Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Severe Physical (severe + physical)
Selected AbstractsGuardians and handlers: the role of bar staff in preventing and managing aggressionADDICTION, Issue 6 2005Kathryn Graham ABSTRACT Aims To identify good and bad behaviors by bar staff in aggressive incidents, the extent these behaviors apparently reflect aggressive intent, and the association of aggressive staff behavior with level of aggression by patrons. Design, setting and participants Data on staff behavior in incidents of aggression were collected by 148 trained observers in bars and clubs on Friday and Saturday night between midnight and 2 a.m. in Toronto, Canada. Behaviors of 809 staff involved in 417 incidents at 74 different bars/clubs were analysed using descriptive statistics and three-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses. Measurements Observers' ratings of 28 staff behaviors were used to construct two scales that measured escalating/aggressive aspects of staff behavior. Apparent intent level for bar staff was dichotomized into (1) no aggressive intent versus (2) probable or definite aggressive intent. Five levels of patron aggression were defined: no aggression, non-physical, minor physical, moderate physical and severe physical. Findings The most common aggressive behaviors of staff were identified. Staff were most aggressive when patrons were either non-aggressive or highly aggressive and staff were least aggressive when patrons exhibited non-physical aggression or minor physical aggression. Taking apparent intent into consideration decreased staff aggression scores for incidents in which patrons were highly aggressive indicating that some aggression by staff in these instances had non-aggressive intent (e.g. to prevent injury); however, apparent intent had little effect on staff aggression scores in incidents with non-aggressive patrons. Conclusion Although there is potential for staff to act as guardians or handlers, they often themselves became offenders when they responded to barroom problems. The practical implications are different for staff aggression with nonaggressive patrons versus with aggressive patrons. [source] The responsibility to care for single homeless peopleHEALTH & SOCIAL CARE IN THE COMMUNITY, Issue 6 2001Maureen Crane RGN RMN MSc PhD Abstract This paper examines the reasons why in contemporary Britain many single homeless people with severe physical and mental health problems and welfare needs do not receive the treatment, care and financial support that they manifestly need, and in particular considers the interaction between their personal characteristics and the organisation and the obligations of services. Homelessness is a complex concept associated with problems of housing, health, social care and income. The greatest weaknesses of the service system are that no single agency has a statutory responsibility to ensure that vulnerable homeless people are served, and none of the generalist welfare agencies have a duty to seek out those who do not present. As a result, single homeless people fall between the housing, health and social services and amass exceptional unmet needs. The paper appraises the approaches to single homeless people's problems that have recently been introduced by the Rough Sleepers' Unit (RSU), and discusses the ways in which current reforms of the welfare services may impact on the situation of homeless people. With the possibility that the RSU's prime responsibility for commissioning single homeless people's services will transfer to local authorities in 2002, the paper concludes by specifying the implications for voluntary and statutory providers and makes recommendations about the attribution of the responsibility to care for this vulnerable group. [source] The Development of Four Types of Adolescent Dating Abuse and Selected Demographic CorrelatesJOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, Issue 3 2009Vangie A. Foshee This study determined the shape of trajectories from ages 13 to 19 of 4 types of dating abuse perpetration and examined whether the demographic characteristics of sex, minority status, socioeconomic status, and family structure systematically explained variation in the trajectories. The data are from 5 waves of data collected from 973 adolescents participating in the control group of a randomized trial. The mean trajectory for psychological dating abuse was positive linear, but the mean trajectories were curvilinear for moderate physical, severe physical, and sexual dating abuse. At all ages, boys reported more severe physical and sexual dating abuse than girls, minorities reported more moderate and severe physical dating abuse than Whites, adolescents in single-parent households reported more psychological and severe physical dating abuse than those in 2-parent-households, and parental education was negatively associated with psychological and moderate physical dating abuse perpetration. The findings have implications for future research and for practice. [source] LOW-INCOME HOMEOWNERSHIP: DOES IT NECESSARILY MEAN SACRIFICING NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY TO BUY A HOME?JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 2 2010ANNA M. SANTIAGO ABSTRACT:,Questions have been raised about the wisdom of low-income homeownership policies for many reasons. One potential reason to be skeptical: low-income homebuyers perhaps may be constrained to purchase homes in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This is a potential problem because home purchases in such neighborhoods: (1) may limit appreciation; (2) may reduce quality of life for adults; and (3) may militate against reputed advantages of homeownership for children. Our study examines the neighborhood conditions of a group of 126 low-income homebuyers who purchased their first home with assistance from the Home Ownership Program (HOP) operated by the Denver Housing Authority. Our approach is distinguished by its use of a comprehensive set of objective and subjective indicators measuring the neighborhood quality of pre-move and post-move neighborhoods. Do low-income homebuyers sacrifice neighborhood quality to buy their homes? Our results suggest that the answer to this question is more complex than it might at first appear. On the one hand, HOP homebuyers purchased in a wide variety of city and suburban neighborhoods. Nonetheless, a variety of neighborhood quality indicators suggest that these neighborhoods, on average, were indeed inferior to those of Denver homeowners overall and to those in the same ethnic group. However, our analyses also revealed that their post-move neighborhoods were superior to the ones they lived in prior to homeownership. Moreover, very few HOP destination neighborhoods evinced severe physical, environmental, infrastructural, or socioeconomic problems, as measured by a wide variety of objective indicators or by the homebuyers' own perceptions. Indeed, only 10% of HOP homebuyers perceived that their new neighborhoods were worse than their prior ones, and only 8% held pessimistic expectations about their new neighborhoods' quality of life. Finally, we found that Black homebuyers fared less well than their Latino counterparts, on average, in both objective and subjective measures. [source] | ||||||||||