edited by A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. A. Roth, and C. A. Visher. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ————, 1995. “Career Offenders and Crime Control.” Pp. 515-33 in Criminology: A Contemporary Handbook, 2d ed., edited by J. F Sheley. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Warr, Mark. 1985. “Fear of Rape among Urban Women.” Social Problems 32:238-20.

— . 1994. “Public Perceptions and Reactions to Violent Offending and Victimization.” Pp. 1-66 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Consequences and Control, vol. 4, edited by A. J. Reiss, Jr. and J. A. Roth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Warren, Carol A. B. 1982. The Court of Last Resort: Mental Illness and the Law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Washington Post. 1993. “79 Percent in Poll Believe TV Violence Spurs Real Mayhem.” December 19, p. A12. Wilson, James Q. 1968. Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions, second edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ———., 1991. “Studying Inner-City Social Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research.” American Sociological Review 56:1-14.

113

Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert M. Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wright, James D. and Peter H. Rossi. 1986. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Wright, James D., Peter H. Rossi, and Kathleen Daly. 1983. Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America. New York: Aldine Publishing Co. Yung, Betty R. and W. Rodney Hammond. 1994. “Native Americans.” Pp. 133-44 in Reason to Hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence & Youth, edited by L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, and P. Schlegel. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zahn, Margaret A. 1988. “Homicide in Nine American Cities: The Hispanic Case.” Pp. 13-30 in Violence and Homicide in Hispanic Communities. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Publication Services. ———. 1989. “Homicide in the Twentieth-Century United States: Trends, Types and Causes.” Pp. 216-34 in Violence in America: The History of Crime, vol. 1, edited by T. R. Gurr. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

——. 1993. “Violence in the United States: Trends, Causes and Policy Implications,” Paper prepared for the American Sociological Association, Spivack Series, American Sociological Association, Washington, DC.

Zimring, Franklin E. and Gordon Hawkins. 1986. Capital Punishment and the American Agenda. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

114