Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Victimization Survey (victimization + survey)
Selected AbstractsPOLICE INTERVENTION AND THE REPEAT OF DOMESTIC ASSAULTCRIMINOLOGY, Issue 3 2005RICHARD B. FELSON We use the National Crime Victimization Survey to examine whether domestic violence is less likely to be repeated if it is reported to the police and if the offender is arrested. Our longitudinal analyses suggest that reporting has a fairly strong deterrent effect, whereas the effect of arrest is small and statistically insignificant. We find no support for the hypothesis that offenders retaliate when victims (rather than third parties) call the police or when victims sign complaints. We also find no evidence that the effects of reporting or arrest depend on the seriousness of the offense, a history of violence by the offender or sociodemographic characteristics. Our results suggest that the best policies for deterrence will be those that encourage victims and third parties to report violence by intimate partners to the police. [source] AN ASSESSMENT OF RECENT TRENDS IN GIRLS' VIOLENCE USING DIVERSE LONGITUDINAL SOURCES: IS THE GENDER GAP CLOSING?CRIMINOLOGY, Issue 2 2005DARRELL STEFFENSMEIER Applying Dickey-Fuller time series techniques in tandem with intuitive plot-displays, we examine recent trends in girls' violence and the gender gap as reported in four major sources of longitudinal data on youth violence. These sources are arrest statistics of the Uniform Crime Reports, victimization data of the National Crime Victimization Survey (where the victim identifies sex of offender) and self-reported violent behavior of Monitoring the Future and National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. We find that the rise in girls' violence over the past one to two decades as counted in police arrest data from the Uniform Crime Reports is not borne out in unofficial longitudinal sources. Several net-widening policy shifts have apparently escalated girls' arrest-proneness: first, stretching definitions of violence to include more minor incidents that girls in relative terms are more likely to commit; second, increased policing of violence between intimates and in private settings (for example, home, school) where girls' violence is more widespread; and, third, less tolerant family and societal attitudes toward juvenile females. These developments reflect both a growing intolerance of violence in the law and among the citizenry and an expanded application of preventive punishment and risk management strategies that emphasize early identification and enhanced formal control of problem individuals or groups, particularly problem youth. [source] RESISTING CRIME: THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM ACTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF CRIMESCRIMINOLOGY, Issue 4 2004JONGYEON TARK This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss, second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27, 595 personal contact crime incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the 1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that self-protection in general, both forceful and nonforceful, reduced the likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury, though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of sample cases. The appearance, in past research, of resistance contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury. In crimes where both occurred, injury followed SP in only 10 percent of the incidents. Combined with the fact that injuries following resistance are almost always relatively minor, victim resistance appears to be generally a wise course of action. [source] THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN,CRIMINOLOGY, Issue 2 2004JANET L. LAURITSEN Despite more than three decades of research on the topic of violence against women, the relative contribution of individual, family and community factors to victimization risk remains unknown. We use self-report data from the Area-Identified National Crime Victimization Survey to study the correlates of stranger, nonstranger and intimate,partner violence against women. Regardless of victim-offender relationship, we find that the risk for victimization is highest among young, single women with children, particularly those who have lived in the current home for relatively shorter periods. Area family and age composition appear to have stronger direct relationships with women's violence than poverty or racial composition measures. We also find there to be more similarities than differences in the individual, family, and community correlates of stranger, nonstranger and intimate partner violence. We discuss these findings as part of the growing body of multilevel literature on violence and on violence against women. [source] VIOLENCE AMONG ADOLESCENTS LIVING IN PUBLIC HOUSING: A TWO-SITE ANALYSIS,CRIMINOLOGY AND PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 1 2003TIMOTHY O. IRELAND Research Summary: Current knowledge about violence among public housing residents is extremely limited. Much of what we know about violence in and around public housing is derived from analysis of Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data or victimization surveys of public housing residents. The results of these studies suggest that fear of crime among public housing residents is high and that violent offense rates may be higher in areas that contain public housing compared with similar areas without public housing. Yet, "[r]ecorded crime rates (and victimization rates) are an index not of the rate of participation in crime by residents of an area, but of the rate of crime (or victimization) that occurs in an area whether committed by residents or non-residents" (Weatherburn et al., 1999:259). Therefore, neither UCR nor victimization data measurement strategies address whether crime in and around public housing emanates from those who reside in public housing. Additionally, much of this research focuses on atypical public housing,large developments with high-rise buildings located in major metropolitan areas. To complement the existing literature, we compare rates of self-reported crime and violence among adolescents who reside in public housing in Rochester, N.Y., and Pittsburgh, Pa., with adolescents from the same cities who do not live in public housing. In Rochester, property crime and violence participation rates during adolescence and early adulthood among those in public housing are statistically equivalent to participation rates among those not in public housing. In Pittsburgh, living in public housing during late adolescence and early adulthood, particularly in large housing developments,increases the risk for violent offending, but not for property offending. The current study relies on a relatively small number of subjects in public housing at any single point in time and is based on cross-sectional analyses. Even so, there are several important policy implications that can be derived from this study, given that it moves down a path heretofore largely unexplored. Policy Implications: If replicated, our findings indicate that not all public housing is inhabited disproportionately by those involved in crime; that to develop appropriate responses, it is essential to discover if the perpetrators of violence are residents or trespassers; that policy should target reducing violence specifically and not crime in general; that a modification to housing allocation policies that limits, to the extent possible, placing families with children in late adolescence into large developments might reduce violence perpetrated by residents; that limited resources directed at reducing violence among residents should be targeted at those developments or buildings that actually have high rates of participation in violence among the residents; and that best practices may be derived from developments where violence is not a problem. [source] | ||||||||||