Reflection vict

karinab123

CSS830-VictimologySAGETextReaderSeriesinCriminologyandCriminalJustice2ndedition-LeahDaigle-2018-Learnclax.com.pdf

Home >Biology homework help > Reflection vict

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimology

A Text/Reader

Second Edition

Download more at Learnclax.com

Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over 800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data, case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the company’s continued independence.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimology A Text/Reader

Second Edition

Leah E. Daigle Georgia State University

SAGE Text/Reader Series in Criminology and Criminal Justice

Craig Hemmens, Series Editor

Los Angeles London

New Delhi Singapore

Washington DC Melbourne

Download more at Learnclax.com

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

FOR INFORMATION:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

2455 Teller Road

Thousand Oaks, California 91320

E-mail: [email protected]

SAGE Publications Ltd.

1 Oliver’s Yard

55 City Road

London, EC1Y 1SP

United Kingdom

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044

India

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

3 Church Street

#10–04 Samsung Hub

Singapore 048763

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Daigle, Leah E., author.

Title: Victimology : a text/reader / Leah E. Daigle, Georgia State University.

Description: Second edition. | Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017009809 | ISBN 9781506345215 (pbk. : alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Victims of crimes.

Classification: LCC HV6250.25 .D336 2018 | DDC 362.88—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017009809

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Acquisitions Editor: Jessica Miller

Editorial Assistant: Jennifer Rubio

Production Editor: Jane Haenel

Copy Editor: Mark Bast

Typesetter: Hurix Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Proofreader: Barbara Coster

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://lccn.loc.gov/2017009809

Indexer: Robie Grant

Cover Designer: Candice Harman

Marketing Manager: Amy Lammers

Download more at Learnclax.com

Brief Contents

Foreword Preface Acknowledgments

Section I. Introduction to Victimology Section II. Extent, Theories, and Factors of Victimization Section III. Consequences of Victimization Section IV. Recurring Victimization Section V. Victims’ Rights and Remedies Section VI. Homicide Victimization Section VII. Sexual Victimization Section VIII. Intimate Partner Violence Section IX. Victimization at the Beginning and End of Life: Child and Elder Abuse Section X. Victimization at School and Work Section XI. Property and Identity Theft Victimization Section XII. Victimization of Special Populations Section XIII. Victimology From a Comparative Perspective Section XIV. Contemporary Issues in Victimology: Victims of Hate Crimes, Human Trafficking, and Terrorism

Glossary References Index About the Author

Download more at Learnclax.com

Detailed Contents

Foreword Preface Acknowledgments

Section I. Introduction to Victimology What Is Victimology? The History of Victimology: Before the Victims’ Rights Movement The Role of the Victim in Crime: Victim Precipitation, Victim Facilitation, and Victim Provocation

Hans von Hentig Ripped From the Headlines

Benjamin Mendelsohn Stephen Schafer Marvin Wolfgang Menachem Amir

Focus on Research Focus on International Issues The History of Victimology: The Victims’ Rights Movement

The Women’s Movement The Civil Rights Movement

Contributions of the Victims’ Rights Movement Early Programs for Crime Victims Development of Victim Organizations Legislation and Policy

Victimology Today The Crime Victim The Causes of Victimization Costs of Victimization

Recurring Victimization The Crime Victim and the Criminal Justice System The Crime Victim and Social Services Prevention

Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Section II. Extent, Theories, and Factors of Victimization Measuring Victimization

Download more at Learnclax.com

Uniform Crime Reports Advantages and Disadvantages Crime as Measured by the UCR

National Incident-Based Reporting System National Crime Victimization Survey

Extent of Crime Victimization Typical Victimization and Victim

International Crime Victims Survey Focus on International Issues Theories and Explanations of Victimization

Link Between Victimization and Offending Victim and Offender Characteristics Explaining the Link Between Victimization and Offending

Routine Activities and Lifestyles Theories Ripped From the Headlines

Structural and Social Process Factors Neighborhood Context Exposure to Delinquent Peers

Box 2.1: Immigration and Victimization: Are They Related? Family Social Learning Theory Control-Balance Theory Social Interactionist Perspective Life-Course Perspective

General Theory of Crime Age-Graded Theory of Adult Social Bonds

Genes and Victimization Role of Alcohol in Victimization

Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

How to Read a Research Article Readings

1. Specifying the Influence of Family and Peers on Violent Victimization: Extending Routine Activities and Lifestyles Theories 2. An Investigation of Neighborhood Disadvantage, Low Self-Control, and Violent Victimization Among Youth

Section III. Consequences of Victimization Physical Injury

Download more at Learnclax.com

Mental Health Consequences and Costs Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Self-Blame, Learned Helplessness, and the Brain

Economic Costs Direct Property Losses Medical Care

Ripped From the Headlines Mental Health Care Costs Losses in Productivity Pain, Suffering, and Lost Quality of Life

System Costs Vicarious Victimization Reporting Fear of Crime Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 3. Victimization, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptomatology, and Later Nonsuicidal Self-Harm in a Birth Cohort 4. The Economic Costs of Partner Violence and the Cost-Benefit of Civil Protective Orders

Section IV. Recurring Victimization Types of Recurring Victimization Extent of Recurring Victimization Characteristics of Recurring Victimization

Time Course of Recurring Victimization Crime-Switch Patterns and Victim Proneness

Risk Factors for Recurring Victimization Individual-Level Risk Factors Neighborhood- or Household-Level Risk Factors

Theoretical Explanations of Recurring Victimization Ripped From the Headlines Consequences of Recurring Victimization Responses to Recurring Victimization Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings

Download more at Learnclax.com

5. The Violent and Sexual Victimization of College Women: Is Repeat Victimization a Problem? 6. A Networked Boost: Burglary Co-Offending and Repeat Victimization Using a Network Approach

Section V. Victims’ Rights and Remedies Victims’ Rights

Common Victims’ Rights Given by State Notification

Box 5.1: Victims’ Rights in Virginia Participation and Consultation Right to Protection Right to a Speedy Trial Rights Related to Evidence

Ripped From the Headlines Issues With Victims’ Rights Federal Law

Financial Remedy Victim Compensation Restitution Civil Litigation

Remedies and Rights in Court Victim Impact Statements

Box 5.2: Excerpt From Stanford Rape Victim’s Impact Statement Victim/Witness Assistance Programs Family Justice Centers Restorative Justice Victim–Offender Mediation Programs

Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 7. Delivering a Victim Impact Statement: Emotionally Effective or Counterproductive? 8. Victim Rights and New Remedies: Finally Getting Victims Their Due

Section VI. Homicide Victimization Defining Homicide Victimization

Excusable Homicide Justifiable Homicide Criminal Homicide

First-Degree Murder

Download more at Learnclax.com

Second-Degree Murder Felony Murder Manslaughter

Measurement and Extent of Homicide Victimization Homicide Victimization in the United States

Uniform Crime Reports Supplemental Homicide Reports National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

Homicide Victimization Across the Globe United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime World Health Organization

Risk Factors for and Characteristics of Homicide Victimization Sociodemographic Characteristics of Victims and Offenders

Sex Age Race Urbanity and Socioeconomic Status Victim–Offender Relationship

Incident Characteristics Weapon Usage Circumstances Location Substance Use

Types of Homicide Victimization Filicide Parricide Eldercide

Felonious Homicide Risk and the Elderly Box 6.1: Grandmas at Risk?

Intimate Partner Homicide Intimate Partner Homicide Followed by Suicide

Femicide Box 6.2: Vienna Declaration on Femicide

Honor Killings Homicides Involving Multiple Victims

Ripped From the Headlines Victim Precipitation

Victim Precipitation Theories Indirect or Secondary Victimization

Common Reactions to Homicide

Download more at Learnclax.com

Bereavement Additional Stressors

Legal and Community Responses to Homicide Victimization Police Response Court Response Community Response Restorative Justice Efforts

Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 9. Victim Lifestyle as a Correlate of Homicide Clearance 10. Co-Victims of Homicide: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Section VII. Sexual Victimization What Is Sexual Victimization?

Rape Sexual Victimization Other Than Rape

Box 7.1: The Case of Genarlow Wilson Sexual Coercion Unwanted Sexual Contact Noncontact Sexual Abuse

Measurement and Extent of Sexual Victimization Uniform Crime Reports National Crime Victimization Survey National Violence Against Women Survey Sexual Experiences Survey National College Women Sexual Victimization Study National Study of Drug or Alcohol Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct

Risk Factors for and Characteristics of Sexual Victimization Characteristics of Sexual Victimization

Offenders Injury Weapon Use

Responses to Sexual Victimization Acknowledgment Reporting to the Police and Others Resistance or Self-Protective Action

Download more at Learnclax.com

Consequences of Sexual Victimization Physical, Emotional, and Psychological Effects Behavioral and Relationship Effects Costs Recurring Sexual Victimization

Special Case: Sexual Victimization of Males Legal and Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Victimization

Legal Aspects of Sexual Victimization Violence Against Women Act (1994) HIV and STD Testing Sex Offender Registration and Notification Police Response Medical-Legal Response Prosecuting Rape and Sexual Assault

Prevention and Intervention Ripped From the Headlines Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 11. Alcohol Expectancy, Drinking Behavior, and Sexual Victimization Among Female and Male College Students 12. The Effectiveness of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs: A Review of Psychological, Medical, Legal, and Community Outcomes

Section VIII. Intimate Partner Violence Defining Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Measurement and Extent

National Crime Victimization Survey Conflict Tactics Scale

Box 8.1: Sample CTS-2 Questions National Violence Against Women Survey National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

Who Is Victimized? Gender and Intimate Partner Violence Special Case: Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence Special Case: Stalking

Risk Factors and Theories for Intimate Partner Violence Stress Cohabitation

Download more at Learnclax.com

Power and Patriarchy Social Learning Disability Status Neighborhood Context Risky Lifestyle

Associating With Known Criminals Alcohol and Drugs

Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Negative Health Outcomes Death Psychological and Emotional Outcomes Revictimization

Why Abusive Relationships Continue Criminal Justice System Responses to Intimate Partner Violence

Police Response Court Response

Legal and Community Responses Protective Orders Domestic Violence Shelters

Ripped From the Headlines Health Care Family Violence Prevention and Services Act

Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 13. Conflict and Control: Gender Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence 14. Intimate Partner Violence and the Victim–Offender Overlap 15. Voices of Strength and Resistance: A Contextual and Longitudinal Analysis of Women’s Responses to Battering

Section IX. Victimization at the Beginning and End of Life: Child and Elder Abuse Child Maltreatment

What Is Child Maltreatment? Measurement and Extent of Child Maltreatment Who Are Victims of Child Maltreatment? Who Perpetrates Child Maltreatment? Risk Factors for Child Maltreatment

Familial Risk Factors Individual Risk Factors

Download more at Learnclax.com

Consequences of Child Maltreatment Physical, Cognitive, and Developmental Effects Psychological Effects Effect on Criminality and Other Behaviors Effect on Adult Poverty

Responses to Child Maltreatment Legislation Criminal Justice System

Elder Maltreatment What Is Elder Maltreatment?

Box 9.1: Abuse of Durable Power of Attorney: Case Example Measurement and Extent of Elder Maltreatment

Reports From Adult Protective Services Estimates Derived From Surveys Special Case: Elder Maltreatment in Institutions Special Case: Intimate Partner Violence of Older Women Special Case: Financial Exploitation of the Elderly

Who Are Victims of Elder Maltreatment? Ripped From the Headlines

Characteristics of Elder Maltreatment Victimization Risk Factors for Elder Maltreatment

Perpetrator Risk Factors Routine Activities Theory

Responses to Elder Maltreatment Legislation Criminal Justice System

Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 16. Child Abuse and Neglect, Developmental Role Attainment, and Adult Arrests 17. The Epidemiology of Violence Against the Elderly: Implications for Primary and Secondary Prevention

Section X. Victimization at School and Work Victimization at School Victimization at School: Grades K–12

Who Is Victimized? Risk Factors for School Victimization Consequences

Download more at Learnclax.com

Bullying Psychosocial Effects of Bullying Victimization Violent Effects of Bullying Victimization

Responses to School Victimization Box 10.1: The Story of Phoebe Prince Box 10.2: Forida’s Bullying/Harassment, Cyberbullying, and Hazing Laws Victimization at School: College

Who Is Victimized? Risk Factors for Victimization at College

Lifestyle/Routine Activities Alcohol

Responses to Campus Victimization Legislation

Ripped From the Headlines Campus Police and Security Measures

Victimization at Work Definition of Workplace Victimization Extent of Workplace Victimization Who Is Victimized at Work?

Demographic Characteristics of Victims Occupations With Greatest Risk

Special Case: Fatal Workplace Victimization Demographic Characteristics of Victims Occupations and Workplaces With Greatest Risk

Risk Factors for Victimization at Work Special Case: Sexual Harassment Consequences of Workplace Victimization Responses to Workplace Victimization

Prevention Strategies Legislation and Regulation

Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 18. Traditional Bullying, Cyber Bullying, and Deviance: A General Strain Theory Approach 19. A Multidimensional Examination of Campus Safety: Victimization, Perceptions of Danger, Worry About Crime, and Precautionary Behavior Among College Women in the Post-Clery Era

Section XI. Property and Identity Theft Victimization

Download more at Learnclax.com

Property Victimization Theft

Extent of Theft Characteristics of Theft Who Are Theft Victims? Risk Factors for Theft Victimization

Motor Vehicle Theft Extent of Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization Characteristics of Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization Who Are Motor Vehicle Theft Victims? Risk Factors for Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization Response to Motor Vehicle Theft

Household Burglary Extent of Household Burglary Characteristics of Household Burglary What Households Are Burglarized? Risk Factors for Household Burglary

Identity Theft Extent of Identity Theft Victimization

Box 11.1: Example of Identity Theft Case Who Is Victimized by Identity Theft?

Ripped From the Headlines Characteristics of Identity Theft Victimizations Risk Factors for Identity Theft Victimization Consequences of Identity Theft Responses to Identity Theft Victimization

Box 11.2: CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 Box 11.3: Illinois Identity Theft Law Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 20. Linking Burglary and Target Hardening at the Property Level: New Insights Into Victimization and Burglary Protection 21. Online Routines and Identify Theft Victimization: Further Expanding Routine Activity Theory Beyond Direct-Contact Offenses

Section XII. Victimization of Special Populations Victimization of Persons With Disabilities

Defining Persons With Disabilities

Download more at Learnclax.com

Extent of Victimization of Persons With Disabilities Who Is Victimized? Ripped From the Headlines

Violence Against Women With Disabilities Victimization of Youth With Disabilities

Patterns of Victimization Risk Factors for Victimization for Persons With Disabilities Responses to Victims With Disabilities Victimization of Persons With Mental Illness

Defining Mental Illness Extent and Type of Victimization of Persons With Mental Illness Why Are Persons With Mental Illness at Risk for Victimization? Responses to Victims With Mental Illness

Victimization of the Incarcerated Extent of Victimization of People in Jail and Prison Who Is Victimized? Risk Factors for Victimization While Incarcerated

Previous History of Victimization Mental Illness Risk Taking/Self-Control Institutional Factors Lifestyles and Routine Activities

Special Case: Sexual Victimization of Incarcerated Persons Who Is Sexually Victimized? Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization in Prison and Jail

Responses to Victimization in Prison Inmate Response Institutional Response

Box 12.1: The Case of Farmer v. Brennan Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 22. Partner Violence Against Women With Disabilities: Prevalence, Risk, and Explanations 23. Mental Disorder and Violent Victimization: The Mediating Role of Involvement in Conflicted Social Relationships 24. Vicarious Victimization in Prison: Examining the Effects of Witnessing Victimization While Incarcerated on Offender Reentry

Section XIII. Victimology From a Comparative Perspective

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimology Across the Globe Measurement and Extent of Victimization Across the Globe

International Crime Victims Survey International Self-Report Delinquency Study British Crime Survey/Crime Survey for England and Wales International Violence Against Women Survey

Justice System Responses to Victimization Victims and the United Nations International Court of Justice International Criminal Court

Ripped From the Headlines Ripped From the Headlines Victims’ Rights and Assistance Programs

European Union Different Approaches in Different Locales

Box 13.1: Canadian Victims Bill of Rights Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 25. The International Crime Victims Survey: A Retrospective 26. A Systematic Review of Prevalence and Risk Factors for Elder Abuse in Asia

Section XIV. Contemporary Issues in Victimology: Victims of Hate Crimes, Human Trafficking, and Terrorism

Victims of Hate Crimes What Is Hate Crime Victimization? Extent of Hate Crime Victimization Who Are Hate Crime Victims?

Individual Characteristics Type of Hate Crime Victimization Experienced

Special Case: Sexual-Orientation-Bias-Motivated Hate Crime Victimization Ripped From the Headlines

Characteristics of Hate Crime Victimizations Risk Factors for Hate Crime Victimization

Box 14.1: Tara’s Story of Experiencing Anti-LGBTQ Victimization Consequences of Hate Crime Victimization

Consequences for Individuals Consequences for the Community

Responses to Hate Crime Victimization

Download more at Learnclax.com

Legislation Criminal Justice System Response

Victims of Human Trafficking What Is Human Trafficking? Extent of Human Trafficking Who Is Trafficked? Risk Factors for Human Trafficking

Individual Risk Factors Country Risk Factors

Consequences for Victims of Human Trafficking Response to Human Trafficking Victims

International Response United States Governmental/Criminal Justice Response Victim Services

Victims of Terrorism Extent of Terrorism Victimization Who Are Victims of Terrorism? Characteristics of Terrorism Victimizations Risk Factors for Terrorism Victimization Consequences of Terrorism on Victims Responses to Victims of Terrorism

Summary Discussion Questions Key Terms Internet Resources

Readings 27. Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experiences Among Sexual Minority Adults in the United States: Prevalence Estimates From a National Probability Sample 28. Challenges to Identifying and Prosecuting Sex Trafficking Cases in the Midwest United States 29. Does Watching the News Affect Fear of Terrorism? The Importance of Media Exposure on Terrorism Fear

Glossary References Index About the Author

Download more at Learnclax.com

Foreword

You hold in your hands a book that is part of a series we have created at SAGE and that we think represents an innovative approach to criminology and criminal justice pedagogy. It is a “text/reader.” What that means is that we have attempted to blend the two most commonly used types of books, the textbook and the reader, in a way that will appeal to both students and faculty.

Our experience as teachers and scholars has been that textbooks for the core classes in criminal justice and criminology (or any other social science discipline) leave many students and professors cold. The textbooks are huge, crammed with photographs, charts, highlighted material, and all sorts of pedagogical devices intended to increase student interest. Too often, though, these books end up creating a sort of sensory overload for students; they suffer from a focus on “bells and whistles,” such as fancy graphics, at the expense of coverage of the most current research on the subject matter.

Readers, on the other hand, are typically composed of recent and classic research articles on the subject matter. They generally suffer, however, from an absence of meaningful textual material. Articles are simply lined up and presented to the students, with little or no context or explanation. Students, particularly undergraduate students, are often confused and overwhelmed by the jargon and detailed statistical analysis presented in the articles.

This text/reader represents our attempt to take the best of both the textbook and reader approaches. It is composed of research articles on victimology and is intended to serve either as a supplement to a core textbook or as a stand-alone text. The book includes a combination of previously published articles and textual material that introduces and provides some structure and context for the selected readings. The book is divided into sections. The sections follow the typical content and structure of a textbook on the subject. Each section of the book has an overview of the topic that serves to introduce, explain, and provide context for the readings that follow. The readings are a selection of the best recent research that has appeared in academic journals, as well as some essential older readings. The articles are edited as necessary. This variety of research and perspectives provides students with an understanding of both the development of research and the current status of research on victimology. This approach gives the student the opportunity to learn the basics (in the text portion of each section) and to read some of the most interesting research on the subject.

There is also a preface and an introductory chapter on how to read a research article. The preface explains the organization and content of the book. The introductory chapter provides a framework for the text and articles that follow and introduces relevant themes, issues, and concepts. This will assist the student in understanding the articles.

Each section also includes a summary of the material covered and a selection of discussion questions. These summaries and discussion questions should facilitate student thought and class discussion of the material.

We acknowledge that this approach may be viewed by some as more challenging than the traditional

Download more at Learnclax.com

textbook. To that we say, “Yes! It is!” But we believe that if we raise the bar, our students will rise to the challenge. Research shows that students and faculty often find textbooks boring to read. It is our belief that

many criminology and criminal justice instructors welcome the opportunity to teach without having to rely on a standard textbook that covers only the most basic information and that lacks both depth of coverage and an attention to current research. This book provides an alternative for instructors who want to get more out of the basic criminal justice courses or curriculum than one can get from a basic textbook that is filled with flashy but often useless features that merely serve to drive up the cost of the textbook. This book is intended for instructors who want to go beyond the ordinary, basic coverage provided in textbooks.

We also believe students will find this approach more interesting. They are given the opportunity to read current, cutting-edge research on the subject, while also being provided with background and context for this research. We hope that this unconventional approach will make learning and teaching more fun. Crime and criminal justice are fascinating subjects, and they deserve to be presented in an interesting manner. We hope you will agree.

Craig Hemmens, JD, PhD, Series Editor

Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice

Missouri State University

Download more at Learnclax.com

Preface

Although offender behavior and the impacts of crime have long been studied, how victimization shapes the lives of victims was not similarly studied until recently. Now, policymakers, practitioners, academics, and activists alike have recognized the importance of studying the other half of the crime-victim dyad. Indeed, it is an exciting time to study victimology—an academic field that is growing rapidly. Hence, this text fills a void in what is currently available in the market. As noted shortly, it is a text that includes brief sections covering the essentials on victimology. Moreover, it uses a consistent framework throughout to orient the reader, while addressing the latest topics within the field of victimology. Accompanying the sections are up-to-date empirical articles that highlight key issues raised in each section and have been edited so that students can easily understand them.

I have attempted to incorporate a general framework in each section—one that examines the causes and consequences of specific types of victimization and the responses to them. My intent was to create a comprehensive yet accessible work that examines many types of victimization from a common framework so that similarities and differences can be easily identified.

Within this framework, I pay particular attention to identifying the characteristics of victims and incidents so that theory can be applied to understanding why some people are victims whereas others remain unscathed. Although the earliest forays into the study of victimology were focused on identifying victim typologies, theory development in this field has lagged behind that in criminology. Aside from routine activities and lifestyles theories, there are few theories that explicitly identify causes of victimization. This is not to say that the field of victimology is devoid of theory—it is just that the theories that have been applied to victimization are largely derived from other fields of study. I have included a section that discusses these theories. Furthermore, in each section about a specific type of victimization, I have identified the causes and how theory may apply. Knowing this is a critical first step in preventing victimization and revictimization.

I also wanted to include throughout the text emerging issues in the field of victimology. To this end, each section discusses current issues germane to its particular topic. For example, same-sex intimate partner violence is covered in depth, as are cyberbullying, identity theft victimization, and human trafficking. Other sections wholly address contemporary issues. Specifically, new to the second edition are sections devoted to recurring victimization, victims of homicide, and comparative victimology. In addition to these new sections, other contemporary issues such as victims who suffer from mental illness, victims who are incarcerated, and victims who have disabilities are discussed. I believe that the inclusion of the latest issues within the field of victimology will expose the reader to the topics likely to garner the most attention in the years to come. This text covers these topics while highlighting empirical research that ties into an issue from each section. In addition, each section uses a real-world news example to connect issues in victimology to current events. As such, the book is appropriate for undergraduate students as a primary text and for graduate students as a supplement/resource or as a primary text. Its comprehensive nature allows the instructor to focus on the issues most relevant to him or her and to his or her students. The book is appropriate for classes within criminal

Download more at Learnclax.com

justice and criminology programs (e.g., victimology, crime victims, gender and crime) but is also relevant for women’s studies, social work, psychology, and sociology courses.

The book contains 14 sections selected because they address the topics typically covered in victimology courses and emerging topics. The following sections are included:

The text also includes a range of features to aid both professors and students:

Each section is summarized in bullet points. Discussion questions are included at the end of each section. A list of key terms is included at the end of each section. Internet resources relevant for each section are provided. Each section includes graphics pertinent to the topic presented. Each section has a Ripped From the Headlines box item. The book has a glossary of key terms.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Digital Resources

study.sagepub.com/daigle2e

Calling all instructors! It’s easy to log on to SAGE’s password-protected Instructor Teaching Site for complete and protected access to all text-specific Instructor Resources. Simply provide your institutional information for verification and within 72 hours you’ll be able to use your login information for any SAGE title!

Password-protected Instructor Resources include the following:

Test banks provide a diverse range of pre-written options as well as the opportunity to edit any question and/or insert personalized questions to effectively assess students’ progress and understanding. Editable, chapter-specific PowerPoint slides offer complete flexibility for creating a multimedia presentation for the course. EXCLUSIVE! Access to full-text SAGE journal articles that have been carefully selected to support and expand on the concepts presented in each chapter to encourage students to think critically. Video and multimedia resources have been chosen that appeal to students with different learning styles.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the editorial and production staff at SAGE Publications for their assistance updating this book. Jerry Westby has been wonderfully supportive throughout this process. I appreciate your continued confidence in my work and will greatly miss you as you move on to new adventures! Thank you also to Jessica Miller, Jane Haenel, and Jillian Oelsen for your assistance in production and marketing at SAGE.

I owe a great debt to several students at Georgia State who assisted me in various ways—Ali Metalwala and Jane Daquin, who helped update statistics, and Sarah Napper and Andia Azimi, who worked to update references. Also thanks to Lisa Muftić, whose work on Victimology was used in several sections with her permission for this text. I also want to thank my husband, Taylor, for being unfailingly supportive and always making me laugh, even during the most stressful times.

Although the review process was always daunting, a number of scholars provided wonderful feedback that improved the final book. I cannot thank them enough for their time and effort for providing such detailed and invaluable reviews. Along with SAGE Publications, I wish to thank these reviewers of the first edition:

Dorinda Downs Columbus State University Kate Fox Arizona State University Susan Miller University of Delaware Karla Pope Mississippi Gulf Coast College/University of Southern Mississippi Lindsey Vigesaa Nova Southeastern University Jeff Walsh Illinois State University Mary West-Smith University of Northern Colorado

I also thank the reviewers of the second edition:

Tracy G. Crump Chicago State University Edna Erez University of Illinois at Chicago Iryna Malendevych University of Central Florida Laura A. Patterson

Download more at Learnclax.com

Shippensburg University Chad Posick Georgia Southern University Michael S. Proctor Texas A&M University–San Antonio Melissa J. Tetzlaff-Bemiller University of Memphis Mary West-Smith University of Northern Colorado

Portions of Section IV are based on Daigle, L. E., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). The recurrence of victimization: What researchers know about its terminology, characteristics, causes, and prevention. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio, & S. Herman (Eds.), Victims of Crime (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section I Introduction to Victimology

Download more at Learnclax.com

What Is Victimology?

The term victimology is not new. In fact, Benjamin Mendelsohn first used it in 1947 to describe the scientific study of crime victims. Victimology is often considered a subfield of criminology, and the two fields do share much in common. Just as criminology is the study of criminals—what they do, why they do it, and how the criminal justice system responds to them—victimology is the study of victims. Victimology, then, is the study of the etiology (or causes) of victimization, its consequences, how the criminal justice system accommodates and assists victims, and how other elements of society, such as the media, deal with crime victims. Victimology is a science; victimologists use the scientific method to answer questions about victims. For example, instead of simply wondering or hypothesizing why younger people are more likely to be victims than are older people, victimologists conduct research to attempt to identify the reasons why younger people seem more vulnerable.

Download more at Learnclax.com

The History of Victimology: Before the Victims’ Rights Movement

As previously mentioned, the term victimology was coined in the mid-1900s. Crime was, of course, occurring prior to this time; thus, people were being victimized long before the scientific study of crime victims began. Even though they were not scientifically studied, victims were recognized as being harmed by crime, and their role in the criminal justice process has evolved over time.

Before and throughout the Middle Ages (about the 5th through the 16th century), the burden of the justice system, informal as it was, fell on the victim. When a person or property was harmed, it was up to the victim and the victim’s family to seek justice. This was typically achieved via retaliation. The justice system operated under the principle of lex talionis, an eye for an eye. A criminal would be punished because he or she deserved it, and the punishment would be equal to the harm caused. Punishment based on these notions is consistent with retribution. During this time, a crime was considered a harm against the victim, not the state. The concepts of restitution and retribution governed action against criminals. Criminals were expected to pay back the victim through restitution. During this time, a criminal who stole a person’s cow likely would have to compensate the owner (the victim) by returning the stolen cow and also giving him or her another one.

Early criminal codes incorporated these principles. The Code of Hammurabi was the basis for order and certainty in Babylon. In the code, restoration of equity between the offender and victim was stressed. Notice that the early response to crime centered on the victim, not the state. This focus on the victim continued until the Industrial Revolution, when criminal law shifted to considering crimes violations against the state rather than the victim. Once the victim ceased to be seen as the entity harmed by the crime, the victim became secondary. Although this shift most certainly benefited the state—by allowing it to collect fines and monies from these newly defined harms—the victim did not fare as well. Instead of being the focus, the crime victim was effectively excluded from the formal aspects of the justice system.

Since then, this state-centered system has largely remained in place, but attention—at least from researchers and activists—returned to the crime victim during the 1940s. Beginning in this period, concern was shown for the crime victim, but this concern was not entirely sympathetic. Instead, scholars and others became preoccupied with how the crime victim contributes to his or her own victimization. Scholarly work during this period focused not on the needs of crime victims but on identifying to what extent victims could be held responsible for being victimized. In this way, the damage that offenders cause was ignored. Instead, the ideas of victim precipitation, victim facilitation, and victim provocation emerged.

Download more at Learnclax.com

The Role of the Victim in Crime: Victim Precipitation, Victim Facilitation, and Victim Provocation

Although the field of victimology has largely moved away from simply investigating how much a victim contributes to his or her own victimization, the first forays into the study of crime victims were centered on such investigations. In this way, the first studies of crime victims did not portray victims as innocents who were wronged at the hands of an offender. Rather, concepts such as victim precipitation, victim facilitation, and victim provocation developed from these investigations. Victim precipitation is defined as the extent to which a victim is responsible for his or her own victimization. The concept of victim precipitation is rooted in the notion that, although some victims are not at all responsible for their victimization, other victims are. In this way, victim precipitation acknowledges that crime victimization involves at least two people—an offender and a victim—and that both parties are acting and often reacting before, during, and after the incident. Identifying victim precipitation does not necessarily lead to negative outcomes. It is problematic, however, when it is used to blame the victim while ignoring the offender’s role.

Similar to victim precipitation is the concept of victim facilitation. Victim facilitation occurs when a victim unintentionally makes it easier for an offender to commit a crime. A victim may, in this way, be a catalyst for victimization. A woman who accidentally left her purse in plain view in her office while she went to the restroom and then had it stolen would be a victim who facilitated her own victimization. This woman is not blameworthy—the offender should not steal, regardless of whether the purse is in plain view. But the victim’s actions certainly made her a likely target and made it easy for the offender to steal her purse. Unlike precipitation, facilitation helps understand why one person may be victimized over another but does not connote blame and responsibility.

Contrast victim facilitation with victim provocation. Victim provocation occurs when a person does something that incites another person to commit an illegal act. Provocation suggests that without the victim’s behavior, the crime would not have occurred. Provocation, then, most certainly connotes blame. In fact, the offender is not at all responsible. An example of victim provocation would be if a person attempted to mug a man who was walking home from work and the man, instead of willingly giving the offender his wallet, pulled out a gun and shot the mugger. The offender in this scenario ultimately is a victim, but he would not have been shot if not for attempting to mug the shooter. The distinctions between victim precipitation, facilitation, and provocation, as you probably noticed, are not always clear-cut. These terms were developed, described, studied, and used in somewhat different ways in the mid-1900s by several scholars.

Hans von Hentig

In his book The Criminal and His Victim: Studies in the Sociobiology of Crime, Hans von Hentig (1948) recognized the importance of investigating what factors underpin why certain people are victims, just as criminology attempts to identify those factors that produce criminality. He determined that some of the same characteristics that produce crime also produce victimization. We return to this link between victims and offenders in Section II, but for now, recognize that one of the first discussions of criminal victimization

Download more at Learnclax.com

connected it to offending.

Photo 1.1 A person left his keys in his car while he went shopping. By doing so, the person inadvertently made it easier for an offender to steal his car, thus precipitating his victimization.

In studying victimization, then, von Hentig looked at the criminal-victim dyad, thus recognizing the importance of considering the victim and the criminal not in isolation but together. He attempted to identify the characteristics of a victim that may effectively serve to increase victimization risk. He considered that victims may provoke victimization—acting as agent provocateurs—based on their characteristics. He argued that crime victims could be placed into one of 13 categories based on their propensity for victimization: (1) young; (2) females; (3) old; (4) immigrants; (5) depressed; (6) mentally defective/deranged; (7) the acquisitive; (8) dull normals; (9) minorities; (10) wanton; (11) the lonesome and heartbroken; (12) tormentor; and (13) the blocked, exempted, and fighting. All these victims are targeted and contribute to their own victimization because of their characteristics. For example, the young, the old, and females may be victimized because of their ignorance or risk taking, or may be taken advantage of, such as when women are sexually assaulted. Immigrants, minorities, and dull normals are likely to be victimized due to their social status and inability to activate assistance in the community. The mentally defective or deranged may be victimized because they do not recognize or appropriately respond to threats in the environment. Those who are depressed, acquisitive, wanton, lonesome, or heartbroken may place themselves in situations in which they do not recognize danger because of their mental state, their sadness over a lost relationship, their desire for companionship, or their greed. Tormentors are people who provoke their own victimization via violence and aggression toward others. Finally, the blocked, exempted, and fighting victims are those who are enmeshed in poor decisions and unable

Download more at Learnclax.com

to defend themselves or seek assistance if victimized. An example of such a victim is a person who is blackmailed because of his behavior, which places him in a precarious situation if he reports the blackmail to the police (Dupont-Morales, 2009).

Ripped From the Headlines

On November 5, 2013, two armed robbers entered a Reading, Pennsylvania, convenience store and stole cash, cigarettes, and lottery tickets. They got more than they bargained for! After leaving the store with their loot, a friend of the owner of the store confronted them, and the two robbers then raised their guns at him. In response, the man then pulled out his own weapon and shot both robbers in the chest. Both robbers were pronounced dead at the scene. What do you think about this incident? Was the man justified in shooting the robbers? Was this victim facilitation? Precipitation? Provocation? What do you think about one of the friends of the robbers who said, “They should have thought about this before going”?

Source: Bayliss & Chang (2013).

Benjamin Mendelsohn

Known as the father of victimology, Benjamin Mendelsohn coined the term for this area of study in the mid- 1940s. As an attorney, he became interested in the relationship between the victim and the criminal as he conducted interviews with victims and witnesses and realized that victims and offenders often knew each other and had some kind of existing relationship. He then created a classification of victims based on their culpability, or the degree of the victim’s blame. His classification entailed the following:

1. Completely innocent victim: a victim who bears no responsibility at all for victimization; victimized simply because of his or her nature, such as being a child

2. Victim with minor guilt: a victim who is victimized due to ignorance; a victim who inadvertently places himself or herself in harm’s way

3. Victim as guilty as offender/voluntary victim: a victim who bears as much responsibility as the offender; a person who, for example, enters into a suicide pact

4. Victim more guilty than offender: a victim who instigates or provokes his or her own victimization 5. Most guilty victim: a victim who is victimized during the perpetration of a crime or as a result of crime 6. Simulating or imaginary victim: a victim who is not victimized at all but, instead, fabricates a

victimization event

Mendelsohn’s classification emphasized degrees of culpability, recognizing that some victims bear no responsibility for their victimization, whereas others, based on their behaviors or actions, do.

Stephen Schafer

One of the earliest victimologists, Stephen Schafer (1968) wrote The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility. Much like von Hentig and Mendelsohn, Schafer also proposed a victim typology. Using both social characteristics and behaviors, his typology places victims in groups based on how responsible they are for their own victimization. In this way, it includes facets of von Hentig’s typology based on personal characteristics and Mendelsohn’s typology rooted in behavior. He argued that people have a functional responsibility not to provoke others into victimizing or harming them and that they also should actively

Download more at Learnclax.com

attempt to prevent that from occurring. He identified seven categories and labeled their levels of responsibility as follows:

1. Unrelated victims—no responsibility 2. Provocative victims—share responsibility 3. Precipitative victims—some degree of responsibility 4. Biologically weak victims—no responsibility 5. Socially weak victims—no responsibility 6. Self-victimizing—total responsibility 7. Political victims—no responsibility

Marvin Wolfgang

The first person to empirically investigate victim precipitation was Marvin Wolfgang (1957) in his classic study of homicides occurring in Philadelphia from 1948 to 1952. He examined some 558 homicides to see to what extent victims precipitated their own deaths. In those instances in which the victim was the direct, positive precipitator in the homicide, Wolfgang labeled the incident as victim precipitated. For example, the victim in such an incident would be the first to brandish or use a weapon, the first to strike a blow, and the first to initiate physical violence. He found that 26% of all homicides in Philadelphia during this period were victim precipitated.

Photo 1.2 Marvin Wolfgang studied homicides in Philadelphia and found that about a quarter were victim precipitated. He has been recognized as one of the most influential criminologists in the English-speaking world (Kaufman, 1998).

Download more at Learnclax.com

Almanac, University of Pennsylvania

Beyond simply identifying the extent to which homicides were victim precipitated, Wolfgang also identified those factors that were common in such homicides. He determined that often in this kind of homicide, the victim and the offender knew each other. He also found that most victim-precipitated homicides involved male offenders and male victims and that the victim was likely to have a history of violent offending himself. Alcohol was also likely to play a role in victim-precipitated homicides, which makes sense, especially considering that Wolfgang determined these homicides often started as minor altercations that escalated to murder.

Since Wolfgang’s study of victim-precipitated homicide, others have expanded his definition to include felony-related homicide and subintentional homicide. Subintentional homicide occurs when the victim facilitates his or her own demise by using poor judgment, placing himself or herself at risk, living a risky lifestyle, or using alcohol or drugs. Perhaps not surprising, a study of subintentional homicide found that as many as three-fourths of victims were subintentional (N. H. Allen, 1980).

Menachem Amir

The crime of rape is not immune from victim blaming today, and it certainly has not been in the past either. Menachem Amir, a student of Wolfgang’s, conducted an empirical investigation into rape incidents reported to the police. Like Wolfgang, he conducted his study using data from Philadelphia, although he examined rapes that occurred from 1958 to 1960. He examined the extent to which victims precipitated their own rapes and identified common attributes of victim-precipitated rape. Amir labeled almost 1 in 5 rapes as victim precipitated. He found that these rapes were likely to involve alcohol and that the victim was likely to engage in seductive behavior, wear revealing clothing, use risqué language, and have a bad reputation. What Amir also determined was that it is the offender’s interpretation of actions that is important, rather than what the victim actually does. The offender may view the victim—her actions, words, and clothing—as going against what he considers appropriate female behavior. In this way, the victim may be viewed as being “bad” in terms of how women should behave sexually. He may then choose to rape her because of his misguided view of how women should act, because he thinks she deserves it, or because he thinks she has it coming to her. Amir’s study was quite controversial—it was attacked for blaming victims, namely women, for their own victimization. As you will learn in Section VII, rape and sexual assault victims today still must overcome this view that women (because such victims are usually female) are largely responsible for their own victimization.

Focus on Research

Even though the first study examining victim precipitation and homicide was published in 1957, this phenomenon is being examined in contemporary times as well. In recent research examining 895 homicides that occurred in Dallas, Texas, Muftić and Hunt (2013) found that 48.9% (n = 438) were victim precipitated. They further found that homicides in which the victim had a previous history of offending were more likely to be victim precipitated than homicides in which the victim had no such history.

Source: Muftić & Hunt (2013).

Focus on International Issues

Download more at Learnclax.com

Even though the field of victimology has moved beyond the early typologies put forth by von Hentig and others, victimology still is concerned with victim precipitation, provocation, and facilitation. Consider the case of Ahmed Hassan, a 24-year-old man who was shot and killed at a Toronto, Canada, shopping mall on June 2, 2012. Christopher Husbands, age 23, shot him and injured six others. Although the exact motives behind the murder are not known, it is believed that Husbands and Hassan were members of a gang, known as Sic Thugs. Husbands had previously been attacked by Hassan and other members of Sic Thugs. He was tied up with duct tape and tortured in a bathtub in an empty public housing apartment. According to the typologies you have learned about, how did Hassan contribute, if at all, to his own victimization?

Source: Mertl (2012).

Download more at Learnclax.com

The History of Victimology: The Victims’ Rights Movement

Beyond the attention victims began to get based on how much they contributed to their own victimization, researchers and social organizations started to pay attention to victims and their plight during the mid-1900s. This marked a shift in how victims were viewed not only by the public but also by the criminal justice system. As noted, scholars began to examine the role of the victim in criminal events, but more sympathetic attention was also given to crime victims, largely as an outgrowth of other social movements.

During the 1960s, concern about crime was growing. This period saw a large increase in the amount of crime occurring in the United States. As crime rates soared, so too did the number of people directly and indirectly harmed by crime. In 1966, in response to the growing crime problem, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice was formed. One of the commission’s responsibilities was to conduct the first ever government-sponsored victimization survey, called the National Crime Survey (which later became the National Crime Victimization Survey). This survey is discussed in depth in Section II. Importantly, it showed that although official crime rates were on the rise, they paled in comparison with the amount of victimization uncovered. This discrepancy was found because official data sources of crime rates are based on those crimes reported or otherwise made known to the police, whereas the National Crime Survey relied on victims to recall their own experiences. Further, victims were asked in the survey whether they reported their victimization to the police and, if not, why they chose not to report. For the first time, a picture of victimization emerged, and this picture was far different than previously depicted. Victimization was more extensive than originally thought, and the reluctance of victims to report was discovered. This initial data collection effort did not occur in a vacuum. Instead, several social movements were under way that further moved crime victims into the collective American consciousness.

The Women’s Movement

One of the most influential movements for victims was the women’s movement. In recognition that victimizations such as sexual assault and domestic violence were a by-product of sexism, traditional sex roles, emphasis on traditional family values, and economic subjugation of women, the women’s movement took on as part of its mission helping female victims of crime. Feminists were, in part, concerned with how female victims were treated by the criminal justice system and pushed for victims of rape and domestic violence to receive special care and services. As a result, domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers started appearing in the 1970s. Closely connected to the women’s movement was the push toward giving children rights. Not before viewed as crime victims, children were also identified as being in need of services, for they could be victims of child abuse, could become runaways, and could be victimized in much the same ways as older people. The effects of victimization on children were, at this time, of particular concern.

Three critical developments arose from the recognition of women and children as victims and from the opening of victims’ services devoted specifically to them. First, the movement brought awareness that victimization often entails emotional and mental harm, even in the absence of physical injury. To address this harm, counseling for victims was advocated. Second, the criminal justice system was no longer relied on to

Download more at Learnclax.com

provide victims with assistance in rebuilding their lives; thus additional victimization by the criminal justice system could be lessened or avoided altogether. Third, because these shelters and centers relied largely on volunteers, services were able to run and stay open even without significant budgetary support (M. A. Young & Stein, 2004).

The Civil Rights Movement

Also integral to the development of victims’ rights was the civil rights movement. This movement advocated against racism and discrimination, noting that all Americans have rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The civil rights movement, as it created awareness of the mistreatment of minorities, served as a backdrop for the victims’ rights movement in that it identified how minorities were mistreated by the criminal justice system, both as offenders and victims. The ideologies of the women’s movement and the civil rights movement merged to create a victims’ rights movement largely supported by females, minorities, and young persons who pushed forward a victims’ agenda that concentrated on making procedural changes in the operation of the criminal justice system (B. L. Smith, Sloan, & Ward, 1990).

Download more at Learnclax.com

Contributions of the Victims’ Rights Movement

We discuss the particulars of programs and services available for crime victims today in Section V, but to understand the importance of the victims’ rights movement, its contributions should be outlined.

Early Programs for Crime Victims

In the United States, the first crime victims’ compensation program was started in California in 1965. Victim compensation programs allow for victims to be financially compensated for uncovered costs resulting from their victimization. Not long after, in 1972, the first three victim assistance programs in the nation, two of which were rape crisis centers, were founded by volunteers. The first prototypes for what today are victim/witness assistance programs housed in district attorneys’ offices were funded in 1974 by the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. These programs were designed to notify victims of critical dates in their cases and to create separate waiting areas for victims. Some programs began to make social services referrals for victims, providing them with input on criminal justice decisions that involved them, such as bail and plea bargains, notifying them about critical points in their cases—not just court dates—and going to court with them. Victim/witness assistance programs continue to provide similar services today.

Development of Victim Organizations

With women and children victims and their needs at the forefront of the victims’ rights movement, other crime victims found that special services were not readily available to them. One group of victims whose voices emerged during the 1970s was persons whose loved ones had been murdered—called secondary victims. After having a loved one become a victim of homicide, many survivors found that people around them did not know how to act or how to help them. As one woman whose son was murdered remarked, “I soon found that murder is a taboo subject in our society. I found, to my surprise, that nice people apparently just don’t get killed” (quoted in M. A. Young & Stein, 2004, p. 5). In response to the particular needs of homicide survivors, Families and Friends of Missing Persons was organized in 1974 and Parents of Murdered Children was formed in 1978. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was formed in 1980. These groups provide support for their members and others but also advocate for laws and policy changes that reflect the groups’ missions. The National Organization for Victim Assistance was developed in 1975 to consolidate the purposes of the victims’ movement and eventually to hold national conferences and provide training for persons working with crime victims.

Legislation and Policy

In 1980, Wisconsin became the first state to pass a Victims’ Bill of Rights. Also in 1980, the National Organization for Victim Assistance created a new policy platform that included the initiation of a National Campaign for Victim Rights, which included a National Victims’ Rights Week, implemented by then- president Ronald Reagan. The attorney general at the time, William French Smith, created a Task Force on Violent Crime, which recommended that a President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime be commissioned.

Download more at Learnclax.com

President Reagan followed the recommendation. The President’s Task Force held six hearings across the

country from which 68 recommendations on how crime victims could be better assisted were made. Major initiatives were generated from these recommendations.

1. Federal legislation to fund state victim compensation programs and local victim assistance programs 2. Recommendations to criminal justice professionals and other professionals about how to better treat

crime victims 3. Creation of a task force on violence within families 4. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide crime victims’ rights (yet to be passed)

As part of the first initiative, the Victims of Crime Act (1984) was passed and created the Office for Victims of Crime in the Department of Justice and established the Crime Victims Fund, which provides money to state victim compensation and local victim assistance programs. The Crime Victims Fund and victim compensation are discussed in detail in Section V. The Victims of Crime Act was amended in 1988 to require victim compensation eligibility to include victims of domestic violence and drunk-driving accidents. It also expanded victim compensation coverage to nonresident commuters and visitors.

Legislation and policy continued to be implemented through the 1980s and 1990s. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, passed in 1994 by Congress, included the Violence Against Women Act. This law provides funding for research and for the development of professional partnerships to address the issues of violence against women. Annually, the attorney general reports to Congress the status of monies awarded under the act, including the amount of money awarded and the number of grants funded. The act also mandates that federal agencies engage in research specifically addressing violence against women.

In 1998, a publication called New Directions from the Field: Victims’ Rights and Services for the 21st Century was released by then-attorney general Janet Reno and the Office for Victims of Crime. This publication reviewed the status of the recommendations and initiatives put forth by President Reagan’s task force. It also identified some 250 new recommendations for victims’ rights, victim advocacy, and services. Also integral, during the 1990s, the federal government and many states implemented victims’ rights legislation that enumerated specific rights to be guaranteed to crime victims. These rights are discussed in detail in Section V, but some basic rights typically afforded to victims include the right to be present at trial, to be provided a waiting area separate from the offender and people associated with the offender during stages of the criminal justice process, to be notified of key events in the criminal justice process, to testify at parole hearings, to be informed of rights, to be informed of compensation programs, and to be treated with dignity and respect. These rights continue to be implemented and expanded through various pieces of legislation, such as the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which is part of the Justice for All Act of 2004 signed into law by then-president George W. Bush. Despite this push among the various legislatures, a federal victims’ rights constitutional amendment has not been passed. Some states have been successful in amending their constitutions to ensure that the rights of crime victims are protected, but the U.S. Constitution has not been similarly amended. Various rights afforded to crime victims through these amendments are outlined in Section V.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimology Today

Today, the field of victimology covers a wide range of topics, including crime victims, causes of victimization, consequences of victimization, interaction of victims with the criminal justice system, interaction of victims with other social service agencies and programs, and prevention of victimization. Each of these topics is discussed throughout the text. As a prelude to the text, a brief treatment of the contents is provided in the following subsections.

The Crime Victim

To study victimization, one of the first things victimologists needed to know was who was victimized by crime. To determine who victims were, victimologists looked at official data sources—namely, the Uniform Crime Reports—but found them to be imperfect sources for victim information because they do not include detailed information on crime victims. As a result, victimization surveys were developed to determine the extent to which people were victimized, the typical characteristics of victims, and the characteristics of victimization incidents. The most widely cited and used victimization survey is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is discussed in detail in Section II.

From the NCVS and other victimization surveys, victimologists discovered that victimization is more prevalent than originally thought. Also, the “typical” victim was identified—a young male who lives in urban areas. This is not to say that other people are not victimized. In fact, children, women, and older people are all prone to victimization. These groups are discussed in detail in later sections. In addition, victimologists have uncovered other vulnerable groups. Homeless individuals, persons with mental illness, disabled persons, and prisoners all have been recognized as deserving of special attention given their victimization rates. Special populations vulnerable to victimization are discussed in Section XII.

The Causes of Victimization

It is difficult to know why a person is singled out and victimized by crime. Is it something he did? Did an offender choose a particular individual because she seemed like an easy target? Or does victimization occur because somebody is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? Perhaps there is an element of “bad luck” or chance involved, but victimologists have developed some theories to explain victimization. Theories are sets of propositions that explain phenomena. In relation to victimology, victimization theories explain why some people are more likely than others to be victimized. As you will read in Section II, the most widely used theories of victimization are routine activities theory and risky lifestyles theory. In the past two decades, however, victimologists and criminologists alike have developed additional theories and identified other correlates of victimization both generally and to explain why particular types of victimization, such as child abuse, occur.

Costs of Victimization

Victimologists are particularly interested in studying victims of crime because of the mass costs they often

Download more at Learnclax.com

incur. These costs of victimization can be tangible, such as the cost of stolen or damaged property or the costs

of receiving treatment at the emergency room, but they can also be harder to quantify. Crime victims may experience mental anguish or other more serious mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Costs also include monies spent by the criminal justice system preventing and responding to crime and monies spent to assist crime victims. An additional consequence of victimization is fear of being a victim. This fear may be tied to the actual risk of being a victim or, as you will read about in Section III, with the other consequences of victimization.

Recurring Victimization

An additional significant cost of victimization is the real risk of being victimized again that many victims face. Unfortunately, some victims do not suffer only a single victimization event but, rather, are victimized again and, sometimes, again and again. In this way, a certain subset of victims appears to be particularly vulnerable to revictimization. Research has begun to describe which victims are at risk of recurring victimization. In addition, theoretical explanations of recurring victimization have been proffered. The two main theories used to explain recurring victimization are state dependence and risk heterogeneity. Recurring victimization is discussed in Section IV.

The Crime Victim and the Criminal Justice System

Another experience of crime victims that is important to understand is how they interact with the criminal justice system. As discussed in detail in Section III, many persons who are victimized by crime do not report their experiences to the police. The reasons victims choose to remain silent, at least in terms of not calling the police, are varied but often include an element of suspicion and distrust of the police. Some victims worry that police will not take them seriously or will not think what happened to them is worth the police’s time. Others may be worried that calling the police will effectively invoke a system response that cannot be erased or stopped, even when the victim wishes not to have the system move forward. An example of such a victim is one who does not want to call the police after being hit by her partner because she fears the police will automatically and mandatorily arrest him. Whatever the reason, without a report, the victim will not activate the formal criminal justice system, which will preclude an arrest and may preclude the victim from receiving victim services explicitly tied to reporting.

When victims do report, they then enter the world of criminal justice, a world in which they are often seen as witnesses rather than victims, given that the U.S. criminal justice system recognizes crimes as harms against the state. This being the case, victims do not always find they are treated with dignity and respect, even though the victims’ rights movement stresses the importance of doing so. The police are not the only ones with whom victims must contend. If an offender is apprehended and charged with a crime, the victim will also interact with the prosecutor and perhaps a judge. Fortunately, many police departments and prosecutors’ offices offer victim assistance programs through which victims can receive information about available services. These programs also offer personal assistance and support, such as attending court sessions with the victim or helping submit a victim impact statement. The experience of the crime victim after the system is put into motion is an area of research ripe for study by victimologists. It is important to understand how victims

Download more at Learnclax.com

view their interactions with the criminal justice system so that victim satisfaction can be maximized and any additional harm caused to the victim can be minimized. The criminal justice response is discussed throughout this text, especially because different victim types have unique experiences with the police.

The Crime Victim and Social Services

The criminal justice system is not the only organization with which crime victims may come into contact. After being victimized, victims may need medical attention. As a result, emergency medical technicians, hospital and doctor’s office staff, nurses, doctors, and clinicians may all be persons with whom victims interact. Although some of these professionals will have training or specialize in dealing with victims, others may not treat victims with the care and sensitivity they need. To combat this, sometimes victims will have persons from the police department or prosecutor’s office with them at the hospital to serve as mediators and provide counsel. Also to aid victims, many hospitals and clinics now have sexual assault nurse examiners, who are specially trained in completing forensic and health exams for sexual assault victims.

In addition to medical professionals, mental health clinicians also often serve victims, for large numbers of victims seek mental health services after being victimized. Beyond mental health care, victims may use the services of social workers or other social service workers. But not all persons with whom victims interact as a consequence of being victimized are part of social service agencies accustomed to serving victims. Crime victims may seek assistance from insurance agents and repair and maintenance workers. Crime victims may need special accommodations from their employers or schools. In short, being victimized may touch multiple aspects of a person’s life, and agencies, businesses, and organizations alike may find themselves in the position of dealing with the aftermath, one to which they may not be particularly attuned. The more knowledge people have about crime victimization and its impact on victims, the more likely victims will be satisfactorily treated.

Prevention

Knowing the extent to which people are victimized, who is likely targeted, and the reasons why people are victimized can help in the development of prevention efforts. To be effective, prevention programs and policies need to target the known causes of victimization. Although the offender is ultimately responsible for crime victimization, it is difficult to change offender behavior. Reliance on doing so limits complete prevention because victimization involves at least two elements—the offender and the victim—both of which need to be addressed to stop crime victimization. In addition, as noted by scholars, it is easier to reduce the opportunity than the motivation to offend (Clarke, 1980, 1982). Nonetheless, offenders should be discouraged from committing crimes, likely through informal mechanisms of social control. For example, colleges could provide crime awareness seminars directed at teaching leaders of student organizations how to dissuade their members from committing acts of aggression, using drugs or alcohol, or engaging in other conduct that could lead to victimization.

In addition to discouraging offenders, potential victims also play a key role in preventing victimization. Factors that place victims at risk need to be addressed to the extent that victims can change them. For example, because routine activities and lifestyles theories identify daily routines and risky lifestyles as being key

Download more at Learnclax.com

risk factors for victimization, people should attempt to reduce their risk by making changes they are able to make. Other theories and risk factors related to victimization should also be targeted (these are discussed in Section II). Because different types of victimization have different risk factors—and, therefore, different risk- reduction strategies—prevention is discussed in each section that deals with a specific victim type.

Because victimology today focuses on the victim, the causes of victimization, the consequences associated with victimization, and how the victim is treated within and outside the criminal justice system, this text addresses these issues for the various types of crime victims. In this way, each section that deals with specific types of victimization—such as sexual victimization and intimate partner violence—includes an overview of the extent to which people are victimized, who is victimized, why they are victimized, the outcomes of being victimized, and the services provided to and challenges faced by victims. The specific remedies in place for crime victims are discussed in each section and in a stand-alone section.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

The field of victimology originated in the early to mid-1900s, with the first victimologists attempting to identify how victims contribute to their own victimization. To this end, the concepts of victim precipitation, victim facilitation, and victim provocation were examined. Hans von Hentig, Benjamin Mendelsohn, and Stephen Schafer each proposed victim typologies used to classify victims in terms of their responsibility or role in their own victimization. Marvin Wolfgang and Menachem Amir conducted the first empirical examinations of victim precipitation. Wolfgang studied homicides in Philadelphia, and Amir focused on forcible rapes. Wolfgang found that 26% of homicides were victim precipitated. Amir concluded that 19% of forcible rapes were precipitated by the victim. The victims’ rights movement gained momentum during the 1960s. It was spurred by the civil rights and women’s movements. This period saw the recognition of children and women as victims of violence. The first victim services agencies were developed in the early 1970s. The victims’ rights movement influenced the development of multiple advocacy groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Families and Friends of Missing Persons, and Parents of Murdered Children. Important pieces of legislation came out of the victims’ rights movement, including the Victims of Crime Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Many states have victims’ rights amendments and/or legislation that guarantee victim protections. Victimology today is concerned with the extent to which people are victimized, the types of victimization they experience, the causes of victimization, the consequences associated with victimization, the criminal justice system’s response to victims, and the response of other agencies and people. Victimology is a science—victimologists use the scientific method to study these areas. As victimologists become aware of who is likely to be victimized and the reasons for this, risk-reduction and prevention strategies can be developed. These should target not only offender behavior but also opportunity. In this way, victims can play an important role in reducing their likelihood of being victimized.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. Compare and contrast victim precipitation, victim facilitation, and victim provocation. 2. Why do you think the first explorations into victimization in terms of explaining why people are

victimized centered not on offender behavior but on victim behavior? 3. What are the reasons behind labeling crimes as acts against the state rather than against victims? 4. How does the victims’ rights movement correspond to the treatment of offenders and rights afforded to

offenders? 5. Does examining victim behavior when attempting to identify causes of victimization lead to victim

blaming? Is it wrong to consider the role of the victim?

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key terms

Benjamin Mendelsohn 4 civil rights movement 7 Code of Hammurabi 1 costs of victimization 10 Hans von Hentig 3 lex talionis 1 Marvin Wolfgang 5 Menachem Amir 5 National Crime Survey 6 retribution 1 Stephen Schafer 4 subintentional homicide 5 victim facilitation 2 victim precipitation 2 victim provocation 2 victimology 1 victims’ rights movement 7 women’s movement 7

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

The American Society of Victimology: http://www.american-society-victimology.us

This organization advances the discipline of victimology by promoting evidence-based practices and providing leadership in research and education. The website contains information about victimology and victimologists. This organization looks at advancements in victimology through research, practice, and teaching.

Crime in the United States: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015

The Federal Bureau of Investigation compiles all the information for both the Uniform Crime Reports and National Incident-Based Reporting System. The information is then put into several annual publications, such as Crime in the United States and Hate Crime Statistics. The data for these statistics are provided by nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States. This website provides the crime information for 2015.

Crime Prevention Tips: http://www.crimepreventiontips.org

This website provides many tips on how to reduce your chances of becoming a crime victim. There is also a section to help you determine whether you have been a crime victim. Some of the prevention tips specifically address how to be safer when you use public transportation and on college campuses.

An Oral History of the Crime Victim Assistance Field: Video and Audio Archive: http://vroh.uakron.edu/index.php

This website contains information from the Victim Oral History Project, intended to capture the development and evolution of the crime victims’ movement. You will find video clips of interviews with more than 50 persons critical to this movement, in which they discuss their contributions to and perspectives of the field.

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.american-society-victimology.us

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015

http://www.crimepreventiontips.org

http://vroh.uakron.edu/index.php

Section II Extent, Theories, and Factors of Victimization

It was not exactly a typical night for Polly. Instead of studying at the library as she normally did during the week, she decided to meet two of her friends at a local bar. They spent the evening catching up and drinking a few beers before they decided to head home. Because Polly lived within walking distance of the bar, she bid her friends goodnight and started on her journey home. It was dark out, but because she had never confronted trouble in the neighborhood before—even though it was in a fairly crime-ridden part of a large city—she felt relatively safe.

As Polly walked by an alley, two young men whom she had never seen before stepped out, and one of them grabbed her arm and demanded that she give them her school bag, in which she had her wallet, computer, keys, and phone. Because Polly refused, the other man shoved her, causing her to hit her head, while the first man grabbed her bag. Despite holding on as tightly as she could, the men were able to take her bag before running off into the night. Slightly stunned, Polly stood there trying to calm down. Without her bag, which held her phone and keys, she felt there was little she could do other than continue to walk home and hope her roommates were there to let her in. As she walked home, she wondered why she had such bad luck. Why was she targeted? Was she simply in “the wrong place at the wrong time,” or did she do something to place herself in harm’s way? Although it is hard to know why Polly was victimized, we can compare her to other victims to see how similar she is to them. To this end, a description of the “typical” crime victim is presented in this section. But what about why she was targeted? Fortunately, we can use the theories presented in this section to understand why Polly fell victim on that particular night.

Photo 2.1 Polly, on her way home from the bar.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Measuring Victimization

Before we can begin to understand why some people are the victims of crime and others are not, we must first know how often victimization occurs. Also important is knowing who the typical crime victim is. Luckily, these characteristics of victimization can be readily gleaned from existing data sources.

Uniform Crime Reports

Begun in 1929, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) shows the amount of crime known to the police in a year. Police departments around the country submit to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) monthly law enforcement reports on crimes that are reported to them or that they otherwise know about. The FBI then compiles these data and each year publishes a report called Crime in the United States, which details the crime that occurred in the United States for the year. This report includes information on eight offenses, known as the Part I index offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Arrest data are also listed in the report on Part II offenses, which include an additional 21 crime categories.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The UCR is a valuable data source for learning about crime and victimization. Because more than 97% of the population is represented by agencies participating in the UCR program, it provides an approximation of the total amount of crime experienced by almost all Americans (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2014a). It presents the number of crimes for regions, states, cities, towns, areas under tribal law enforcement, and colleges and universities. It does so annually so that crime trends can be determined for the country and for these geographical units. Another benefit of the UCR is that crime characteristics are also reported. It includes demographic information (age, sex, and race) on people who are arrested and some information on the crimes, such as location and time of occurrence.

Despite these advantages, it does not provide detailed information on crime victims. Also important to consider, the UCR includes information only on crimes that are reported to the police or of which the police are aware. In this way, all crimes that occur are not represented, especially because, as discussed shortly, crime victims often do not report their victimization to the police. Another limitation of the UCR as a crime data source is that the Part I index offenses do not cover the wide range of crimes that occur, such as simple assault and sexual assaults other than rape, and federal crimes are not counted. Furthermore, the UCR uses the hierarchy rule. If more than one Part I offense occurs within the same incident report, the law enforcement agency counts only the highest offense in the reporting process (FBI, 2009). These exclusions also contribute to the UCR’s underestimation of the extent of crime. Accuracy of the UCR data is also affected by law enforcement’s willingness to participate in the program and to do so by reporting to the FBI all offenses of which they are aware.

Crime as Measured by the UCR

Download more at Learnclax.com

Nonetheless, the UCR can be used to paint a picture of crime in the United States. In 2015, the police became aware of 1,197,704 violent crimes and 7,993,631 property crimes. According to the UCR data shown in Figure 2.1, the most common offense is larceny-theft. Aggravated assaults are the most common violent crime, although they are outnumbered by larceny-thefts. The typical criminal who is arrested is a young (less than 30 years old) White male (although young Black males have highest offending rates) (FBI, 2015a).

Figure 2.1 Number of Crimes Occurring in 2015, Comparison for UCR and NCVS

Source: Created by author with U.S. Department of Justice data.

Note: The UCR includes only forcible rape, whereas the NCVS includes both rape and sexual assault. The UCR measures only aggravated assault, whereas the NCVS includes both aggravated and simple assault.

National Incident-Based Reporting System

As noted, the UCR includes little information about the characteristics of criminal incidents. To overcome this deficiency, the FBI began the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), an expanded data collection effort that includes detailed information about crimes. Agencies participating in the NIBRS collect information on each crime incident and arrest in 23 offense categories (Group A offenses) that encompass 49 specific crimes. Arrest data are reported for an additional 11 offenses (Group B offenses). Information about the offender, the victim, injury, location, property loss, and weapons is included (FBI, 2015a). Also of importance, NIBRS does not use the hierarchy rule when classifying or counting crimes (FBI, n.d.-a).

Although the NIBRS represents an advancement of the UCR program, not all law enforcement agencies participate in the system. As such, crime trends similar to those based on national data produced by the UCR are not yet available. As more agencies come online, the NIBRS data will likely be an even more valuable tool

Download more at Learnclax.com

for understanding patterns and trends of crime victimization.

With consideration of these limitations, in 2015, the 6,648 law enforcement agencies (36.1% of all law enforcement agencies) participating in NIBRS reported 4,902,177 incidents that involved 6,668,103 offenses, 5,979,330 victims, and 4,607,928 known offenders. Of the offenses, 62.9% were property crimes, 23.2% were crimes against persons, and 14.0 % were crimes against society (also referred to as victimless crimes). There were 3,081,609 arrests for offenses tracked in NIBRS in 2015 (FBI, 2015a).

NIBRS is also a source of information on crime victims and incidents. Slightly less than one-quarter of victims were between 21 and 30 years of age and 51% of victims were females. Almost three-fourths of victims were White (72%), 20.8% were Black or African American, 1.4% were Asian, 0.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and less than 0.1% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (FBI, 2015b). In a slight majority of crimes against persons (52.3%), the victim knew his or her offender but was not related to the offender, and in 10.2% of the crimes against persons, the perpetrator was a stranger (FBI, 2015c). Most crimes against a person occur at the victim’s home (62.8%), whereas slightly more than 4 in 10 property crimes occur at the victim’s home (although this was the most common location of property crime category) (FBI, 2015d).

National Crime Victimization Survey

As noted, the UCR and NIBRS have some limitations as crime data sources, particularly when information on victimization is of interest. To provide a picture of the extent to which individuals experience a range of crime victimizations, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) began, in 1973, a national survey of U.S. households. Originally called the National Crime Survey, it provides a picture of crime incidents and victims. In 1993, the BJS redesigned the survey, making extensive methodological changes, and renamed it the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

The NCVS is administered by the U.S. Census Bureau to a nationally representative sample of about 95,000 households. Each member of participating households who is 12 years old or older completes the survey, resulting in about 163,000 persons being interviewed (Truman & Morgan, 2016). Persons who live in military barracks and in institutional settings (e.g., prisons and hospitals) and who are homeless are excluded from the NCVS. Each household selected remains in the study for 3 years and completes seven interviews 6 months apart. Each interview serves a bounding purpose by giving respondents a concrete event to reference (i.e., since the last interview) when answering questions in the next interview. Bounding is used to improve recall. In general, the first interview is conducted in person, with subsequent interviews taking place either in person or over the phone (Truman & Morgan, 2016).

The NCVS is conducted in two stages. In the first stage, individuals are asked if they experienced any of seven types of victimization during the previous 6 months. The victimizations that respondents are asked about are rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, personal theft, household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft. The initial questions asked in the first stage are known as screen questions, which are used to cue respondents or jog their memories as to whether they experienced any of these criminal victimizations in the previous 6 months. An example of a screen question is shown in Table 2.1. In the second

Download more at Learnclax.com

stage, if the respondent answers affirmatively to any of the screen questions, the respondent then completes an incident report for each victimization experienced. In this way, if an individual stated that he or she had experienced one theft and one aggravated assault, he or she would fill out two incident reports—one for the theft and a separate one for the aggravated assault. In the incident report, detailed questions are asked about the incident, such as where it happened, whether it was reported to the police and why the victim did or did not report it, who the offender was, and whether the victim did anything to protect himself or herself during the incident. Table 2.2 shows an example of a question from the incident report. As you can see, responses to the questions from the incident report can help reveal the context of victimization.

Table 2.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015a).

Another advantage of this two-stage procedure is that the incident report is used to determine what, if any, incident occurred. The incident report, as discussed, includes detailed questions about what happened, including questions used to classify an incident into its appropriate crime victimization type. For example, in order for a rape to be counted as such, the questions in the incident report that concern the elements of rape, which are discussed in Section VII (force, penetration), must be answered affirmatively for the incident to be counted as rape in the NCVS. This process is fairly conservative in that all elements of the criminal victimization must have occurred for it to be included in the estimates of that type of crime victimization.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 2.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015b).

The NCVS has several advantages as a measure of crime victimization. First, it includes in its estimates of victimization several offenses that are not included in Part I of the UCR; for example, simple assault and sexual assault are both included in NCVS estimates of victimization. Second, the NCVS does not measure only crimes reported to the police as does the UCR. Third, the NCVS asks individuals to recall incidents that occurred only during the previous 6 months, which is a relatively short recall period. In addition, its two-stage measurement process allows for a more conservative way of estimating the amount of victimization that occurs each year in that incidents are counted only if they meet the criteria for inclusion.

Despite these advantages, the NCVS is not without its limitations. Estimates of crime victimization depend on the ability of respondents to accurately recall what occurred to them during the previous 6 months. Even though the NCVS attempts to aid in recall by spanning a short period (6 months) and by providing bounding via the previous survey administration, it is still possible that individuals will not be completely accurate in recounting the particulars of an incident. Bounding and using a short recall period also do not combat against someone intentionally being misleading or lying or answering in a way meant to please the interviewer. Another possible limitation of the NCVS is its treatment of high-frequency repeat victimizations. Called series victimizations, these incidents are those in which a person experiences the same type of victimization during the 6-month recall period at such a high rate that he or she cannot recall specific details about each incident or even recall each incident. When this occurs, an incident report is only completed for the most recent incident, and incident counts are only included for up to 10 incidents (Truman, Langton, & Planty, 2013). As such, estimates of victimization may be lower than the actual amount because the cap for counting series victimizations is 10. On the other hand, even without recalling specific detail, these incidents are included in estimates of victimization. Including series victimizations in this way reveals little effects on the trends in violence estimates (Truman & Morgan, 2016). In addition, murder and “victimless” crimes such as prostitution and drug use are not included in NCVS estimates of crime victimization. Another limitation is that crime that occurs to commercial establishments is not included. Beyond recall issues, the NCVS sample is selected from U.S. households. This sample may not be truly representative, for it excludes individuals who are institutionalized, such as persons in prison, and does not include homeless people. Remember, too, that only those persons ages 12 and over are included. As a result, estimates about victimization of children cannot be determined.

Extent of Crime Victimization

Each year, the BJS publishes Criminal Victimization in the United States, a report about crime victimization as measured by the NCVS. From this report, we can see what the most typical victimizations are and who is most likely to be victimized. In 2015, more than 19,600,000 victimizations were experienced among the

Download more at Learnclax.com

nation’s households (Truman & Morgan, 2016). Property crimes were much more likely to be experienced compared with violent crimes; 5 million violent crime victimizations were experienced compared with 14.6 million property crime victimizations. The most common type of property crime reported was theft, whereas simple assault was the most commonly occurring violent crime (see Figure 2.1).

Typical Victimization and Victim

The typical crime victim can also be identified from the NCVS. For violent victimization except for rape and sexual assault, males and females were equally likely to be victimized. Persons who are Black and those under the age of 24 have higher victimization rates than others. Characteristics of victimization incidents are also evident. Less than half of all victimizations (47%) experienced by individuals in the NCVS are reported to the police. Property crimes are less likely to be reported than are violent crimes, with some crimes being much more likely to come to the attention of police than others. For example, rape and sexual assault are the least likely of all violent crimes to be reported, whereas robbery is the most likely to be reported. Almost 70% of motor vehicle thefts are reported to the police, but only about 29% of all thefts are (Truman & Morgan, 2016). This disjuncture in reporting is likely tied to features of the victimization and motivations for reporting. For example, the lack of reporting may be related in part to the fact that most victims of violent crime know their offender; most often, victims identified their attacker as a friend or acquaintance. Strangers perpetrated only about one-third of violent victimizations in the NCVS (Truman et al., 2013). Reporting, on the other hand, may be tied to wanting to secure property back, especially a car. In addition, when a person has his or her car stolen, a police report is necessary for insurance purposes, so a person may be particularly motivated to report this type of victimization to the police. Returning now to incident characteristics, females are more likely than males to be victimized by an intimate partner. In about 58% of incidents the offender had a weapon, and about 55% of violent crimes resulted in the victim being physically injured (Truman et al., 2013). Now that you know the characteristics of the typical victimization and the typical crime victim, how do Polly and her victimization compare?

International Crime Victims Survey

As you may imagine, there are many other self-report victimization surveys that are used to understand more specific forms of victimization, such as sexual victimization and those that occur outside the United States. Many of these are discussed in later sections. One oft-cited survey of international victimization is the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), which was created to provide a standardized survey to compare crime victims’ experiences across countries (van Dijk, van Kesteren, & Smit, 2008). The first round of the survey was conducted in 1989 and was repeated in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004/2005. Collectively, more than 340,000 persons have been surveyed in more than 78 countries as part of the ICVS program (van Dijk et al., 2008). Respondents are asked about 10 types of victimization that they could have experienced: car theft, theft from or out of a car, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft, attempted or completed burglary, sexual victimization (rapes and sexual assault), threats, assaults, robbery, and theft of personal property (van Dijk et al., 2008). If a person has experienced any of these offenses, he or she then answers follow-up questions about the incident. This survey has provided estimates of the extent of crime victimization in many countries and regions of the

Download more at Learnclax.com

world. In addition, characteristics of crime victims and incidents have been produced from these surveys.

Focus on International Issues

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is a victimization survey of persons age 16 and over living in England and Wales. Beginning in 1982, the CSEW was conducted every 2 years until 2001, when it was changed to reflect victimizations during the previous 12 months. Beginning April 1, 2012, the CSEW changed its name to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (formerly the British Crime Survey). Using computer-assisted personal interviewing to aid in interviewing, it is a nationally representative survey of about 35,000 adults and 3,000 children in the 10- to 15-year-old supplement. Persons are asked about victimizations that their households and they experienced. To get the sample, about 1,000 interviews are conducted in each police force area. If individuals answer yes to any screen question about victimization, they complete a victim module that includes detailed questions about the event. Findings from the CSEW for year ending 2015 indicate that there were 6.4 million crimes against households and those 16 and older, with 1.3 million violent incidents (Office for National Statistics, 2015).

Source: Home Office (2011).

Download more at Learnclax.com

Theories and Explanations of Victimization

Now that you have an idea about who the typical crime victim is, you are probably wondering why some people are more likely than others to find themselves victims of crime. Is it because those people provoke the victimization, as von Hentig and his contemporaries thought? Is it because crime victims are perceived by offenders to be more vulnerable than others? Is there some personality trait that influences victimization risk? All these factors may play at least some role in why victimization occurs to particular people. The following sections address these possibilities.

Link Between Victimization and Offending

One facet about victimization that cannot be ignored is the link between offending and victimization and offenders and victims. As mentioned in Section I, the first forays into the study of victims included a close look at how victims contribute to their own victimization. In this way, victims were not always assumed to be innocents; rather, some victims were seen as being at least partly responsible for bringing on their victimization—for instance, by being an offender who is victimized when the victim fights back. Although the field of victimology has moved from trying to place blame on victims, the recognition that offenders and victims are often linked—and often the same person—has aided in the understanding of why people are victimized.

Victim and Offender Characteristics

The typical victim and the typical offender have many commonalities. As mentioned before in our discussion of the NCVS, those with the highest rates of violent victimization are young Black persons. The UCR also provides information on offenders. Those with the highest rates of violent offending are also young Black males. The typical victim and the typical offender, then, share common demographics. In addition, both victims and offenders are likely to live in urban areas. Thus, individuals who spend time with people who have the characteristics of offenders are more likely to be victimized than others.

Photo 2.2 This area may be a hot spot due to lots of people milling about at night.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Explaining the Link Between Victimization and Offending

Some even argue that victims and offenders are often one and the same, with offenders being more likely to be victimized and vice versa. It is not hard to understand why this may be the case. Offending can be viewed as part of a risky lifestyle. Individuals who engage in offending are exposed more frequently to people and contexts in which victimization is likely to occur (Lauritsen, Laub, & Sampson, 1992).

There also may be a link between victimization and offending that is part of a broader cultural belief in the acceptability and sometimes necessity of violence, known as the subculture of violence theory. This theory proposes that for certain subgroups of the population and in certain areas, violence is part of a value system that supports the use of violence, in response to disrespect in particular (Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967). In this way, when a subculture that supports violence exists, victims will be likely to respond by retaliating. Offenders may initiate violence that leads to their victimization by, for example, getting into a physical fight to resolve a dispute. Recent research shows that the victim–offender overlap does indeed vary across neighborhoods and that this variation is related to the neighborhood’s strength of attachment to the “code of the streets” and degree of structural deprivation (Berg & Loeber, 2012; Berg, Stewart, Schreck, & Simons, 2012).

Being victimized may be related to offending in ways that are not directly tied to retaliation. In fact, being victimized at one point in life may increase the likelihood that a person will engage in delinquency and crime later in life. This link has been found especially in individuals who are abused during childhood. As discussed in Section IX on victimization at the beginning and end of life, those who are victimized as children are significantly more likely than those who do not experience child abuse to be arrested in adulthood (Widom,

Download more at Learnclax.com

2000) or to engage in violence and property offending (Menard, 2002).

The reasons why victimization may lead to participation in crime are not fully understood, but it may be that being victimized carries psychological consequences, such as depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder, that can lead to coping through the use of alcohol or drugs. Victimization may also carry physical consequences, such as brain damage, that can further impede success later in life. Cognitive ability may also be tempered by maltreatment, particularly in childhood, which can hinder school performance. Behavior may also change as a result of being victimized. People may experience problems in their interpersonal relationships or become violent or aggressive. Whatever the reason, it is evident that victimization and offending are intimately intertwined.

Insomuch as victimization and offending are linked, it makes sense then, as you will see in the following sections, that the same influences on offending may also affect victimization and hence may explain the link between victimization and offending. This is not to say that the only explanations of victimization should be tied to or be an extension of explanations of offending—just remember that when you read about the research that has used criminological theories to explain victimization, it is largely because of the connection between victimization and offending.

Routine Activities and Lifestyles Theories

In the 1970s, two theoretical perspectives—routine activities and lifestyles theories—were put forth that both linked crime victimization risk to the fact that victims had to come into contact with a potential offender. Before discussing these theories in detail, first, it is important to understand what a victimization theory is. A victimization theory is generally a set of testable propositions designed to explain why a person is victimized. Both routine activities and lifestyles theories propose that a person’s victimization risk can best be understood by the extent to which the victim’s routine activities or lifestyle creates opportunities for a motivated offender to commit crime.

In developing routine activities theory, Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) proposed that a person’s routine activities, or daily routine patterns, impact risk of being a crime victim. Insomuch as a person’s routine activities bring him or her into contact with motivated offenders, crime victimization risk abounds. Cohen and Felson thought that motivated offenders were plentiful and that their motivation to offend did not need to be explained. Rather, their selection of particular victims was more interesting. Cohen and Felson noted that there must be something about particular targets, both individuals and places, that encouraged selection by these motivated offenders. In fact, those individuals deemed to be suitable targets based on their attractiveness would be chosen by offenders. Attractiveness relates to qualities about the target, such as ease of transport, which is why a burglar may break into a home and leave with an iPod or laptop computer rather than a couch. Attractiveness is further evident when the target does not have capable guardianship. Capable guardianship is conceived as a means by which a person or target can be effectively guarded to prevent a victimization from occurring. Guardianship is typically considered to be social, when the presence of another person makes someone less attractive as a target. Guardianship can also be provided through physical means, such as a home with a burglar alarm or a person who carries a weapon for self-protection. A home with a

Download more at Learnclax.com

burglar alarm and a person who carries a weapon are certainly less attractive crime targets! When these three elements—motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of capable guardianship—coalesce in time and space, victimization is likely to occur.

When Cohen and Felson (1979) originally developed their theory, they focused on predatory crimes—those that involve a target and offender making contact. They originally were interested in explaining changes in rates of these types of crime over time. In doing so, they argued that people’s routines had shifted since World War II, taking them away from home and making their homes attractive targets. People began spending more time outside the home in leisure activities and going to and from work and school. As people spent more time interacting with others, they were more likely to come into contact with motivated offenders. Capable guardianship was unlikely to be present; thus, the risk of criminal victimization increased. Cohen and Felson also linked the increase in crime to the production of durable goods. Electronics began to be produced in portable sizes, making them easier to steal. Similarly, cars and other expensive items that could be stolen, reused, and resold became targets. As Cohen and Felson saw it, prosperity of society could produce an increase in criminal victimization rather than a decline. Also important, they linked victimization to everyday activities rather than to social ills, such as poverty.

Michael Hindelang, Michael Gottfredson, and James Garofalo’s (1978) lifestyles theory is a close relative of routine activities theory. Hindelang and colleagues posited that certain lifestyles or behaviors place people in situations in which victimization is likely to occur. Your lifestyle, such as going to bars or working late at night in relative seclusion, places you at more risk of being a crime victim than others. Although the authors of lifestyles theory did not specify how opportunity structures risk as clearly as did the authors of routine activities theory, at its heart, lifestyles theory closely resembles routine activities theory and its propositions. As a person comes into contact—via lifestyle and behavior—with potential offenders, he or she is likely creating opportunities for crime victimization to occur. The lifestyle factors identified by Hindelang and his colleagues that create opportunities for victimization are the people with whom one associates, working outside the home, and engaging in leisure activities. In this way, a person who associates with criminals, works outside the home, and participates in activities—particularly at night, away from home, and with nonfamily members—is a more likely target for personal victimization than others. Hindelang and colleagues noted that a person’s lifestyle is structured by social constraints and role expectations. That is, because of a person’s demographic characteristics, he or she may be afforded less opportunity to engage in particular activities. Consider the fact that females are socialized differently from males. Females may be expected to be the caretaker of the home and, when younger, may be supervised more closely than males. Accordingly, females may spend more time at home and spend more time under the supervision of their parents or other guardians. Given these social constraints and role expectations, females may be less likely to engage in activities outside the home that would place them at risk for victimization, hence explaining why females are at lower risk for victimization than males.

Hindelang et al. (1978) further delineated why victimization risk is higher for some people than others using the principle of homogamy. According to this principle, the more frequently a person comes into contact with persons in demographic groups with likely offenders, the more likely it is the person will be victimized. This

Download more at Learnclax.com

frequency may be a function of demographics or lifestyle. For example, males are more likely to be criminal offenders than females. Males, then, are at greater risk for victimization because they are more likely to spend time with other males. Now that you know about routine activities theory, do you think Polly’s routines or lifestyle placed her at risk for being victimized? Today, researchers largely treat routine activities theory and lifestyles theory interchangeably and often refer to them as the routine activities and lifestyles theory perspectives.

One of the reasons that routine activities and lifestyles theories have been the prevailing theories of victimization for more than 30 years is the wide empirical support researchers have found when testing them. It has been shown that a person’s routine activities and lifestyle impact risk of being sexually victimized (Cass, 2007; Fisher, Daigle, & Cullen, 2010a, 2010b; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999, 2007; Schwartz & Pitts, 1995). This perspective also has been used to explain auto theft (Rice & Smith, 2002), stalking (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999), cybercrime victimization (Holt & Bossler, 2009), adolescent violent victimization (Lauritsen et al., 1992), theft (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998), victimization at work (Lynch, 1997), and street robbery (Groff, 2007).

Recent research on routines suggests that people may also alter them after being victimized. You may expect that a person who is victimized may engage in more protective behaviors such as installing a burglar alarm following having his or her house broken into or would avoid walking alone at night after being mugged at night. Researchers have investigated whether such changes in behaviors occur. Some of the first works in this area showed that victims had greater use of defensive behaviors (things like avoiding certain areas or people) and that property crime victims engaged in higher use of household protective efforts (such as installing lights and timers) (Skogan, 1987). Victimization has also been linked to moving, which would certainly alter your routines! (Dugan, 1999; Xie & McDowall, 2008). For example, using data from the NCVS, Bunch, Clay- Warner, and McMahon-Howard (2014) found that whereas victims did change some of their behaviors after being victimized compared with nonvictims (such as going out at night more often!), these differences were not due to the victimization event but could be attributed to preexisting differences between victims and nonvictims that influence victimization risk.

Ripped From the Headlines

At a pre–MTV Video Music Awards party hosted by Chris Brown, multiple gunshots rang out inside a packed club in West Hollywood. Several people were hit, including Suge Knight, the founder of Death Row Records. This was not the first time that Knight has been shot—he was shot at another pre-awards party that was hosted by Kanye West, and he was driving the vehicle when Tupac Shakur was shot and killed (and was shot himself). Although the exact motives behind Knight’s shooting are unknown, the preliminary investigation has linked the shooting to gang ties. Knight has been connected to the Compton’s Bloods gang, and several known members were at the party. Knight also has a criminal history, having spent time in prison for violating probation regarding an assault case and for violating parole when he assaulted a parking lot attendant. Can you apply lifestyles theory to the shooting that occurred at the party?

Source: Branson-Potts (2014).

Structural and Social Process Factors

Download more at Learnclax.com

In addition to routine activities and lifestyles theories, other factors also increase a person’s risk of being victimized. Key components of life—such as neighborhood context, family, friends, and personal interaction —also play a role in victimization. To read about how immigration may be linked to victimization read Box 2.1 at the end of this discussion.

Neighborhood Context

We have already discussed how certain individuals are more at risk of becoming victims of crime than others. So far, we have tied this risk to factors related to the person’s lifestyle. Where that person lives and spends time, however, may also place him or her at risk of victimization. Indeed, you are probably not surprised to learn that certain areas have higher rates of victimization than others. Some areas are so crime-prone that they are considered to be hot spots for crime. Highlighted by Lawrence Sherman (Sherman, Gartin, & Buerger, 1989), hot spots are areas that have a concentrated amount of crime. He found through examining police call data in Minneapolis that only 3% of all locations made up most calls to the police. A person living in or frequenting a hot spot will be putting himself or herself in danger. The features of these hot spots and other high-risk areas may create opportunities for victimization that, independent of a person’s lifestyle or demographic characteristics, enhance chances of being victimized.

What is it about certain areas that relates them to victimization? A body of research has identified many features, particularly of neighborhoods (notice we are not discussing hot spots specifically). One factor related to victimization is family structure. Robert Sampson (1985), in his seminal piece on neighborhoods and crime, found that neighborhoods that have a large percentage of female-headed households have higher rates of theft and violent victimization. He also found that structural density, as measured by the percentage of units in structures of five or more units, is positively related to victimization. Residential mobility, or the percentage of persons 5 years and older living in a different house from 5 years before, also predicted victimization.

Beyond finding that the structure of a neighborhood influences victimization rates for that area, it also has been shown that neighborhood features influence personal risk. In this way, living in a neighborhood that is disadvantaged places individuals at risk of being victimized, even if they do not have risky lifestyles or other characteristics related to victimization (Browning & Erickson, 2009). For example, neighborhood disadvantage and neighborhood residential instability are related to experiencing violent victimization at the hands of an intimate partner (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, 2003). Using the notions of collective efficacy, it makes sense that neighborhoods that are disadvantaged are less able to mobilize effective sources of informal social control (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Informal social controls are often used as mechanisms to maintain order, stability, and safety in neighborhoods. When communities do not have strong informal mechanisms in place, violence and other deviancy are likely to abound. Such communities are less safe; hence, their residents are more likely to be victimized than residents of more socially organized areas.

Exposure to Delinquent Peers

The neighborhood context is but one factor related to risk of victimization. Social process factors, such as

Download more at Learnclax.com

peers and family, are also important in understanding crime victimization. Generally, one of the strongest influences on youth is their peers. Peer pressure can lead people, especially juveniles, to act in ways they normally would not and to engage in behavior they otherwise would not. Having delinquent peers places youth not only at risk of engaging in delinquent behavior—juvenile delinquency does, after all, often take place in groups—but also of being victimized (Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991; Schreck & Fisher, 2004). Spending time with delinquent peers places people at risk of being victimized because, as lifestyles and routine activities theory suggests, spending time in the presence of motivated offenders increases risk. Never mind that these would-be offenders are your friends! Another reason having delinquent peers may be related to victimization is that a person may find himself or herself in risky situations (such as being present for a fight) in which being harmed is not unlikely. In this situation, it may not be your friends per se who harm you, but others involved in the fight may attack you, or you may feel the need to come to the aid of your friends. Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, and Feng (2007) note that being a member of a gang increases a young person’s risk of experiencing violence.

Box 2.1 Immigration and Victimization: Are They Related?

If you have been paying attention to the news, you may have heard people blame the crime problem in the United States on immigrants—legal or otherwise—who have come across our borders. This argument has been made all the more salient in the wake of mass shootings on our soil like the one that occurred in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016, at Pulse nightclub that resulted in 49 deaths and 53 people injured. Even though the shooter was a U.S. citizen (and was even born here!), some people reinforced their calls for tighter security and reduced ability for people to enter the country. This concern is related to crime that may be committed by people coming to our country, but there is also concern that immigration is related to victimization. There are many reasons to be concerned about the victimization experiences of immigrants. In a study of criminal justice personnel throughout the nation, it was found that these individuals believe that recent immigrants are less likely than others to report their victimization experiences to the police because of language barriers, fear of retaliation, and lack of knowledge about the criminal justice system (Davis & Erez, 1998). Other research has found that increases in immigration are not linked to increases in crime victimization (this study examined immigration in western Europe) (Nunziata, 2015). At the individual level, some research has documented that immigrant youth are at particular risk for being bullied in schools, whereas other research has not found an elevated risk. Still other research has suggested that assimilation is the driving factor behind increased risks for victimization and that lifestyles and routines can help understand this relationship (Peguero, 2013). Immigration and being an immigrant need to be more fully studied to understand if they play a role in victimization risk.

Family

Especially during adolescence, the family also plays an important role in individual experiences. Having strong attachments to family members, particularly parents, is likely to insulate a person from many negative events, including being victimized. Not surprisingly, research has found that weak emotional attachment between family members is a strong predictor of victimization (Esbensen, Huizinga, & Menard, 1999; Lauritsen et al., 1992). This may be due to parents being unable and unwilling to exert control over the behavior of their children, such that they are more likely to end up in risky situations. Family units may also spend more time together when there is strong attachment, thus reducing exposure to motivated offenders. Youth may also be less likely to place themselves in risky situations because they do not want to disappoint their parents, for they place high value on the relationships they have with them. In these ways, emotional attachment to family members serves to reduce risky behavior. At this point, you may be noting that familial attachment may be related to lifestyles and routine activities theories—and you would be right! This relationship is explored,

Download more at Learnclax.com

along with how delinquent peers increase victimization risk, by Christopher J. Schreck and Bonnie S. Fisher (2004) in Reading 1 included in this section.

Social Learning Theory

According to social learning theory (Akers, 1973), criminal behavior is learned behavior. Specifically, it is learned through differential association (spending time with delinquent or criminal others) whereby imitation or modeling of behavior occurs. A person learns behavior as well as the definitions about behavior, such as whether it is acceptable to engage in crime. The likelihood that a behavior will persist depends on the degree of reward or punishment. In this way, behaviors are differentially reinforced, and people continue to engage in behaviors that are rewarded and cease to engage in behaviors that are punished. When a behavior is rewarded, the definitions favorable toward that act will eventually outweigh the definitions against that act. Although this social learning process was originally posited to explain delinquency, it has also been used to explain victimization, especially intimate partner violence in the sense that children who are exposed to violence between parents in the home are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than others later in life (see Section VIII for a more detailed discussion). Other research has linked social learning theory to stalking victimization (Fox, Nobles, & Akers, 2011).

Control-Balance Theory

A general theory of deviancy, control-balance theory, may also apply to victimization. Developed by Charles Tittle (1995, 1997), this theory proposes that the amount of control that people possess over others and the amount of control to which one is subject factor into their risk of engaging in deviancy. When considered together, a control ratio can be determined for individuals. Control-balance theory posits that when the control a person has exceeds the amount of control he or she is subject to, that person has a control surplus. When the amount of control a person exercises is outweighed by the control he or she is subject to, that person has a control deficit. When a person has a control surplus or deficit, he or she is likely to be predisposed toward deviant behavior. The type of deviant behavior to which a person will be predisposed depends on the control ratio. A control surplus is linked to autonomous forms of deviance such as exploitation of others. Control deficits, on the other hand, are linked to repressive forms of deviance such as defiance.

Although not expressly a theory of victimization, control-balance theory is used by Piquero and Hickman (2003) to explain victimization. They proposed that having a control surplus or control deficit would increase victimization risk as compared with having a control balance. Individuals with a control surplus are used to having their needs and desires met and have a desire to extend their control. In short, they engage in risky behaviors (in terms of victimization) because there is little to restrain their actions. They may treat others who have control deficits with disrespect in such a way that those individuals act out and victimize them. Those with control deficits are at risk for victimization for different reasons. So used to having little control at their disposal, they lack the confidence or belief that they can protect themselves and are, thus, vulnerable targets. They may also try to overcome their control deficits by lashing out or victimizing those who exercise control over them. Piquero and Hickman tested control-balance’s ability to predict victimization and found that both

Download more at Learnclax.com

control deficits and control surpluses predicted general and theft victimization.

Social Interactionist Perspective

Marcus Felson (1992) posited that distress may be related to victimization. When experiencing stress, peoples’ behavior and demeanor are impacted. People are more likely to break rules and to be generally irritating to others. Distressed individuals, thus, may entice a certain measure of aggression from others given their poor attitudes and rule-breaking behavior. Consider a student who goes to class having just learned that he failed a test in his previous class that effectively ruined his chances of passing that class. This student is likely experiencing a level of stress that will negatively impact his behavior in class. While in class, then, he may explode after a fellow student makes a comment that he finds unreasonable. The student who is the “victim” of the outburst may find the other student’s behavior unacceptable and offensive. The attacked student then may, as a result, respond aggressively, effectively starting an aggressive exchange. This distress-and-reaction sequence is at the heart of the social interactionist perspective.

Stated more formally, M. Felson (1992) argues that aggressive encounters occur when distressed individuals break social rules and those who are aggrieved by the breaking of rules respond aggressively. The distressed individual is then placed in a situation in which he or she has to respond to aggression. If this person does so unsatisfactorily, the original aggrieved person is likely to implement punishment—in other words, victimization. The distressed individual then may retaliate, thus continuing the cycle of aggression. In this way, distress is a cause of victimization.

Life-Course Perspective

Emerging in the 1990s in the field of criminology, the life-course perspective considers the development of offending over time. In doing so, it uses elements from biology, sociology, and psychology to explain why persons initiate into, continue with, and desist or move out of a life of crime. Contributing to the growth of this field, in large part due to the overlap between victims and offenders discussed shortly, victimologists have recently begun applying and testing the principles of life-course criminology to victimization. A summary of these theories is presented in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3

General Theory of Crime

In 1990, Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi published A General Theory of Crime. In this seminal work, they presented their general theory of crime, proposing that criminal behavior is caused by a single factor— namely, low self-control. They argued that a person with low self-control, when presented with opportunity, will engage in criminal and other analogous behaviors, such as excessive drinking. When examining the

Download more at Learnclax.com

characteristics of persons with low self-control, the reasons this trait might lead to criminal behavior are clear. A person with low self-control will exhibit six elements, the first being inability to delay gratification; a person with low self-control will be impulsive and unable or unwilling to delay gratification. Second, the person will be a risk taker who engages in thrill-seeking behavior without thought of consequence. Third, an individual with low self-control will be shortsighted, without any clear long-term goals. Fourth, low self-control is indicated by a preference for physical as compared with mental activity. This preference may lead an individual to respond to disrespect with violence rather than having a discussion about the finer points of being respectful. Fifth, low self-control is evidenced by low frustration tolerance, which results in a person being quick to anger. Sixth, insensitivity and self-centeredness are hallmarks of low self-control. A person with low self-control will be unlikely to exhibit empathy toward others.

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that low self-control is fairly immutable once developed, which occurs during early childhood. They believe that, although self-control is an individual-level characteristic, it is not inherent; rather, it is developed through parental socialization. Once the level is set (around age 8), people will be hard-pressed to develop greater abilities to moderate their behavior. Without self-control, a person will act on impulses and seek personal gratification—often engaging in crime. Importantly, as noted, low self-control will lead individuals to engage in other behaviors that are similar to crime.

In 1999, Schreck applied the general theory of crime to victimization. He was one of the first researchers to apply to victimization what had been conceived as a theory of crime. This innovative approach was rooted in his recognition that persons who engage in crime are also likely to be victimized, a point we return to later. He also noted that because crime and victimization may be closely related, often with the same people engaging in both, the same factors that explain crime participation may also explain crime victimization. He tested his theory and found that low self-control increased the likelihood that a person would experience both personal and property victimization, even when controlling for participation in criminal behavior. This finding suggests that solely being involved in crime does not increase risk of victimization but that low self-control has significant, independent effects on victimization. In a recent meta-analysis, which is a type of study that examines all the research that has been conducted on a subject—in this case, the link between low self-control and victimization—collectively and produces an effect size for the magnitude of this relationship, self-control was found to have a modest effect on victimization. The overall mean effect size for low self-control on victimization is .154, which means that a one standard deviation increase in low self-control corresponds to a .154 standard deviation increase in victimization. The relationship was strongest for victimizations that were noncontact in nature, such as online victimization (Pratt, Turanovic, Fox, & Wright, 2014). Recent research has linked self-control with neighborhood disadvantage to victimization risk. Chris Gibson’s (2012) research using data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods is one example. Read this work in Reading 2.

Age-Graded Theory of Adult Social Bonds

Not all criminologists agree that there is a single cause of crime (or victimization) called low self-control. Others noted that people do indeed move in and out of criminal activity, a phenomenon that is difficult to

Download more at Learnclax.com

explain with a persistent trait, low self-control. Robert Sampson and John Laub (1993) instead believed that a person’s social bonds could serve to insulate him or her from criminal activity. In their age-graded theory of adult social bonds, Sampson and Laub identified two key social bonds—marriage and employment—that can aid people in moving out of a life of delinquency and crime as they emerge into young adulthood. If a person enters into marriage and has gainful employment, he or she is developing valuable social capital. In other words, a person who has these two social bonds will have much to lose by engaging in crime, which will promote crime desistance if he or she was previously involved in crime. If that person was not involved in crime, social capital would enable him or her to continue living a crime-free life.

Although this obviously is not a victimization theory, because of the link between victimization and offending, researchers have attempted to connect the attainment of adult social bonds with victimization in that individuals who are married and working will be less likely to be crime victims than those with little to lose. Daigle, Beaver, and Hartman (2008) found that entering into marriage did in fact predict desistance from victimization as individuals moved into early adulthood. They found that employment was not similarly protective; instead, employment reduced the chances that a person would desist from victimization. Looking at routine activities and lifestyles theories, however, this finding is none too surprising. The more time a person spends outside the home, at work, or in other activities, the greater the chances of being victimized.

Genes and Victimization

The life-course perspective in criminology has also centered on individual factors, such as genetics, that promote offending. This body of research has found a link between different genetic polymorphisms and behaviors relevant to criminology, such as criminal involvement and alcohol and drug use. A genetic polymorphism is a variant on a gene. Research has shown that sometimes these variations impact the likelihood of engaging in certain behaviors, such as violence, aggression, and delinquency. The genes that have been identified as linked to criminality are those that code for neurotransmitters, such as monoamine oxidase, serotonin, and dopamine. Neurotransmitters are chemical messengers responsible for information transmission. In terms of criminal behavior, relevant neurotransmitters are those linked to behavioral inhibition, mood, reward, and attention deficits. One important aspect of the link between genetics and crime is that possessing a variant for a gene, or having a certain polymorphism for a particular neurotransmitter, appears to “matter” only in certain environments. This is known as a gene x environment interaction. Genes tend to be important not for everyone in every circumstance but for particular individuals in particular contexts. For example, a person who is genetically predisposed toward alcoholism will express these alcoholic tendencies only if first exposed to alcohol.

As noted with other life-course perspective approaches, the applicability of genetic factors to the study of victimization has been explored. In fact, a gene 3 environment interaction for one gene in particular, dopamine, has been found to increase victimization risk. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter linked to the reward and punishment systems of the brain. Dopamine is released when we engage in pleasurable activities, thus reinforcing such behavior. Too much dopamine, however, can be a bad thing. High levels of dopamine are linked to enhanced problem solving and attentiveness, but overproduction of dopamine can be problematic. In

Download more at Learnclax.com

fact, it has been linked to violence and aggression. One gene that codes for dopamine is the DRD2 gene, a dopamine receptor gene. Research has found evidence for a gene 3 environment interaction between DRD2 and having delinquent peers. White males with low levels of delinquent peers and who have a certain genetic polymorphism for DRD2 are more likely than others to be violently victimized (Beaver, Wright, DeLisi, Daigle, et al., 2007). Genes have also been implicated in the victim–offender overlap. Research has found that genetic factors account for from 54% to 98% of the covariation between delinquency and victimization (Barnes & Beaver, 2012). The link between genes and victimization is an emerging area of research, and therefore, additional research is certainly needed to understand fully how genes impact victimization.

Role of Alcohol in Victimization

One of the common elements present in victimization is alcohol. According to data from the NCVS in 2008, 36% of victims perceived their offender to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident (Rand, Sabol, Sinclair, & Snyder, 2010). Alcohol use is commonplace among crime offenders, but many crime victims also report that just prior to their victimizations, they had consumed alcohol. Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes (2006) found in their National Violence Against Women study that 20% of women and 38% of men who experienced rape in adulthood had consumed alcohol or drugs prior to being victimized. Alcohol use is associated with other forms of victimization as well, such as physical assault. This fact should not be too surprising given the effects of alcohol on individuals. Generally, alcohol is linked to victimization because it reduces inhibition and also impedes people’s ability to recognize or respond effectively to dangerous situations. Offenders may also see intoxicated persons as particularly vulnerable targets for these reasons. Where a person consumes alcohol is also important. A person who drinks at home alone or with family is less likely to be victimized than a person who drinks in a bar at night. The latter person is likely interacting with motivated offenders without capable guardianship and may be perceived as a suitable target.

Alcohol use may place a person at risk of being victimized but also may impact how the victim responds to the incident. Research by Ruback, Me´nard, Outlaw, and Shaffer (1999) shows how alcohol use may be relevant to understanding why victims often do not report their experiences to police. In their study, college students evaluated various hypothetical scenarios that depicted victimization. Study participants were asked whether they would advise a victimized friend to report to the police based on a given scenario. When the friend in the scenario had been drinking, college students were less likely to advise that the police be contacted, and this relationship was particularly strong for victims depicted as being underage and drinking.

As you can see, the explanations of victimization are many. The hallmark victimization theory is routine activities and lifestyles theories, based on the notion that a person’s routines and lifestyle, not social conditions, place him or her at risk. As you have read, however, explanations of victimization have expanded beyond this to include social process and structural factors. The explanations you are drawn to may be tied to the data you are examining, which you now know are impacted by methodology. To understand the causes of victimization, you must first know who the “typical” victim is and what characterizes the “typical” victimization. In some of the following sections, specific types of victims are examined. Think about what theories can be used to explain their victimizations.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) is an official measure of the amount of crime known to the police. According to this report, which is published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the most common crime type is larceny-theft. The most common type of violent crime is aggravated assault. Criminal offending rates are highest for young Black males. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) uses a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Individuals ages 12 and over in selected households are asked questions about victimization experiences they faced during the previous 6 months. According to the NCVS, the typical victim is a young White male—although Blacks have higher victimization rates than other racial or ethnic groups and females experience higher rates of rape and sexual assault than males. The typical victimization incident is perpetrated by someone known to the victim, is not reported to the police, and does not involve a weapon. There is a clear link between victimization and offending, as well as between victims and offenders. Persons who live risky lifestyles are more likely to engage in criminal or delinquent activity and to be victims of crime. Victims and offenders also share similar demographic profiles. Routine activities theory suggests that crime victimization is likely to occur when motivated offenders, lack of capable guardianship, and suitable targets coalesce in time and space. Lifestyles theory is closely linked with routine activities theory in proposing that a person who leads a risky lifestyle is at risk of being victimized. Neighborhoods are not equally safe. The risk of being victimized, then, differs across geographical areas, and even when controlling for individual-level factors such as risky lifestyle, neighborhood disadvantage predicts victimization. Spending time with friends who participate in delinquent activities places a person at risk of being victimized. These “friends” may victimize their nondelinquent peers and encourage them to participate in risky behaviors that may lead to victimization. Strong attachments to family may serve to protect individuals from victimization, whereas weak attachments may increase victimization risk. Victimization may also be a learned process, whereby victims have learned the motives, definitions, and behaviors of victimization and had them reinforced. According to control-balance theory, individuals with an unequal control-balance ratio—either having a control deficit or a control surplus—are more prone to victimization than those with a balanced ratio. Those with control deficits may be seen as easy targets. They also may get tired of being targeted and lash out, thus increasing their involvement in situations associated with violent victimization. Those with control surpluses may engage in risky behavior with impunity, which could set them up for being victimized or retaliated against. Research on the general theory of crime suggests that those individuals who have low self-control are more likely to be victimized than those with higher levels of self-control. Adult social bonds may explain why people who were once victimized are not victimized again as they

Download more at Learnclax.com

age into young adulthood. Marriage appears to protect individuals from victimization. Genetic factors may also play a role in victimization. One specific genetic polymorphism of the DRD2 gene has been found to increase risk for White males who have delinquent peers. A genetic effect that occurs only under certain environmental conditions is known as a gene × environment interaction. Alcohol and victimization appear to go hand in hand. Alcohol impacts cognitive ability, and persons who are drinking are less likely to assess and recognize situations as being risky even when they are. In addition, alcohol is linked to behavioral inhibition, such that people may act in ways they otherwise would not, which may incite aggression in others. Alcohol is also linked to victimization when offenders purposefully select intoxicated victims because they are seen as easy targets.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. Compare and contrast the UCR and the NCVS. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Which is the best measure of victimization?

2. Apply the concepts of routine activities and lifestyles theories to evaluate your own risk of being victimized. What could you change to reduce your risk?

3. What are the individual-level factors that place people at risk of being crime victims? What are the structural factors and social process factors that place individuals at risk of being crime victims?

4. How should the criminal justice system handle victimized individuals who may also have been involved in a crime? Do you believe in the idea of truly innocent victims? If so, should they be treated differently?

5. Given what you have read about the theories and factors that influence crime victimization, how can victimization be prevented? Be sure to tie your prevention ideas to what is thought to cause victimization.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key terms

age-graded theory of adult social bonds 28 bounding 17 capable guardianship 21 “code of the streets” 21 control-balance theory 26 control deficit 26 control ratio 26 control surplus 26 delinquent peers 24 family structure 24 general theory of crime 27 gene x environment interaction 28 hierarchy rule 15 hot spots 23 incident report 17 life-course perspective 27 motivated offenders 21 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) 17 neighborhood context 23 principle of homogamy 22 residential mobility 24 routine activities and lifestyles theories 21 screen questions 17 series victimizations 18 social interactionist perspective 26 structural density 24 suitable targets 21 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) 15 victimization theory 21

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

“Alcohol and Crime”: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf

This report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice, looks at the link between alcohol and crime. It includes several graphs and figures that show the link between crime, specifically violent crime, and alcohol. These statistics also show that alcohol-related crime is generally decreasing.

Bureau of Justice Statistics: Victim Characteristics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=92

The NCVS provides information on characteristics of victims, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, and household income. For violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, assault, and robbery) the characteristics are based on the victim who experienced the crime. For property crimes (household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and property theft) the characteristics are based on the household of the respondent who provided information about these crimes. Property crimes are defined as affecting the entire household.

Crime in the United States: The Nation’s Two Crime Measures: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime- in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/the-nations-two-crime-measures

This website is part of the FBI’s research on various crimes. This one specifically examines the differences, advantages, and disadvantages of the UCR and the NCVS. Both forms of research are important to the study of crime.

“Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention”: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs98.pdf

This article combines several theories that focus on the “opportunity” of crimes. This includes the routine activities approach, the rational choice perspective, and crime pattern theory. This publication argues that the root cause of crime is opportunity. This allows for prevention techniques to focus on how to lessen the opportunity for crime to occur.

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/PHDCN/about.html

The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods is an interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. It was designed to advance understanding of the developmental pathways of both positive and negative human social behaviors. In particular, the project examined the pathways to juvenile delinquency, adult crime, substance abuse, and violence. At the same time, the project also provided a detailed look at the environments in which these social behaviors take place by collecting substantial amounts of data about urban Chicago, including its people, institutions, and resources.

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=92

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/the-nations-two-crime-measures

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs98.pdf

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/PHDCN/about.html

Download more at Learnclax.com

How to Read a Research Article

Let’s use one of the articles in Section II, “Specifying the Influence of Family and Peers on Violent Victimization: Extending Routine Activities and Lifestyles Theories” by Christopher J. Schreck and Bonnie S. Fisher, as an example for the following steps.

1. What is the thesis or main idea of this article? The thesis or main idea is found in the introduction of this article. Although it is not directly stated, in the final paragraph of the introduction, Schreck and Fisher note what they are testing. That is, they are examining whether the family and associating with delinquent peers impacts juveniles’ level of violent victimization.

2. What is the hypothesis? Schreck and Fisher identify two hypotheses, although these hypotheses are not specifically stated. You can identify the general hypotheses by reading the introduction. The first hypothesis is located in the second paragraph. The authors suggest that a strong family will reduce the likelihood that an adolescent will experience violent victimization. The second hypothesis is discussed in the following paragraph. The authors hypothesize that membership in delinquent peer groups will lead to increased risk of violent victimization.

3. Is there any prior literature related to the hypothesis? Literature linking victimization to offending is cited throughout the introduction. In addition, Schreck and Fisher use routine activities/lifestyles theory to justify why the family and peer group should be considered when trying to understand violent victimization risk among adolescents. They link the elements of routine activities theory to family and peers and explain how these activities impact violent victimization risk.

4. What methods are used to test the hypothesis? Schreck and Fisher use survey research to test their hypotheses. They used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which had been collected by other researchers. This is known as secondary data analysis. They used a type of regression analysis called overdispersed Poisson regression as their analytic tool to examine factors related to higher levels of violent victimization.

5. Is this a qualitative or a quantitative study? Qualitative studies are those that use nonnumerical data or methods, while quantitative studies use numbers to test hypotheses. Schreck and Fisher use statistics to test their hypotheses; therefore, their study is quantitative.

6. What are the results, and how does the author present them? The results of the study are presented in the “Results” section. The authors present their results in two forms—in a table (Table 1) and in the write-up of the results section. If the statistical technique is one with which you are unfamiliar, the table can be examined by finding those variables that have asterisks by their coefficients or values. The asterisks indicate that the variable is significant in the model. Those variables’ coefficients or values that do not have asterisks beside

Download more at Learnclax.com

them are not significant. The write-up also will tell you what variables are significant and how to interpret the values. Schreck and Fisher found that “teenagers whose friends engaged in higher levels of delinquency and risky activity tended to experience more victimization.” Spending time with those friends also increased risk of experiencing violence. Two family context variables were related to violent victimization. A warm, accepting family climate and parents’ positive feelings toward the adolescent reduced risk of violent victimization.

7. Do you believe that the authors provided a persuasive argument? Why or why not? The answer to this question is subjective; however, the authors do make a strong case for examining both the peer and family context in risk for violent victimization. A close reading of the front end of the paper provides the reader the basis for the argument. The analytic test shows support for their hypotheses—variables measuring both peer and family context do “matter” in predicting risk of violent victimization. It should be noted, though, that variables operationalizing the routine activities/lifestyles perspective were also shown to be relevant (they were significant). This finding suggests that both the routine activities/lifestyles perspective and the peer and family context should be further examined.

8. Who is the intended audience of this article? As you read the article, you should consider to whom the authors are speaking. Most academic articles have professors as their audience, of course, but they are also often written for others. Schreck and Fisher are writing for students, practitioners, and policymakers as well as for professors. When determining who the audience is, you should ask yourself who would benefit from reading the article. Also, consider for whom the findings would be beneficial.

9. What does the article add to your knowledge of the subject? This question is obviously specific to the reader. One way to answer this question may be as follows: This article helps the reader understand how the peer and family context influence risk for violent victimization. It also helps the reader understand how the impact of peer and family variables on the risk of violent victimization can be explained through a routine activities/lifestyles theory approach.

10. What are the implications for criminal justice policy that can be derived from this article? Implications for criminal justice policy are likely to be found in the discussion or conclusion sections of the article. In the conclusion, Schreck and Fisher discuss the implications of their findings mainly in terms of how future research and theory may be impacted. They do, however, question policies intended to reduce victimization by educating potential victims about ways to reduce their risk, since it is possible that victimization risk is tied to family attachment, which they link to socialization. Socialization through the family via its effect on the development of self- control has been previously linked to victimization risk. Schreck and Fisher suggest that victimization may be linked to something that cannot be easily changed (i.e., low self-control) rather than something that can be easily manipulated (i.e., a person’s routine activities). In this way, policy implications are discussed. You will notice that some articles have more criminal justice policy implications.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Now that we have examined the elements of a research article, it is your turn to answer these questions as you read through the various articles in the text. Some of the articles may be easier for you to read than others, and not all the articles will have all the elements you just read about: introduction, literature review, methods, results, and discussion. You should refer to this introduction on how to read a research article for guidance if you have any problems.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 1

In this article, Christopher Schreck and Bonnie Fisher (2004) examined how both the family and peers impact a person’s likelihood of experiencing a violent victimization. Four types of violent victimization were examined: being threatened with a knife or gun, being shot, being stabbed, or being “jumped.” They also examined variables designed to measure risky lifestyles. In doing so, they use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health on more than 3,500 respondents. The authors found that the lifestyle factors of sneaking out of the house, driving around in a car, and exercising increased the chances of a person being victimized. They also found that general feelings the respondent had for his or her family were negatively related to victimization— the better a person felt about his or her family, the less likely he or she was to be victimized. Finally, they found that peer delinquency and spending time with peers both increased victimization risk. Taken together, they found support for three of the theories or risk factors identified in this chapter: routine activities/lifestyle, family, and delinquent peers.

Specifying the Influence of Family and Peers on Violent Victimization

Extending Routine Activities and Lifestyles Theories

Christopher J. Schreck and Bonnie S. Fisher

Criminologists have long been interested in family conditions as an antecedent of youthful delinquent behavior (Farrington, 1987; Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Loeber & Stouthamer- Loeber, 1986; Rebellon, 2002; Sampson & Laub, 1993). As important as family context is in the delinquency research, the family may have broader significance in view of the finding that delinquents tend to experience high levels of violent victimization (Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991). This connection between involvement in crime and the experience of victimization has led some criminologists to propose that established correlates of crime—which might include family characteristics—are also relevant for understanding victimization (Piquero & Hickman, 2003; Schreck, 1999; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002). In addition, it appears reasonable to think that families have an interest in preventing their children from being threatened, beaten up, or robbed. Consequently, family context may be particularly important among teenagers, who bear a disproportionately high level of victimization relative to every other age group (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003).

In contrast to the longstanding tradition of family and delinquency research, there have been few attempts by researchers to explore a connection between family context and the experience of general violent victimization. The few studies to consider the relationship between family context and general victimization found that level of emotional attachment between family members is perhaps the strongest family-relevant predictor of victimization (Esbensen, Huizinga, & Menard, 1999; Lauritsen, Laub, & Sampson, 1992). Consistent with these studies, we argue that a strong family—one that possesses durable ties of emotional warmth and support —might reduce the chances that adolescents will experience violent victimization.

The primary competitor to the influence of the family is most likely the adolescent peer group, which criminologists and victimologists find to be a risk factor for criminal behavior as well as victimization (Akers, 1985; Lauritsen et al., 1992; Schreck et al., 2002; Warr, 2002). The peer group represents one of the primary social contexts in the lives of adolescents, aside from the family (Coleman, 1980; Corsaro & Eder, 1990). At

Download more at Learnclax.com

the same time, the presence of criminal associates in a teenager’s life is traditionally one of the strongest and most consistent correlates of individual delinquency (Akers, 1994; Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981; Warr & Stafford, 1991; c.f. Haynie, 2001). Membership in peer groups, however, also corresponds with a higher risk of victimization. Researchers have theorized that membership in a delinquent group can invite retaliation from the group’s victims or else group norms might favor the use of violence as an accepted means of settling within-group disputes (Baron, Forde, & Kennedy, 2001; Baron, Kennedy, & Forde, 2001; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Singer, 1981). In addition, proximity to other participants in crime leads members of the peer group to use each other as convenient targets (Jensen & Brownfield, 1986; Lauritsen et al., 1991; Schreck et al., 2002). Even research looking exclusively at criminal youth gang members found that membership is a source of risk rather than protection (Miller & Decker, 2001; Sanders, 1994). Taken together, attempts at understanding the sources of adolescent victimization cannot afford to ignore risk factors originating in the peer context. Nevertheless, the literature has not given much attention to the effectiveness of family context as a predictor of victimization after controlling for delinquent peer group characteristics (see Esbensen et al., 1999; Lauritsen et al., 1992).

In view of the importance of the family and peer group for delinquency causation, both appear to have significance beyond simply being precursors of juvenile delinquency. This article explores family and peer contexts and examines how these contexts link to routine activities/lifestyles theories of victimization.

Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), we then empirically tested whether the combined influence of family and delinquent peer-group associations significantly affects adolescents’ level of violent victimization. One important methodological advantage of the Add Health is its national coverage of adolescents. The Add Health also offers a significant improvement over other major data sets (such as the National Youth Survey or the Monitoring the Future study) in that the staff collected data from not only the respondent and his or her parents (which would be relevant for measuring family attachment) but also from the respondent’s peers. This data set thus provides a unique opportunity to measure the influence of peer context in conjunction with family characteristics.

Source: Schreck, C. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization: Extending routine activities and lifestyles theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1021– 1041.

Theoretical Framework

Our general framework for explaining how family and peer contexts might influence victimization draws from the routine activities/lifestyles theories (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978). Together, these theories stress how situations or contexts carry their own level of risk for victimization. The routine activities theory maintains that the convergence in time and space of motivated offenders, attractive targets, and ineffective guardianship determines the risk of victimization. People who spend a lot of time in settings where they are exposed to offenders and cannot adequately protect themselves will tend to have a higher risk of victimization. Social structure and demographic characteristics generally affect daily routines and, thus, exposure and vulnerability to likely offenders (Hindelang et al., 1978; Miethe, Stafford, & Long,

Download more at Learnclax.com

1987; Sampson & Wooldredge, 1987). Family and peer contexts could also be important mechanisms for the meeting of motivated offenders and worthwhile, vulnerable targets; that is, social bonds with family and peers might structure or determine routine daily activities that have relevance for victimization risk (Felson, 1986; Horney, Osgood, & Marshall, 1995; Schreck et al., 2002).

Attachment to the Family and Violent Victimization

The bond of attachment attends to the degree of sensitivity and emotional closeness that people have for others (see Hirschi, 1969). Although the level of emotional closeness with others might directly influence risk, the connection between bonds, similar to attachment, and routine activity is better documented (Felson, 1986; Schreck et al., 2002); that is, attachment could serve to constrain the types of activities we routinely engage in and bring individuals into closer proximity to those with an interest or social obligation to act as protectors. The following discussion thus shows how attachment to the family has relevance for each of the three necessary elements for crime: effective guardianship, exposure to motivated offenders, and target attractiveness.

Family context and exposure to motivated offenders

Bonds to family members should remove would-be victims from the proximity of likely offenders. Strong attachment for parents should tend to keep children closer to home and away from the company of strangers. Felson (1998) noted that although some people have family members who are unquestionably dangerous to be with, it is typically much more dangerous to spend time around strangers and outside the home (see also, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003; Hindelang et al., 1978). In addition, strong feelings of attachment might compel parents to regulate their children’s friendship groups (which includes getting to know the friends, including them in family activities, and getting to know their families). As noted earlier, the delinquent peer group may well represent a pool of unusually motivated offenders. In short, attachment keeps children closer to home, makes parents interested in the friends of their child, and thus keeps children away from motivated offenders.

Family context and guardianship

Strong bonds represent a catalyst for the meeting, in time and space, of potential victims with effective guardians. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) maintained that strong bonds of parental attachment to the child are a prerequisite for effective supervision and, presumably, protection; that is, one might expect that parental presence would make criminal activity against their offspring inconvenient. One may also assume that children who are attached to their parents will choose to spend more time with them enjoying their protection than children who dislike or distrust their parents. Attachment can also lead to improved guardianship in ways other than direct supervision. Given the scattered nature of informal control in modern American society (see Felson, 1998), with parents who work and students who go to school and who may work themselves, parents can ensure guardianship by arranging for surrogate parents, such as child care providers or coaches. Thus, although strong attachment cannot guarantee that parents will always be able to immediately supervise their children, attachment appears more likely to facilitate the direct presence of alternative guardians.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Family context and target attractiveness

Bonds might create proximate so-called handlers, or people who are socially obligated to prevent likely victims from making themselves into attractive targets (for more on handlers, see Felson, 1986); that is, effective handlers will strive to prevent those they feel responsible for from behaving provocatively and risking retaliation, which could happen if the child is behaving belligerently or insolently to others or is victimizing them. Handlers may also be in a position to require precautions intended specifically to promote safety (e.g., “Come straight home after school” or “Make sure you take the bus; don’t walk home by yourself”).

Social bonds aside, we would expect that deviant parents will be less capable of protecting their children from crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggested that such parents are little inclined to exert themselves monitoring their children. Beyond the effort and time that effective supervision entails, parents who impair their judgment by consuming illegal drugs or drinking alcohol to excess will tend to be less effective as protectors. Deviant parents may also engage in illegal behavior against their own children and represent proximate likely offenders in their own right. The presence of two married adults in the household may also be important, as researchers have speculated that family disruption makes supervision more difficult as well as interferes with the maintenance of bonds with children (Hirschi, 1991; Rutter & Giller, 1983).

Peer Context and Violent Victimization

Although adolescent life typically revolves around the family, the peer group represents a second major context. We have already noted the fact that teenagers spend considerable amounts of time engaged in social activity with their friends. As is the case with the family, the routine activities/lifestyles approaches can offer insights about why contact with the peer group, most notably the delinquent peer group, also suggests exposure to motivated offenders, weakened guardianship, and increased attractiveness as a target.

Delinquent Peer Association and Exposure to Motivated Offenders

Although routine activities theory does not attempt to explain why people are motivated to commit crime, research reveals that there are individual differences in how easy it is to tempt someone into crime (Felson, 1998; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). To illustrate, exposure to persons with a record of delinquency— particularly when one is vulnerable—would therefore be risky. The principle of homogamy in lifestyle theory (Hindelang et al., 1978, pp. 256–257) addresses this issue, positing that individuals who share daily living conditions and social activities with high-risk offenders (because they possess similar demographic backgrounds) will have a disproportionately high risk of victimization (see also, Miethe & Meier, 1994). Ties of friendship to a delinquent would therefore make it more likely that someone will routinely be in proximity to a motivated offender and vulnerable. If most crimes do not require significant departures from the normal routines of the offender, the closeness of a delinquent’s friends would make them accessible targets (see Felson, 1998).

Delinquent peer association and guardianship

In light of the amount of time teens spend with their peer group, other members of that group are potentially well situated to act as guardians and protect their peers. This role for the peer group presupposes that one’s

Download more at Learnclax.com

associates are interested in serving as guardians. Guardianship, however, potentially necessitates time, effort,

and risk. Felson (1986, 1998) suggested that strong social bonds create a stake in protecting others. These bonds influence the amount of time people spend in risky activity away from those who can protect them from the criminal inclinations of others; that is, caring about others may make one spend more time with them, which promotes personal enjoyment and safety from victimization.

The delinquent peer group, on the other hand, undermines guardianship in multiple ways. First, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) characterized delinquents as lacking diligence and being impulsive and selfish, thus suggesting that they are unlikely to exert themselves to protect their closest associates when their associates are vulnerable. Second, as Sparks (1982) indicated, someone in a delinquent group would be unlikely to report victimization to the police and can therefore count on having less police protection. Part of this may reflect the delinquent’s understandable lack of comfort in dealing with legal authorities. For instance, delinquents might assume that the police will be quick to dismiss their claims because of their connection to other troublemakers, or else might run a higher risk of implicating themselves merely by talking to the police.

Delinquent peer association and target attractiveness

As noted in criminological research, children who participate in youth gangs and who claim the friendship of other delinquent youth are much more likely to participate in crime themselves. In fact, juvenile delinquency frequently occurs as a group activity (Erickson & Jensen, 1977; Warr, 1996). A number of researchers have suggested that participation in crime—or even of merely identifying with a delinquent group—can make a youth a worthwhile target for others. Singer (1981) proposed that retaliation is part of the normative characteristics of a violent subculture (see also, Baron, Forde, et al., 2001). Someone thus committing a crime or who is a member of a group responsible for committing a crime might thus alternate from offender to victim when the former victim attempts to retaliate. Youth groups that encourage aggressive behavior may likewise make themselves attractive targets by precipitating violence through their confrontational behavior.

Research Questions

There is good reason to think that families with conventional parents and where strong bonds are present between family members will be more effective at promoting the safety of offspring. At the same time, the prominence of the peer group in the lives of adolescents represents a plausible source of risk. More specifically, do stronger bonds of attachment between family members—especially between parents and children— promote greater safety from violent victimization? Does spending time with friends, and having delinquent friends, increase risk?

Most existing data sources survey the victimization experiences and traits of only the adolescent respondent, and not their parents or members of their peer network. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), however, integrated information from each of these three sources—the adolescent, parents, and friends—which provides more valid measures than would be the case if one relied on data from only the teenagers. This analysis below, which uses these data, considers the relative influences of family context and peer group factors on the level of violent victimization.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Data and Methods

The current research used the first wave of the public-use version of the Add Health study, which was conducted between September 1994 and December 1995. This wave consisted of in-school and in-home administrations. The goal of the Add Health study was to create a sample that is nationally representative of students attending U.S. schools in Grades 7 through 12. Our analyses excluded cases with any missing data, leaving slightly more than 3,500 respondents who provided sufficient data for analysis.

Dependent Variable—Violent Victimization

To measure the occurrences of violent victimization for each individual, we created an additive index. Respondents were asked about having been the victim of four types of serious violence. These items each measure serious forms of violence: (a) threat with a knife or gun, (b) shooting, (c) stabbing, and (d) being “jumped.” The reference period was the 12 months preceding the survey. The Add Health survey recorded responses using ordinal categories (never = 0, once = 1, more than once = 2). As expected, the distribution of violent victimization is skewed; nearly 80% of the respondents were not victims of any of the violent crimes noted above during the reference period, approximately 10% reported one instance of victimization, and the remainder accounted for two or more incidences of victimization.

Independent Measures

Family context

There were six family-related measures included in the analysis. The first measure, welfare receipt (coded 1 = yes, 0 = no), measures the economic condition of the family. Less than 10% of the sample reported receiving any public assistance. The second measure, parental drinking, measures how often parents consumed five or more drinks in the previous month (coded 1 = never through 6 = five or more times). We used this variable as a proxy for deviant parents. The median parent reported never consuming five or more drinks. The third item, positive parental feelings toward child, is a composite index of four items measuring the parent’s opinions about the child, with a higher positive score indicating warmer feelings toward the child. Because the component items in this index had different metrics, we converted the raw item score indicating more positive feelings toward the child. The fourth measure is a two-item index tapping the child’s attachment toward the mother, with a higher score indicating stronger attachment (coded 1 = not at all through 5 = very much). The median score was 5, indicating that the typical child is strongly attached to his or her mother. The fifth item is also a two-item index made up of similar questions but measuring the child’s attachment toward the father (median = 4.5). The final item, family climate, is a four-item index measuring the general feelings of the respondent for the family (as opposed to the parents specifically). Descriptive statistics indicate that the average respondent lived in a family characterized by closeness between the members (median = 4).

Peer delinquency

The friends located in the respondent’s peer network reported participation in five minor types of delinquency: (a) cigarette smoking, (b) drinking alcohol, (c) getting drunk, (d) skipping school, and (e) doing

Download more at Learnclax.com

risky things on a dare. All items had the following response categories: 0 = not at all, 1 = once or twice, 2 = 3 or 4 times, and 3 = 5 or more times. The Add Health survey designers then computed the average level of

delinquency among those peers nominated by the respondent, or who nominated the respondent, and recorded them on the respondent’s record. We summed the averages for the five items to create a peer delinquency index. The average respondent had a peer network that engaged in these delinquent or risky activities approximately 4 times during the reference period. Most members of the sample had friends who reported relatively low levels of delinquency, averaging four different acts of delinquency committed once or twice in the previous 12 months.

Peer context

Two variables measure additional dimensions of peer context. The first variable, friends care, measures the feeling that friends have about the respondent. Scores range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The second variable, activities with friends, reflects the amount of time the respondent spends simply hanging out with friends (coding ranges from 0 = not at all to 3 = 5 or more times per week). The average respondent felt that friends generally cared (mean = 4.29) and reported going out with friends 3 or 4 times per week.

Lifestyles

We also employed several activities that bivariate analysis indicated as being correlated with victimization: sneaking out of the house at night, driving a car, and exercising. Each of these items represents activity outside the home, which should elevate victimization risk. One might reasonably interpret each of these activities as events that are likely to occur away from parental guardians and home, and therefore likely to incur additional risk.

Controls

The multivariate data analyses include several demographic control variables. Gender represents the effect of being a male respondent (with female respondents being the reference category). Males constituted 47% of the sample. Racial identity is divided between Black and non-Black (reference), with 25% of the sample being Black. The variable for respondent age measures age in discrete years, ranging from 11 to 20. Each of these variables is a correlate of violent victimization (see, e.g., Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003; Cohen, Kluegel, & Land, 1981; Hindelang et al., 1978).

Results

We were interested in learning whether family and peer-related variables predict violent victimization and significantly improve prediction beyond baseline demographic variables. In view of the highly skewed distribution of the dependent variable, we use an overdispersed Poisson regression model to estimate the effect coefficients of the independent variables. The first column of coefficient in Table 1 (i.e., Model 1) represents the baseline model. As expected, minorities tend to have significantly higher levels of victimization, as do male and younger members of the sample. Model 1 also includes the three indicators of unsupervised and unstructured activities. Consistent with the finding of Schreck and colleagues (2002), the data show that

Download more at Learnclax.com

teenagers who engage in leisure activities away from home (and, in many cases, away from supervision) also

tend to have higher levels of violent victimization.

Model 2 incorporates the family-related variables into the analysis. The strongest family-related predictors of violent victimization are family climate and parental feelings for their children. Adolescents living in households where there is a warmer, more accepting climate experience less violence, while those living in families where parents dislike them have a greater risk for becoming victims. This supports our explanation for children as well as reduced exposure to motivated offenders. Some types of family closeness do not appear to matter, however. The attachment of child to mother or father did not significantly affect victimization risk. Because attachment from the parent to the child is significant, this finding suggests that parents have the more central role when it comes to protecting teenagers from violence. More interesting, drinking activity by parents failed to significantly influence victimization risk. In addition, incorporating the family-relevant variables did not substantially alter the baseline variable coefficients, thus indicating that demographic and lifestyle effects are independent of the family context variables used in the analysis.

Model 3 adds the peer context variable. Peer delinquency and activities with friends were the significant peer- context predictors. Teenagers whose friends engaged in higher levels of delinquency and risky activity tended to experience more victimization. Readers should be aware, however, that the peer delinquency measures tap minor forms of delinquency, and that a measure for more serious forms could yield a larger influence. This finding supports our explanation that those who associate with delinquent peers risk enhanced exposure to motivated offenders, ineffective guardianship, and suitability as a target for violence. In addition, spending time with friends—whether or not they are delinquent—also increases the risk of experiencing violence. Having friends who care about the respondent, on the other hand, did not significantly influence level of violent victimization. Peer context, however, predicted victimization independently of demographic, lifestyle, or family context variables—the effect coefficients of these variables, in fact, did not seem much affected by the inclusion of the peer context variables. That is, the effects of peer context do not seem to detract from the influence of family variables; each appears to predict violent victimization independently. In addition, the continued strength of demographic predictors even in the full model indicates that researchers looking to explain demographic variation in violent victimization would have to look at risk factors other than the ones considered in the analysis.

Table 1

Download more at Learnclax.com

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Conclusion

What relevance do family and peer variables have for general victimization risk among adolescents? Building from the similarities between the correlates of crime and victimization, the importance of the family and peer contexts in the etiology of delinquency indicates that victimization research might benefit from exploring these contexts further. Moreover, the centrality of family and peers in the lives of teenagers and the likely influence these contexts have on the convergence of motivated offenders, attractive targets, and guardianship

Download more at Learnclax.com

further recommend research on family and peer environments.

In the current study, we linked family and peer context to routine activity/lifestyles theories. In the case of the family, we hypothesized that strong bonds of attachment decrease the likelihood that meetings between motivated offenders and attractive and vulnerable targets will occur. To test, we measured attachment in several ways: Attachment included (a) general feelings of closeness with the family, (b) feelings of warmth toward parents, and (c) parental feelings toward the child. Our results indicated that teenagers in households where the family context is characterized by closeness and understanding tend to be safe from violent crime. Likewise, children whose parents are emotionally alienated from them tend to experience a higher risk of victimization. Given the preliminary nature of research linking family and peer contexts to victimization, readers should be aware that although the results are consistent with the expectations of routine activity/lifestyle theories (that family climate and positive parental feelings for offspring appear to promote better guardianship, increase distance from motivated offenders, and prevent children from becoming attractive targets), the interpretation we offer might not be the only one. For instance, strong bonds of attachment might also create unwillingness to take risks that might lead to victimization (e.g., by behaving belligerently or insultingly toward others) because victimization jeopardizes the happiness of loved ones; that is, attachment might show how much more one has to lose through victimization and thus deter provocative behavior. Further research about the nature of the attachment-victimization link might clarify this issue.

The presence of delinquent peers appears to be a risk factor, in addition to family-related correlates. The results support the interpretation that spending time around delinquent peers is a risky venture. First, group delinquency, or identification with delinquents, can invite retaliation (Baron, Forde, et al., 2001; Singer, 1981). Affiliation with delinquent peers also suggests exposure to motivated offenders (Lauritsen et al., 1991; Schreck et al., 2002). Second, delinquents may exacerbate risk because they are not the most effective of guardians for their friends. We should note that the magnitude coefficients in our estimated model appear somewhat weaker than those coefficients reported in Lauritsen et al. (1992). This may be a reflection of the fact that the National Youth Survey asked respondents to report on the behavior of their peers, whereas the Add Health asked the peers themselves. Haynie (2001) found a similar reduction in effect magnitude, although in the case of delinquent behavior. As is the case with the family, the relation between peer group affiliation and general risk of victimization deserves further investigation.

The findings also revealed that demographic variables remain important predictors net of the routine activities/lifestyles, family, and peer variables. Lifestyles theory was originally developed to make sense of demographic differences in the risk of victimization; however, measures of lifestyles have had very limited success mediating the effects of demographic variables. Our research shows further that demographic differences appear to come from sources other than family and peer factors as well. Clearly, there is further room for improvement in our attempts to explain gender and racial differences in violent victimization.

The research on family and peer correlates of delinquency is too numerous to easily cite here, yet parallel research linking family and peer characteristics to general violent victimization has been comparatively scant. Our research indicates that these two contexts of adolescent life might be useful for understanding variation in

Download more at Learnclax.com

risk of violent victimization. This importance suggests several new areas of inquiry for theory and research. The first new direction follows from the findings about family attachment. If the family determines vulnerability, then could family characteristics socialize children to be either victims or nonvictims in the long term? The recent extension of self-control theory to victimization suggests that this might be the case; however, because Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) posited that differences in self-control stabilize in late childhood, the Add Health sample is not young enough to address this question about the long-term effects of family characteristics. Thus, the failure of the parental drinking measure to significantly influence risk might not say anything about the empirical status of self-control theory. Nevertheless, the possibility that vulnerability to crime is a time-stable personal trait clearly casts into question policies intended to reduce victimization by educating potential victims about what they can do to protect themselves from crime. This possibility also makes sense of the fact that crime prevention educational programs have been ineffective at making students safer from victimization (Finkelhor, Asdigian, & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1995). The family may therefore have broader relevance than the immediate-situation importance that we suggest here.

The second new direction relates to our results regarding the peer effect finding. Some of the major criminological theories have built themselves around explaining how peer associations cause crime (Akers, 1985). We explicitly adopted a situational interpretation for the peer effect on victimization; however, the extension of criminological theories that stress the socializing role of peer associations might offer new insights about how peer group membership matters when it comes to victimization. Although we do not necessarily endorse this approach, further extensions of criminological theory to victimization can add richness to an area that has long suffered from a lack of theoretical innovation and diversity. The vast literature on peers and delinquency, and the substantive debates about the meaning of the peer effects, may well apply to victimization. Even though our analyses did not exhaust the full range of risk factors for violent victimization, the results suggest avenues for further enriching theories of victimization.

Discussion Questions

1. What role do you think family and peers have on victimization of young adults? What about older adults? Are these constructs relevant for understanding the victimization of persons who are not teens?

2. What are the policy implications of the findings that peers and family both matter in the occurrence of victimization?

3. How might the construct of low self-control impact the relationship among family, peers, and victimization? Is it possible that persons with low self-control may seek out delinquent peers? Given what you know about the development of self-control, how might the family be related to both self- control and victimization?

4. What other factors not identified in this article or in this section might be related to victimization? Why do you think the factors you identified would be important in understanding why some people are victimized?

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Akers, R. L. (1994). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Baron, S. W., Forde, D. R., & Kennedy, L. W. (2001). Rough justice: Street youth and violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 662–678.

Baron, S. W., Kennedy, L. W., & Forde, D. R. (2001). Male street youths’ conflict: The role of background, subcultural, and situational factors. Justice Quarterly, 18, 759–790.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Criminal victimization in the United States: 2001 statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 52, 170–183.

Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505–524.

Coleman, J. S. (1980). Friendship and the peer group in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 408–431). New York: John Wiley.

Corsaro, W., & Eder, D. (1990). Children’s peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 197–220.

Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Erickson, M. L., & Jensen, G. F. (1977). Delinquency is still group behavior!: Toward revitalizing the group premise in the sociology of deviance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68, 262–273.

Esbensen, F., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1999). Family context and criminal victimization in adolescence. Youth & Society, 31, 168–198.

Farrington, D. P. (1987). Early precursors of frequent offending. In J. Q. Wilson & G. C. Loury (Eds.),

Download more at Learnclax.com

From children to citizens, Volume III: Families, schools, and delinquency prevention (pp. 27–50). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In D. B. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 119–129). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Finkelhor, D., Asdigian, N., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1995). The effectiveness of victimization prevention instruction: An evaluation of children’s responses to actual threats and assaults. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 141–153.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013–1057.

Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Cause of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hirschi, T. (1991). Family structure and crime. In B. J. Christensen (Ed.), When families fail . . . the social costs (pp. 43–65). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60, 655–673.

Jensen, G. F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activity theory.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Violence and Victims, 1, 85–99.

Lauritsen, J. L., Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1992). Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications for the prevention of victimization among adolescents. Violence and Victims, 7, 91–108.

Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). Addressing the link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–291.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 7, pp. 29–149). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1994). Crime and social context: Toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Long, J. S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyles theories. American Sociological Review, 52, 184–194.

Miller, J., & Decker, S. H. (2001). Young women and gang violence: Gender, street offending and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Quarterly, 18, 115–140.

Piquero, A. R., & Hickman, M. (2003). Extending Tittle’s control balance theory to account for victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 282–301.

Rebellon, C. J. (2002). Reconsidering the broken homes/delinquency relationship and exploring its mediating mechanisms. Criminology, 40, 103–135.

Rutter, M., & Giller, H. (1983). Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Wooldredge, J. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro-dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371–393.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Sanders, W. (1994). Gangbangs and drive-bys: Grounded culture and juvenile gang violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.

Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159–180.

Singer, S. I. (1981). Homogeneous victim-offender populations: A review and some research implications. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 779–788.

Sparks, R. F. (1982). Research on victims of crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Warr, M. (1996). Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology, 31, 17–40.

Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Warr, M., & Stafford, M. C. (1991). The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do? Criminology, 29, 851–866.

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 2

Neighborhoods have long been studied for their crime proneness but have been less studied for how individual-level characteristics of people interact with neighborhood conditions to enhance or reduce risks for victimization. In his research using data from the Longitudinal Cohort in the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, Chris L. Gibson (2012) investigates how levels of self-control relate to neighborhood disadvantage to influence violent victimization risk. Of particular note, he finds evidence for the “social push” perspective in that low self-control mattered most in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods.

An Investigation of Neighborhood Disadvantage, Low Self-Control, and Violent Victimization Among Youth

Chris L. Gibson

Vulnerability to crime and violence is influenced by the context in which individuals reside, the activities they choose to engage in, and the individual characteristics that make them different from each other (Gibson, Morris, & Beaver, 2009; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Maimon & Browning, 2010; Mayer & Jencks, 1989; Sampson, Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002; Sharkey, 2006; Rountree, Land, & Miethe, 1994). Historically, situational and contextual theories have had the largest influence on understanding variation in personal victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978). Ranging from lifestyle choices to the imposed structural conditions of neighborhoods, a primary focus in personal victimization research has been on how environments encountered by people can put them at risk of victimization, and more specifically expose them to situations where offenders are more proximate. On the other hand, studies show that individual traits increase individual risk of being victimized. In particular, low self-control—defined as the likelihood that individuals will consider the short- and long-term consequences of their actions in pursuit of self-gratifying behavior—is a trait that has been shown to influence victimization risk (Schreck, 1999). These antecedents of personal victimization have largely been independently explored and research has often neglected how the two may be integrated to better understand victimization risk.

Neighborhood Context and Personal Victimization

It is established that crime and violence tend to be concentrated in disadvantaged urban areas. That is, compared to other neighborhoods those with elevated rates of poverty, residential turnover, and ethnic heterogeneity often experience more crime, and those living in them are at an increased vulnerability for becoming victims of violence (Rountree et al., 1994; Sampson et al., 1997; Sampson & Wooldredge, 1987; Smith & Jarjoura, 1989).

Several scholars have empirically extended Shaw and McKay’s [1942] research by measuring intervening mechanisms that offer explanations for why residents in disorganized neighborhoods are less capable of controlling crime. Factors such as weak interpersonal networks, inadequate informal social control, subcultural and competition models that condone and encourage violence, and mistrust among neighbors all have been studied as mechanisms that are important for explaining the connection between structural disadvantage and

Download more at Learnclax.com

neighborhood crime (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Kornhauser, 1978; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Smith & Jarjoura, 1989). For instance, stable residency in a neighborhood can promote friendships with other residents as well as the discovery of common interests and values.

A recent extension of social disorganization identified the relationships that may promote order and consequentially lead to less vulnerability to crime and violence, or what Sampson et al. (1997) coined as “collective efficacy.” Collective efficacy is the willingness of residents within neighborhoods to exercise informal social control in situations of disorderly conduct (e.g., kids loitering outside while truant, painting graffiti) and to intervene for the common good of their neighborhood, coupled with trust and cohesion among neighbors (Sampson, 2006; Sampson et al., 1997).

Sampson et al. (1997) were the first to show the influence of neighborhood collective efficacy on violence reduction. Using data from the PHDCN, they found that collective efficacy mediated neighborhood structural influences, such as concentrated disadvantage and residential stability, on neighborhood violence. Children living in areas of high collective efficacy are less likely to engage in violence (Berg & Loeber, 2011; Maimon & Browning, 2010; Sampson et al., 2005). In sum, neighborhoods have higher concentrations of crime, violence, and adverse outcomes for children and adolescents when residents do not trust one another, are less willing to work together for the common good of their neighborhood, and when subcultural values are dominated by unconventional values where competition for respect among individuals often results in crime and violence.

Being that violent offending and victimization are strongly correlated (Berg & Loeber, 2011; Hindelang et al., 1978; Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991), it comes as no surprise that neighborhood structural and social factors are also related to violent victimization risk (e.g., Berg & Loeber, 2011; Lauritsen, 2001; Sampson, 1985; Sampson & Wooldredge, 1987). Research shows that—independent of demographic characteristics— neighborhood poverty, residential mobility, and family structure increase the risk of personal victimization (Lauritsen, 2001; Miethe & McDowall, 1993; Sampson, 1983, 1985). With a desire to explain community variation in victimization, researchers have integrated the routine activity and lifestyles perspectives with social disorganization and collective efficacy (e.g., Lee, 2000; Wilcox, Land, & Hunt, 2003). Clearly, community social control and collective efficacy intersect with the routine activity concept of guardianship. Marcus Felson (1998) noticed that the most effective guardianship is informal, where the presence of others deters victimization (see also Felson, 1986). This is especially true since formal agents of social control (e.g., the police) only infrequently appear in citizens’ lives; routine guardianship must therefore result from informal control. As Lee (2000, p. 687) stated, guardianship exists within “the constellation of networks and social interactions with other individuals and groups external to the individual.”

Using data from the PHDCN, the British Crime Survey (BCS), and the Seattle phone survey, researchers have scrutinized the joint contribution of individual and neighborhood-level risk factors for victimization. For instance, Sampson and Wooldredge (1987) used data from the BCS and found that while lifestyles of adults (e.g., living alone or frequent out-of-home activity) influenced violent victimization risk, aggregated neighborhood factors independently influenced victimization risk. Specifically, contextual factors including

100

Download more at Learnclax.com

family disruption, social cohesion, and the amount of activity on neighborhood streets all had significant associations with risk of being robbed. More recent work in a variety of contexts shows similar results (e.g., Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, & Lu, 1998; Kennedy & Forde, 1990; Miethe & McDowall, 1993; Thompson & Fisher, 1996). For instance, Miethe and McDowall (1993) used data from the Seattle phone survey and found that people living in poorer and busier neighborhoods were at risk of being victims of stranger violence. In a reanalysis of the Seattle data, Rountree et al. (1994) used a multilevel model that accounted for the fact that community residents are not randomly assigned to neighborhoods and found similar findings; that is, risk of victimization varied significantly across neighborhoods and victimization was influenced by contextual variables including density, disorder, and ethnic heterogeneity. Indeed, neighborhood variables appeared to determine how effective individual protective behaviors were. Sampson et al. (1997) found that risk of violence among residents was reduced in higher collective efficacy neighborhoods in Chicago. Taken together, there is impressive consistency in the results that link community characteristics to personal victimization, especially when one considers the variety of contexts examined.

Studies conducted to date on the influence of neighborhood conditions on personal victimization share some noteworthy limitations. First, they have largely used adult samples, leaving less knowledge of how neighborhoods influence personal victimization among adolescents. This is an important area of research because individuals at most risk of becoming victims of violence are adolescents. Second, although relationships were found between neighborhood conditions and personal victimization independent of individual characteristics, most studies linking neighborhoods and personal victimization rarely go beyond incorporating individual-level demographic and lifestyle characteristics that distinguish between individuals (Berg & Loeber, 2011). This makes it unclear what role other theoretically derived individual-level risk factors play in (e.g., low self-control) understanding neighborhood contextual influences on victimization experiences. Finally, given the limited attention to neighborhoods and personal victimization among adolescents, this initial study focuses on the intersection of neighborhood structural characteristics—commonly used in the social disorganization literature—and individual differences between adolescents to better understand their personal victimization.

Source: Gibson, C. L. (2012). An investigation of neighborhood disadvantage, low self-control, and violent victimization among youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(1), 41–63.

Self-Control, Lifestyles, and Personal Victimization

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory (aka, self-control theory) is one of the most tested theories of crime, violence, and deviant behavior (Pratt & Cullen, 2000), [and] Schreck (1999) was one of the first to recognize that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory is also applicable to personal victimization. He observed that self-control theory is compatible with situational theories of victimization by theoretically describing how those with lower self-control make decisions about their lifestyles and have personal characteristics that make them highly vulnerable to crime (Schreck et al., 2002). For instance, it is likely that low self-control individuals will have more grievances against them because they are more aggressive and have aversive personal styles. Felson (1984) found that most physical assaults took place when aggrieved parties attacked the

101

Download more at Learnclax.com

person who had injured them, and this pattern appears often in the violence literature (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Jacobs & Wright, 2006). With respect to property victimization, the tendency to lack foresight works against efforts at self-protection as well, since self-protection entails at least some inconvenience (Schreck, 1999). Further, characteristics such as impulsivity and risk seeking can lead individuals into situations that put them in closer proximity to offenders and situations that more generally come with a higher risk of being victimized.

Employing various samples, methods, and data collection techniques, recent research by Schreck and others (e.g., Higgins et al., 2010; Schreck et al., 2002, 2006; Stewart, Elifson, & Sterk, 2004) has consistently confirmed that those who have lower self-control are at increased risk of victimization. Also, this research has shown that self-control influences victimization independently of lifestyles and other risk factors such as peers, indicating that the presence of self-control can independently make a situation safer while low self-control can worsen personal safety and one’s possessions in otherwise harmless situations (Schreck et al., 2002; Stewart et al., 2004). In addition to research showing that low self-control has influences on trajectories of violent victimization, at least one study indicates that low self-control individuals who are victims are unlikely to change their routines that may protect them from future victimization (Schreck et al., 2006).

The Current Study

It has been established that neighborhood structural conditions and individual differences in low self-control can independently influence adolescents’ vulnerability to crime. At present, the role of low self-control as a facilitator of personal victimization vis-à-vis imposed neighborhood structural factors is unknown. That is, does the risk of personal victimization depend on both or do they each have independent influences? The importance of the current study is then to understand how neighborhood structure and individual differences in low self-control jointly shape violent victimization risk.

Although not specifically focusing on victimization, several perspectives have been articulated to predict how context and traits will interact to shape behavior. First, intended for understanding biosocial phenomena, Raine (1988, 2002) proposed a “social push” perspective to discuss the interplay between social environments and traits for understanding how biologically related variables influence antisocial outcomes. His notion of “social push” is consistent with the idea that environments can be “weak” or “strong.” Particularly important for the current study is the idea of a “strong” environment, which is a context that purportedly minimizes the influence of individual differences because of the strong pressures to behave in certain ways (Lynam et al., 2000; Mischel, 1977). Disadvantaged neighborhoods are one context identified by researchers as a strong environment; they are contexts where normative cultures are more likely to strongly influence the behavior of people, especially antisocial and violent behaviors. Anderson’s (1999) qualitative work on the code of the streets in urban, impoverished neighborhoods exemplifies the notion of strong social environments in that even kids who come from what he coined as decent families must adopt the street code to gain respect among their neighborhood peers to avoid future vulnerabilities to criminal violence. In such strong neighborhood contexts, it has been argued that individual differences among adolescents may not matter much at all because of the social pressures that are present. On the other hand, weak environments are those where the influence of individual differences in traits will have more pronounced impacts on behavior because of the indefinite

102

Download more at Learnclax.com

nature of the social contexts, which may lack pressures to engage in antisocial and criminal activities. In these environments, adolescents’ behaviors are less dictated by environmental social pressures and more likely to be influenced by individual differences. From a neighborhood perspective, and for the purpose of the current study, such a context is the least disadvantaged neighborhoods that, in comparison to others, have less social pressures for adolescents to engage in crime, consequently leading to a reduced threat of victimization regardless of individual differences between adolescents.

Second, Gottfredson and Hirschi would likely argue that neighborhood factors and influences are to a substantial degree determined by self-selection into neighborhoods. For instance, those with low self-control would be unable to hold work that paid well and therefore would, absent other sources of support, drift toward disadvantaged neighborhoods, thus increasing the potential number of prospective offenders in the area. Those with low self-control might have friends, but their ties with others are likely of low quality (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). To them, neighborhood disorganization and vulnerability to crime in the area would be largely a by-product of an excess of residents with low self-control. It might follow that any connection between neighborhood structure and victimization should be spurious due to an excess of residents with low self-control living in structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Third, neighborhood contextual variables may moderate the relationship between low self-control and victimization. As discussed earlier, many studies have linked neighborhood structural conditions to victimization risk. Disadvantaged neighborhoods may increase vulnerability to crime among individuals due to a lack of collective efficacy and/or informal social control that may increase the concentration of crime in a neighborhood and, consequently, their proximity to offenders (Sampson et al., 1997). Further, subcultural norms in such neighborhoods may condone violence as an acceptable means for handling grievances and/or confrontations with others (Anderson, 1999). These conditions can lead individuals with low self-control to be especially vulnerable to crime because they are likely to find themselves in situations with lower social control and socializing with delinquent peers. Further, such individuals have temperaments that make them more susceptible to grievances and this type of personal style combined with living in neighborhoods where violence is often used as a means for dealing with confrontation and gaining respect can make the risk of violence against them amplified. On the other hand, individuals possessing more self-control may have a lowered risk of becoming a victim in disadvantaged neighborhoods because they may have a heightened sensitivity to neighborhood dangers and try to make sure they avoid situations and people that would otherwise put them at elevated risk of personal victimization. They will likely consider the potential consequences of their actions; in this case, it would be the real threat of becoming a victim of violence. Further, in view of the fact that those with high self-control will act in ways that are less likely to provoke others, as well as be cognizant of the necessity of protective behaviors, then it would seem to follow that high self-control youth living in high-risk environments may have reduced risk of becoming victims because they are more sensitive to the environmental risks.

Hypotheses

Several competing hypotheses can be discerned from the literature on victimization and the different

103

Download more at Learnclax.com

perspectives discussed above.

Hypothesis 1: Regardless of neighborhood context, lifestyles, and prior involvement in violence, those with low self-control will have an increased risk of being victims of violence. Hypothesis 2: Regardless of self-control and other individual characteristics that increase the risk of violent victimization, individuals residing in structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods will have a greater risk of being victims of violence. Hypothesis 3: As argued in the “social push” perspective, low self-control will not predict violent victimization among those residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods, but it will for those residing in least disadvantaged neighborhoods that lack social pressures for crime. Hypothesis 4: Individuals with lower self-control will be at a heightened risk of violent victimization in disadvantaged neighborhoods, whereas those possessing more self-control are less likely to become victims in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Method

Data from the 9-, 12-, and 15-year-old cohorts from the PHDCN-LCS—an interdisciplinary study on how the contexts in which children and adolescents reside contribute to their behavior and psychological development—were analyzed to test hypotheses in the current study. Violent victimization is predicted using individual-level predictors from Waves 1 and 2 of the LCS. Additionally, 1990 U.S. Census data were used to measure neighborhood-level structure of the 80 neighborhood clusters (NCs), that is, aggregations of 1–3 census tracts. Through combining data from the LCS and the 1990 U.S. Census, the PHDCN is appropriate for assessing the influence and intersection between neighborhood and individual-level factors on violent victimization experiences among children and adolescents. A wealth of neighborhood structural, organizational, and social process measures exist that have been validated over time, making the PHDCN a unique study on neighborhoods (Raudenbush & Sampson, 1999; Sampson et al., 1997).

Data and Sampling

The PHDCN was implemented in 1995 to collect quality data on the neighborhood contexts in which children and adolescents develop. The sampling design of the PHDCN contains two components: selection of NCs and selection of children and their primary caregivers for the longitudinal study. A sample of 80 NCs was selected from within the strata of 343 NCs for the PHDCN-LCS. With few exceptions, the 80 sampled NCs were representative of the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomically diverse Chicago neighborhoods (Sampson et al., 1997; Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999).

Within the 80 NCs, approximately 6,500 children, adolescents, and their primary caregivers were randomly selected. Starting with a random selection of block groups within NCs, a list of dwellings was compiled and household members were enumerated. In total, approximately 40,000 dwellings were screened. Study recruitment consisted of infants, children, adolescents (including 18-year-olds) and their primary caregivers. For selection, subjects had to be within approximately 6 months of the following age categories: 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years. Extensive interviews were conducted with these children and their primary caregivers over

104

Download more at Learnclax.com

three waves of data collection spaced approximately 2.5 years apart. The longitudinal study began in 1995; the second wave of data collection occurred between 1997 and 1999; and the third wave of data was collected between 2000 and 2001. This effort resulted in seven cohorts that span a period of development between

infancy and early to mid adulthood.1

Analysis Sample

The analysis sample consists of 1,889 children and adolescents from the 9- (n = 669), 12- (n = 674), 15-year-

old cohorts (n = 546), and their primary caregivers from Waves 1 and 2.2 Table 1 reports several descriptive statistics for the analysis sample. The sample is 15% White, 34% Black, 47% Hispanic, and 3.5% Other. Males make up 50% of the sample and the average age at Wave 1 is approximately 12 years old. Approximately 23% of the children were from single-parent households. These children and their families resided within 79 of the NCs.

Table 1n

105

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: *p < .05.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Violent victimization

A violent victimization measure was created using responses to seven questions from the Exposure to Violence (ETV) interview administered to subjects during Wave 2 interviews. Subjects were asked whether in the past 12 months they have been hit, slapped or beaten up, attacked with a weapon, shot, shot at, sexually assaulted, and if someone has threatened to seriously hurt them. Given that approximately 70% (n = 1,333) of the analysis sample reported not being a victim of any of the seven types of violent victimizations and that very

few experienced two or more of these,3 a decision was made to use a prevalence measure indicating whether youths reported being violently victimized in the past 12 months. To this end, 29.4% (n = 556) of the children and adolescents in the analysis sample reported being a victim of one or more of the seven types of violent victimizations during the 12 months prior to Wave 2 interviews.

Individual-Level Independent Variable

Low self-control

Following past research (Gibson et al., 2009; Gibson, Sullivan, Jones, & Piquero, 2010), a 17-item measure of behavioral indicators of low self-control was constructed using the Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impulsivity Temperament Survey (EASI)-temperament instrument. Administered during Wave 1 interviews, primary caregivers were asked to report on their children’s inhibitory control, decision making, risk and sensation seeking, and diligence or persistence in completing tasks (see also Buss & Plomin, 1975), which are consistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) definition of self-control as well as past empirical research (see Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993).

Reflecting what Gottfredson and Hirschi call impulsivity, inhibitory control reflects the inability to delay gratification and control frustrations, such as trouble controlling impulses and having problems with resisting temptations. Items measuring decision time measure the (in)ability to delay decision making until alternatives can be seriously considered including saying the first thing that comes into one’s head, trouble making up my mind, and acting on the spur of the moment. Taken together, inhibitory control and decision time reflect what Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) refer to as impulsivity, a main component of low self-control. Sensation seeking, or what Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) refer to as risk seeking, reflects a preference for novel stimuli, such as seeking new and exciting experiences, doing “crazy” things, and willingness to try anything. Persistence, or diligence as Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) call it, is the likelihood that a child will complete or follow through with tasks they start. Children with low self-control are often the first to initiate a task, but also the first to abort them, especially when it does not involve immediate gratification.

For each subject, item responses were summed and standardized α = .68. More positive scores indicate lower self-control, whereas more negative scores indicate higher self-control. Other studies using the PHDCN also

106

Download more at Learnclax.com

find this measure to be reliable (also see Gibson et al., 2009, 2010).

Individual-Level Control Variables

Family attachment and support

Family attachment and support has been repeatedly shown to be a predictor of violence and victimization and it has also been related to children and adolescents’ self-control development (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Following Maimon and Browning (2010), a family attachment and support measure was constructed using 6 items from the Provision of Social Relations instrument administered during the Wave 1 interviews (α = .60). This measure gauges the level of perceived emotional and social support provided to the respondents from their families. On a scale ranging from not true (1) to very true (3), respondents were asked to respond to the following statements regarding their family: “I know my family will always be there for me,” “my family tells me they think I am valuable,” “my family has confidence in me,” “my family helps me find solutions to problems,” “I know my family will always stand by me,” and “sometime I am not sure I can rely on family” (reverse coded). The measure was standardized with higher scores indicating more family attachment and support.

Parenting measures

Parenting has been implicated in the development of self-control, as a social control mechanism for decreasing the likelihood of misbehavior, and has been associated with adolescent victimization. Parenting measures were taken from the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984; Leventhal, Selner-O’Hagan, Brooks-Gunns, Bingenheimer, & Earls, 2004). This inventory is generally designed to measure the quantity and quality of stimulation in a child’s home environment from primary caregivers.

Parental sensitivity and responsiveness is one domain of parenting measured by the HOME, which consists of parental warmth and parental lack of hostility (and punitiveness). Derived from observations of primary caregivers and children during the in-home interviews at Wave 1, the parental warmth measure consists of 9 items. Likewise, parental lack of hostility consists of several observations that interviewers recorded during the in-home interviews. Reflecting a primary caregiver’s knowledge of their child’s whereabouts, familiarity with child’s friends, and rules surrounding curfews and activities with friends, the parental supervision measure is a 13-item scale of how primary caregivers directly and indirectly monitor and supervise their children. Each measure was standardized (Gibson et al., 2010 reported these measures to have reliabilities ranging between .50 and .72; also see Leventhal et al., 2004). More positive scores indicate more supervision, more warmth, and less hostility.

Lifestyle, situational, and behavioral variables

Similar to prior research (Maimon & Browning, 2010; Osgood & Haynie, 2005) peer delinquency is measured using 11 items from the Deviance of Peers instrument administered at Wave 1 to children and adolescents to obtain information regarding the quantity of their peers engaging in a variety of delinquent behaviors. For example, respondents were asked “during the past year, how many of the people you spend time with” have

107

Download more at Learnclax.com

“stolen something worth more than $5 but less than $500,” “gone into or tried to go into a building to steal

something,” “hit someone with the idea of hurting them,” and “attacked someone with a weapon with the idea of seriously hurting them.” Responses to questions ranged from 1 (none of them) to 3 (all of them). The measure was standardized (α = .81) and higher scores indicate having a larger quantity of delinquent peers.

Prior violent offending behavior is included because [of] the robust relationship between offenders and victims and the evidence that shows low self-control is related to both violent offending and victimization. During the first wave of data collection, children and adolescents were asked to self-report their involvement in a variety of criminal and serious delinquent acts. Seven questions that asked about violence are used to create a dichotomous measure indicating whether a respondent ever engaged in at least one violent offense. For instance, violent offending items include items such as “have you ever:” “attacked someone with a weapon,” “used a weapon or force to get money or things from people,” “been involved in a gang fight in which someone was hurt [or] threatened with harm,” and “thrown objects, such as a rock or bottles, at people.” Those reporting at least one violent offense were coded as 1 and those reporting none of the violent offenses are coded 0. Of the analysis sample, 33% (n = 623) reported engaging in at least one of the violent offenses.

Unstructured socializing with peers is also included as a control because past research shows that it is related to delinquent behavior (Osgood, Wilson, O’Mally, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996), and such lifestyles more generally have been linked to victimization risk (Schreck et al., 2002). Similar to Osgood et al. (1996) and Maimon and Browning (2010), a measure of unstructured socializing with peers was constructed using a 4-item scale of responses to questions that asked children and adolescents during Wave 2: “How often do you ride around in a car/motorcycle for fun,” “how often do you hang out with friends,” “how often do you go to parties,” and “how many days a week do you go out after school/at night.” Responses to question[s] range from 1 (never) to 5 (almost every day). The measure was standardized with higher scores indicating more time spent in unstructured activities with peers (α = .58).

Demographic characteristics

SES is measured using the principal component of three variables including household income, maximum education level of primary caregiver and partner, and the socioeconomic index (SEI) for primary caregivers

and partner’s jobs.4 Gender of the subject is coded 0 (female) or 1 (male). Age of subject at Wave 1 is measured as a continuous variable.

Neighborhood-Level Variable

Concentrated disadvantage

Neighborhood disadvantage—or neighborhood poverty and segregation—is measured using a composite measure of several structural characteristics within each NC of the PHDCN-LCS. Originally created by Sampson et al. (1997) and shown to be a reliable construct, this measure is composed of 6 items taken from the 1990 U.S. Decennial Census and includes the following variables: percentage of neighborhood residents below the poverty line, percentage on public assistance, percentage of female-headed families, percentage unemployed, density of children by percentage younger than 18, and percentage of Blacks. Higher scores on

108

Download more at Learnclax.com

this measure reflect more concentrated disadvantage.

Analytic Strategy

The analysis will proceed in several steps for testing hypotheses regarding neighborhood structure, low self- control, and violent victimization. First, bivariate comparisons are made for victims of violence and nonvictims to determine the demographic and theoretically derived characteristics that distinguish the two groups. Second, a series of multivariate logistic regression models are estimated to determine the direct influence of neighborhood structure and low self-control on violent victimization. Third, additional multivariate logistic regression models are estimated to determine whether the influence of low self-control on violent victimization varies as a function of the level of neighborhood disadvantage in which adolescents reside. Finally, conditional predicted probabilities are estimated to allow a better visualization of the association between low self-control and violent victimization in the least and most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Results

Differences Between Victims and Nonvictims of Violence

Table 1 shows comparisons between subjects who self-reported at least one violent victimization to those not reporting a violent victimization 12 months prior to Wave 2 on demographic characteristics, family/parenting variables, behavioral and lifestyle variables. First, a significantly larger percentage of males reported being victimized compared to females; of those who were victims, 57% were males and of those who were nonvictims, 47% were males. On average, victims of violence were significantly older than nonvictims; victims had a mean age of 12.55 at Wave 1, whereas nonvictims’ average age was 11.705. Respondents who were victims of violence were also more likely to be from single-parent households where the primary caregiver is typically the biological mother, 29.5% of victims compared to 20.2% of nonvictims. Black and Hispanic youth were significantly more likely to be victims of violence, but Whites were no more likely to be a victim than others. Second, child and adolescent victims of violence, on average, had significantly less family support and warmth from their primary caregiver compared to nonvictims, yet no significant differences were observed for average levels of supervision and hostility from their primary caregivers. Third, several significant differences were found between victims and nonvictims for lifestyle, situational, and behavioral characteristics. Victims of violence were significantly more likely to report engaging in violent offending at Wave 1; 33% reported engaging in at least one of the violent offenses in their lifetime. Victims of violence also reported having significantly more delinquent peers and spending more time in unstructured activities with peers. Fourth, victims of violence, on average, have significantly lower self-control compared to nonvictims; victims, on average, have .217 standard deviation units greater than the mean, whereas nonvictims, on average, have .097 standard deviation units below the mean. Finally, victims were not significantly more likely to live in disadvantaged neighborhoods compared to nonvictims.

Multivariate Analysis Predicting Violent Victimization

To first address the hypothesis that violent victimization is more likely among those living in more structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods, a hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) was estimated. Although not

109

Download more at Learnclax.com

reported, results showed that while a positive relationship was observed between concentrated disadvantage

and violent victimization, this relationship was not statistically significant. This analysis confirms the bivariate comparison that neighborhood structural disadvantage did not have a direct, statistically significant influence on violent victimization at Wave 2 among adolescents.

Table 2 shows [a] logistic regression model predicting Wave 2 violent victimization, [with robust standard errors to account for the fact that youth are nested in neighborhood].

Table 2 shows a full model that includes demographic characteristics, family and parenting variables, low self- control, and behavioral and lifestyle characteristics. Delinquent peers, self-reported violent offending, and unstructured time spent with peers each have independent significant associations with violent victimization. Youth who have a larger portion of their friends that engage in delinquent activities are more likely to report being violently victimized (OR = 1.196; p < .05). Those reporting that they have committed at least one violent offense in their lifetime at Wave 1 were also more likely to have reported a violent victimization compared to their nonviolent counterparts. Unstructured time spent with peers also has a statistically significant association with violent victimization (OR = 1.117; p < .05); youth spending more time in unstructured activities with peers are more likely to report being victims of violence. And, after statistically controlling for behavioral and lifestyle measures commonly known to have moderate-to-strong influences on violent victimization, youth with lower self-control were still significantly more likely to report being a victim of violence compared to those who possess more self-control (OR = 1.287; p < .05). While sex, age, and single-parent family structure retained significant associations, the difference in violent victimization between Blacks and Whites is accounted for by behavioral and lifestyle characteristics. Blacks are no longer more likely to be victimized than Whites after statistically controlling for peers, violent offending, and unstructured time spent in activities.

Table 2n

110

Download more at Learnclax.com

111

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: 79 neighborhood clusters. OR = odds ratio; RSE = Robust standard errors.

*p < .05.

Neighborhood Disadvantage and Violent Victimization

Table 3 explores the association between low self-control and violent victimization for youth residing in neighborhoods that are characterized by different levels of concentrated disadvantage. Neighborhoods were classified as low, medium, or high concentrated disadvantage by defining those at the lowest 25th percentile and lower as low disadvantaged; highest 25th percentile and higher as the most disadvantaged; and those in between as medium disadvantaged. The pattern of findings that emerged regarding low self-control and violent victimization across the range of disadvantaged neighborhoods is telling.

Table 3n

112

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: OR = odds ratio; RSE = robust standard errors.

*p < .05.

First, a logistic regression model for youth living in the lowest disadvantaged neighborhoods reveals that the association between low self-control and victimization was statistically significant and positive. Consistent with the model reported above, youth with lower self-control were more likely to report being victims of violence. Youth in the lowest disadvantaged neighborhoods with more delinquent peers; those reporting past involvement in violent offending; and those spending more time in unstructured activities with peers were significantly more likely to report being victims of violence. In addition, males and Blacks were more likely to report being victims of violence in the lowest disadvantaged neighborhoods. Unlike in the analysis in Table 2, significant differences in violent victimization between Blacks and Whites persisted after controlling for violent offending, delinquent peers, and unstructured time spent with peers.

Second, Table 3 shows results predicting violent victimization for those youth residing in medium or moderate disadvantaged neighborhoods. Results reported in this model are largely consistent with those from the low neighborhood disadvantage analysis. That is, low self-control continued to have a significant and positive association with violent victimization for youth residing in moderately disadvantaged neighborhoods. Moreover, adolescents in moderately disadvantaged neighborhoods who socialize with more delinquent peers, engage in violent offending, and spend more time in unstructured activities with peers continue to have significantly heightened risk of being victimized by violence.

Finally, Table 3 shows strikingly different results for predictors of violent victimization among those adolescents living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Unlike low and moderately disadvantaged neighborhoods, self-control did not have a statistically significant association with violent victimization in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. That is, adolescents residing in high disadvantaged neighborhoods with lower self-control were no more likely than those with more self-control to report being a victim of violence during Wave 2 interviews. In addition, delinquent peers and violent offending—factors that past research has consistently found to be correlates of victimization—were not significantly associated with violent victimization. Unstructured time spent with peers is the only lifestyle characteristic that significantly increased

the likelihood of adolescents’ violent victimization in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods.5

Conditional Probabilities of Violent Victimization: The Differing Influences of Self-Control

This section reports the conditional predicted probabilities for violent victimization across levels of low self- control for youth living in the lowest and highest disadvantaged neighborhoods while holding constant all demographic, family, and lifestyle variables in previous models. Figure 1 shows a range of standardized self- control scores on the x-axis such that 0 is the average self-control score and negative and positive values represent standard deviations above and below the mean; those values above the mean indicate lower self- control and those below represent more self-control. Probabilities of violent victimization are represented on the y-axis.

Figure 1 Conditional Probabilities of Violent Victimization

113

Download more at Learnclax.com

Figure 1 shows low self-control’s influence on violent victimization across neighborhood contexts. First, the probability of violent victimization increases as a function of low self-control scores, with individuals having lower self-control (higher scores) also having a greater chance of being victims of violence, although in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods the association between self-control and victimization was not statistically significant. In the lowest disadvantaged neighborhoods, the probabilities of violent victimization increase exponentially from a low to high likelihood of victimization, whereas the chance of being victimized across low self-control scores is not as nearly pronounced in the high disadvantaged neighborhoods and did not reach statistical significance. Second, even at the highest levels of self-control, it appears that the difference in violent victimization for those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods is nearly double the risk compared to those who live in the lowest disadvantaged neighborhoods. For instance, youth scoring a –2.5 on the low self- control measure, that is, possessing the most self-control, have almost a 15% chance of being victimized but those in the highest disadvantaged neighborhoods who have a similar score have almost a 25% chance. In contrast, youth living in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods and who have the lowest self-control are at most risk of being violently victimized compared to those who have the lowest self-control and reside in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. In fact, youth scoring a 2.5 on the low self-control measure, that is, possessing the lowest amount of self-control, in the lowest disadvantaged neighborhoods have approximately a 45% chance of being a victim of violence compared to approximately 35% for those who live in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods and have a score of 2.5 on the low self-control measure.

Discussion and Conclusion

114

Download more at Learnclax.com

The current study contributed to [the] literature by weaving together two strains of criminological research— social disorganization and self-control—to better understand youths’ vulnerability to violence. Results from a variety of different multivariate models support the idea that these two perspectives should not be considered separately for understanding victimization. Three findings are particularly noteworthy. First, this study’s findings confirm work by Schreck and others (Higgins et al., 2010; Schreck, 1999; Schreck et al., 2002) showing that adolescents with less self-control are independently at more risk of becoming victims of crime and violence. More impressive is the fact that this relationship remained in light of situational, behavioral, and lifestyle characteristics that are commonly chosen by low self-control individuals and that also influence their vulnerability to violence. Second, and running counter to research on neighborhoods and victimization among adults, adolescents residing in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were not significantly more likely to report being victimized compared to those residing in less disadvantaged neighborhoods, although the substantive differences were in the expected direction. Finally, and most importantly, it was found that self- control’s influence on victimization is conditioned by neighborhood type. Low self-control had a statistically important influence on victimization for those who live in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods where levels of self-control did not influence victimization among those living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. I interpret this finding as largely consistent with the “social push” perspective (Raine, 2002).

To recap, the social push perspective implies that in disadvantaged and criminogenic environments more social pressure exists for individuals to engage in crime, violence, and other illegal activities, especially for adolescents and those emerging into adulthood. As such, individual differences between people will have less impact on their behavior because the environmental context overrides individual risk. While Raine (1988, 2002) intended for this explanation to be specific to the influence of biological-based traits on antisocial outcomes, it is highly consistent with the measures and findings in the present study for two reasons. First, although Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) theoretically argue that self-control is largely influenced by parental disciplining practices, recent empirical findings show that variation in self-control is partially explained by biological factors such as genetics (Beaver et al., 2008; Wright & Beaver, 2005), making self-control a trait that fits well under the social push framework. Second, given the strong overlap between offending and victimization (Lauritsen et al., 1991), and the studies that find similar characteristics that predict both, it is easier to make the leap from antisocial outcomes that Raine discusses (e.g., violence, conduct problems, etc.) to violent victimization risk.

Questions still remain as to why variation in violent victimization among adolescents from disadvantaged neighborhoods is not significantly influenced by low self-control, and why those living in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods are. The amount of crime, proximity to offenders, and social and cultural processes occurring in disadvantaged neighborhoods may make all adolescents equally vulnerable to violence, and consequently overpowering the effects of individual differences. For instance, it is plausible to speculate that victimization risk is similar for those living in neighborhoods where residents are less likely to look after youth, especially in high crime environments. Given the lack of community informal social controls and high crime rates, it is no surprise that these children are supervised more often compared to those in less disadvantaged neighborhoods, yet supervision in this study does not seem to reduce risk of victimization either in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Further, subcultural explanations are also plausible. Risk may be similar,

115

Download more at Learnclax.com

regardless of individual differences among adolescents, because low and high self-control adolescents face similar obstacles for attaining status and economic success, which in turn may lead them to adopt unconventional ideals to enhance their status. This can contribute to the emergence of values that encourage and condone violence or an “I will get them before they get me” mentality. Such subcultural values encourage hostile and aggressive sanctions for those who are perceived to be disrespectful, but environments such as these can make all youth vulnerable to crime and more aware of the need to use violence and exhibit aggression in attempts to avoid attacks from their peers (Anderson, 1999). As Anderson states (1999, p. 33), street cultures present in such neighborhoods provide a “rationale allowing those who are inclined to aggression to precipitate encounters in an approved way.” Unfortunately, these adaptations can lead to being on the receiving end of violence too (Stewart, Schreck, & Simons, 2006). Future research should explore these reasons for why individual difference variables such as self-control do not influence victimization risk in disadvantage[d] neighborhoods.

This study does not provide a conclusive explanation as to why low self-control influences violent victimization for adolescents residing in the least and moderately disadvantaged neighborhoods. As argued by Raine (2002), this could be because the social pressures found in the most disadvantaged contexts are less likely, nonexistent, or attenuated. It could also be that different social processes are operating in these neighborhoods that make low self-control’s influence on victimization more pronounced. Whatever the case, it will be left for future research to explore this finding.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Research

Findings from this study have several potential implications for reducing victimization risk among adolescents. Because low self-control has such far reaching influences on a spectrum of social and health-related outcomes across developmental stages (Moffitt et al., 2011), it is important to identify early childhood precursors to low self-control to prevent the accumulation of negative outcomes in children’s futures, one of which is vulnerability to violence. Although early prevention is important, promising research suggests that self-control is plastic and is susceptible to change in later stages of one’s life course (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). Thus, unique and universal prevention and intervention efforts are warranted for targeting developmentally sensitive periods to train and encourage individuals in making informed decisions and to consider the consequences of their own behavior. Nonetheless, as Moffitt et al. (2011, p. 2967) stated, “Early childhood intervention that enhances self-control is likely to bring a greater return on investment than harm reduction programs targeting adolescence alone.” According to the present study’s findings, such efforts may be particularly important for those living in the least disadvantaged neighborhood environments.

This is not to say that we should neglect opportunities to change self-control among those children and youth in more disadvantaged environments. In fact, in an analysis not reported, youth in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had, on average, the lowest levels of self-control. Given the broader negative consequences that can stem from this trait, it is equally important to improve self-control among youth from impoverished neighborhoods, especially since families residing in such neighborhoods may not have the resources to do so. It will also be important to identify and address the environmental forces that override the influence of

116

Download more at Learnclax.com

individual differences on crime vulnerability in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Finally, unstructured time spent with peers was the only factor that exhibited a statistically significant relationship with victimization risk of adolescents across each category of neighborhood disadvantage. Parents may have success at reducing their children’s risk of victimization by limiting the unstructured activities they engage in with peers.

The challenging ideas proposed set a modest research agenda that will allow criminologists to further understand how the intersection between neighborhoods and individual traits may jointly and independently help minimize youths’ vulnerability to crime and more specifically reduce their risk of victimization.

Discussion Questions

1. What evidence is found for the role of lifestyles/routine activities and victimization? 2. Why do you think that no significant relationship was found between neighborhood structural

disadvantage and violent victimization? 3. What is the “social push” perspective? What is the implication of the findings from this perspective for

policy? 4. This paper investigates multiple theoretical perspectives. Given its findings, what theory do you think is

able to best explain victimization and why?

117

Download more at Learnclax.com

Notes

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-IJ-CX-0041 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

1. At Wave 1 of data collection, there were 1,269 subjects in Cohort 0; 1,003 subjects in Cohort 3; 980 subjects in Cohort 6; 828 subjects in Cohort 9; 820 subjects in Cohort 12; 696 subjects in Cohort 15; and 632 subjects in Cohort 18.

2. Due to attrition, the original sample of 2,345 subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, and 15 was reduced to 1,889. T- test comparisons of demographic and individual characteristics for those in the attrition group to those remaining in the sample at Wave 2 revealed no statistically significant difference for age, gender, SES, and low self-control; however, statistically significant difference emerged for delinquent peers, single-parent family structure, and supervision, with those not in the sample at Wave 2 having, on average, more delinquent peers, from single-parent households, and less supervision. To account for additional missing data, regression imputation was used to arrive at the analysis sample.

3. In the 12 months prior to Wave 2 interviews, 18.5% (n = 351) reported experiencing one type of victimizations, 6.99% (n = 132) reported experiencing two types of victimizations, 2.38% (n = 45) reported experiencing three types of victimizations, 0.95% (n = 18) experienced four types of victimizations, and 0.53% experienced five types of victimization.

4. See http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/PHDCN/imputations.html http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/PHDCN/imputations.html for a detailed explanation of the computation and imputation of this index.

5. Each of the models was assessed for multicollinearity. With variance inflation factors (VIFs) below 10, I ruled out the possibility of severe multicollinearity in each of the logistic regression models. Those variables showing the largest VIFs were the race variables in Model 3 of Table 3 when estimating the influence of low self-control on violent victimization in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. When race was excluded from the model, it did not affect the results; low self-control still did not reach a level of statistical significance.

118

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/PHDCN/imputations.html

References Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York:

W. W. Norton.

Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008). Genetic influence on the stability of low self-control: Results from a longitudinal sample of twins. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 478–485.

Berg, M., & Loeber, R. (2011). Examining the neighborhood context of the violent offending-victimization relationship: A prospective victimization. Online first. doi:10.1007/s10940–011–9129–7

Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New York: John Wiley.

Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas.

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Felson, R. B. (1984). Patterns of aggressive interaction. In A. Mummendey (Ed.), Social psychology of aggression: From individual behavior to social interaction (pp. 107–126). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J., Cullen, F. T., & Lu, C. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671–710.

Gibson, C., Morris, S., & Beaver, K. (2009). Secondary exposure to violence during adolescence: Does neighborhood context matter? Justice Quarterly, 26, 30–57.

Gibson, C., Sullivan, C., Jones, S., & Piquero, A. (2010). Does it take a village? Assessing neighborhood

119

Download more at Learnclax.com

effects on children’s self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 31–62.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.

Higgins, G., Jennings, W., Tewksbury, R., & Gibson, C. (2010). Exploring the link between low self-control and violent victimization trajectories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1070–1084.

Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Jacobs, B. A., & Wright, R. (2006). Street justice: Retaliation in the criminal underworld. New York: Cambridge.

Kennedy, L. W., & Forde, D. R. (1990). Routine activity and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology, 28, 137–152.

Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lauritsen, J. L. (2001). The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 3–32.

Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–291.

Lee, M. R. (2000). Community cohesion and violent predatory victimization: A theoretical extension and cross-national test of opportunity theory. Social Forces, 79, 683–688.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Children and youth in neighborhood contexts. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 27–31.

120

Download more at Learnclax.com

Leventhal, T., Selner-O’Hagan, M., Brooks-Gunns, J., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Earls, F. (2004). The homelife interview from the project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods: Assessment of parenting and home environment for 3- to 15-year-olds. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 211–241.

Lynam, P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., Wikstrom, P., Loeber, R., & Novak, K. (2000). The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 563–574.

Maimon, D., & Browning, C. (2010). Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology, 48, 443–474.

Mayer, S., & Jencks, C. (1989). Growing up in poor neighborhoods: How much does it matter? Science, 243, 1441–1445.

Miethe, T. D., & McDowall, D. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71, 741–759.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 33–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, P., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2693–2698.

Osgood, D. W., & Haynie, D. L. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter? Social Forces, 84, 1109–1130.

Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J., O’Mally, P., Bachman, J., & Johnston, L. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635–655.

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.

Raine, A. (1988). Antisocial behavior and psychophysiology. In H. L. Wagner (Ed.), Social psychophysiology and emotion: Theory and clinical application (pp. 231–250). New York: John Wiley.

121

Download more at Learnclax.com

Raine, A. (2002). Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 311–326.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1999). “Ecometrics”: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology, 29, 1–41.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.

Rountree, P. W., Land, K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32, 387–414.

Sampson, R. J. (1983). Structural density and criminal victimization. Criminology, 21, 276–293.

Sampson, R. J. (1985). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of personal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 7–40.

Sampson, R. J. (2006). How does community context matter? Social mechanisms and the explanation of crime rates. In P. H. Wikstrom & R. Sampson (Eds.), The explanation of crime: Context, mechanisms, and development (pp. 31–60). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 224–232.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.

Sampson, R. J., & Wooldredge, J. (1987). Linking the micro and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine

122

Download more at Learnclax.com

activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371–393.

Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.

Schreck, C. J., Stewart, E. A., & Fisher, B. S. (2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky activities and delinquent friends: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 319–340.

Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159–180.

Sharkey, P. (2006). Navigating dangerous streets: The sources and consequences of street efficacy. American Sociological Review, 31, 826–846.

Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stewart, E. A., Elifson, K., & Sterk, C. (2004). Integrating the general theory of crime into an explanation of violent victimization among female offenders. Justice Quarterly, 21, 159–182.

Stewart, E. A., Schreck, C. J., & Simons, R. L. (2006). I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect me: Does the code of the streets increase or reduce violent victimization? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 427–458.

Thompson, C. Y., & Fisher, B. S. (1996). Predicting household victimization utilizing a multi-level routine activity approach. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 49–66.

Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. (2003). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic, multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. New York: Aldyne de Gruyter.

Wright, J., & Beaver, K. (2005). Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control. Criminology, 43, 1169–1202.

123

Download more at Learnclax.com

124

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section III Consequences of Victimization

Let us revisit Polly, the young woman whose victimization was described in Section II. When we left her, Polly was on her way back home after leaving a bar alone at night, and she was robbed and assaulted by two men. But Polly’s story does not end there, and although the incident itself ended, Polly dealt with it for quite some time. Polly made it home safely; she entered her apartment, locked her door, and started to cry. She felt scared and alone and her head was hurting. She told one of her roommates, who was home when she returned, what happened. Her roommate, Rachel, told her she should call the police and have someone look at her head. Polly was hesitant—after all, she did not know what to expect—but she really wanted to make sure that the men were caught, so she called the police and told the dispatcher what had occurred.

The police and emergency personnel arrived. She was taken to the hospital for her head injury and was released after receiving 10 stitches. Before she could go home, though, the police wanted to take her statement. They questioned her for more than an hour, asking minute details about what happened and about the offenders. They also asked her why she was walking home alone at night. The police officers left her with assurances that they would do everything they could to identify her attackers.

The days passed, and Polly had a hard time forgetting about the men and what had transpired. She was having a hard time getting out of bed. In fact, she missed several days of class. She found herself avoiding going out alone at night. She felt as though her life had taken an unexpected, unwanted, and frightening turn—one that she was worried would forever alter her life. Polly’s concerns, like others’, were most likely not unfounded.

125

Download more at Learnclax.com

Physical Injury

Clearly, when people suffer personal victimizations, they are at risk of physical injury. These injuries can include bruises, soreness, scratches, cuts, broken bones, contracted diseases, and stab or gunshot wounds. Some of these injuries may be temporary and short-lived, whereas others can be long-lasting or permanent.

According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2008, 21% of assault victims sustained physical injuries. Those who experienced robbery were more likely to be injured; 37% of robbery victims suffered physical injury. A larger percentage of female victims were injured than male victims, although the differences were not large. For example, 24% of female assault victims compared with 19% of male assault victims reported being injured (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2011). There appears to be a difference in injury for racial groups as well. For both assault and robbery, injuries were present in a larger percentage of Black victims than White victims. The victim–offender relationship was also related to injury— incidents perpetrated by nonstrangers were more likely to result in injury than those perpetrated by strangers (27% for assault and 39% for robbery) (BJS, 2011). In addition, the most recent provisional National Health Service (NHS) data available on assault admissions to hospitals in England show that, for the 12 months ending April 2015, there were 28,992 hospital admissions for assault (Office for National Statistics, 2015).

The most serious physical injury is, of course, death. Although the NCVS does not measure murder— remember, it asks people about their victimization experiences—the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) can be used to find out the extent to which deaths are attributable to murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. In 2015, UCR figures showed that 15,696 murders were brought to the attention of the police (FBI, 2015f). The majority of murder victims were male (79%) (FBI, 2015g). Just more than half of murder victims were Black and 44% were White (FBI, 2015h), and 21% were murdered by an acquaintance (FBI, 2015i). Almost three- fourths of the homicides that involved a weapon were gun related (FBI, 2015j). The most common circumstance surrounding a murder is an argument—23% of the homicides for which the circumstances were known resulted from an argument (FBI, 2015k).

126

Download more at Learnclax.com

Mental Health Consequences and Costs

People differentially respond to trauma, including victimization. Some people may cope by internalizing their feelings and emotions, whereas others may experience externalizing responses. It is likely that the way people deal with victimization is tied to their biological makeup, their interactional style, their coping style and resources, and the context in which the incident occurs and in which they operate thereafter. Some of the responses can be quite serious and long-term, whereas others may be more transitory.

Three affective responses that are common among crime victims are depression, reductions in self-esteem, and anxiety. The way in which depression manifests itself varies greatly across individuals. It can include symptoms such as sleep disturbances, changes in eating habits, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, and irritability. Generally, depressed persons will experience a decline in interest in activities they once enjoyed, a depressed mood, or both. For youth, depression is a common outcome for those who are victimized by peers, such as in bullying (Sweeting, Young, West, & Der, 2006). With the advent of technology and the widespread use of the Internet, recent research has explored online victimization and its effects. Online victimization is related to depressive responses in victims (Tynes & Giang, 2009).

Victimization may be powerful enough to alter the way in which a crime victim views himself or herself. Self- esteem and self-worth both have been found to be reduced in some crime victims, particularly female victims. In one study of youths in Virginia, Grills and Ollendick (2002) found that, for girls, being victimized by peers was associated with a reduction in global self-worth and that their self-worth was related to elevated levels of anxiety. There may also be a difference in crime’s impact on self-appraisals based on the type of victimization experienced. For example, victims of childhood sexual abuse are likely to suffer long-term negative impacts to their self-esteem (Beitchman et al., 1992). Sexual victimization also has been linked to reductions in self- esteem (Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2010). Beyond victimization of females, research has also found that victimization among older Americans (those 50 years of age and older) is also related to reductions in self- esteem and self-efficacy for African Americans (DeLisi, Jones-Johnson, Johnson, & Hochstetler, 2014).

Anxiety is another consequence linked to victimization. Persons who suffer from anxiety are likely to experience a range of emotional and physical symptoms. Much like depression, however, anxiety affects people differently. Most notably, anxiety is often experienced as irrational and excessive fear and worry, which may be coupled with feelings of tension and restlessness, vigilance, irritability, and difficulty concentrating. In addition, because anxiety is a product of the body’s fight-or-flight response, it also has physical symptoms. These include a racing and pounding heart, sweating, stomach upset, headaches, difficulty sleeping and breathing, tremors, and muscle tension (Dryden-Edwards, 2007).

Although anxiety that crime victims experience may not escalate to a point where they are diagnosed with an anxiety disorder by a mental health clinician, victimization does appear to be linked to anxiety symptoms. For example, adolescents who experience victimization by their peers experience anxiety at higher levels than nonvictimized adolescents (Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003). The relationship between anxiety and victimization is likely complex in that victimization can lead to anxiety, but anxiety and distress are also

127

Download more at Learnclax.com

precursors to victimization (R. S. Siegel, La Greca, & Harrison, 2009). Some victims do experience mental health consequences tied to anxiety that lead to mental health diagnoses.

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder

One of the recognized disorders associated with a patterned response to trauma, such as victimization, is post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Commonly associated with individuals returning from war and combat, PTSD is a psychiatric condition that recently has been recognized as a possible consequence of other traumatic events, such as criminal victimization. Currently classified by the American Psychiatric Association in the DSM-V as an anxiety disorder, PTSD is diagnosed based on several criteria outlined in detail in Table 3.1. A person must have experienced or witnessed a traumatic event that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury to oneself or others, or threat to the physical integrity of oneself or others. The person must have experienced fear, helplessness, or horror in response to the event and then reexperienced the trauma over time via flashbacks, nightmares, images, and/or reliving the event. The person must avoid stimuli associated with the traumatic event and experience numbness of response, such as lack of affect and reduced interest in activities. Finally, PTSD is characterized by hyperarousal.

In order for PTSD to be diagnosed, symptoms must be experienced for more than 1 month and must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other functional areas (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). As you may imagine, PTSD can be debilitating and can impact a victim’s ability to heal, move on, and thrive after being victimized. About 8% of Americans will experience PTSD, although women are more likely than men to experience this disorder (Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, & Nelson, 1995). The traumatic events most likely to lead to PTSD for men are military combat and witnessing a serious injury or violent death. Women, on the other hand, are most likely to be diagnosed with PTSD related to incidents of rape and sexual molestation (Kessler et al., 1995).

Although it is difficult to know how common PTSD is among crime victims, some studies suggest that PTSD is a real problem for this group. The estimate for PTSD in persons who have been victimized is around 25%. Lifetime incidence of PTSD for persons who have not experienced a victimization is 9%. Depression also commonly co-occurs in victims who suffer PTSD (Kilpatrick & Acierno, 2003). Research has shown that victims of sexual assault and aggravated assault and persons whose family members were homicide victims are more likely than other crime victims to develop PTSD (Kilpatrick & Tidwell, 1989). In support of this link, the occurrence of PTSD in rape victims has been estimated to be almost 1 in 3 (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, & Seymour, 1992). Recent research has explored PTSD as a mediator of outcomes (Ullman, Relyea, Peter- Hagene, & Vasquez, 2013). That is, research has examined the effects of victimization on PTSD and how PTSD may influence other outcomes such as revictimization (Risser, Hetzel-Riggin, Thomsen, & McCanne, 2006) and alcohol and drug use (Ullman et al., 2013). For example, whereas experiencing child sexual abuse was related to PTSD symptomatology, it mediated the relationship between child sexual abuse and adult sexual abuse (Risser et al., 2006). The hyperarousal cluster (of the three symptom clusters of PTSD) was the only significant mediator. This finding suggests the need to intervene after a girl has been victimized, in particular to address mental health needs such as PTSD as a way to potentially reduce revictimization. To

128

Download more at Learnclax.com

read about PTSD symptomatology and how it may mediate the relationship between child sexual abuse and self-harm, see Reading 3 by Shyamala Nada-Raja and Keren Skegg (2011) in this section.

Self-Blame, Learned Helplessness, and the Brain

Victims of crime may blame themselves for their victimization. One type of self-blame is characterological self-blame, which occurs when a person ascribes blame to a nonmodifiable source, such as one’s character (Janoff-Bulman, 1979). In this way, characterological self-blame involves believing that victimization is deserved. Another type of self-blame is behavioral self-blame, which occurs when a person ascribes blame to a modifiable source—behavior (Janoff-Bulman, 1979). When a person turns to behavioral self-blame, a future victimization can be avoided as long as behavior is changed.

In addition to self-blame, others may experience learned helplessness following victimization. Learned helplessness is a response to victimization in which victims learn that responding is futile and become passive and numb (Seligman, 1975). In this way, victims may not activate to protect themselves in the face of danger and, instead, stay in risky situations that result in subsequent victimization experiences. Although learned helplessness as originally proposed by Seligman is not alone sufficient in explaining victimization, research on animals shows that exposure to inescapable aversive stimuli (such as shocks to rats’ tails) is related to behavioral changes that are likely related to fear—changes in eating and drinking, changes in sleep patterns, and not escaping future aversive stimuli when possible. These behavioral changes are linked to changes in brain chemistry, and researchers have hypothesized that these are similar to the neurochemical and behavioral changes seen in humans who suffer from major depressive disorders (Hammack, Cooper, & Lezak, 2012). In this way then, it is possible that people who have been exposed to serious trauma and who interpret this trauma as being unavoidable may become depressed and experience behavioral changes that are then linked to future risk of victimization.

129

Download more at Learnclax.com

Economic Costs

Not only are victimologists concerned with the impact that being a crime victim has on an individual in terms of health, but they are also concerned with the economic costs incurred by both the victim and the public. In this sense, victimization is a public health issue. Economic costs can result from property losses; monies associated with medical care; time lost from work, school, and housework; pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life; and legal costs. In 2008, the NCVS estimated the total economic loss from crimes at $17.4 trillion. The NCVS also shows that the median dollar amount of loss attributed to crime was $125 (BJS, 2011). Although this number may appear to be low, it largely represents the fact that the typical property crime is a simple larceny-theft. Other research estimating the costs of specific types of victimization has estimated that the total costs of victimizations range from an average of $9,540 for a motor vehicle theft to $157,500 for a rape (in 2010 dollars) (Chalfin, 2016).

Direct Property Losses

Crime victims often experience tangible losses in terms of having their property damaged or taken. Generally, when determining direct property losses, the value of property that is damaged, taken, and not recovered, and insurance claims and administration costs are considered. According to the NCVS, in 2008, 94% of property crimes resulted in economic losses (BJS, 2011). In one of the most comprehensive reports on the costs of victimization—sponsored by the National Institute of Justice—T. R. Miller, Cohen, and Wiersema (1996) estimated the property loss or damage experienced per crime victimization event. These estimates were used by Welsh et al. (2008) in their article on the costs of juvenile crime in urban areas. They found that arson victimizations resulted in an estimated $15,500 per episode. Motor vehicle theft costs about $3,300 per incident. Results from the NCVS show that personal crime victimizations typically did not result in as much direct property loss. For example, only 18% of personal crime victimizations resulted in economic loss. Rape and sexual assaults typically resulted in $100 of property loss or property damage. It is rare for a victim of a violent or property offense to recover any losses. Only about 29% of victims of personal crime and 16% of victims of property crime recover all or some property (BJS, 2011). To read about the economic costs of partner violence and how receiving a protective order may reduce these costs, see Reading 4 by T. K. Logan, Robert Walker, and William Hoyt (2012).

Medical Care

To be sure, many victims would gladly suffer property loss if it meant they would not experience any physical injury. After all, items can be replaced and damage repaired. Physical injury may lead to victims needing medical attention, which for some may be the first step in accumulating costs associated with their victimization. Medical care costs encompass such expenses as transporting victims to the hospital, doctor care, prescription drugs, allied health services, medical devices, coroner payments, insurance claims processing fees, and premature funeral expenses (Miller et al., 1996).

Photo 3.1 This victim of a gunshot receives CPR in the emergency room.

130

Download more at Learnclax.com

Results from the NCVS indicate that in 2008, 542,280 violent crime victims received some type of medical care. Of those victims who received medical care, slightly more than one-third received care in the hospital emergency room or at an emergency clinic and 9% went to the hospital. Receiving medical care often results in victims incurring medical expenses. Almost 6% of victims of violence reported having medical expenses as a result of being victimized. About 63% of injured victims had health insurance or were eligible for public medical services (BJS, 2011).

Ripped From the Headlines

Costs of victimization may permeate beyond individuals into the community. That is just what is happening in Memphis, Tennessee, where several long-standing businesses are closing their doors and relocating. One business, the Cottage Restaurant, had been operating at its location since 1957, but its owner felt that it simply was not safe any longer to keep it open. Instead, it is moving a mile and a half down the road to a safer part of town. Another business owner spent $40,000 to install a surveillance system after losing $10,000 to thefts in the previous year. How can these costs be accounted for when measuring the costs of victimization? What other costs of victimization are there to the community?

Source: Preston (2014).

Costs vary across types of victimization. For example, the annual cost of hospitalizations for victims of child abuse is estimated to be $6.2 billion (Prevent Child Abuse America, 2000). Medical treatment for battered women is estimated to cost $1.8 billion annually (Wisner, Gilmer, Saltman, & Zink, 1999). Per-criminal- victimization medical care costs also have been estimated. Assaults in which there were injuries cost $1,470 per incident. Drunk-driving victims who were injured incurred $6,400 in medical care costs (Miller et al., 1996).

Gun violence is associated with substantial medical costs for victims. Although most crime victims do not

131

Download more at Learnclax.com

require hospitalization, even if they are treated in the emergency room, a report on gun violence published by

the Office for Victims of Crime showed that gunshot victims make up one-third of those who require hospitalization (as cited by Bonderman, 2001). Persons who are shot and admitted to the hospital are likely to face numerous rehospitalizations and incur medical costs throughout their lifetimes. In 2010, the hospital costs associated with firearm assault injuries totaled almost $700 million (Howell, Bieler, & Anderson, 2014). About 60% of these costs is paid by the public either by public insurance such as Medicaid or because persons are uninsured (Howell et al., 2014).

Mental Health Care Costs

When victims seek mental health care, this also adds to their total cost. It is estimated that between 10% and 20% of total mental health care costs in the United States are related to crime (Miller et al., 1996). Most of this cost is a result of crime victims seeking treatment to deal with the effects of their victimization. Between one-quarter and one-half of rape and child sexual abuse victims receive mental health care. As a result, sexual victimizations, of both adults and children, result in some of the largest mental health care costs for victims. The average mental health care cost per rape and sexual assault is $2,200, and the average for child abuse is $5,800. Victims of arson who are injured incur about $10,000 of mental health care expenditures per victimization. Secondary victimization, which is discussed in detail in a later section, is also associated with mental health care costs. The average murder results in between 1.5 and 2.5 people receiving mental health counseling (Miller et al., 1996).

Losses in Productivity

Persons who are victimized may experience an inability to work at their place of employment, complete housework, or attend school. Not being able to do these things contributes to the total lost productivity that crime victims experience. In 2008, about 7% of persons in the NCVS who said they were violently victimized lost some time from work. About the same percentage of victims of property offenses lost time from work. Some victims are more prone to miss work than others. For example, almost one-tenth of burglary victimizations cause victims to miss at least one day of work. Data from the NCVS show that 9% of robbery victimizations resulted in victims missing more than 10 days of work (BJS, 2011), whereas victims of intimate partner violence lost almost 8 million paid days of work annually (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003). Employers also bear some costs when their employees are victimized; victimized employees may be less productive, their employers may incur costs associated with hiring replacements, and employers may experience costs dealing with the emotional responses of their employees. Parents also may suffer costs when their children are victimized and they are unable to meet all their job responsibilities as a result of doing things such as taking the child to the doctor or staying home with the child (Miller et al., 1996).

Pain, Suffering, and Lost Quality of Life

The most difficult cost to quantify is the pain, suffering, and loss of quality of life that crime victims experience. When these elements are added to the costs associated with medical care, lost earnings, and programs associated with victim assistance, the cost to crime victims increases 4 times. In other words, this is

132

Download more at Learnclax.com

the largest cost that crime victims sustain. For example, one study estimated the cost of out-of-pocket expenses to victims of rape to be slightly less than $5,100. The crime of rape, however, on average, costs $87,000 when its impact on quality of life is considered (Miller et al., 1996).

Another cost that crime victims may experience is a change in their routines and lifestyles. Many victims report that after being victimized, they changed their behavior. For example, victims of stalking may change their phone numbers, move, or change their normal routines. Others may stop going out alone or start carrying a weapon when they do so. Although these changes may reduce risk of being victimized again, for victims to bear the cost of crime seems somewhat unfair. Did Polly sustain any of these costs?

133

Download more at Learnclax.com

System Costs

The victim is not the only entity impacted economically by crime. The United States spends an incredible amount of money on criminal justice. When including system costs for law enforcement, the courts, and corrections, the direct expenditures of the criminal justice system are more than $214 billion annually (BJS, 2006b). The criminal justice system employs more than 2.4 million persons, whose collective pay tops $9 billion. Obviously, crime is big business in the United States!

Insurance companies pay about $45 billion annually due to crime. The federal government also pays $8 billion annually for restorative and emergency services for crime victims. There are other costs society must absorb as a result of crime. For example, it costs Americans when individuals who are not insured or are on public assistance are victimized and receive medical care. The U.S. government covers about one-fourth of health insurance payouts to crime victims. Gunshot victims alone cost taxpayers more than $4.5 billion dollars annually (Headden, 1996). These costs are not distributed equally across society. Some communities have been hit especially hard by violence—gun violence in particular. Some 96% of hospital expenses associated with gun violence at King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles are paid with public funds (as cited by Bonderman, 2001). To understand how expensive gun violence medical fees can be to the public, read Box 3.1 about James, who was shot and survived. We discuss in Section V just how these costs are paid and who pays them.

134

Download more at Learnclax.com

Vicarious Victimization

It is not only the victim and the system that are saddled with costs. The effects that victimization has on those close to the victim are also critical in understanding the total impact of crime. So far, we have discussed how a victim may need medical care, may seek mental health counseling, may lose time from work, and may have a less full life after being victimized. But what happens to those who love and care about these victims? Does witnessing a loved one go through victimization also exact a price?

The effects that victimization has on others are collectively known as vicarious victimization. Vicarious victimization has been most widely studied in regard to homicide survivors—people whose loved ones have been murdered—given the profound effect that homicide has on family members, even when compared with nonhomicide deaths. Homicide deaths are almost exclusively sudden and violent. Surviving family members often experience guilt about not being able to prevent the death. The involvement of the criminal justice system also adds an element to the response family members have, and there is often a feeling that others view the death as at least partly the victim’s fault.

The studies on homicide survivors have largely found that they experience many of the same posttrauma symptoms that crime victims themselves experience. One study found that almost one-quarter of homicide- surviving family members developed PTSD after the murder of their family member (as cited in Kilpatrick, Amick, & Resnick, 1990). The disorder and PTSD symptomology are often not transient, with homicide survivors exhibiting PTSD symptoms for up to 5 years following the murder (Redmond, 1989). Being a homicide survivor also may be related to greater PTSD symptoms than being a victim of a crime such as rape (Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, & Veronen, 1989). Also interesting, homicide survivors experience higher levels of PTSD than do family members who lose a loved one through means other than homicide, such as accidentally (D. R. Applebaum & Burns, 1991). PTSD is not the only psychological response that homicide survivors show. They also have higher levels of distress, depression, anxiety, and hostility than persons who have not experienced trauma (Thompson, Kaslow, Price, Williams, & Kingree, 1998).

In addition to psychological responses, homicide survivors may exhibit behavioral consequences. Parents whose children die via homicide are more likely to exhibit suicidal ideation than parents whose children commit suicide or die accidentally (S. A. Murphy, Tapper, Johnson, & Lohan, 2003). Other homicide survivors may exhibit lifestyle changes by avoiding places and activities—either because they are fearful or anxious or because they no longer feel able to participate in activities that are reminiscent of times spent with their now-deceased loved one. Homicide survivors also evince feelings of vulnerability, loss of control, loss of meaning, and self-blame. As you can now be certain, criminal victimization has wide-reaching effects on the victim, the system, and others.

Photo 3.2 A support group for family members of murdered people.

135

Download more at Learnclax.com

Another form of vicarious victimization occurs when a person is traumatized by the coverage violent acts receive through media or other outlets that provide information. This type of vicarious victimization is likely to occur when seven factors are present: (1) realistic threat of death to all members of the community, (2) extraordinary carnage, (3) strong community affiliation, (4) witnessing of event by community members, (5) symbolic significance of victims to community, (6) need for rescue workers, and (7) significant media attention (Young, 1989). Given these factors, traumatic events that do not directly affect a person or a person’s loved ones may also cause harm such as PTSD. Events such as the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, are prime examples of traumas that can produce lasting, harmful consequences to people exposed to them. Other events, such as a serial killer operating in a community, may also be a form of vicarious victimization that can produce PTSD in community members (Herkov & Biernat, 1997). You will read more about homicide victims in Section VI.

136

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reporting

All the consequences and outcomes we have discussed thus far are impacted by the victim reporting the offense to the police. Reporting may intensify some of these consequences, may moderate some of the impact, or may be somewhat unrelated to the victim’s experiences after the incident occurs. Reporting is important for several reasons. One important factor about reporting to the police is that it is the first essential step in activating the formal criminal justice system. Without a report to the police, the victim is left to deal with the aftermath through other channels, and the police will never begin an investigative process. Without this first critical step, it is extremely unlikely that an offender will ever be caught. When an offender “gets away” with crime, it can have important consequences. When this occurs, the offender is learning that he or she can continue to freely offend—perhaps even against the same person or household. Conversely, an arrest or real threat of arrest may deter potential offenders.

Victims may also be negatively impacted if they do not report. Many victims’ services, as discussed in Section V, are available only for victims who notify the police about their incident. For example, many district attorneys’ offices have victim advocates, whose job it is to help victims navigate the criminal justice system and assist them with other programs such as receiving victim compensation. The ability to use these services is typically conditioned on reporting because the district attorney’s office would not even know about a crime victim who did not first come forward. To highlight the lack of use of victims’ services, in 2014, only 11% of individuals who experienced a violent crime according to the NCVS indicated that they received assistance from a victim service agency. A greater percentage of victims of intimate partner violence receive such services (28%) than other types of violent crime victims (Truman & Langton, 2015).

With all these benefits to reporting, it is easy to forget that slightly less than half of all violent crime victims and just more than one-third of property crime victims notify the police (Truman & Morgan, 2016). In 2016, more than 60% of all robbery and aggravated assault victims and slightly less than one-third of all rape and sexual assault victims reported their incidents to the police.

Reporting varies by crime type, but it also varies according to other characteristics (Langton, Berzofsky, Krebs, & Smiley-McDonald, 2012). Generally, violence against women and violence against older persons is more likely to come to the attention of the police than violence against men and younger persons. Victimizations that result in the victim suffering an injury are more likely to be reported than those that do not result in injury. When an offender is armed and/or a stranger, the victim is more likely to call the police (Langton et al., 2012).

Besides these incident characteristics, victims also give tangible reasons for not reporting their incidents to the police. Overall, the most common reasons given by victims of violence for why they do not report include that the victimization was a private or personal matter, that it was dealt with in another way such as reported to another official, that the victimization was not important enough to report to the police, that the police would not or could not do anything to help, or for fear of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble (Langton et al., 2012). Table 3.2 shows the reasons victims give for not reporting to the police for different victimization

137

Download more at Learnclax.com

types. But some victims do in fact bring their incidents to the attention of the police. Most commonly, victims of violence report their incidents to prevent future violence, to stop the offender, because it was a crime, and to protect others (BJS, 2006a). Table 3.3 shows the common reasons that victims do report for different victimization types.

Table 3.2

Source: Langton, L., Merzofsky, M., Krebs, C., & Smiley-McDonald, H. (2012). Victimizations not reported to the police, 2006-2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 3.3

Source: BJS (2006a).

138

Download more at Learnclax.com

For victims of property crime, the most common reasons given for not bringing the incident to the attention of the police are that the object was recovered/the offender was unsuccessful, feeling the police would not want to be bothered, or lack of proof. Property crime victims were motivated to report because they wanted to recover stolen property, because it was a crime, and to prevent further crimes against them by the offender (BJS, 2006a).

139

Download more at Learnclax.com

Fear of Crime

Another cost associated with victimization is fear. Fear is an emotional response to a perceived threat (Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987). Physiologically, when people experience fear, their body activates to alert them to danger. These bodily responses are associated with the autonomic nervous system being activated—heart rate increases, pupils dilate, digestion slows, blood supply to muscles increases, breathing rate increases, and sweating increases (Fishbein, 2001). These physiological changes occur so that in the face of danger, a person can fight or flee. Fear of crime is different than perceived risk of being a victim. Perceived risk is the perceived likelihood that a person feels that he or she will become a crime victim. Perceptions of risk are related to fear in that those people who perceive their risk to be high generally have higher levels of fear of crime than those who do not perceive their risk of victimization to be high (May, Rader, & Goodrum, 2010; Warr, 1984).

As you may imagine, fear is difficult to measure. How do you know whether someone is more fearful of crime than another person? Would you simply ask someone, or do you think looking for other indications of fear would be better? One of the most common ways to measure fear of crime is by asking individuals on surveys, “How safe do you feel or would you feel being out alone in your neighborhood?” (Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987). One problem with this question is that the respondent is not asked specifically about fear or being afraid. In addition, asking about how safe someone feels being alone in his or her neighborhood at night may not capture the types of criminal behavior of which a person is fearful. Another common question asked of survey participants is, “Is there any area around here—that is, within a mile—where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?” Although this question does ask specifically about being afraid, it does not ask the respondent to consider being afraid of crime. Also, the question vaguely references “around here within a mile,” which covers a wide range. Finally, many people may be unlikely to walk alone at night, therefore the question may fail to capture events that an individual is likely to face. A better question that has been commonly used in more frequent research is, “How afraid are you of becoming the victim of [separate offenses] in your everyday life?” (Warr & Stafford, 1983). This question asks about how afraid the respondent is, makes a specific reference to crime, and uses the phrase “in your everyday life” so that respondents will reference their daily routines and realities.

Now that you know how fear is measured, let’s consider who is fearful of being a victim of crime. One thing to consider is that persons do not have to be victims of crime to be fearful. In fact, research shows that some groups who are actually less likely to be victimized than others have higher levels of fear of crime than those with higher risks of victimization. For example, females generally report higher levels of fear of crime than do males (Ferraro, 1995, 1996; Haynie, 1998; May et al., 2010; Rountree, 1998). Older people also have greater fear levels, but this depends on question wording. When asked about specific worry about specific crime types, younger persons tend to express greater fear levels (Jackson, 2009).

For females, this elevated fear of crime has been attributed to their overarching fear of sexual assault. What is interesting is that, in general, women note that their real risk of being raped or sexually assaulted is actually low compared to other crimes but that they fear rape at greater levels. Known as the “shadow hypothesis,” this fear of sexual assault actually serves to increase females’ fears of other types of crimes (Ferraro, 1995, 1996;

140

Download more at Learnclax.com

Warr, 1985; Wilcox, Jordan, & Pritchard, 2006). Not all women are fearful, of course. Those women who feel as though they are unable to defend themselves from rape and sexual violence, who believe that sexual violence comes with serious negative consequences, and who thought that becoming a victim of sexual violence was likely (Custers & Van den Bulck, 2013) are more fearful than others.

Other factors have been tied to experiencing fear of crime. One element that has been linked to fear is the level of incivilities in an area. Incivilities are low-level breaches of community standards that indicate erosion of conventionally accepted norms and values (LaGrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992). These can be physical incivilities, which are disordered physical surroundings such as litter, trash, and untended property. They can also be social incivilities, which are untended people or behavior such as rowdy youth, loiterers, and people drinking. Research on incivilities shows that incivility is related to people’s perceived risk of crime, and risk of crime is related to fear (LaGrange et al., 1992). Other research on incivilities shows that incivilities predict fear of burglary, vandalism, and panhandling (Ferraro, 1996). It may be crime itself that influences fear of crime. Research shows that burglary rates within a neighborhood influence fear of crime in the United States (R. B. Taylor, 2001) as do crime rates in a person’s own neighborhood among New Zealanders (Breetzke & Pearson, 2014), and crime rates among those in the United Kingdom (Brunton-Smith & Sturgis, 2011). Incivilities also may play a role in how people perceive their risk of victimization. In research examining both crime and disorganization, burglary rates and neighborhood incivilities had direct effects on perceived risk of crime (Rountree & Land, 1996).

Being fearful may be good if it leads people to protect themselves while still enjoying their life. Research on fear of crime shows that people, in response to fear, may engage in avoidance behaviors. Avoidance behaviors (also called constrained behaviors) are restrictions that people place on their behavior to protect themselves from harm, such as staying home at night. Others may engage in defensive behaviors or protective behaviors to guard themselves from victimization, such as purchasing a gun or installing security lights (Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987). Indeed, research shows that over half of all gun owners report that they own their gun for self-protection (see Hauser & Kleck, 2013). Interestingly, research by Hauser and Kleck (2013) shows that buying a gun does not reduce levels of fear. Although having some level of fear is likely good, for it serves to properly activate people in the face of danger and to caution people to engage in protective behaviors, exaggerated levels of fear can be problematic. People may effectively sever themselves from the outside world and not engage in activities they find enjoyable—in short, fear may paralyze some people. What also may happen is that engaging in avoidance behaviors may increase a person’s fear levels (Ferraro, 1996). What this means is that the behaviors that people engage in to protect themselves from harm may actually serve to make them feel less safe.

141

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

The potential consequences and costs to crime victims are plenty and occur over the short and long term. These costs include economic costs as well as costs to their functioning and health. A small proportion of crime victims experience physical injury, and most do not receive medical care. Victims of violence, particularly gun violence, are likely to need medical assistance. Female victims, Black victims, and those victimized by a nonstranger are more likely than other victims to experience an injury. Beyond physical injury, victims may need mental health care. Victims often experience mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder following their victimization. Victims of sexual assault, rape, and child abuse are the most likely to seek mental health care as a direct result of being victimized. Treatment for mental health issues is yet another cost that victims face. There are direct economic costs to victims as well. National Crime Victimization Survey data show that more than 90% of property crimes involve some economic loss to the victim. These economic costs include direct property losses in which a victim’s property is stolen or damaged. They also include expenses related to medical care. Slightly less than 1 in 10 victims of violence incur medical expenses. Victims also lose money and productivity when they are unable to work, go to school, or complete housework. Almost 20% of victims of rape and sexual assault miss 10 or more days of work. Finally, victims may experience pain, suffering, and a reduced quality of life, all of which are difficult to quantify. Crime and victimization create costs to the system. The United States spends more than $214 billion annually on direct expenditures to operate the criminal justice system. Other elements of the economy are also hit by crime. Insurance companies make large payouts each year due to crime. It is not just the victim himself or herself who is pained by the event. Friends and family members may also experience costs when their loved ones are harmed. This is known as secondary victimization. Homicide survivors are more likely than others to experience post-traumatic stress disorder, distress, depression, and anxiety. They may find themselves unable or unwilling to participate in ordinary activities. Most criminal victimizations are not reported to the police, and crime reporting varies across crime type. Robbery and aggravated assault are the most common personal victimizations reported to the police. Females, older persons, and those injured are more likely than other victims to notify the police. Incident characteristics such as use of a weapon, the offender being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and the offender being a nongang member are related to reporting. Common reasons given for reporting are to stop the incident, to prevent the offender from offending again, and because it was a crime. Nonreporting is linked to the event being considered a personal/private matter, feeling the police would not want to be bothered, and being worried about reprisal. Another potential cost of victimization is being fearful of becoming a crime victim. Females and older people tend to have higher levels of fear than males and younger persons. Females tend to have higher levels of fear due to their fear of sexual assault, which shadows their fear of crime more generally. People

142

Download more at Learnclax.com

who perceive their risk of victimization to be high also tend to have high levels of fear. Some level of fear is probably good in that it leads people to protect themselves by engaging in avoidance or defensive behaviors. Too much fear, however, can be bad if fear leads to anxiety or isolation.

143

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. We discuss in a later section who pays for the costs of victimization and how victims can be compensated. What do you think we should do for victims? Should their medical bills be paid? What about other costs? Who should be held accountable for paying those?

2. Why do people not report their victimizations to police? What barriers to reporting exist for crime victims? What are the implications of reporting or failure to report?

3. What costs did Polly experience as a result of her victimization? What long-term consequences do you think she may have to deal with?

4. Think about your own life and try to recall a time when you were victimized. Identify all the costs that came with your victimization. What short-term and long-term costs did you experience? Did you report the incident to the police?

5. How fearful of crime are you? Of what specific types of crimes do you fear becoming the victim? Do you think your fear is rational (e.g., tied to actual risk), or is it linked to something else? Why?

144

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key terms

anxiety 64 avoidance behaviors 76 behavioral self-blame 67 characterological self-blame 67 defensive behaviors 76 depression 64 direct property losses 68 economic costs 67 fear of crime 74 homicide survivors 70 incivilities 75 learned helplessness 67 lost productivity 69 medical care costs 68 mental health care costs 69 perceived risk 74 physical incivilities 75 physical injury 63 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 65 protective behaviors 76 reporting 72 self-blame 67 self-esteem 64 self-worth 64 social incivilities 75 system costs 70 vicarious victimization 70

145

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

“Addressing Predisposition Revictimization in Cases of Violence Against Women”: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/violence-against-women/workshops/pages/revictimization.aspx

This website includes summary information on a workshop hosted by the National Institute of Justice. This workshop was conducted to examine strategies, policies, and principles in place in 2005 and to focus research on victimization in the period of predisposition (postarrest and prior to trial and/or sentencing).

Coping with Trauma and Grief: http://www.victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/coping-with-trauma- and-grief

This website is part of the National Center for Victims of Crime and includes recent information on coping with trauma and grief, particularly as they relate to victimization. It discusses issues such as how children cope with tragedies such as school shootings and losing loved ones and provides links to resources for victims, including information about resilience.

Help for Crime Victims: http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/helpseries/pdfs/HelpBrochure_Homicide.pdf

The Office for Victims of Crime has collected a list of websites that lend support and encouragement to homicide survivors and covictims. There is also information about homicide and what to expect if a loved one is murdered.

National Center for PTSD: http://www.ptsd.va.gov/index.asp

This website contains information on PTSD in relation to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The center aims to help U.S. veterans and others through research, education, and training focused on trauma and PTSD. The website also has information for providers, researchers, and the general public on PTSD and its treatment.

146

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/violence-against-women/workshops/pages/revictimization.aspx

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/coping-with-trauma-and-grief

http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/helpseries/pdfs/HelpBrochure_Homicide.pdf

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/index.asp

Reading /// 3

Victimization may be related to a range of negative mental health outcomes. One such outcome is nonsuicidal self-harm. The relationship between this outcome and victimization is not well understood. To investigate the process whereby victimization may lead a person to engage in such behavior, Shyamala Nada-Raja and Keren Skegg (2011) used data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, a longitudinal study of persons born from April 1, 1972, to March 31, 1973. Their findings illuminate sex differences in the pathways to nonsuicidal self-harm.

Victimization, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptomatology, and Later Nonsuicidal Self-Harm in a Birth Cohort

Shyamala Nada-Raja and Keren Skegg

Victimization and suicidality are often related to each other and are strongly associated with mental disorder (Belik, Cox, Stein, Asmundson, & Sareen, 2007; Klonsky & Moyer, 2008; Seedat, Stein, & Forde, 2005; Ullman, 2004). Recent reviews on childhood sexual abuse (CSA, a major type of victimization) in relation to self-harm that includes both attempted suicide and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) or nonsuicidal self-harm (NSSH) have emphasized that any observed associations are likely to be largely indirect and to include common psychosocial risk factors (Klonsky & Moyer, 2008; Ullman, 2004).

There are also associations between sexual assault and revictimization in adult women and attempted suicide or NSSH (Gladstone et al., 2004; Noll, Horowitz, Bonanno, Trickett, & Putnam, 2003, Ullman, 2004; Ullman & Najdowski, 2009) and between physical assault or intimate partner violence and suicidality (Seedat et al., 2005; Simon, Anderson, Thompson, Crosby, & Sacks, 2002). The above studies of NSSI or NSSH in relation to prior victimization have generally been based on college rather than community samples. However, community-based samples of longitudinal studies have not always found a positive and direct association between CSA and later suicidality (e.g., Fergusson, Woodward, & Horwood, 2000), thus highlighting a need for longitudinal community studies to clarify the relationships that might exist between a range of psychosocial factors that predict suicidality following CSA (Ullman et al., 2009).

Depression and revictimization are important factors in the pathways that have been suggested as connecting victimization and suicidality (Gladstone et al., 2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is another important mediator that might link violence and self-harm (Kessler, 2000; Weierich & Nock, 2008). Current evidence is inconclusive as to whether PTSD predicts self-harm independently of other anxiety disorders and depression (Krysinska & Lester, 2010). Studies in this area therefore need to adjust for the role of internalizing disorders (Breslau, Peterson, Poisson, Schultz, & Lucia, 2004).

Women are more likely than men to report CSA and to experience depression and anxiety (Nelson et al., 2002). In a study of depressed women, revictimization was much more frequent among women with a history of CSA than among comparison women with no CSA history, and sexual revictimization was correlated with PTSD symptoms (Noll et al., 2003). PTSD, CSA, and internalizing disorders are all risk factors for self-harm (Oquendo et al., 2003). Weierich and Nock (2008) highlighted a need for longitudinal research that could test

147

Download more at Learnclax.com

the relative timing of CSA, PTSD symptoms, and self-harm.

In U.S. studies, risk of PTSD was much greater after exposure to assault than to any other type of trauma (Kessler, 2000). In a community study about a variety of traumatic events, respondents overselected assault and sudden unexpected death of someone close as the most stressful events they had experienced (Breslau et al., 2004). A high proportion of this group also met criteria for PTSD.

Several questions remain to be answered about assault, PTSD, and subsequent self-harm, and the possible role of CSA. These include (a) whether assault sensitizes or predisposes victims to later self-harm directly or whether this occurs via experiencing PTSD symptomatology; (b) whether, given comorbidity between PTSD and other mental disorder, mental disorder per se is the overriding factor that predicts self-harm among assault victims; (c) whether the association between CSA and self-harm is direct or mediated by revictimization and other mental disorder; and finally (d) whether the pathways differ for men and women.

The aim of the present study was to examine these questions in relation to nonsuicidal self-harm (NSSH) in a birth cohort of New Zealand men and women separately. It was hypothesized that assault victimization resulting in significant PTSD symptomatology at age 21, in addition to other anxiety, depressive, and substance dependence disorders, would predict NSSH at age 26, and that CSA would also independently predict NSSH.

Source: Nada-Raja, S., & Skegg, K. (2011). Victimization, Posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology, and later nonsuicidal self-harm in a birth cohort. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(18), 3667–3681.

Method

Sample

The participants belong to a cohort of 1,037 born between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973, enrolled in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (DMHDS; Silva & Stanton, 1996). Data on their health, behavior, and background were available at birth and thereafter at regular intervals including at ages 21 and 26. The longitudinal study has a high follow-up rate of participants with more than 90% of the original cohort having been assessed at most phases of the study. At age 26 assessment, 980 study participants gave written informed consent to take part in an interview on self-harm. More than 90% of the cohort self- identified as New Zealand European. The entire socioeconomic spectrum is covered adequately. The Otago Ethics Committee approved the study. Complete data were available for 449 women and 467 men for all measures described below.

Measures

Nonsuicidal Self-Harm (NSSH)

Participants were asked about a range of self-harm behaviors they had experienced in the past year at age 26 and about suicidal intent (Nada-Raja, Skegg, Langley, Morrison, & Sowerby, 2004). If no suicidal intent was reported for any of the behaviors the study member had engaged in (81 men and 54 women), they were

148

Download more at Learnclax.com

classified in the NSSH category. Questions were framed in the context of dealing with mental or

psychological pain, emotions, or stress rather than using the term “suicide” initially. Participants viewed a list of 16 specific self-harm behaviors and reported on any “other” similar behaviors, followed by questions on the number of episodes that involved suicidal intent for each method used in the past year (Nada-Raja et al., 2004). The behaviors comprised all methods specified in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) E-codes 950–958 for suicide and purposely self-inflicted injury. In addition, other self-harmful behaviors were enquired about deliberately hitting oneself or putting one’s fist through a wall (i.e., self-hitting), denying oneself a necessity such as food to punish oneself, exercising excessively to deliberately hurt oneself, self- biting, or other bodily harmful behaviors (Nada-Raja et al., 2004). Most NSSH behaviors involved self- hitting, overdosing, or self-cutting.

Potential Predictors

Assault victimization at age 21 years

A total of 944 participants answered questions about any form of assault they had experienced in the previous year (Martin et al., 1998). Assault victimization was defined as the report of physical or sexual victimization by another person, involving anyone from a partner to a complete stranger, including attempted or threatened assault experienced in the past year (238 men and 144 women). Over half (55%) of physical assault incidents reported by women were perpetrated by a partner, in contrast to 12% of physical assault incidents against men being perpetrated by a partner (Langley, Martin, & Nada-Raja, 1997). Of those who had experienced physical assault, 12% of the men and 7% of the women had received some medical treatment, including being hospitalized.

Psychological distress and impairment following assault

Participants who reported a physical or sexual assault were asked to describe characteristics of their principal assault event, one that they remembered in particular had affected them the most. This procedure is considered an acceptable “shortcut,” rather than enquiring about every episode of trauma, and is considered a conservative approach to estimating risk of PTSD (Breslau et al., 2004). Then followed a set of 17 questions from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for the principal assault event (Feehan, Nada-Raja, Martin, & Langley, 2001). Included were questions about persistent avoidance of stimuli, increased arousal, diminished responsiveness to the outside world, and symptoms of psychological reexperience of the event. The responses were coded as 0 = none, 1 = somewhat, 2 = yes in accordance with modifications made to the DIS (Feehan, McGee, Nada Raja, & Williams, 1994). A PTSD diagnosis was not made because of interview time constraints that prevented a reliable examination of the duration for each symptom. Instead a total score was produced by summing individual responses. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the total symptom scale was .82 (Feehan et al., 2001).

To gauge the degree of distress for PTSD symptoms, participants rated how much each symptom interfered with their life or daily activities on an impairment scale of 1 = very little to 5 = very much, and significant impairment was indicated by ratings of 2 or above on the scale (Feehan et al., 2001).

149

Download more at Learnclax.com

Mental disorders at age 21

Disorders were diagnosed according to DSM-III-R criteria as per a modified version of the DIS referred to above. Diagnoses included anxiety other than PTSD, depression, and substance dependence (alcohol, cannabis) disorders experienced in the previous year (Newman et al., 1996).

Childhood sexual abuse

At age 26, a computer-administered interview was used to elicit retrospective information from participants on their sexual behavior and experiences of sexual abuse or unwanted sexual contact by age 16 years. Childhood sexual abuse (CSA), reported by 18% of women and 7% of men, comprised having one’s genitals touched by another, being forced to touch another’s genitals, and experiencing forced or attempted sexual intercourse.

Statistical Analyses

The chi-square statistic was used to examine associations between predictors and outcome variables. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine potential predictors as described above for self-harm as per odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Population attributable risk percentages (PAR) were calculated for each of the significant predictors identified in the final multivariate models to determine the proportion of self-harm that could be prevented if any one of the identified predictors were totally eliminated (Miettinen, 1974).

Results

Assault victimization at age 21 and later NSSH

For men, there was no significant association between assault victimization at age 21 and NSSH at age 26. Women who reported that they had been assaulted at age 21 were, however, significantly more likely than

other women to report NSSH at age 26 (X2 = 10.3, p = .0013). Of the 144 women who reported assault victimization at age 21, 19% reported past-year NSSH at age 26 compared with 8% of the 295 women who did not report assault victimization. We examined three specific characteristics of assault in relation to later

NSSH for women and men separately. Women who reported a sexual assault (23% vs. 10%, X2 = 10.3, p =

.0024), whose assailant was a partner (22% vs. 10%, X2 = 6.3, p = .0122), or had received medical treatment

for their assault (23% vs. 11%, X2 = 4.3, p = .0390) were significantly more likely than women who did not report these characteristics to also report later NSSH. The results were not significant for men.

PTSD symptomatology following assault victimization

Two dummy variables, one for victimization and PTSD symptomatology (hereafter referred to as PTSD) and the other for victimization without PTSD, were created and included in logistic regression analyses to determine whether PTSD uniquely contributed to the associations described above. The reference group was no victimization. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are summarized for each of the explanatory variables in Table 1, for 916 participants with complete data on all measures of interest. As shown

150

Download more at Learnclax.com

in Table 1, there were no significant associations for men between victimization and PTSD at age 21 and NSSH at age 26. Women who were victimized at age 21, however, irrespective of experiencing PTSD, were at significantly higher risk of NSSH at age 26 than nonvictimized women.

Role of mental disorders

Table 2 summarizes relations between victimization with or without PTSD and mental disorders at age 21. Victimization and PTSD were significantly associated with other anxiety disorders and with depressive disorders. A significantly higher number of victims with PTSD compared with those in the remaining two groups also met criteria for a substance dependence disorder (alcohol or cannabis) at age 21.

As victimization was significantly associated with mental disorder, it was of interest to determine if mental disorder mediated the associations between victimization and later NSSH. The results from multivariate logistic regression analyses, adjusting for three categories of disorder, are summarized in Table 3. For men, initial multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that anxiety disorder other than PTSD at age 21 (OR = 2.1) was a significant risk factor for NSSH at age 26. When the model excluded substance dependence disorders, depressive disorder (OR = 2.1, CI = [1.0, 4.1] p = .0373) was a significant risk factor, and the odds ratio was slightly increased for other anxiety disorder (OR = 2.2, CI = [1.1, 4.2]).

For women, even after adjusting for mental disorders, victimization and PTSD remained significant risk factors for later NSSH (ORs reduced from 3.9 [univariate analysis] to 2.6). Anxiety disorder (other than PTSD) was also an independent and significant risk factor. When substance dependence disorder (not a significant risk factor) was removed from the multivariate regression model, victimization without PTSD (OR = 2.0, CI = [1.0, 4.1]) was a significant risk factor for later NSSH. Victimization at age 21 was also significantly associated with anxiety disorders at the same age (OR = 4.0, CI = [2.1, 7.6]).

In separate analyses, victimization and PTSD significantly increased the odds of having a depressive disorder (OR = 7.2, CI = [2.8, 18.2]) or other anxiety disorder (OR = 6.3, CI = [2.5, 15.7]) at the same age. Comorbidity was high for both disorders: having an anxiety disorder significantly increased the odds of a depressive disorder (OR = 5.5, CI = [2.9, 10.4]). Internalizing disorders, especially for women, significantly mediated the predictive relation between victimization, PTSD, and later NSSH.

Role of childhood sexual abuse (CSA)

The final set of logistic regression analyses examined whether self-reported CSA that had occurred before age 16 and recounted 10 years later significantly predicted NSSH at age 26. The results were not significant for either sex (OR = 2.5, CI = [0.9, 6.6] for men and OR = 1.5, CI = [0.7, 3.1] for women). Therefore we were interested to examine if CSA was an indirect risk factor for NSSH via being a risk factor for victimization and/or mental disorder at age 21 years, as the latter were found to be significant risk factors for NSSH. CSA did significantly predict victimization (irrespective of PTSD) at age 21 for men (OR = 3.2, CI = [1.1, 8.9]) and women (OR = 2.0, CI = [1.2, 3.4]). It was also a significant risk factor for anxiety disorders at age 21, but for men only (OR = 3.1, CI = [1.2, 8.5]).

151

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 1

Note: NSSH refers to methods for suicide and purposely self-inflicted injury behaviors specified by ICD-9 E-codes 950–958, and “other” behaviors, for example, self-battery, self-biting, engaged in during the previous year in the absence of any self-reported suicidal intent. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

Table 2DSM-IV

Table 3DSM-IV

Note: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

The final models showed that for men anxiety (OR = 2.2, CI = [1.1, 4.1]) and depressive disorders (OR = 2.1, CI = [1.1, 4.2]) at age 21 were the only two independent and significant risk factors for NSSH 5 years later. Women’s NSSH at age 26 was directly predicted by prior victimization and PTSD (OR = 3.1, CI = [1.4, 7.0]) and other anxiety disorders (OR = 2.3, CI = [1.2, 4.2]).

Population attributable risk (PAR)

PARs were calculated to gauge the contributions of each of the independent and significant risk factors for later NSSH. They indicated that the risk of NSSH would be reduced by 13% amongst men and 27% amongst women, if anxiety disorders (excluding PTSD symptomatology) were eliminated. If depressive disorders were

152

Download more at Learnclax.com

to be eliminated, it would be expected that NSSH would be reduced by 12% amongst men. For women, reducing their exposure to victimization would be expected to reduce their risk of NSSH by 10% to 14% depending on whether PTSD was related to the victimization experience.

Discussion

The observed associations between assault victimization, PTSD symptomatology, internalizing disorders, and NSSH 5 years later were different for men and women. For men, assault victimization and PTSD symptomatology did not predict later NSSH: instead it was predicted by anxiety and depression at age 21. Among women, however, all of the listed factors at age 21 were independent or confounding predictors of NSSH at age 26. Experiencing PTSD symptomatology as a result of being victimized elevated the risk of NSSH at age 26, which was even higher in the presence of comorbid mental disorder at age 21. Retrospective recall of CSA at age 26 was not an independent predictor of later NSSH for either sex. It did, however, increase the risk of victimization for both sexes, and of anxiety disorders for men only.

Clearly, women who are assaulted, irrespective of any related PTSD symptomatology or other internalizing disorders, are at significant risk for NSSH. The nature of women’s victimization experiences per se may partly account for this finding. In this sample, female victims of assault were much more likely than males to report that the perpetrator was their partner or a person with whom they had a similar relationship (Langley et al., 1997). Such assault was also more injurious to women than to men. Women were also more likely than men to report a sexual assault. In the present study, these three characteristics of the assault were significantly associated with the report of later NSSH by women but not by men. Martinez and Richters (1993) found that children victimized by family, friends, or acquaintances scored high on a scale of depression symptoms relative to children who were victimized by or had witnessed violence by strangers. Thus the mental health consequences of victimization might be greater for women than for men. Although the duration of PTSD symptoms was not ascertained in this study, we found that PTSD symptomatology elevated women’s risk for later NSSH. These findings support Kessler’s (2000) view that PTSD might not be a short-lived phenomenon and that, at least for women, there can be residual symptoms and related problems in later life. Women may engage in NSSH as a way of dealing with the impact of being assaulted and/or use it to resolve conflict in their intimate relationships to effect a desired change in the perpetrator’s (i.e., partner’s) behavior or indicate distress experienced to their partner (Gratz, 2003). The assault victimization experience appears to have deleterious consequences for women by increasing their vulnerability for mental disorder and NSSH.

Male victims in the present study were at significant risk for later NSSH only if they had developed internalizing disorders as well as assault-related PTSD. Previous studies have linked PTSD with suicidal self- harm or self-mutilation among war veterans (Begic & Jokic-Begic, 2001; Sacks, Flood, Dennis, Hertzberg, & Beckham, 2008). Unless adjustment is made for internalizing disorders such as depression, the contribution of PTSD to self-harm remains unclear (Krysinka & Lester, 2010). Our findings that depression and anxiety (rather than PTSD symptoms from assault) are important risk factors for men who report NSSH support the importance of assessing for these disorders in men who present with any form of self-harm. They are at higher risk than women for suicide, and these two risk factors appear to be common for suicidal and nonsuicidal self-

153

Download more at Learnclax.com

harm.

The role that CSA may play in NSSH still requires clarification. In the present longitudinal study, there was no direct pathway from CSA to later NSSH although it did significantly contribute indirectly. This supports conclusions from a recent meta-analysis of studies of CSA and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) that CSA may not have a causal role in the development of NSSI (Klonsky & Moyer, 2008). Rather, it has been suggested that CSA and NSSI may be modestly related because both share the same mental disorder risk factors (Klonsky & Moyer, 2008). In a prospective study in which women with CSA were compared with a nonabused comparison group, CSA was correlated with later broadly defined self-inflicted harm (Noll et al., 2003). As in our study, there was more adult victimization among women who had experienced CSA, and this in turn correlated with later PTSD symptoms. In a recent population-based study of a large sample of women from the California Women’s Health Survey, women who were abused in childhood were nearly six times more likely than those who were not abused to experience revictimization in adulthood, and those who reported revictimization were more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression and PTSD compared with women who experienced violence only in childhood or adulthood (Kimerling, Alvarez, Pavao, Kaminski, & Baumrind, 2007). In an Australian study of depressed women with and without histories of CSA, both adult victimization and NSSH (methods unspecified) were more common among women who had reported CSA (Gladstone et al., 2004). There is a need for more studies with men that address these types of associations.

The present findings highlight that CSA has long-term psychological health consequences for young adults by increasing their vulnerability to repeat assault victimization and anxiety and depressive disorders, which were often comorbid. Anxiety disorders in turn were a major risk factor for NSSH, indicated by significant PAR values, especially for women. Overall it may well be that CSA contributes to self-harm, irrespective of suicidal intent, by increasing a person’s vulnerability to mental health problems including PTSD and interpersonal difficulties (Ullman, 2004).

There were some limitations to this study. The principal assault event that participants selected to describe before they reported on any PTSD symptoms was an event experienced in the previous year and subject to recall and reporting bias. PTSD symptoms recounted may not have necessarily referred solely to the principal event that was described and their duration was not determined due to time constraints. The information that we enquired about focused on the previous year, however, when recall was less likely to be compromised. The presence or absence of suicidal intent was based on the participants’ own perception, recounted after the self- harm episode, and therefore also subject to recall and reporting biases. It could not be determined whether anxiety and depressive episodes preceded or followed the victimization experience. By selecting the worst trauma to ascertain PTSD, one may overestimate the probability of it being associated with the complete set of PTSD-level traumas, according to standard psychiatric classification systems. This excess, however, has been found to be a modest 32% (Breslau et al., 2004). In the present study, about 40% of the victims had experienced a sole event in the previous year, similar to the percentages reported in the National Comorbidity Survey and the Australian National Survey (Breslau et al., 2004; Creamer, Burgess, & McFarlane, 2001). Therefore, nearly half of the present sample of victims could have referred only to one event when recounting

154

Download more at Learnclax.com

any PTSD symptoms.

Strengths of the present study include its longitudinal design and a very high follow-up of the cohort in excess of 90% at the assessment periods of interest, which reduces selection bias. Also the self-harm data were based on detailed probe questions to ascertain intent. Previous research with this cohort showed that fewer than 10% of the past-year self-harm episodes involved suicidal intent (Nada-Raja et al., 2004).

Our findings underscore the importance of internalizing disorders as risk factors for later NSSH for both sexes and of addressing PTSD and assault victimization as additional risk factors for women. We would recommend that health professionals assess for possible PTSD and a history of assault victimization in women who present with self-harm and assess for self-harm and internalizing disorders in those who present with a history of assault victimization.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the DMHDS participants, their families, investigators and staff and Air New Zealand for their support. The self-harm studies were funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) and a Research Fellowship from the Community Trust of Otago to the first author. Data collection for assault victimization and childhood sexual abuse was supported by grants from the HRC and Harborview Injury Prevention Research Center. Mental Health data were collected with NIMH grants numbers: 1–23– MH42723–01 and ROI–MH45070.

Discussion Questions

1. Why would individuals, in general, engage in nonsuicidal self-harm? 2. The authors find that child sexual abuse (CSA) is not related to nonsuicidal self-harm directly. What

would be an explanation for this finding? 3. Why do you think that sex differences in the pathways to nonsuicidal self-harm were found? For

example, that victimization predicts nonsuicidal self-harm for females but for males it does only in the presence of PTSD symptomatology?

4. What does this study’s findings tell us about prevention or intervention, if we want to reduce the negative effects of victimization?

Note

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References Begic, D., & Jokic-Begic, N. (2001). Aggressive behavior in combat veterans with post-traumatic stress

disorder. Military Medicine, 166, 671–676.

Belik, S. L., Cox, B. J., Stein, M. B., Asmundson, G. J. G., & Sareen, J. (2007). Traumatic events and

155

Download more at Learnclax.com

suicidal behavior: Results from a national mental health survey. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,

195, 342.

Breslau, N., Peterson, E. L., Poisson, L. M., Schultz, L. R., & Lucia, V. C. (2004). Estimating post- traumatic stress disorder in the community: Lifetime perspective and the impact of typical traumatic events. Psychological Medicine, 34, 1–10.

Creamer, M., Burgess, P., & McFarlane, A. C. (2001). Post-traumatic stress disorder: Findings from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being. Psychological Medicine, 31, 1237–1247.

Feehan, M., McGee, R., Nada-Raja, S., & Williams, S. M. (1994). DSM-III-R disorders in New Zealand 18-year-olds. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 87–99.

Feehan, M., Nada-Raja, S., Martin, J., & Langley, J. D. (2001). The prevalence and correlates of psychological distress following physical and sexual assault in a young adult cohort. Violence and Victims, 16, 49–64.

Fergusson, D. M., Woodward, L. J., & Horwood, L. J. (2000). Risk factors and life processes associated with the onset of suicidal behaviour during adolescence and early adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 30, 23–39.

Gladstone, G. L, Parker, G. B., Mitchell, P. B., Malhi, G. S., Wilhelm, K., & Austin, M.-P. (2004). Implications of childhood trauma for depressed women: An analysis of pathways from childhood sexual abuse to deliberate self-harm and revictimization. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 1417–1425.

Gratz, K. L. (2003). Risk factors for and functions of deliberate self-harm: An empirical and conceptual review. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 10, 192–205.

Kessler, R. C. (2000). Posttraumatic stress disorder: The burden to the individual and to society. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61(Suppl. 5), 4–12.

Kimerling, R., Alvarez, J., Pavao, J., Kaminski, A., & Baumrind, N. (2007). Epidemiology and consequences of women’s revictimization. Women’s Health Issues, 17, 101–106.

Klonsky, E. D., & Moyer, A. (2008). Childhood sexual abuse and non-suicidal self-injury: Meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 192, 166–170.

156

Download more at Learnclax.com

Krysinska, K., & Lester, D. (2010). Post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide risk: A systematic review. Archives of Suicide Research, 14, 1–23.

Langley, J. D., Martin, J., & Nada-Raja, S. (1997). Physical assault among young adults by partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 675–684.

Martin, J., Nada-Raja, S., Langley, J., Feehan, M., McGee, R., Clarke, J., … Rivara, F. (1998). Physical assault in New Zealand: The experience of 21-year-old men and women in a community sample. New Zealand Medical Journal, 111, 158–160.

Martinez, P., & Richters, J. E. (1993). The NIMH community violence project: II. Children’s distress symptoms associated with violence exposure. Psychiatry, 56, 22–35.

Miettinen, O. S. (1974). Proportion of disease caused or prevented by a given exposure, trait or intervention. American Journal of Epidemiology, 99, 325–332.

Nada-Raja, S., Skegg, K. M., Langley, J. D., Morrison, D. N., & Sowerby, P. J. (2004). Self-harmful behaviours in a population-based sample of young adults. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 34, 177–186.

Nelson, E. C., Heath, A. C., Madden, P. A. F., Cooper, M. L., Dinwiddie, S. H., Bucholz, K. K., … Martin, N. G. (2002). Association between self-reported childhood sexual abuse and adverse psychosocial outcomes: Results from a twin study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 139–145.

Newman, D. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Magdol, L., Silva, P. A., & Stanton, W. R. (1996). Psychiatric disorder in a birth cohort of young adults: Prevalence, comorbidity, clinical significance, and new case incidence from ages 11 to 21. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 64, 552–562.

Noll, J. G., Horowitz, L. A., Bonanno, G. A., Trickett, P. K., & Putnam, F. W. (2003). Revictimization and self-harm in females who experienced childhood sexual abuse: Results from a prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1452–1471.

Oquendo, M. A., Friend, J. M., Halberstam, B., Brodsky, B. S., Burke, A. K., Grunebaum, M. F., … Mann, J. J. (2003). Association of comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and major depression with greater risk for suicidal behaviour. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 580–582.

157

Download more at Learnclax.com

Sacks, M. B., Flood, A. M., Dennis, M. F., Hertzberg, M. A., & Beckham, J. C. (2008). Self-mutilative behaviors in male veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42, 487–494.

Seedat, S., Stein, M. B., & Forde, D. R. (2005). Association between physical partner violence, posttraumatic stress, childhood trauma, and suicide attempts in a community sample of women. Violence and Victims, 20, 87–98.

Silva, P. A., & Stanton, W. R. (Eds.). (1996). From child to adult. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Simon, T. R., Anderson, M., Thompson, M. P., Crosby, A., & Sacks, J. J. (2002). Assault victimization and suicidal ideation or behavior within a national sample of U.S. adults. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 32, 42–50.

Ullman, S. E. (2004). Sexual assault victimization and suicidal behavior in women: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 331–351.

Ullman, S. E., & Najdowski, C. J. (2009). Correlates of serious suicidal ideation and attempts in female adult sexual assault victims. Suicidal and Life-Threatening Behavior, 39, 47–57.

Weierich, M. R., & Nock, M. K. (2008). Posttraumatic stress symptoms mediate the relation between childhood sexual abuse and nonsuicidal self-injury. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 39–44.

158

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 4

Although difficult to estimate, the costs of crime are important to identify for many reasons. One reason is to be able to know how policies, practices, and services are reducing these costs. One practice available to victims of domestic violence is obtaining a civil protective order (CPO). A CPO can include a variety of provisions such as no contact, only allowing peaceful contact, staying a certain distance away, or requirement of moving out. These orders in some jurisdictions may also provide for visitation and custody if the victim and abuser have children. As you read in your text, CPOs can be useful tools for victims of intimate partner violence to reduce violence and to improve feelings of safety. But are they worth the money? Read this article to find out!

The Economic Costs of Partner Violence and the Cost-Benefit of Civil Protective Orders

T. K. Logan, Robert Walker, and William Hoyt

The individual and social consequences of partner violence are widespread and have significant implications for social and public policy (Logan, Walker, Jordan, & Leukefeld, 2006). Several interventions to address partner violence have been implemented through the criminal justice system including specialized domestic violence courts, coordinated community responses, mandatory arrest and prosecution policies, and court- ordered batterer treatment (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). Civil protective orders (POs) have also been used as a court intervention to address partner violence; however, unlike criminal processes, civil POs are more of a preventive measure—the goal being to prevent future violence rather than punish for past acts of violence or to intervene where violence may not have yet occurred but may be [im]minent (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). It is only after the civil injunction has been violated that the criminal justice system becomes involved. Having a civil PO may facilitate a more positive response from the criminal justice system, as the violent acts constitute a violation of the court’s order.

Research on PO effectiveness, typically defined by a violation of a PO, suggests that for the vast majority of women POs either stop or reduce violence. Specifically, previous studies report, between 30% and 77% of POs issued for partner violence are not violated (Carlson, Harris, & Holden, 1999; Harrell & Smith, 1996; Keilitz, Efkeman, & Hannaford, 1997; Logan, Shannon, Walker, & Faragher, 2006; Logan & Walker 2009a, 2009b; McFarlane et al., 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Furthermore, two recent studies found that even among those women who experienced PO violations, there was a significant reduction in incidence of abuse and violence (Logan & Walker, 2009a, 2009b). Thus, POs appear to significantly reduce violence and abuse for the majority of women who obtained them. Also, the vast majority of women with POs had significantly reduced fear and indicated that they believed the PO was effective for them. One gap in the research on POs is the trade-off of the cost of interventions versus costs associated with changes in harm from violence and abuse before and after the intervention is implemented. This article adds to the literature on PO effectiveness by examining cost of partner violence and economic benefits of POs to both the individual victims and the society at large. Thus, this article also expands the framework and justification for social investment in enhanced protective services for partner violence victims by showing not only gains to the individual victims but also to society from civil POs.

In general, very few evaluations of partner violence interventions examine economic impact. More specifically,

159

Download more at Learnclax.com

there has been limited examination of the costs of partner violence before and after a PO has been obtained. Current governmental policy considerations make it increasingly important to understand costs and benefits of POs, because law enforcement and court resources are limited and allocating resources to one crime type may limit resources for another (Logan, Walker, Hoyt, & Faragher, 2009). In other words, not only should programs be assessed as to what works, but should also be assessed for what works at what cost. Determining the economic impact of policies and programs is important in making decisions about the overall effectiveness and efficiency of policies.

Because partner violence affects so many different areas of life, costs of partner violence to the individual victim and to society must be assessed comprehensively. For example, partner violence has a significant impact on physical and mental health, so costs of health service utilization are important to consider. Several studies suggest that women exposed to partner violence use physical and mental health care at higher rates than those not exposed to partner violence (Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2009; Coker, Reeder, Fadden, & Smith, 2004; Jones et al., 2006; Rivara et al., 2007; Ulrich et al., 2003; Wisner, Gilmer, Saltzman, & Zink, 1999). Lost earnings from employment have also been identified as a significant cost of partner violence victimization (Arias & Corso, 2005; Max, Rice, Finkelstein, Bardwell, & Leadbetter, 2004; Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996). However, there are a number of other costs associated with partner violence, although they are more difficult to assess, including victim services use, property damage or loss, and criminal justice system costs.

Another significant cost incurred for all crime victims, and particularly victims of partner violence, is the impact on victim quality of life. The impact of partner violence on quality of life translates into significant financial costs but in more complex and often long-term ways. What is difficult is the assignment of monetary values to these effects of violence; however, a failure to do so means that the impact of partner violence on quality of life are not considered as a salient factor in global social policy. Thus, it is critical to account in some way for the impact on an individual’s quality of life, and for the purposes of this study an economic approach was used (Cohen & Miller, 1998; Dolan, Loomes, Peasgood, & Tsuchiya, 2005; Max et al., 2004; Miller et al., 1996).

The overall goal of this article was to examine the economic impact of POs after accounting for the costs associated with POs. Specifically, this article describes (a) a wide range of costs associated with partner violence 6 months before and 6 months after the PO was obtained; (b) the average differences in costs associated with partner violence before and after the PO; (c) avoided costs of partner violence relative to PO intervention costs (i.e., benefits or cost savings of POs); and (d) estimates of the statewide impact of avoided costs relative to the costs of a PO.

Source: Logan, T. K., Walker, R., & Hoyt, W. (2012). The Economic Costs of Partner Violence and the Cost-Benefit of Civil Protective Orders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(6), 1137–1154.

Method

Sample

160

Download more at Learnclax.com

Data used for this article were collected as part of a larger study examining civil PO effectiveness (Logan et al., 2009). Overall, 213 women were recruited out of court from five jurisdictions (one urban and four rural) when they obtained a PO against a male intimate partner (PO partner) between June 2006 and August 2007. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be (a) female, (b) 18 years and older, (c) planning on staying in or close to the recruitment jurisdiction for the next 6 months, and (d) without a PO against that same male intimate partner for at least 6 months prior to the new PO. Women also completed the baseline interview within 6 weeks of obtaining their PO (baseline data were obtained an average of 3 weeks after obtaining the PO). Women were followed-up at 3 and 6 months after receiving the PO (99% follow-up rate), for a final sample of 210 women.

For the state in which the study was conducted, the PO process is typically two-fold. First, victims petition the court for an emergency PO (EPO) that must be signed by the judge and served to both the petitioner and the respondent before the order is in effect. Each individual EPO cannot exceed 14 days; however, a new EPO can be reissued to the same parties indefinitely. Getting the order served is often problematic, because the EPO and the next phase of the PO cannot be completed until both parties are served. The next step involves a hearing, where a judge hears both parties to the petition and then issues a domestic violence order (DVO) if there is a finding of partner violence and justification for the order. The DVO can be issued for up to 3 years. Throughout the report, PO is used to refer to the civil PO when referring to the general process of POs (EPOs and DVOs). The DVO term will be used to refer to the longer term or full order, and EPO will be used to refer to the temporary order.

Estimates of Costs Incurred

Procedure

A life history calendar was used in the victim interviews to anchor important events over the course of the 12 months of the study (6 months before the DVO and the 6 months after the DVO). Women were asked direct questions about each cost category (e.g., services used to cope with the abuse for each month). Monthly assessments and anchoring time with key life events were done to facilitate recall as well as to help women try to identify specific service use (e.g., health, mental health) that was directly associated with the abuse and distinct from service use that was unrelated to the abuse.

Specific cost categories

Participants reported health service utilization for doctor visits, dental visits, emergency room visits, urgent treatment care, hospital use, ambulance, and physical therapy visits each month. Participants were also asked about use of mental health services during each month by asking about visits to mental health counselors, psychiatrists, marriage counselors, ministerial counselors, and participation in group therapy for mental health or substance abuse and residential substance-abuse treatment. Costs were developed for each type of health or mental health visit. The costs associated with victim services were assessed for use of victim advocate, crisis line, in-person crisis counselor, and nights in a domestic violence shelter or a homeless shelter. Use of legal services including private attorneys and legal aid attorneys was assessed.

161

Download more at Learnclax.com

The number of times that women reported talking to the police and the number of nights victims reported the perpetrator was in jail before and after the DVO was used along with information from court records. Charges and convictions were extracted from official court records for the time period of study. Jail time was extracted from jail records for four of the five counties. Similar estimates were obtained when victim reported offender jail time was compared with official records, thus, the victim reported estimates were used, as official jail data were not available for one county.

Women were asked a series of questions about time missed from work as well as time away from other family and civic responsibilities including household chores, childcare, other family care, school, and volunteer activities due to the abuse. The value of lost or damaged property for each month was reported. Transportation costs directly related to court, prosecution, or other justice system activities were assessed.

Women were also asked to describe the number of days that they experienced serious stress, depression, or anxiety due to the abuse for the 6 months prior to and 6 months after the PO was issued. The maximum number of days for any one of the three conditions was used as an index of the negative impact on quality of life.

Cost sources

The next step of the economic evaluation was to attach specific dollar values for each reported incurred cost associated with partner violence. Local and state data were used wherever possible. Specific details of the cost sources and actual costs attached to each service are described elsewhere (Logan et al., 2009). To create an estimated value for the cost of a day of stress, anxiety, or depression due to the abuse (Quality of Life Index), the cost of an outpatient visit to a mental health professional was used (average of US$106.60). Although this proxy may be questioned, in the absence of an established quality of life cost barometer, this proxy provides one way to economically quantify the impact of abuse on quality of life. This cost estimate is assumed to be a conservative estimate and does not account for any prescription medication that women may have been taking to reduce stress, anxiety, or depression due to the abuse. Furthermore, it is well documented that sustained periods of stress, anxiety, or depression have a significant impact on health and other areas of life (Logan, Walker, et al., 2006).

Analysis of the cost of partner violence

Prior to the analysis, costs were adjusted for inflation and standardized, so they are consistent with prices in 2007. The Consumer Price Index for all goods produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) was used to make inflation adjustments (http://www.bls.gov/cpi). To reduce the number of different cost categories used in the analysis, costs were aggregated by related services or other functions. Specifically, nine cost categories were used: health service costs; mental health service costs; victim service costs; legal fees; police and justice system costs; employment and lost earnings; family and civic responsibilities; transportation and lost property; and Quality of Life Index.

The means of several cost categories were skewed by extreme outliers. In these cases, the means were adjusted so that for any individual whose cost was above the 95%, the outlier value of their reported cost was replaced

162

Download more at Learnclax.com

with the cost at the 95% level. These adjustments were made for health and mental health service use, family and civic responsibility loss, and the Quality of Life Index. Although this adjustment reduced costs, it was done for both costs before and after the issuance of the PO and did not have any significant impact on the difference in total costs. The total sample used in the analysis was 209. One participant was excluded from the analysis because she had very high costs due to longer term care from a psychiatric inpatient facility before and after the PO was obtained and was an outlier from the rest of the sample.

Cost of a PO

The costs of an EPO and a DVO in the state the study was done were estimated and reported previously (Logan et al., 2004; Logan, Hoyt, & Leukefeld, 2001). These estimates were revised and updated with the help of key court personnel including the urban family court administrator, supervisor for the district court clerks, chief family court judge, the sheriff’s office, and the assistant director for the domestic violence shelter who also worked in the County Sheriff’s office with domestic violence cases for over 9 years. Once the estimates were developed, they were reviewed by the Family Court Administrator and three family court judges. Changes were made accordingly. Overall, on average, the PO cost was US$354.37. Because the police as well as charges and convictions can be and are incurred with or without a PO, these costs were included as separate cost categories rather than as part of the PO cost.

Results

Average Utilization and Losses

Table 1 shows the proportion of the sample that reported any use of physical and mental health services, and for those who used a service, the average number of times the service was used. Overall, the number of women using health and mental health services actually increased slightly after the PO. Even though there were some slight increases in utilization, it is important to note that only about one third of the participants used any kind of mental health services before or after the DVO was issued.

Table 1

163

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: Average visits/days/hours/values are only reported for those with any use and are adjusted at the 95th percentile for outliers.

Victim support or advocacy service use decreased slightly, but again, only about one third of the sample reported using any advocacy or other victim services before or after the DVO. However, the number of times victims services was higher during the 6 months after the DVO was obtained [was] compared with the 6 months before.

Table 1 also shows time lost from work and other responsibilities. Overall, there was a decline in the number of women reporting missing time from work, but a rise in the number of women reporting lost time from other family and civic duties. Those who reported lost time from work after the DVO reported more hours of time lost. This trend holds for transportation and property losses as well. However, those who reported lost time from other family and civic duties reported fewer number of hours, on average, than those who lost time 6 months before the DVO.

For quality of life, there is a slight decrease in the number of women reporting any stress, depression, or anxiety from the abuse from the 6 months before to the 6 months after the DVO. Of those who reported any days of distress, there is a decline in the average number of days distress was experienced due to the abuse after the DVO was issued.

164

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 2

As Table 2 indicates, legal services increased from the 6 months before to the 6 months after the PO issuance. Victims’ use of the police declined greatly for the 6 months after the DVO was issued. There were also fewer misdemeanor arrests during the follow-up period than for the 6 months before the DVO was issued, but misdemeanor convictions were higher during the follow-up period.

Costs Before and After the DVO and Differences in Costs

Table 3 shows the overall average costs for each of the nine cost categories for the 6 months before and the 6 months after the DVO was issued along with the average difference. Total costs before the DVO were, on average, almost US$17,500 and approximately US$12,800 after the DVO for each participant. By far, the largest costs are associated with quality of life with these averaging approximately US$13,400 before the DVO and US$8,500 after the DVO.

Overall, there was a reduction in individual victim costs with an average of US$4,665 per victim. When looking at the cost category differences, there was a dramatic reduction in the costs associated with the quality

165

Download more at Learnclax.com

of life. Smaller reductions in costs were associated with lost property and transportation, mental health services, and family and civic responsibilities. Categories in which costs increased after the DVO include health services, criminal justice system costs, victim services, and legal fees.

Table 3

Note: CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Avoided Costs Relative to PO Costs

To estimate the avoided costs relative to PO costs, the costs of partner violence were estimated for a 1-year period assuming the same rate of costs incurred, both before and after the issue of the DVO. Specifically, the costs for a year before the DVO was issued and a year after the DVO was issued were assumed to be twice the costs for 6 months before and 6 months after for each of the cost categories. Relative costs can be expressed as the ratio of avoided costs to PO costs or reduction in costs per US$1.00 of PO costs. This is essentially producing a benefit-cost ratio, in which the benefits are the reductions in costs from before to after the issuance of the DVO, and the cost is the PO cost. A ratio exceeding one would indicate benefits (avoided costs) exceeding PO costs. For the entire sample, this measure is quite large—US$30.75 of avoided costs per US$1.00 of PO costs. Thus, for every US$1 spent on the PO intervention there is US$30.75 in avoided costs or costs that would have been expected based on the estimated costs of partner violence 6 months before the PO, if there had been no PO intervention.

Estimating the Statewide Impact

As a final measure of the impacts of DVOs on costs to victims of partner violence, the estimates of the differences in costs before and after the issuance of a DVO were extrapolated from the sample to the state population of victims with DVOs issued in a 1-year period. For this estimate, it is assumed that the same pattern of pre- and postorder characteristics would hold true throughout the state. Of course, this assumes a similar population of victims and perpetrators in addition to similar enforcement of DVO and costs. Thus,

166

Download more at Learnclax.com

these estimates should be interpreted with caution; however, the study design including small rural as well as urban populations mitigates this generalizability concern.

In FY 2007, there were 11,212 DVOs issued (Kentucky State Police, 2008). Although there is no way to know what proportion of these were female victims of male perpetrators, the number was adjusted by taking 15% of that population for male victims consistent with what U.S. Department of Justice estimated (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). This leaves an estimated 9,531 DVOs that were issued in 2007. When cost estimates are applied to the entire population of victims, the reduction in costs after the issuance of the DVO is extremely large—US$85.5 million.

Discussion

There are three major themes that emerged from these findings. First, consistent with prior research, violence and abuse takes a significant economic toll on a victim’s life, even within a very short time period as this study used. Second, relative to the toll that partner abuse takes on a victim’s life, the cost of a PO to the justice system and to taxpayers is small. Third, there are significant savings to society from civil POs in the form of avoided costs of partner violence to victims and to taxpayers in one small state.

Study results are consistent with other literature suggesting that partner violence exacts a significant toll on victims, and the harm from partner violence can be quantified in economic terms (Max et al., 2004; Miller et al., 1996). However, this study also suggests the cost of a PO to the justice system and to taxpayers, especially compared with the cost of partner violence, is relatively low. So, POs are not only effective in stopping or reducing violence for many women who have obtained one (Logan & Walker, 2009a, 2009b; Logan et al., 2009) but also cost-efficient. In fact, when the study estimates were extrapolated from the sample to the population of victims with POs, DVOs issued in 2007 saved taxpayers in one small state just more than US$85 million for a 1-year period. This is expected to be a conservative estimate of cost savings. The combined effect of positive improvements in terms of less violence after the order, coupled with the avoided costs, suggest that POs are both effective and efficient—a positive factor to consider during periods of strapped public financial resources.

When examining individual costs, it is important to note that there were a few costs that increased over time including health care and overall criminal justice system costs. Health care costs may have increased because women may have had more time or freedom to go to the doctor or to the dentist after the DVO was issued. However, there may have been injuries from the EPO incident that required ongoing treatment which would have increased costs. For criminal justice system costs, it is likely that some of the charges that were made in the 6 months before the DVO was issued including those associated with the EPO were turned into convictions in the follow-up period which may have slightly inflated costs in this category for the follow-up. At the same time, the number of victims talking to police and the number of misdemeanor charges dropped during the 6-month period after the PO was obtained. These particular cost categories need more investigation to better understand the patterns of criminal justice system use over time.

Furthermore, it is clear that the Quality of Life Index was the largest cost and showed the largest reductions

167

Download more at Learnclax.com

after the DVO was issued. This finding is of great importance to policy development, because many social and justice interventions may be costly with little net gain to society, but they are often done because they are seen as necessary or morally justifiable. In the case of POs, when quality of life costs are factored in, the net savings to victims and society go up substantially.

This study presents an opportunity to examine economic costs and benefits associated with partner violence and civil POs. However, this study also has a number of limitations. One was that the estimates of costs were primarily based on self-reported measures of service utilization and may represent overestimates or underestimates. It is also sometimes difficult for victims to attribute services or losses specifically to the violence and abuse. Although every attempt was made methodologically and by interviewers to focus participants on the most relevant costs, it is difficult to know whether some costs related to the abuse were forgotten whereas others that were reported as related to the abuse may have been incurred regardless of the abuse such as a preventive doctor visit.

It is also challenging to assign an accurate and justifiable cost to each service type, and the cost sources used may have under- or overestimated specific costs. Also, the cost of an arrest/charge and conviction is extremely problematic. Unfortunately, there has been no careful cost study done of arrests, charges, and convictions, so estimates of these costs were used from Aos, Miller, and Drake (2006), one of the more valid studies of these estimates.

Clearly, enforcement of the PO is a critical piece of the PO intervention—it is assumed that with a PO comes a stronger response from the criminal justice system to ongoing partner violence and abuse. However, there are problems linking charges and convictions specifically related to the PO. First, police and justice system costs were incurred before the DVO was issued and may have been incurred in the absence of a DVO. So, the police and justice system costs were included as costs before and after the DVO was issued rather than as a part of the PO intervention. Second, specific charges and convictions related to a DVO violation can vary widely, and the court data do not always provide careful linking of the two events. Thus, the official data may or may not be specifically noted as a domestic violence related charge (e.g., terroristic threatening, trespassing, harassing communications are common domestic violence related charges but can also be charged in other situations).

Another limitation is related to the estimate and value of the Quality of Life Index. Quantifying the impact of abuse and violence on the quality of life is very difficult, especially at the individual level. Some studies have used “willingness-to-pay” methodologies and others have used jury awards (Cohen, 2001) to estimate pain and suffering from crime. The estimate of quality of life in this study struck a balance between methods that yield a very high cost (jury awards) and methods that might yield lower costs. It is important to remember that individual variations in health and mental health consequences to violence are very great. Although this study accounted for individual variations, this method was not without limitations. The second step in the process, assigning a value to the Quality of Life Index, is also limited. The cost of a mental health visit was used which was basically about US$100 per day of distress. It is difficult to know whether this is a fair or accurate estimate of the impact on a woman’s quality of life due to constant abuse, harassment, and violence. This is another

168

Download more at Learnclax.com

area that needs more research.

As mentioned previously, results of the generalization of costs from this sample to the population of victims with DVOs in the whole state should be interpreted with some caution. This estimate was only for those who were issued a DVO in a 1-year period and does not consider savings or reduced costs for a longer follow-up period, or for those who had POs issued previously but that were in effect during that year.

There are several arguments that are often brought up to diminish the importance of the findings in this study. One argument often mentioned is that there was no control group, thus, assessing causal attribution is difficult. In evaluating POs, it is obviously not ethical to randomly assign or ask women to wait for a PO. Even if a study like that were to take place, fidelity to the group of assignment would likely be a problem. POs are also requested by victims who are ready to obtain them, so finding a group who do not request them for comparison purposes would also have limitations. A second argument is that it is difficult to only attribute change to the PO when victims access a variety of services to cope with the abuse. This is clearly true as indicated by the variety of services victims accessed the year prior to obtaining the PO. Also, it must be noted and considered in the cost estimates that victims use services both before and after the PO was obtained. However, in response to both arguments, it should be noted that there was a relatively drastic reduction of abuse and subsequent costs in a relatively short period of time. Thus, it is reasonable to attribute the drastic change, in large part, to the PO intervention. Furthermore, although not discussed in this article, other analysis of costs from this data show that costs reductions are relative to the level of ongoing violence. More specifically, there is a linear relationship of ongoing violence and costs. Half of the sample experienced no violations, and this group had the greatest reduction in costs associated with partner violence over time. Those who experienced ongoing violations (an average of 7) also had a substantial reduction in costs although not as much as the no-violation group. However, those who experienced ongoing violations and stalking (an average of 18 violations) had almost no reduction in costs (Logan et al., 2009; Logan, Walker, & Hoyt, 2011). This is due, in large part, to the limited change (or increase in use) before and after the PO in use of physical and mental health services and the use of justice system services for stalking victims.

This study advances knowledge about how POs serve victim interests for improved safety, and at the same time, serves society’s interests in cost efficient and effective interventions. For many, the fact that civil POs do provide relief from violence and abuse for many women is a welcome message, and one that has been noted in the research literature for several years (Logan, Shannon, et al., 2006). Within the described limitations, this study also provides a roadmap for examining avoided costs for other victim-safety policies. This study examined costs of partner violence and benefits associated with a justice system intervention at the individual level. This is an important distinction as many cost estimates are done at the aggregate level (Cohen, 1999, 2005). Furthermore, the inclusion of an index to examine changes to the quality of life adds a critical element to the understanding of how violence affects victims and society at large. Thus, one additional contribution of this study is that it provides a framework or foundation to begin to address more specific complexities associated with cost-benefit analyses of partner violence and the justice system interventions.

Discussion Questions

169

Download more at Learnclax.com

1. Which costs increased for victims in the 6 months after receiving a DVO? Why do you think these costs increased?

2. Which costs decreased for victims in the 6 months after receiving a DVO? Why do you think these costs decreased?

3. Given their findings, do you think that securing DVOs is the best practice for victims of IPV? 4. Are there any problems that you identified with the way that costs are estimated in this research? How

may the measurement influence the results?

Note

The research in this article was supported by the National Institute of Justice (Grant No. 2005WGBX0008). The statements expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the National Institute of Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice.

170

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison

construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Arias, I., & Corso, P. (2005). Average cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of the opposite gender: A comparison of men and women. Violence and Victims, 20, 379–391.

Bonomi, A., Anderson, M., Rivara, F., & Thompson, R. (2009). Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Services Research, 44, 1052–1067.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007, July). May 2007 state occupational employment and wage estimates: Kentucky. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ky.htm#b21–0000

Buzawa, C., & Buzawa, E. (2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carlson, M., Harris, S., & Holden, G. (1999). Protective orders and domestic violence: Risk factors for re- abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 205–226.

Cohen, M. (1999). The crime victim’s perspective in cost-benefit analysis: The importance of monetizing tangible and intangible crime costs. In B. Welsh, D. Farrington, & L. Sherman (Eds.), Costs and benefits of preventing crime (pp. 23–50). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Cohen, M. (2001). Measuring the costs and benefits of crime and justice. Criminal Justice 2000 (Vol. 4, pp. 263–315). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Cohen, M. (2005). The costs of crime and justice. New York: Routledge.

Cohen, M., & Miller, T. (1998). The cost of mental health care for victims of crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(1), 93–110.

Coker, A., Reeder, C., Fadden, M., & Smith, P. (2004). Physical partner violence and Medicaid utilization and expenditures. Public Health Reports, 119, 557–567.

Dolan, P., Loomes, G., Peasgood, T., & Tsuchiya, A. (2005). Estimating the intangible victim costs of

171

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ky.htm#b21%E2%80%930000

violent crime. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 958–956.

Harrell, A., & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 214–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, A., Dienemann, J., Schollenberger, J., Kub, J., O’Campo, P., Gielen, A., & Campbell, J. (2006). Long- term costs of intimate partner violence in a sample of female HMO enrollees. Women’s Health Issues, 76, 252–261.

Keilitz, S., Efkeman, H., & Hannaford, P. (1997). Civil protection orders: The benefits and limitations for victims of domestic violence (Publication No. R-201). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts Research.

Kentucky State Police. (2008). [DVOs issued statewide 2007]. Unpublished data.

Logan, T., Hoyt, W., & Leukefeld, C. (2001, March). Kentucky drug court outcome evaluation: Behavior, costs, and avoided costs to society. Retrieved from http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/7B303F19–260E– 4DAl–BF7B–EA1293601F90/0/KentuckyDrugCourtOutcomeEvaluation2002.pdf

Logan, T., Hoyt, W., McCollister, K., French, M., Leukefeld, C., & Minton, L. (2004). Economic evaluation of drug court: Methodology, results, and policy implications. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 381–396.

Logan, T., Shannon, L., Walker, R., & Faragher, T. (2006). Protective orders: Questions and conundrums. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7, 175–205.

Logan, T., & Walker, R. (2009a). Civil protective order effectiveness: Justice or just a piece of paper? Violence and Victims, 25, 332–348.

Logan, T., & Walker, R. (2009b). Civil protective order outcomes: Violations and perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 675–692.

Logan, T., Walker, R., & Hoyt, W. (2011). The victim and societal costs of stalking. Unpublished manuscript.

Logan, T., Walker, R., Hoyt, W., & Faragher, T. (2009). The Kentucky Civil Protective Order Study: A

172

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/7B303F19%E2%80%93260E%E2%80%934DAl%E2%80%93BF7B%E2%80%93EA1293601F90/0/KentuckyDrugCourtOutcomeEvaluation2002.pdf

rural and urban multiple perspective study of protective order violation consequences, responses, & costs (NCJ Publication No. 228350). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/grants/228350.pdf

Logan, T., Walker, R., Jordan, C., & Leukefeld, C. (2006). Women and victimization: Contributing factors, interventions, and implications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

Max, W., Rice, D., Finkelstein, E., Bardwell, R., & Leadbetter, S. (2004). The economic toll of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Violence and Victims, 19, 259–272.

McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Gist, J., Watson, K., Batten, E., Hall, I., & Smith, S. (2004). Protection orders and intimate partner violence: An 18-month study of 150 Black, Hispanic, and White women. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 613–618.

Miller, T., Cohen, M., & Wiersema, B. (1996). The extent and costs of crime victimization: A new look (NCJ 155281). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

Rennison, C., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence (NCJ–178247). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Rivara, F., Anderson, M., Fishman, P., Bonomi, A., Reid, R., Carrell, D., & Thompson, R. (2007). Healthcare utilization and costs for women with a history of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 32(2), 89–96.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature and consequences of intimate partner violence (NCJ 181867). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Ulrich, Y., Cain, K., Sugg, N., Rivara, F., Rubanowice, D., & Thompson, R. (2003). Medical care utilization patterns in women with diagnosed domestic violence. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 24(1), 9–15.

Wisner, C., Gilmer, T., Saltzman, L., & Zink, T. (1999). Intimate partner violence against women: Do victims cost health plans more? Journal of Family Practice, 48, 439–443.

173

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/grants/228350.pdf

174

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section IV Recurring Victimization

Another cost of victimization often not discussed or known is the real possibility that a person who is victimized once will be victimized again. In fact, persons who have been victimized are more likely to be victimized again than others who have not experienced any victimization. For example, a home that has been burgled is 4 times more likely to be burgled a second time than a home that has not experienced any burglary (Forrester, Chatterton, & Pease, 1988). At first, this reality probably does not make sense. After all, if you were victimized, you may be likely to implement crime reduction strategies. For example, if you had your car broken into because you had valuables in plain view, would you keep items in your car again? You probably are shaking your head no. So, why then are some people prone to being victimized not once but again and sometimes, again and again and again? Before we can address that question, let us first define terms related to recurring victimization and find out the extent to which people are victimized more than once.

175

Download more at Learnclax.com

Types of Recurring Victimization

To know the extent to which people experience more than one victimization, let us first identify what we mean by recurring victimization. As seen in Table 4.1, recurring victimization occurs when a person or place is victimized more than once by any type of victimization. Repeat victimization occurs when a person or place is victimized more than once by the same type of victimization. Revictimization is commonly referred to when a person is victimized more than once by any type of victimization but across a relatively wide span of time—such as from childhood to adulthood. Revictimization has been most widely studied in terms of childhood sexual abuse and sexual assault in adulthood. Polyvictimization is another form of recurring victimization. Polyvictimization is a term that is generally used for childhood-recurring victimization, when a person has experienced multiple forms of victimization (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007a, 2007b). For example, a child who is beaten by his or her parents and who experiences sexual abuse by a neighbor is a polyvictim.

Table 4.1

The last term to be familiar with is near-repeat victimization. A near-repeat victimization occurs when a place is victimized that is close by or near in proximity to a place that was previously victimized. Near repeats occur because of crime displacement within a relatively small geographical area after an initial victimization has occurred (Johnson et al., 2007). Near repeats are often studied in reference to burglary incidents. Consider a home that experiences a burglary. The homeowner decides to install an alarm and security lighting after the burglary, thus “hardening” the home from future burglary. Other homes without alarms, however, are not similarly protected. As a result, a burglar who returns to the location may find the first home an unattractive target and choose to burglarize a nearby home instead. In this way, near-repeat victimization happens to a

176

Download more at Learnclax.com

new place but is considered recurring victimization, because it is believed that the initial place that was victimized would have been targeted again had it not been for its target hardening.

177

Download more at Learnclax.com

Extent of Recurring Victimization

Now that we know what the terms mean, let’s find out how often people and places are victimized more than once. Although most people and households in a given year are not victimized at all, some experience more than one victimization. Large-scale national victimization surveys reveal that many people who are victimized are unfortunate enough to experience recurring victimization. A victimization survey similar to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the Crime in England and Wales data that you read about in Section II, showed that of those individuals who experienced any type of violent victimization, 23% experienced two or more incidents during the previous 12 months (Office for National Statistics, 2015). Forty-four percent of domestic violence victims and 19% of acquaintance violence victims experienced more than one incident (Home Office, 2011). Results from the NCVS also indicate that recurring victimization is occurring. For example, in 2015, about 1% of victimizations were series victimizations (Truman & Morgan, 2016). Findings from the General Social Survey on Victimization in Canada also highlight the occurrence of recurring victimization. Results from the 2004 survey show that 38% of victims experienced more than one incident (Perrault, Sauve, & Burns, 2010).

You may be wondering if all types of victimizations are likely to happen to victims more than once. Although some types are more likely to recur than others, research shows that victims of intimate partner violence, rape, assault, and property victimization are all at risk of experiencing a subsequent incident following their initial victimization. For example, between 1992 and 2004, about 15% of households surveyed in the NCVS experienced multiple family violence incidents involving the same victim (Goodlin & Dunn, 2010). Other research on intimate partner violence supports this finding. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (discussed in detail in Section VIII) show that female victims of intimate partner physical assault reported being assaulted on average 6.9 times by the same partner, whereas men reported experiencing an average 4.4 assaults by the same intimate partner (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000a).

Rape and other sexual victimizations also recur. Women in the National Violence Against Women Study who had been raped averaged 2.9 rapes during the previous 12 months. In addition, research on college students shows that they too are at risk of experiencing recurring sexual victimization. In fact, as noted by Daigle, Fisher, and Cullen (2008) in this section, 7% of college students in the National Women Sexual Victimization Study had experienced more than one sexual victimization incident during the previous academic year. There is a strong correlation between sexual victimization in childhood and sexual victimization later in life as well. Women who had experienced childhood sexual abuse were 6 times more likely to experience sexual abuse as adults by a current intimate partner than women without a childhood sexual abuse history (Desai, Arias, Thompson, & Basile, 2002). Others have estimated that childhood sexual abuse increases the risk of adult sexual victimization by 2 to 3 times (Fleming, Mullen, Sibthorpe, & Bammer, 1999; Wyatt, Guthrie, & Notgrass, 1992).

Assault and property victimizations are other types of victimizations that may recur. Findings from the National Youth Survey revealed that almost 60% of youth who had been assaulted were actually repeat victims (Lauritsen & Davis Quinet, 1995). Although not quite as prevalent, a proportion of burglary victims in the

178

Download more at Learnclax.com

British Crime Survey (BCS) were repeat victims—14% in 2004 (Nicholas, Povey, Walker, & Kershaw, 2005).

Another interesting feature of recurring victimization is that these recurring victims also experience a disproportionate share of all victimization events. For example, 6% of the respondents in the BCS over 10 years experienced 68% of all the thefts that occurred (Pease, 1998). Other research on property victimization also supports this finding. Research on university students in the East Midlands of England showed that 10% of the victims of property crime accounted for 56% of all the property crime incidents (Barberet, Fisher, & Taylor, 2004). Recurring violent crime victims also experience more than their “fair share” of victimization events. The 2% of respondents in Canada’s General Social Survey who were recurring violent victims had experienced 60% of all the violent victimizations (Perrault et al., 2010). Similarly, 3% of personal crime victims in the BCS accounted for 78% of all personal crime victimizations (Pease, 1998). Lauritsen and Davis Quinet’s (1995) research on youth found that 18% of them experienced almost 90% of assaults. Finally, sexual assault recurring victims also experience an inordinate amount of all sexual victimization incidents. In their study of college women, Daigle, Fisher, and Cullen (2008) found that 7% of college women experienced more than one sexual victimization incident during the previous academic year and that these women experienced almost three-fourths of all sexual victimizations that occurred.

179

Download more at Learnclax.com

Characteristics of Recurring Victimization

In addition to knowing to what extent recurring victimization occurs, two other features of recurring victimization have been examined—the time between recurring incidents and the type of incident a person is likely to experience after the initial victimization. The first characteristic is known as the time course of recurring victimization, whereas the latter is referred to as crime-switching patterns and victim proneness. We discuss each in turn.

Time Course of Recurring Victimization

Researchers have been interested in knowing how soon a victim is likely to experience a subsequent victimization. What this body of research has generally found is that recurring victimization is likely to happen quickly. When examining the time between incidents, researchers have found that, often, little time transpires between incidents. Specifically, research on residential burglary shows that a subsequent burglary is likely to happen within a month after the initial burglary incident. In fact, one study showed that half of the second residential burglaries in Canada that were reported to the police occurred within 7 days of the first burglary (Polvi, Looman, Humphries, & Pease, 1991). Research within the United States also confirms that the time immediately following an initial burglary is the key period of risk for households—25% of repeat burglary incidents occurred within a week and just more than half occurred within a month in a study that examined police call data in Tallahassee, Florida (M. B. Robinson, 1998).

This period of heightened risk holds true for domestic violence, sexual victimization, and near repeats. Of the households that had called the police for domestic violence once, 35% had done so again within 5 weeks (as cited by G. Farrell & Pease, 2006). For college women’s sexual victimization, one study found that most subsequent incidents happened within the same month or 1 month after the initial incident (Daigle, Fisher, & Cullen, 2008). Near repeats are most likely to occur within 2 weeks. Research on shootings in Philadelphia discovered that near repeats were likely to occur within 2 weeks and one city block after previous shootings (Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008). This elevated risk also occurs for near-repeat burglaries. After a burglary occurs, burglaries within 200 meters of the burgled home are at greatest risk of being burgled for a 2-week period (S. D. Johnson et al., 2007). What is also interesting is that across victimization types, this heightened risk period declines over time. For example, in the study of college women’s experiences of sexual victimization by Daigle, Fisher, and Cullen (2008) included in Reading 5, only 21% of rape incidents occurred within 3 months or more after the initial rape incident.

Others have studied the amount of time that transpires between successive incidents of victimization. Intimate partner violence has been investigated in this manner to see how long victims go without being victimized. In her study of repeat intimate partner violence, Mele (2009) found that, over time, the median number of days between successive incidents of intimate partner violence decreases. The median number of days between the first and second incident was 62, and the median number of days between the third and fourth incident was 37. This finding shows that the frequency of recurring intimate partner violence actually accelerates over time.

180

Download more at Learnclax.com

You may have noticed that the research on the time course of repeat victimization has also pinpointed a spatial element to this phenomenon. Indeed, there appears to be a clustering of incidents in that near-repeat incidents are likely to recur within a relatively small geographic space to an initial victimized target. In other words, the risk of a near repeat is not random but rather concentrated in particular areas within a city or neighborhood. This pattern holds true for near-repeat burglaries as well as gun violence (Wells, Wu, & Ye, 2011). Importantly, knowing that repeat victimization is likely to recur within a close proximity should aid in prevention efforts (S. D. Johnson & Bowers, 2004).

Crime-Switch Patterns and Victim Proneness

Do recurring victims always experience the same type of victimization when they experience more than one victimization? You may wonder what type of victimization victims are likely to experience if they experience more than one. Research examining this issue concludes that, most likely, when a person is victimized a subsequent time, he or she will experience the same type of victimization previously experienced (Reiss, 1980). For example, a theft victim is likely to experience another theft if victimized a second time. One of the first investigations that examined crime-switch (or proneness) patterns found evidence for victim proneness for victims of larceny, burglary, household larceny, and assault (Reiss, 1980). More recent research examining crime switching within types of sexual victimization also found evidence of victim proneness. For example, in a sample of sexual victimization incidents occurring among college women, rape incidents were likely to be followed by rape incidents, and sexual coercion incidents were likely to be followed by sexual coercion incidents (Daigle, Fisher, & Cullen, 2008).

181

Download more at Learnclax.com

Risk Factors for Recurring Victimization

We know that recurring victimization is likely to happen quickly and is likely to be of the same type of victimization, but what factors place a person or place at risk of experiencing recurring victimization? These risk factors can be individual-level risk factors or characteristics of the area or household.

Individual-Level Risk Factors

Let’s first consider those factors tied to the individual that place a person at risk of being victimized more than once. Demographic characteristics are examples of individual-level risk factors that may place a person at risk for recurring victimization. Indeed, the recurring victimization literature has found that males are more likely to be victims repeatedly than females (for all types of victimizations except sexual victimization) (Lauritsen & Davis Quinet, 1995; Mukherjee & Carcach, 1998). In addition, younger people are at a greater risk for recurring victimization than are older persons (Gabor & Mata, 2004; Lauritsen & Davis Quinet, 1995; Mukherjee & Carcach, 1998; Outlaw, Ruback, & Britt, 2002; Perrault et al., 2010; Tseloni, 2000; Wittebrood & Nieuwbeerta, 2000). Single (Lasley & Rosenbaum, 1988; Perrault et al., 2010), separated (Mukherjee & Carcach, 1998), and divorced (Tseloni, 2000) persons face greater risks of repeat victimization than others. Socioeconomic and employment status are two additional demographic characteristics that have been linked to recurring victimization. Low, as compared to high, socioeconomic status is a risk factor for personal recurring victimization (Lauritsen & Davis Quinet, 1995), although having high socioeconomic status actually places you at greater risk of repeat property victimization (Lauritsen & Davis Quinet, 1995; Outlaw et al., 2002). Unemployed persons are more likely than employed persons to be victimized more than once (Mukherjee & Carcach, 1998). Among persons diagnosed with a serious mental illness, Black persons remain at a greater risk of experiencing recurring victimization as compared with White persons once released from a psychiatric hospital (Policastro, Teasdale, & Daigle, 2016).

Demographics are not the only type of individual-level characteristics that may increase risk for recurring victimization. Think back to Section II and routine activities and lifestyles theories. Given what these theoretical perspectives say about victimization risk, what other factors may increase risk for recurring victimization? Research indicates that people who spend nights away from home more frequently face greater chances of being repeatedly victimized than those who spend less time away from home at night (Lasley & Rosenbaum, 1988; Tseloni, 2000). Using public transportation after 6:00 p.m. also places people at risk for repeat victimization (Mukherjee & Carcach, 1998). Other features of lifestyles theory that have been linked to repeat victimization are spending time with delinquent peers and involvement in delinquency (Lauritsen & Davis Quinet, 1995). Participating in dangerous activities has been linked to repeat victimization for adults (Outlaw et al., 2002), and frequency of offending has been linked to repeat victimization for people in the Netherlands (Wittebrood & Nieuwbeerta, 2000). Alcohol use has also been linked to recurring victimization. Specifically, the link between alcohol use and recurring victimization has been found for sexual victimization. Among adolescent women, using alcohol within the past year was predictive of sexual revictimization (Raghavan, Bogart, Elliott, Vestal, & Schuster, 2004). Others have found a link between alcohol use and

182

Download more at Learnclax.com

sexual revictimization among persons with a history of childhood sexual assault (Messman-Moore & Long, 2002; J. A. Siegel & Williams, 2003). When these factors are considered together, it is likely then that participating in a risky lifestyle or routine activities increases the likelihood that a person will experience more than one victimization.

Why might some people engage in these risky lifestyles or routine activities? Some research has linked recurring victimization to genetic factors that may be related to involvement in risky behaviors. Remember from Section II that genes in and of themselves do not cause criminal behavior, but rather they influence how a person responds to his or her environment. Genetic factors have been linked to victimization and, more recently, to recurring victimization. One recent study revealed that genetic factors account for 64% of the variance in repeat victimization (Beaver, Boutwell, Barnes, & Cooper, 2009). Another study on recurring victimization has attempted to identify what specific genetic factor is linked to recurring victimization risk. This study found that the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene distinguishes those individuals who have been victimized a single time from those who have been victimized more than once (Daigle, 2010). DRD4 codes for the production of dopamine receptors located in postsynaptic neurons (DeYoung et al., 2006). The 7- repeat allele produces less efficient receptors and has been linked to attention-related problems (Faraone, Doyle, Mick, & Biederman, 2001), novelty seeking (Benjamin et al., 1996; Ebstein et al., 1996), and conduct disorder (Rowe et al., 2001). DRD4 has also been linked to aggression (L. A. Schmidt, Fox, Rubin, Hu, & Hamer, 2002) and serious violence for males who also have the A1 allele of DRD2 (Beaver, Wright, DeLisi, Walsh, et al., 2007). Because of its impact on these characteristics, DRD4 may be related to recurring victimization because individuals may be less attuned to risk and likely to actually seek out novel or risky situations, perhaps even after being victimized.

The last set of individual-level risk factors that have been explored are psychological and cognitive factors. Much of this research has focused on the sexual revictimization of women. What this research has shown is that women who have been revictimized often experience high levels of psychological distress and post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and these levels are higher than in women who have experienced a single sexual victimization incident (Banyard, Williams, & Siegel, 2001; L. E. Gibson & Leitenberg, 2001; S. M. Murphy et al., 1988). PTSD may play an important role in revictimization in that it may inhibit women’s ability to quickly identify risk. In fact, one study found that PTSD reduced latency in recognizing risk in an audiotape of a date-rape situation among revictimized women (A. E. Wilson, Calhoun, & Bernat, 1999). Other research has shown a link between mental illness and recurring victimization. One recent study found that almost two-thirds of victims, all of whom had been diagnosed with a major mental disorder, experienced a recurring victimization during one of the follow-ups that occurred over the following year. Also found was that individuals who had been diagnosed with manic disorder or schizophrenia spectrum disorder had flat trajectories of recurring victimization over the study period, whereas those diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder or major depression had declining trajectories (Teasdale, Daigle, & Ballard, 2013).

Neighborhood- or Household-Level Risk Factors

The last set of risk factors for recurring victimization to consider are those tied to the neighborhood or

183

Download more at Learnclax.com

household. Neighborhoods that are dangerous place the residents who reside in them at risk for recurring victimization. That is, living in urban areas places people at risk for repeat victimization (Tseloni, 2000; Wittebrood & Nieuwbeerta, 2000), and living in areas with a high concentration of single-parent households puts people at risk for recurring victimization as well (Osborn, Ellingworth, Hope, & Trickett, 1996). A third characteristic, neighborhood disorder, has also been linked to recurring victimization. It has been linked to an increase in the number of assault, larceny, and vandalism victimizations experienced by youth (Lauritsen & Davis Quinet, 1995) and to repeat property victimizations experienced by adults (Outlaw et al., 2002). Why is it, though, that these factors would impact risk for recurring victimization? It is likely that urban areas are simply those areas where more crime happens; therefore, a person who lives there is at greater risk of experiencing recurring victimization. In addition, areas with lots of single-parent households may not have high levels of supervision or capable guardianship and may be indicative of an area’s socioeconomic status. Finally, areas that are highly disordered are likely low in socioeconomic status, low in capable guardianship, and beacons for motivated offenders.

Household characteristics such as living in a low-income household, having children, having four or more cars, participating in neighborhood watch, and having security devices installed in the home are related to an increase in the number of personal victimizations (Tseloni, 2000). However, higher incomes have been linked to recurring property victimization (see Perrault et al., 2010). In addition, work with the BCS has found that younger households, having two or more adults in the household, having more children in the household, and having more than one car increased the number of crime victimizations (Osborn & Tseloni, 1998). The shorter the time people have lived in a residence, the greater the likelihood of repeat victimization (Mukherjee & Carcach, 1998; Osborn & Tseloni, 1998). Renting a residence is also linked to recurring victimization (Mukherjee & Carcach, 1998; Osborn et al., 1996; Osborn & Tseloni, 1998; Perrault et al., 2010).

184

Download more at Learnclax.com

Theoretical Explanations of Recurring Victimization

We know, then, that recurring victimization is a reality many victims face, that it is likely to recur rather quickly if it does happen, and that the same type of victimization is likely to follow. But this picture of what recurring victimization looks like does not address why some people are victimized a single time and others find themselves victimized again.

There are two theoretical explanations that have been proffered to explain recurring victimization. The first is called risk heterogeneity or the “flag” explanation. This explanation of recurring victimization focuses on qualities or characteristics of the victim. Those qualities or characteristics that initially place a victim at risk will keep that person at risk of experiencing a subsequent victimization if unchanged (G. Farrell, Phillips, & Pease, 1995). For example, remember Polly? Is there any quality or characteristic that placed her at risk for being accosted by the two men in the alley? You are probably thinking that her walking home at night may have been a risk factor for her. This was discussed in Section II about lifestyles and routine activities. Polly quite likely was victimized, at least in part, because she was seen by the two men as being a vulnerable target. In this way, walking home at night by herself placed her at risk. If Polly walks home at night by herself on other nights, she is again at risk of being victimized. In this way, Polly’s walking home at night by herself placed her at risk of being victimized the first time, and it also places her at risk of being a victim in the future. What if she walked home because she could not afford a car? In other words, what if her social status or class placed her in a position that increased her vulnerability to crime victimization because she had to walk home at night rather than drive? This quality or characteristic would also fall into the explanation of risk heterogeneity. Also, remember other factors, discussed in Section II, that place individuals at risk of victimization more generally—living in disadvantaged neighborhoods and exposure to delinquent peers, for example. These factors, if left unchanged, will keep individuals at risk of subsequent victimization.

In contrast to the risk heterogeneity argument, the second theoretical explanation of recurring victimization is known as state dependence, event dependence, or the “boost” explanation. According to state dependence, it is not the qualities or characteristics of a victim that are important for recurring victimization so much as what happens during and after the victimization (G. Farrell et al., 1995). How the victim and the offender act and react to the victimization event will predict risk of becoming a recurrent victim. In this way, the victim and offender are learning key information that will impact the likelihood of subsequent victimizations. For example, a victim of rape or other sexual victimization who resists or uses self-protective actions is less likely than those who do not to be victimized again (Fisher et al., 2010b). This reduction in risk is likely due to the victim learning that she has agency and control over her life. Protecting herself may even serve to empower her so that in the future she is able to identify and avoid risk. Likewise, the offender is likely learning that she is not an “easy” target and that victimizing her will not pay off in the future. In both scenarios, the victim is less likely to find herself the target of an offender. It is not always clear if recurring victimization occurs because of a “boost” or “flag.” To investigate whether repeat burglary victimization can best be explained by boosts or flags, Brendan Lantz and R. Barry Ruback (2015) identified the offending networks of burglars to see their connections. Read about whether it is the same offender who targets the same house in this section’s

185

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading 6.

What if, after being victimized, a person changes his or her routine activities? Doing so probably makes sense to you—a person may become afraid of being victimized again, so he decides to stay in and not go out at night, or a person who was victimized on the subway decides to only take Uber at night. Recent research has explored what people do after being victimized. Surprisingly, at least one study has found that victims engage in greater, not lower, levels of risky behavior (going shopping and spending evenings away from home) after being victimized. What these researchers found, however, was that it was not in response to the victimization itself but related to preexisting features of the person (Bunch, Clay-Warner, & McMahon-Howard, 2014). One possible explanation for why a person may not change risky behaviors is rooted in low self-control. Turanovic and Pratt (2014) found that victims with low self-control are less likely than others to change their risky behaviors than those with higher levels. Other research has uncovered structural constraints that may limit individuals from changing their risky behaviors (Turanovic, Pratt, & Piquero, 2016).

In Polly’s case, it is difficult to know if she is likely to be victimized again based on a state dependence explanation. Because she tried to resist and she called the police, she certainly is learning that she has some control over her life. If doing so empowers her, she likely will be less attractive as a target to offenders, and she may be less likely to find herself in risky situations—such as walking home at night alone. To be clear, neither of these explanations should be used to blame the victim or place responsibility for the victimization on the victim. The offender is responsible for his or her actions, and blame should rest there. These explanations are, however, tools to help understand why some people are targeted over and over again.

Recent theoretical developments have been made in the recurring victimization literature to better understand the interplay between risk heterogeneity and state dependence. According to the compounding vulnerability argument, those with the highest levels of underlying propensity for victimization will be at risk for future victimization because of state dependence processes. For example, those with low income who are victimized may be more likely to show signs of depression following a victimization. These signs of depression are signals to offenders of vulnerability that then increase risk of future victimization. A different perspective is that of victimization salience. In this perspective, state dependence processes will be most salient among those with the lowest underlying risks. Because a target has initially low risk, it makes sense statistically that his or her risk has more potential than other targets to increase after an initial victimization. Because the target’s risk was initially low, the information an offender gains about the target (consider a burglar and the house he successfully stole from) is particularly useful and serves to increase risk for future victimization. Contrast this to a target whose risk is initially fairly high—the information gained may not be of much use or needed because the target cannot be much more at risk anyway. A third perspective is the negative state dependence perspective, which suggests that low-risk persons experience negative state dependence. In this way, a victimization event would serve to reduce victimization risk because a person would become more aware of his or her risk and would take steps to reduce the chances of being victimized in the future (see Clay-Warner, Bunch, & McMahon-Howard, 2016).

Ripped From the Headlines

186

Download more at Learnclax.com

Robert Keller went to the Smoke Land Outlet and Mini Mart on January 17, 2014, wearing dark clothing and a hood pulled over his head. Carrying a gun, he demanded money and threatened to kill the clerk who was working behind the counter. He was able to get away with money and left in a black vehicle. On January 24, the same cashier was working at the Smoke Land Outlet and Mini Mart when he noticed on video surveillance a black vehicle parked in the lot. The person who got out of the vehicle was dressed similar to the man who robbed him the previous week. When the man entered the store, the cashier confronted him, they struggled, and the man pulled a handgun out of his jacket before fleeing to his vehicle. The clerk chased the man into the parking lot, carrying his own weapon, and shot his gun twice, hitting the vehicle. The car then ran into a parked tow truck, whose driver gave the registration information of the car to a state trooper. After connecting Keller to both robberies, the police were able to search Keller’s residence and take him into custody. How do you think these incidents can be explained by the theories of recurring victimization?

Source: “State Police: Man Robbed Ogletown” (2014).

187

Download more at Learnclax.com

Consequences of Recurring Victimization

As you read about in Section III, victimization can take a toll on individuals. What happens to individuals, then, when they experience multiple victimization incidents? Do the consequences of victimization accumulate and cause even more destruction in victims’ lives? It is not clear that experiencing more than one victimization necessarily causes more negative outcomes for victims, but some research does suggest that experiencing more than one victimization can be particularly bad for victims (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007a, 2009; Ford, Elhai, Connor, & Frueh, 2010; Snyder, Fisher, Scherer, & Daigle, 2012). For example, Finkelhor, Ormord, and Turner (2009) found that youth who experience polyvictimization also experience significantly more distress than those youth who experience a single type of victimization. Polyvictimization has also been linked to an increase in depression, anxiety, and anger/depression among children ages 2 to 11 (Cyr, Clement, & Chamberland, 2014). Research using the National Violence Against Women Survey also found support for the link between experiencing more than one victimization and worse outcomes. The number of sexual assaults experienced during a woman’s lifetime was predictive of current depressive symptoms, current PTSD symptoms, poor health, and binge drinking (Casey & Nurius, 2005). In this way, experiencing more than one victimization may in fact carry negative outcomes for individuals that a single victimization experience does not.

188

Download more at Learnclax.com

Responses to Recurring Victimization

Inasmuch as recurring victimization is tied to specific risk factors that can be identified, prevention efforts can be undertaken that target these risk factors to reduce recurring victimization. Most of the recurring victimization efforts have targeted specific types of recurring victimization. The first type of recurring victimization that has been targeted for programs is repeat burglary. Recall that one of the explanations of repeat victimization is state dependence, which notes that offenders are learning valuable information when they victimize. In the case of burglary, a burglar learns how to get into a home, what valuables there are to steal, whether a home has an alarm, and whether it seems that the police were called and able to track the offender down. All this information makes the home more or less likely to be targeted again, either by the same burglar or by a fellow burglar to whom the offender has divulged this information. Consider research that examined repeat burglary incidents in Dallas and San Diego. In this research, it was discovered that in delayed repeat victimizations—those incidents that took place 30 days or more after the initial incident—the same items were taken more often than expected from the home (Clarke, Perkins, & Smith, 2001). This finding suggests that either the same offender is returning or a colleague of the offender knows that the home has stuff worth stealing. Although research has supported both the risk heterogeneity and the state dependence perspectives, you may be asking yourself, to what extent are houses or people victimized by the same perpetrator more than once? Although not all repeat victimization research has been able to address this question directly, some research on burglary shows that those burglaries that occur close in time and space are more likely to be perpetrated by the same offender than incidents that occur more distally in time and space (Bernasco, 2008). In addition, a substantial proportion of burglars admit to burglarizing the same home more than once. It should make sense, then, that houses that have been burglarized are ripe targets for burglary prevention.

A successful burglary prevention program was conducted in Kirkholt, England, with the development of the Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project in the late 1980s. The project was designed to target burglary victims; hence, one of its goals was to reduce repeat victimization. The program involved three components. First, homes in this area at the time had prepayment meters that were prime targets for burglary. Part of the program entailed having the utility company replace these meters with token-fed meters upon request. Second, “cocoon” watches were instituted between burglary victims and nearby neighbors. Victims and the six or seven houses or flats near them were encouraged to watch out for suspicious activity. Neighbors who joined the cocoon were given the same security upgrades given to burgled residents. Third, persons who had their homes burgled were given security upgrades. The program also had a second phase that targeted not just victims but also offenders and the community to reduce the motivation to offend. To do so, a credit union, work program, school-based crime prevention program, group meetings for offenders, and better information for probation officers and courts were implemented. Research on the effectiveness of the program revealed that burglary fell to 40% of its preimplementation rate after the first phase in the treatment area (Pease, 1992).

Although this program was effective at preventing repeat burglary in Kirkholt, programs implemented in the United States have generally been less successful. In fact, a review of burglary prevention programs in Dallas,

189

Download more at Learnclax.com

San Diego, and Baltimore found that burglary rates were not reduced in any of the cities. Instead, there was actually an increase in burglary rates in two of the cities compared to the control groups (Weisel, Clarke, & Stedman, 1999). It is instructive to examine what was done in these cities to attempt to reduce burglary as compared to what was done in Kirkholt. In these programs, prevention was attempted through the police providing information and advice to people who had experienced a burglary. This tactic was different than what was done in the Kirkholt program, where funds were used to assist individuals in making their homes more secure.

A second type of recurring victimization that has been targeted in prevention efforts is recurring sexual victimization. The majority of these prevention programs have been delivered to college students, probably because college students face high risks of sexual victimization and recurring victimization and because they are “easy” to target for interventions given that you can readily administer a program on a college campus. Evaluations of these programs have found that after attending them, women are more knowledgeable about sexual assault and show improvement in psychological functioning (Gidycz et al., 2001; Marx, Calhoun, Wilson, & Meyerson, 2001). But can these programs reduce the risk of experiencing subsequent sexual victimization incidents? Although evaluations of one intervention program (Hanson & Gidycz, 1993) and a revised version of it were found not to reduce sexual revictimization (Breitenbecher & Gidycz, 1998), the same intervention was found to be effective in a later program when expanded to two 2-hour sessions (Gidycz et al., 2001). In this evaluation, it was found that women receiving the intervention who had been moderately sexually victimized 2 months after the intervention were less likely to experience repeat sexual victimization at the 6-month follow-up than those who did not receive the intervention. This intervention was later expanded to include an emphasis on risk recognition skills and delivered to college students. It too was found to be effective at reducing risk of recurring victimization, with women in the program being less likely to report being raped than women in the control group (Marx et al., 2001). You may be wondering if prevention programs can be administered to noncollege students. As previously mentioned, they are not as widespread, but researchers are trying. The program used in the Marx study has been adapted and implemented for an urban sample, although an evaluation of the program did not find reductions in revictimization risk, knowledge about sexual assault, attributions for the sexual assault, self-efficacy, or improvement in psychological functioning for program participants (Davis, O’Sullivan, Guthrie, & Ross, 2006). Obviously, developing and implementing such programs for college students as well as community members at large continues to be a need for sexually victimized individuals.

The third type of recurring victimization that prevention programs have targeted is intimate partner violence. Most of these prevention programs have centered on reducing repeat offending rather than focusing on ways to intervene with victims. For example, you will read about the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment in Section VIII, which was an experiment designed to evaluate the effectiveness of arrest on recidivism for domestic violence offenders. In essence, it was an evaluation of the ability of arrest to prevent repeat domestic violence. Other programs such as domestic violence courts and anger management also target offenders in hopes of reducing their violent behavior toward their intimate partners. One type of program designed to assist victims is the second responder program. This program involves a team—usually a police officer and victim advocate—who follow up with a victim after an initial police response. During this follow-up, the team

190

Download more at Learnclax.com

provides the victim with information on services and legal options, such as obtaining a protective order, information about the cyclical nature of domestic violence, providing assistance in relocating or providing placement in a shelter, and aid in developing a safety plan. Some teams may also have as their goals to refer victims to social services and get them job training and public assistance to facilitate their independence. An evaluation of 10 studies on second responder programs, however, found that this intervention does not affect the likelihood that a victim suffers additional family violence incidents (Davis, Weisburd, & Taylor, 2008). When these interventions are considered together, it is evident that more work needs to be done to prevent recurring victimization. Doing so is especially important considering that preventing recurring victimization would result in the reduction of a large percentage of all victimizations because recurring victims experience a disproportionate share of all victimization incidents.

191

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

One startling reality is that many victims will not suffer just one victimization but will find themselves victimized again in the future—becoming recurring victims. These victims may be particularly hard hit by the costs of victimization as they accumulate over time. There are many terms associated with recurring victimization. Victims can be recurring victims, repeat victims, revictims, polyvictims, or near-repeat victims. A small percentage of people are victimized in any given period. A portion of these victims will experience more than one incident. What is notable is that these recurring victims experience a disproportionate share of all victimization incidents that occur. Research on recurring victimization shows that it is likely to recur fairly quickly and that a person is prone to experiencing the same type of victimization as previously experienced. There are many risk factors for recurring victimization. Individual-level risk factors include demographic characteristics, lifestyles/routine activities theory variables, and genetic factors. Household and neighborhood characteristics also distinguish single victims from recurring victims. Two explanations have been developed to explain why someone is victimized more than once: state dependence and risk heterogeneity. Although any victimization can be traumatizing for a victim, experiencing multiple incidents can be particularly harmful. Research suggests that experiencing more than one victimization may carry more serious consequences for victims than experiencing one incident or a single type of victimization. Prevention efforts should be targeted at the factors that cause recurring victimization. Most prevention programs have been directed at preventing repeat burglary, sexual victimization, and domestic violence with varying degrees of effectiveness.

192

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. How does routine activities/lifestyles theory fit within the state dependence and risk heterogeneity explanations of recurring victimization? How is it different?

2. Given the risk factors identified for recurring victimization, what should be targeted in intervention programs to reduce risk? Are these elements good targets for change? Why or why not?

3. Think of you or someone you know who has been a victim. Have you or that person been victimized more than once? If so, what type of recurring victim are you or is he or she? Why? What factors led to you or him or her becoming this type of recurring victim? What could have been done to prevent you or him or her from becoming a recurring victim?

4. Why do you think that recurring victimization is likely to happen so quickly when it does occur? Why does risk of recurring victimization decline over time from the last victimization incident?

193

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key Terms

compounding vulnerability 105 crime switching 100 delayed repeat victimization 106 near-repeat victimization 98 negative state dependence 105 polyvictimization 98 recurring victimization 98 repeat victimization 98 revictimization 98 risk heterogeneity (“flag” explanation) 104 state dependence or event dependence (“boost” explanation) 104 time course 100 victimization salience 105 victim proneness 100

194

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

The Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project: http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/71-Kirkholt.pdf

To read about the implementation and effects of the Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project, visit this website, which takes you to the report from the Home Office about the project.

Oxford Bibliography on Repeat Victimization: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo- 9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0119.xml

This website provides brief descriptions and links to online resources for repeat victimization. It covers historical overviews as well as current topics germane to the field of repeat victimization. It is a great overview resource for students as they get started on research projects.

“Violent Repeat Victimization: Prospects and Challenges for Research and Practice”: http://www.nij.gov/multimedia/presenter/presenter-lauritsen/pages/presenter-lauritsen-transcript.aspx

Go to this website to view a transcript as well as to view the presentation “Violent Repeat Victimization: Prospects and Challenges for Research and Practice” by Dr. Janet Lauritsen, given at the National Institute of Justice as part of its Research for the Real World series.

195

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/71-Kirkholt.pdf

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0119.xml

http://www.nij.gov/multimedia/presenter/presenter-lauritsen/pages/presenter-lauritsen-transcript.aspx

Reading /// 5

The recurrence of victimization of college women is the focus of Daigle, Fisher, and Cullen’s (2008) article. They use two data sources—the National College Women Sexual Victimization Study and the National College Women Violent Victimization Study —to provide estimates and descriptions of recurring and repeat victimization. Remember, repeat victimizations occur when a person, in this case a college woman, experiences more than one of the same type of victimization. The college women in both studies were asked in the spring of 1997 about victimization experiences that occurred since school began in the fall of 1996; thus, women answered questions about incidents that occurred, on average, over the course of 7 months.

The Violent and Sexual Victimization of College Women

Is Repeat Victimization a Problem?

Leah E. Daigle, Bonnie S. Fisher, and Francis T. Cullen

Although extensive research has documented that college women are at high risk of sexual assault, little is known about their repeat violent and sexual victimization or about how to prevent such incidents (see Gidycz, Coble, Lantham, & Layman, 1993; Gidycz, Hanson, & Layman, 1995). Studies have shown the impact of child and/or adolescent sexual abuse on revictimization in adulthood (see Breitenbecher, 2001), but these investigations have largely ignored repeat victimization within the single development period of early adulthood—a high-risk period for women. Furthermore, the likelihood of repeat rape and physical assault during adulthood by an intimate partner has been well documented (see Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005). This research, however, does not explicitly focus on different types of sexual (e.g., rape, coercion) and violent victimization (e.g., simple assault, robbery), potentially committed by different perpetrators, over a specific period in women’s lives. Davis, Combs-Lane, and Jackson (2002) suggested as well that to understand the prevention of victimization, researchers should broaden their investigations to assess multiple incidents of sexual and physical assault that may occur within developmental periods.

Using two national-level samples of more than 8,000 female students, the current study makes four contributions to understanding college women’s victimization. First, to address the existing gap in the extant literature, we assess the extent to which college women have experienced different types of repeat violent and sexual victimization during an academic year.

Second, we provide descriptive information on the time course for repeat sexual and violent victimization incidents. Studies of repeat property victimization have revealed that following an initial incident, subsequent victimization tends to recur quickly; there appears to be a delimited period of heightened risk for repeat victimization, which then decreases and eventually levels off (Farrell, 1995). We examine whether this time- course pattern generalizes to college women’s repeat violent or sexual victimization incidents and also explore the implications of the findings for more effective campus prevention programs. Furthermore, researchers have explored whether victims are prone to experience victimizations of the same type; however, these analyses have not been conducted on sexual victimization incidents for college women. We examine a crime-switch matrix to depict the sequential pattern of sexual victimization incidents.

196

Download more at Learnclax.com

Third, we explore the preincident, situational, and postincident characteristics of repeat incidents and compare them to the characteristics of single incidents. Prior research has suggested factors of potential relevance. Thus, two preincident factors associated with victimization risk for women are knowing the perpetrator (Fisher, Cullen, & Daigle, 2005) and alcohol consumption (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, & McAuslan, 2004). Studies have also identified high-risk situations for sexual assault such as being in isolated locations (e.g., one’s living quarters). The use of self-protective action is another situational factor that merits consideration; researchers have consistently reported that self-protective action can effectively thwart an attack (see Ullman, 1997).

Fourth, research has revealed that women who are sexually assaulted generally do not report their victimization to the police or campus officials but do tend to tell other people, especially friends (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003). Reporting, likely a key factor in preventing future victimization, has not been considered in the repeat victimization field. We also address this issue.

Source: Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2008). The violent and sexual victimization of college women: Is repeat victimization a problem? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1296–1313. Reprinted with permission.

Results

The Extent of Repeat Victimization

Table 1 shows the proportion of college women who were victimized, how many times they were victimized, and the proportion of incidents that happened to these women.

The results show that a small proportion of women experienced a large percentage of all types of violent and sexual incidents during the academic year. Less than 1% of the women who experienced two or more violent incidents experienced 27.7% of all the violent incidents. More than 7.0% of the women experienced nearly three fourths (72.41%) of all the sexual victimization incidents. Noteworthy is that the most sexually victimized, those 3.3% who experienced three or more sexual victimizations, experienced almost half (45.2%) of all sexual incidents.

Table 1

197

Download more at Learnclax.com

a. n = 4,432.

b. n = 256.

c. n = 4,446.

d. n = 1,318.

Table 2 reports the rates of repeat victimization broken down by types of violent and sexual victimization. As shown, a much larger proportion of women experienced more than one sexual incident compared to those who experienced more than one violent incident. Close to half of the women, 47.3%, had been sexually victimized more than once by either the same type of sexual victimization or more than one type of sexual victimization since school began in the fall. A significantly smaller yet still substantial proportion of women, 14.4%, were violently victimized more than once by either the same type of violence or more than one type of violence during this time (z = 8.653, p < .001, two-tailed).

Repeat Violent Victimization

Also shown in Table 2 nearly 14% of the simple assault victims were repeat assault victims, and they experienced close to 28% of all the simple assaults. None of the robbery or aggravated assault victims were repeat victims.

Repeat Sexual Victimization

Three noteworthy results are evident in Table 2 regarding repeat sexual victimization. First, repeat sexual victimization was common. From 22.8% (rape, sexual coercion, and unwanted sexual contact with force, respectively) to 25.5% (unwanted sexual contact without force) of the women were repeat victims. The percentage of repeat incidents was also striking. For example, nearly 22% of rapes were repeat rape incidents. Similarly, just more than 25% of sexual coercions and unwanted sexual contact with and without force were repeat incidents. Even more of the threats, 31.8%, were repeat incidents.

Table 2

198

Download more at Learnclax.com

Second, within each type of sexual victimization, a disproportionately small percentage of the victims experienced a large proportion of the incidents. For example, slightly less than one-fourth of the repeated rape victims experienced close to 40% of the rapes. Just more than 25% of the victims of unwanted sexual contact without force experienced 44.3% of these incidents. A quarter of the repeat threat victims experienced 47.5% of the threats.

Third, women were more likely to repeatedly experience any type of sexual victimization compared to any type of violence. A significantly larger percentage of women experienced repeated rape (22.8%), sexual coercion (23.2%), unwanted sexual contact with (22.6%) or without force (25.5%), or threats (25.0%) compared to those who experienced repeated simple assault (13.7%; p < .001 for all pairs of two-tailed proportion test comparisons).

The Nature of Repeat Victimization

The Time Course of Repeat Victimization

Figure 1 presents the time course of repeated simple assault and each type of sexual victimization.1 For each pair of repeated type of victimization, the difference in the number of months between the most recent incident and the next most recent incident was calculated. For example, if the most recent rape occurred in January and the rape before this one happened in November, then the number of months between the two incidents was 2 months. The number of months between paired repeat incidents that happened in the same month was 0.

199

Download more at Learnclax.com

Figure 1 Time Course of Sexual and Violent Incidents

As can be seen in Figure 1, there is an elevated risk of repeat violence or any type of repeat sexual victimization in a short time. In particular, this elevated risk is greatest within the same month. For example, 49% of the repeat rapes happened within the same month, as did 36% of the sexual coercions, 32% of the threats, 31% of physical assaults, and 28% of the unwanted sexual contacts with force.

The only exception to the increased risk of being victimized a second time within the same month was for unwanted sexual contact without force. The risk of unwanted sexual contact without force happening a second time was highest a month after the first incident. Of the repeat unwanted sexual contact without force incidents, 39% occurred in the following month, which is greater than the 25% that occurred within the same month.

As can also be seen in Figure 1, the risk of repeat sexual and violent victimization, with the exception of rape,2

steadily declined over the passage of time when looking at the proportion of repeat incidents having had occurred 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 months apart. For example, 28% of the repeated unwanted sexual contacts with force incidents happened within the same month, compared to 23% that happened within 1 month; 20% within 2 months; 10% within 3 and 4 months, respectively; 7% within 5 months; and 2% within 6 months. This pattern suggests that the risk of a second violent or sexual victimization decreased after the passage of 1 month.

Victimization Crime-Switch Patterns

To examine the sequential pattern of type of victimization,3 we constructed a crime-switch pattern matrix. For each victim of two or more incidents, we examined her sequentially paired incidents as to the type of victimization that composed the preceding–following incident pair (e.g., a rape followed by a rape, a sexual

coercion followed by a rape).4 As shown in Table 3, a matrix was constructed to reflect the total number of

200

Download more at Learnclax.com

each type of victimization pairs that had occurred.

There is a significant relationship between the type of victimization that occurs in the preceding incident and the type of victimization that occurs in the following incident (χ2 = 208.66, df = 16, p < .001). Comparing the percentages in the diagonal (proneness) to those in the off-diagonal (crime switching) illustrates that regardless of type of sexual victimization, victims were most likely to have experienced the same type of victimization in consecutive incidents. More than half of the sexual contacts without force, 52%, were followed by another sexual contact without force. Almost 30% of all rapes were followed by a rape. There is also considerable proneness to sexual contact with and without force and threats among victims reporting these experiences.

Characteristics of Single and Repeat Incidents

The comparison of the characteristics of single and repeat violent and sexual incidents is presented in Table 4. From this table, it can be seen that few incident characteristics differ across single and repeat incidents. For simple assault, rape, and sexual coercion, none of the preincident, situational, or postincident characteristics were significantly different.

Table 3

Note: Exp = expected.

Table 4

201

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Herkov and Biernat (1997). Reprinted with permission.

a. Single incident.

b. Repeat incident.

c. Respondents were asked about whether or not the perpetrator had been drinking at the time of the incident.

d. This information was not asked on the National College Women Violent Victimization survey.

*p < .10.

**p < .05. Two-tailed tests were performed for victim-offender relationship, living quarters. All of the other proportion tests were one-tailed tests.

Some significant differences did emerge, however, for unwanted sexual contact with force, unwanted sexual contact without force, and threats. For unwanted sexual contact without force, single incidents were less likely to be committed by an intimate partner (3.7% vs. 14.5%) and more likely to be committed by someone known to the victim than repeat incidents (63.4% vs. 49.2%).

Overall, in a significantly larger proportion of the single incidents, women used self-protective action while the incident was going on compared to the proportion of repeat incidents (84.8% vs. 73.5%; Z = 3.795, p < .001; results not presented in table). This result was also evident in the comparison of single incidents of rape, unwanted sexual contact with and without force incidents, and threats to repeat incidents. For example, in 86.1% of the single-incident rapes, the victim used protective action, compared to 74.2% of the repeat-rape incidents. Almost all (95.1%) of the single incidents of unwanted sexual contact with force involved the use of self-protective action by the victim, compared to 86.3% of the repeat incidents.

202

Download more at Learnclax.com

Repeat and single-rape incidents also differ in the types of self-protective action that were used. In single-rape incidents in which self-protective action was used, a larger proportion of women used two strategies—forceful physical and nonforceful verbal strategies, which have been shown to be effective in stopping the completion

of rape—compared to the proportion who did in the first incident of a repeat-rape episode.5 For example, in 71% of the single-incident rapes, women used forceful physical actions compared to only 14% of the repeat- rape incidents. Similarly, in 31% of the single incidents of unwanted sexual contact with force, women used nonforceful verbal actions compared to 26% of the repeat incidents (results not presented in table). Although the small number of cases limited meaningful statistical testing, the pattern indicates that women who experienced only a single rape or unwanted sexual contact with force incident did so because they used effective protective action to thwart the attack.

Discussion

Is Repeat Victimization a Problem?

Among victimized college women, repeat victimization is a common experience, striking from 14% to 26% of the women during an academic year. On any given campus, a relatively small proportion of women account for a disproportionate amount of the sexual and violent incidents. Furthermore, repeat victimization occurs quickly, with the risk of another victimization peaking in the time immediately following the initial victimization and then decreasing over time. The crime-switch analysis suggests that women are prone to experience repeat incidents of the same type of sexual victimization. Taken together, these findings are potentially disquieting. Repeat victimization does occur, is little understood, and is not systematically addressed by either sexual or violence prevention programs.

Why Does Repeat Victimization Occur?

At this exploratory stage, the cause of repeat victimization is unclear. However, three considerations merit attention. First, the incident-level risk factors for a single victimization are similar to the risk factors for repeat incidents. Our data indicate that the situational context in which victimizations occur—the victim-offender relationship, alcohol or drug consumption prior to the incident, location, and reporting—does not differ for single and repeat incidents. Those factors that increase the risk of victimization, if unchanged, will continue to be risk factors for subsequent incidents. Accordingly, prevention efforts targeting the situational factors that are related to single victimizations may also be effective at preventing repeat episodes.

Second, one factor that did differ in the current study is that self-protective action was used more frequently in single incidents than in repeat incidents. In light of the existing research, this finding suggests that women who use self-protective action and who use effective actions may be less likely to experience a repeat victimization. It is possible that the ability to use self-protective action (whether physical or verbal) might reflect an underlying personal vulnerability that continues to make these women “attractive targets” for predatory men (Ullman, 1997). Failing to use self-protective actions, however, may also have a psychological impact on women that makes them feel less capable of preventing victimization in the future. By contrast, studies have cited beneficial psychological consequences for women who took self-defense training compared

203

Download more at Learnclax.com

to those who did not. From this line of research, it is possible that the use of self-protective action is

empowering, particularly because its use is related to an offense being attempted rather than completed (see Fisher et al., 2007; Ullman, 1997). Thus, a woman who actively tries to prevent her victimization from continuing may be more able or willing to protect herself after an initial victimization. This is not meant to imply “victim blaming” because the responsibility lies with the offender and no woman should have to fight off an attacker. Scientifically, however, there may be individual differences in the ability to use self-protection and in the effects of doing so—or not doing so. This phenomenon cannot be ignored but merits careful study.

Third, and related, the initial victimization might affect some women differently—in ways that are unmeasured by our data. Some victimized women may experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, or self-blame that increases their vulnerability. Research on the effects of PTSD suggests that women who are sexually victimized may be less able to recognize risky situational cues and do not take protective action in such situations (Arata, 2000; Messman & Long, 2003). As a result, PTSD, depression, or self-blame may mediate the relationship between an initial sexual victimization and subsequent victimization (Ellis, Atkeson, & Calhoun, 1982). In this regard, future research is needed to collect individual-level and incident-level data longitudinally, including information on psychological factors that could make the risk of repeat victimization more likely to happen.

What Are the Policy Implications of Repeat Victimization?

The majority of efforts on college campuses to prevent victimization focus on either prevention of the initial incident or the response to an incident after it occurs (see Karjane, Fisher, & Cullen, 2005). Specifically, once an incident occurs, the focus is to have the person report the incident to campus police or authorities and to receive medical attention and/or psychological counseling. These are all valuable responses. A missing component to this response, however, may be the failure to take into account that violent and sexual victims are at an elected risk in the near future of a repeat victimization. There needs to be explicit attention given to preventing a repeat incident among college women. Yet, little published empirical work has provided direct secondary prevention programs for this high-risk group.

Reducing victimization risk immediately following an initial victimization is challenging because those who are victimized do not generally report their victimization to the police or campus officials (see Fisher et al., 2003). Research shows, however, that most college women do disclose their victimization to a friend, including a roommate (Fisher et al., 2003). This finding suggests that a key to reaching victims and preventing a repeat victimization might be through students whose friends are victimized. Our results show that reporting to someone other than the police or campus officials does not differ from single and repeat incidents, meaning that single and repeat incidents are likely to be disclosed. Perhaps one of the reasons telling someone does not, at least in our data, facilitate a reduction in risk of subsequent victimization could be because the people who are told are not trained or educated to provide the kind of assistance and advice that would prove preventative.

Research has also shown that one of the key elements for reducing opportunity for victimization is capable guardianship (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2003). In this regard, a friend of a victim, such as a roommate, could

204

Download more at Learnclax.com

potentially serve as a “capable guardian.” For college women, friends might furnish guardianship by not leaving the victim alone in risky social situations, by taking her to counseling or medical services to receive help with continuing vulnerabilities, and by encouraging her to learn about effective self-protective actions, such as enrolling in a self-defense course. This recommendation to foster social guardianship skills implies that colleges should conduct not only general victimization prevention seminars but also programs that specifically target the role that friends might play if someone they know is victimized. It will be important to raise consciousness that anyone who is victimized is at risk immediately thereafter for another victimization. Being a guardian is one possible way to assist a victim in reducing the chances of experiencing a repeat incident. Knowing whether or not this solution would be effective requires information beyond the scope of our cross-sectional research design.

Discussion Questions

1. Are you surprised to learn that repeat victimization is likely to recur quickly? What should colleges do to reduce the risk of repeat victimization, given that it happens so quickly?

2. What is a capable guardian? How do the findings relate to routine activities and lifestyles theories? 3. What other factors in addition to the ones used by Daigle, Fisher, and Cullen may place a college

woman at risk of being repeatedly sexually victimized? 4. College women are very unlikely to be violently victimized (nonsexually victimized). Why are college

women so much more likely to be sexually victimized than victimized in other ways? 5. Use the concepts of risk heterogeneity and state dependence to explain why some college women are

repeat victims.

205

Download more at Learnclax.com

Notes

1. Note that robbery and aggravated assault are not included in the time-course results because there were no repeat victims for either type of crime.

2. This exception needs to be qualified, as a small number of repeat rapes happened within 1 month of each other (n = 4), 2 months (n = 6), 3 months (n = 6), and 5 months (n = 1). None happened within 4 or 6 months of each other. Sixteen repeat rapes happened within the same month.

3. There were only five pairs of repeat violent victimization; hence, we did not include them in the crime- switch analysis.

4. A woman who experienced two incidents has one pair. For example, her rape in September is the preceding incident (incident #1) to her rape in October, which is the following incident (incident #2). These incidents constitute one pair. A woman who experienced three incidents has two pairs. For example, her rape in November is the preceding incident (incident #1) to her sexual coercion in December, which is the following incident (incident #2). These incidents comprise one pair. Her sexual coercion in December is the preceding incident (incident #2) to her unwanted sexual contact with force in April, which is the following incident (incident #3). These incidents comprise the second pair (Reiss, 1980).

5. Forceful physical actions included (a) attacked offender with a gun or knife; (b) attacked offender with other weapon;(c) used mace, pepper spray, or similar devices; and (d) used physical contact such as hitting, punching, or kicking against the offender (see Ullman, 1997). Nonforceful verbal action refers to the victim having used nonaggressive verbal responses with the offender. Nonforceful verbal action included three behaviors: (a) tried to reason or negotiate with the offender, (b) pleaded with or begged offender to stop, and (c) told the offender to stop. This measure is similar to the nonforceful verbal resistance measure utilized by Ullman (1997), who included the behaviors of pleading, talking, reasoning, begging, and crying.

206

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Sexual assault and alcohol

consumption: What do we know about relationship and what types of research are still needed? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 273–303.

Arata, C. M. (2000). From child victim to adult victim: A model for predicting sexual assault. Child Maltreatment, 5, 28–38.

Breitenbecher, K. H. (2001). Sexual revictimization among women: A review of the literature focusing on empirical investigations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 415–432.

Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner violence: A cross- disciplinary critical review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 141–175.

Davis, J. J., Combs-Lane, A. M., & Jackson, T. L. (2002). Risky behaviors associated with interpersonal victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 611–629.

Ellis, E., Atkeson, B., & Calhoun, K. (1982). An examination of differences between multiple and single- incident victims of sexual assault. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 221–224.

Farrell, G. (1995). Preventing repeat victimization. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 19, pp. 469–534). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Daigle, L. E. (2005). The discovery of acquaintance rape: The salience of methodological innovation and rigor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 493–500.

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Santana, S. (2007). Assessing the efficacy of the protective action sexual victimization completion nexus. Violence and Victims, 22, 18–42.

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6–38.

Gidycz, C. A., Coble, K., Latham, L., & Layman, M. J. (1993). Sexual assault experience in adulthood and prior victimization experiences: A prospective analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 151–168.

207

Download more at Learnclax.com

Gidycz, C. A., Hanson, K., & Layman, M. J. (1995). A prospective analysis of the relationships among sexual assault experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 5–29.

Karjane, H., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Sexual assault on campus: What colleges and universities are doing about it. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Messman, T. L., & Long, P. J. (2003). The role of childhood sexual abuse sequelae in the sexual revictimization of women: An empirical and theoretical reformulation. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 537–571.

Reiss, A. J. (1980). Victim proneness in repeat victimization by type of crime. In S. E. Fienberg & A. J. Reiss (Eds.), Indicators of crime and criminal justice: Quantitative studies (pp. 41–53). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2003). College students’ lifestyles and self-protective behaviors: Further considerations of the guardianship concept in routine activity theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 302–327.

Ullman, S. E. (1997). Review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 177–204.

208

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 6

Repeat burglary victimization is one type of recurring victimization that has been widely studied. Researchers have hypothesized that repeat victimizations are perpetrated by the same offender, but little empirical data exist to support this claim. Brendan Lantz and Barry Ruback (2015) used data from a county in Pennsylvania and investigated the networks of burglary offenders to identify the extent to which burglary offenses are connected to each other through the same offender and/or through offenders within the same network.

A Networked Boost

Burglary Co-Offending and Repeat Victimization Using a Network Approach

Brendan Lantz and R. Barry Ruback

The stereotypical crime involves a single offender, a single victim, and a single instance. One such crime for which this assumption is not generally true is burglary, which is often committed by more than one person across many victims, and for any one victim often more than once. Burglary victimization, however, is not uniformly distributed across the population; a small proportion of victims experience significantly more victimization than can be attributed to chance. Most households are never victimized, but some households experience repeated burglaries. The current study examines burglary offending to better understand the mechanisms that explain when a location will experience repeat victimizations.

The risk of victimization is increased immediately following an initial offense, returning to a baseline pre- victimization level over a period of a couple of weeks or months (Farrell & Pease, 1993; S. D. Johnson, Bowers, & Hirschfield, 1997; Pease, 1998). Many authors have suggested that this time course of repeat victimization indicates that the same offender is responsible for both offenses (Farrell, Phillips, & Pease, 1995; Polvi, Looman, Humphries, & Pease, 1991). Research has generally supported this notion; the same offender often commits multiple crimes against a particular location (or nearby locations) within a short time period (Bernasco, 2008; D. Johnson, 2013; S. D. Johnson, Summers, & Pease, 2009).

It is also possible, however, that the same offender may be involved in repeat offenses, without actually committing them. Information about offense locations may flow through offender networks (Polvi et al., 1991). Research examining the role of the offender network in repeat victimization and burglary location choice, however, is limited. Failing to consider other offenders with whom the primary offender is connected may lead us to underestimate the involvement of offenders in repeat victimization, while consequently ignoring the role of the co-offender altogether.

In the current study, repeat burglary victimization is examined as it relates to a co-offending network. First, we examine repeat victimization across a sample of burglary offenses to identify characteristics of the location, offender, and offense that are associated with the likelihood of repeat victimization. Next, we test whether locations that experience multiple victimizations are more likely to be victimized by the same offender than by different offenders. Finally, we examine the role of the network and whether locations are more likely to be victimized by co-offenders of the primary offender than by unconnected offenders. To test these hypotheses,

209

Download more at Learnclax.com

we study the burglary location choices of 270 offenders across a 10-year time period, comprising 442 offenses between 2001 and 2010. Roughly a quarter (N =111) of these offenses occur at locations victimized more than once.

Source: Lantz, B., & Ruback, R. B. (2015). A networked boost: Burglary co-offending and repeat victimization using a network approach. Crime & Delinquency, 1–25. Reprinted with permission.

Repeat Victimization

Past victimization is the best predictor of future victimization (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garafalo, 1978; Pease, 1998). This is especially true for burglary offenses (e.g., Bowers, Hirschfield, & Johnson, 1998; S. D. Johnson et al., 1997), as a small number of burglary victims are subject to a significantly higher amount of victimization than could be attributed to chance (Farrell & Pease, 2001). This repeat victimization is not simply a random process. In the case of burglary, some locations are particularly “victimization prone,” experiencing significantly more victimization than would be expected by chance. The important question, therefore, is to ask why these locations are victimized repeatedly.

Same-Offender Involvement

The risk of repeat victimization is particularly high in the period immediately following the initial victimization, decreasing as time passes. Polvi and colleagues (1991), for example, found a heightened risk of re-victimization for the first 6 months after a primary victimization, and that 50% of re-victimizations occurred within 7 days of the initial offense (see also Bowers & Johnson, 2005; S. D. Johnson & Bowers, 2004; Robinson, 1998; Sagovsky & Johnson, 2007; Short, D’Orsonga, Brantingham, & Tita, 2009, for similar decay patterns). Scholars have argued that these patterns support the hypothesis that the same offender(s) are involved in both offenses. That is, a “boost” occurs because the same offender returns to the location again.

Most studies that find support for the boost hypothesis, however, have supported same-offender involvement indirectly. Ratcliffe and McCullagh (1998), for example, found similarity in the point and means of entry between two offenses occurring close to each other temporally, compared with those offenses with a greater period of time between them. Similarly, Sagovsky and Johnson (2007) find that repeat offenses occurring at the same location are significantly more likely to occur at the same time of day than random pairs of burglaries.

But, as Bernasco (2008) points out, “The same phenomena could alternatively signal short-term changes or cyclical patterns in the routine activities of the burglary victims” (p. 413). It is possible, for example, that repeat victimization offenses occur at the same time of day because the victim is more likely to leave the household empty at certain times of the day due to their structured activities. In such a case, each offense might involve different offenders.

Direct support for same-offender involvement in repeat victimization, however, is limited. One such source of direct support is through interviews with burglars themselves (e.g., Ericsson, 1995; Palmer, Holmes, & Hollin, 2002). Ashton and colleagues (1998) found that the same offender returns to a location as burglars

210

Download more at Learnclax.com

anticipate the replacement of goods. If the first offense was committed with relative ease, the offender can wait until insurance money replaces the items to return to the location. The offender may also return to a target for items that could not be taken the first time or after finding a buyer for items that were left behind because they could not have been sold the first time (see also Hearnden & Magill, 2004). Another source of direct support comes from the linking of detected, or cleared, burglary cases. Using a sample of detected residential burglaries in The Hague from 1996 to 2004, Bernasco (2008) finds that pairs of burglaries occurring close in space and time are more likely to involve the same offenders than pairs that are not close in space and time. S. D. Johnson and colleagues (2009) and D. Johnson (2013) found similar results, using a sample of burglary and motor vehicle theft offenders.

A Networked Boost

Although research has suggested strong support for same-offender involvement, another yet unexplored mechanism behind the boost hypothesis may lie in the offender network. Offense risk may come not only from the initial offender(s) but also from the social network of the primary offender(s). Prior research has suggested that burglary victimization appears to be contagious (S. D. Johnson et al., 2007; Townsley, Homel, & Chaseling, 2003); we suggest that the attraction to certain locations may also be contagious, as information about possible targets flows through social networks.

In this way, repeat burglary offenses may involve the same offender(s), without the same exact offenders actually being involved in the commission of the subsequent offense. The offender(s) who commit the first offense may provide information to other offenders to whom they are connected, who commit the second offense. Similarly, one or two primary offenders may recruit new co-offenders to return to the offense location with them, in which case the repeat victimization involves a mix of offenders who committed the original offense and new offenders. Although research on this topic is severely limited, there is some support for a networked boost. Hearnden and Magill (2004) interviewed 80 burglars, and found that, although many burglars were wary of secondhand information, 18 of the offenders had committed an offense based on information provided by an offender who had previously burgled the location.

Polvi and colleagues (1991) first posited the prospect of a networked boost in an analysis of the time course of repeat victimization in a Canadian sample, suggesting that “the first offenders tell others of the house and what it still offers. The others then burgle it” (p. 414). Although they suggest this possibility, the authors acknowledge that it is difficult to distinguish connected offenders from same-offender involvement in repeat burglary offenses. Empirical research has neglected this possibility to this point; network data and recently developed statistical techniques now make the testing of this hypothesis possible.

Current Study

The current study uses a network approach to examine repeat victimization offenses. Using a sample of 442 burglary offenses committed in Centre County, PA, over a 10-year period, three possible mechanisms of repeat victimization are tested: (a) The characteristics of a location make the target attractive to all motivated offenders, (b) the same offender returns to the offense location multiple times, or (c) the primary offender

211

Download more at Learnclax.com

notifies other offenders to whom he is tied about the target.

Following prior research, we present three hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Repeat victimization offenses occur as a result of the flag hypothesis. That is, characteristics of the target increase the likelihood of subsequent victimization. Hypothesis 2: Repeat victimization offenses occur as a result of the boost hypothesis and the involvement of the same offender. Hypothesis 3: Repeat victimization offenses occur as a result of the boost hypothesis and the spread of information through the co-offender network.

Polvi and colleagues (1991) suggested that one possible mechanism of repeat victimization is that information is passed between burglars. If the boost mechanism is operating in the current sample, offense locations that experience multiple victimizations should be burglarized either by (a) the same offender or by (b) offenders who are connected to the primary offender. Moving beyond the primary offender, the boost hypothesis may be supported if a large number of offenses are due to offenders from the same subgroups, as offense locations may pass through network subgroups, leading to subsequent victimization of targets.

A Social Network Approach

The use of the social network perspective allows a new lens through which to examine repeat victimization. The network approach presents two unique advantages. First, offense locations can be examined as unique nodes and directly linked through the offenders who have participated in the offenses. Offenses linked through the same offender(s) can be examined directly. Second, the offenders can be directly linked to other offenders, allowing for the consideration of connected co-offenders in the processes of repeat victimization.

In this way, several questions can be answered. First, is the flag hypothesis or the boost hypothesis a stronger predictor of repeat victimization? If the flag hypothesis is supported, locations should not be linked through the same offender, and offenses should involve offenders who are not connected. If the boost hypothesis is supported, offenses should be linked through the same offenders. Second, are ties between co-offenders associated with repeat victimization offenses? If information is passing through group processes, multiple victimization connections should be particularly pronounced within subgroups.

Most research on repeat victimization and same-offender involvement finds support for the phenomena through linking modus operandi (e.g., entry methods) or through spatial and temporal patterns (Bowers & Johnson, 2004; Ewart & Oatley, 2003; Ewart, Oatley, & Burn, 2005; Ratcliffe & McCullagh, 1998; Sagovsky & Johnson, 2007). The use of temporal patterns, however, provides only indirect support for same-offender involvement. The current approach is built upon direct ties between offenders, offenses, and offender– offenses.

Method

In the current study, we use a new approach to the study of repeat victimization offenses: the affiliation

212

Download more at Learnclax.com

network. In this two-mode network approach, offenders are connected to offenses, and offenses are connected to other offenses through offenders. The one-mode offense network then represents a network of offenses in which offenses are connected to one another if the same offender(s) are involved.

Data

The current sample was collected from a complete list of burglary and criminal trespassing conviction offenses in Centre County, PA, from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2010, encompassing 10 years of burglaries. The initial list of burglary offenses was generated using data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS). Each case file was then reviewed in person using arrest and court proceeding data available in the case management database used by the Probation Department. Then, each case file and the associated court proceedings were examined in depth for basic demographic information. Finally, the police report filed by the arresting officer was read closely. Each police report listed a primary offender and a primary offense location. Many police reports, however, also listed (a) additional offense locations and/or (b) additional offenders.

Each offender was then given a unique ID number. An offender was considered the same and given the same offender ID number if he or she appeared in multiple reports with the same name, was actively offending in the same time period, and could be matched on other information (e.g., date of birth). There were eight offenders who were listed as unidentified co-offenders in the dockets. Unidentified co-offenders were all given unique ID numbers. In total, 375 dockets were reviewed, and the final data set consists of 270 burglars and 442 burglary offenses. The data on each of the 442 burglary offenses consisted of (a) a unique offense ID number, (b) offender ID numbers for each unique offender involved, (c) a street address indicating the

location of the offense, and (d) a date and time window1 for each offense.

Two-mode data structure

The data matrix is two-mode. The rows and columns of the matrix refer to different sets of nodes: offenders and offenses. The data, therefore, consist of two types of nodes in which there are connections only between the two types of nodes (i.e., offender–offense) and never within the node types (i.e., offender–offender, offense–offense). For the analyses, the two-mode matrix is converted into two separate one-mode matrices: offender–offender and offense–offense. Both matrices are used in the current study. In the case of the offender relationships, for example, we construct a one-mode matrix in which both rows and columns represent burglary offenders, and the cell value represents the number of offenses in which both offenders were involved (i.e., co-offended). We also construct a one-mode matrix of events, in which the rows and columns represent offenses.

Dependent Measures

The primary variable of interest in the study is repeat victimization. At the offense level, an offense is coded as a repeat victimization (1 = yes) when more than one offense was committed at that address on separate occasions within the 10-year time period. The measure includes both completed and attempted burglary offenses. Thus, the measure reflects victimization over a 10-year period, allowing for the examination of both

213

Download more at Learnclax.com

the boost hypothesis (over a short time period) and the flag hypothesis (reflecting more time-stable processes).

The other primary-dependent variables represent offender involvement: same-offender involvement and same-co-offender group involvement. Same-offender involvement is a dichotomous measure indicating whether an offense involved the same offender(s) (1 = yes) as the primary offense. Same-group involvement is also a dichotomous measure indicating whether the offender(s) who committed the multiple victimizations were members of the same subgroup (1 = yes). If the repeat offense involved a mix of the original offender(s) and new offender(s), the offense is coded as same group, as this offense would represent a networked boost (the involvement of new offenders through network ties).

Independent and Control Measures

We include two primary independent measures: group membership and the sequenced offense number. Group membership is a dichotomous indicator of whether the offender(s) who committed the offense were connected to other burglary offenders (i.e., the member of a group; 1 = yes). The sequenced offense is the number of the offense, ordered by date and time of offense, within each location and is used to predict same- offender and same-group involvement. Each increasing observation, therefore, represents an additional victimization at a location.

Several control measures are also included. At the offense level, co-offending is coded as a dichotomous variable indicating whether an offense involved more than one offender (1 = yes). The offense location is coded as either residential or commercial; a dummy variable for residential (1 = yes) is included in the analyses. Not all burglaries involved theft; those involving theft, however, are the most likely to be motivated by the mechanisms examined here (e.g., characteristics of the house, such as perceived affluence). For this reason, whether or not a theft occurred is coded as a dichotomous measure (1 = yes). Similarly, a dichotomous measure was created to indicate whether the offender knew the victim (if, for example, an offender burglarized her mother’s house). This variable was coded as 1 when the police report indicated a possible relationship between the offender and the victim. These relationships included familial relationships, friendships and acquaintanceships, and employer-employee relationships, among others. Finally, the type of offense was coded into four different measures: (a) home with a person present (considered a violent crime under state law), (b) home with no person present, (c) not a home, and (d) trespass offense. Trespass offenses were included at the recommendation of criminal justice officials who advised that many burglary offenses are pled down to trespass in the county. Trespass is included as the reference category.

We also include a measure of the number of days between victimizations occurring within locations, referred to as days between offenses. Past research on repeat victimization has included all incidents of victimization in the modeling approach (e.g., Lauritsen & Davis-Quinet, 1995; Wittebrood & Nieuwbeerta, 2000) regardless of the time between offenses. S. D. Johnson (2008), however, argues that this approach may be problematic, potentially biasing the interpretation of the results in favor of the flag hypothesis, stating that

a boost mechanism, as currently conceived, would be assumed to operate only in the short term (for say 1 or 2 months) and hence, would be likely to have a much reduced (if any) impact upon victimization risk

214

Download more at Learnclax.com

over intervals such as 6 months or more. (p. 218)

The measure of days between offenses is included to reduce this possibility of bias.

Several measures at the co-offender group level are also included. Group density is the proportion of ties between group members out of all possible ties and is included as a measure of the cohesiveness of the co- offender group. The measure ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating a completely interconnected group. The mean age of the group is included, as younger offenders generally commit a greater number of offenses. The date of birth of each unique offender is subtracted from the date of the offense to code age at offense. For each offender, the age at first offense is used. Race is coded into dummy variables (1 = yes) for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander. A percent White/non-White measure is used in the analysis, with Hispanic offenders coded as non-White offenders. The gender composition measure is also included at the subgroup level, capturing the proportion of offenders who are male.

The total number of offenses per offender is coded to capture the relative experience of the offender. The mean number of offenses committed by offenders within the offender group is then included to control for the relative experience of the group. Similarly, the prior record score (PRS) of each offender is collected from the CS data. The PRS of an offender indicates the past sentencing history (as of the first sampled offense) of the offender in the state. The mean PRS of the group is included as a control measure. Finally, a dummy variable is created to control for whether an offender was living with another offender (1 = yes). Offenders are coded as living together when their address was the same within the same calendar year. These relationships are then used to construct an aggregate measure, indicating the proportion of offenders who lived together within each co-offending group.

Analytic Procedure

The analysis proceeds in five steps. First, offender descriptive statistics are presented and disaggregated by single offense and repeat offense locations. These descriptive measures are presented both for all offenses and for only those locations victimized more than once. Second, multiple victimization offenses are examined in a multi-level framework using HLM 6.0. To examine differences between solo and co-offenders, and to control for issues of dependence, offenders are nested within offender groups. As the first outcome is dichotomous (multiple victimization), a Bernoulli distribution with a logit-link function is used (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Third, we examine the nature of ties between repeat victimization offenses visually. The sample is parsed down to only locations victimized more than once. The offenses at these locations are then examined separately for solo offenders and offenders who belong to co-offending groups. Ties between offense nodes represent the involvement of the same offender or the same co-offending group (when indicated).

Finally, we use hierarchical linear modeling to examine repeat victimization offenses. Specifically, offenses (Level 1) are nested within locations (Level 2). Offenses are sequenced according to date and time, and locations are identified by street address. If repeat victimization patterns are explained by the flagging of a

215

Download more at Learnclax.com

target, then the victimization should be explained by time-stable characteristics of the location, both measured and unmeasured. [Two separate analyses are conducted.] A Bernoulli distribution with the logit-link function is used for both dichotomous outcomes.

Results

The current sample is composed of 270 burglary offenders and 442 burglary offenses. The offender sample is 92% male and 89% White, with a mean age of 24.4 (SD = 6.6). Across the entire sample, 45% of the offenders always offended alone, while the remaining 55% co-offended at least once. Of all offenses, 111 (25%) were

committed at locations that experienced multiple victimizations.2 S. D. Johnson (2008) found that 19.1% of burglary offenses involved those who experienced more than one offense; the similarity in rate lends confidence to the validity of the current sample. The time course of these offenses is presented in Figure 1. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Sagovsky & Johnson, 2007), the majority of repeat offenses (64%) occurred within 1 week after the primary incident. Furthermore, the risk of victimization decreases sharply over time.

Figure 1 The Time Course of Repeat Burglar Victimization (in weeks)

Descriptively, there is considerable evidence for differential network involvement in the sample of repeat offenses compared with the full sample. Co-offending is much more common for repeat offenses; 69% of offenses at these locations involved a co-offender. A mean of 2.3 offenders (SD = 1.3). were involved in each repeat offense, and the mean age is reduced to 22.4 (SD = 4.8). Finally, 26% of the repeat offenses involve the same exact offender(s), while an additional 44% of the offenses involve some combination of original offenders and new offenders from the same co-offending group.

Next, we examine differences between repeat offenses and other offenses. Table 1 presents the likelihood of an offense involving a location that was victimized more than once. First, and consistent with Hypothesis 1, we

216

Download more at Learnclax.com

see some evidence for location characteristics being related to repeat victimization. Incidents involving locations that experience multiple victimizations are more likely to be commercial locations, compared with residential. That is, net of controls, residential locations are 83% less likely to be victimized more than once, compared with commercial locations. Commercial locations may offer a stronger incentive for returning to the offense location, as goods are probably more valuable and are replaced more quickly.

Second, Polvi and colleagues (1991) suggest that information may be passed between burglars. If true for the current sample, offense locations that experience multiple victimizations should be more likely to be burglarized by subgroups. The results in Table 1 demonstrate that offenses committed by offenders with co- offender ties are much more likely to involve repeat victimization than offenses committed by unconnected offenders (i.e., isolates). Specifically, belonging to a group increases the likelihood of an offense being a multiple victimization by a factor of 18.47 (p < .05). Co-offender ties are strongly related to the likelihood of repeat victimization offending. The remainder of the analyses attempt to disentangle same-offender involvement from the involvement of additional co-offending network offenders.

Next, social network visualization techniques are used to further examine the multiple victimization offenses. All offenses that did not occur at a location experiencing more than one victimization are excluded. The nodes, therefore, represent offenses at locations that were victimized more than once. Next, the offenses are divided into two different subsamples: (a) offenses involving unconnected offenders (i.e., solo offenders) and (b) offenses involving offenders belonging to a co-offender group. Figure 2 presents the multiple victimization offense network for solo offenders only. Nodes represent offenses, while a tie between nodes represents the involvement of the same offender.

Table 1

217

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: Bernoulli distribution. N = 442 offenses nested within 172 subgroups. PRS = prior record score.

218

Download more at Learnclax.com

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Consistent with the multivariate analyses, few multiple victimization offenses are attributable to the involvement of the same solo offender. Of the 25 offenses committed by solo offenders, seven offenses are unconnected. That is, seven offenses were committed by unconnected offenders. This result is suggestive of some sort of “flagging” at these locations. Most of the solo offenses, however, involve the same offender returning to the location to re-offend. Six solo offenders committed offenses at the same locations twice. The remaining six offenses were committed by one offender, who victimized three separate locations twice each.

Next, an additional affiliation network was created: co-offender group-by-offense. The affiliation matrix, therefore, was a binary two-mode matrix in which a co-offender group ID row was denoted with a 1 in the column indicating any offense for which an offender from the subgroup was involved, and a 0 for all offenses that the co-offender group was not involved in. Then the two-mode matrix was divided into two one-mode matrices: co-offender groups tied through offenses and offenses tied through co-offender groups. The ties between multiple victimization offenses are then examined with relational ties representing the involvement of the same co-offender group. For each graph, a connection between nodes signifies that offender(s) from the same group were involved in both of the connected offenses. Figure 3 presents multiple victimization offenses for offenders who are members of a co-offender group. Ties represent the involvement in the offense by members of the same co-offender group.

Consistent with Table 1, more multiple victimization offenses are committed by offenders belonging to a co- offender group than by offenders who are not. In addition, most of these offenses are committed by members from the same co-offender groups. Only seven offenses remain unconnected by group members.

The results demonstrate that most of the repeat victimization offenses are being committed by offenders from within the same co-offender group. Furthermore, most offenses at the same location are also committed by offenders from within the same co-offender group. To further support this, a Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) correlation between the same co-offender group matrix and a same-location matrix was significant and positive (.252, p < .001). The correlation between same location ties and same subgroup ties suggests the importance of group processes in the phenomenon of multiple victimization.

Finally, using within-location multi-level analyses, we examine the likelihood of same-offender(s) and same co-offender group involvement in Table 2. Same-offender involvement and same-group involvement are presented in Models 1 and 2, respectively.

Model 1 predicts the likelihood of same-offender involvement in repeat victimization offenses. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the results demonstrate that, net of controls, as the number of offenses committed at a location increases, the offense is significantly more likely to involve the same offender who committed the primary offense (p < .001). This effect is positive and strong, consistent with past research suggesting that the same offender is likely to be involved in repeat victimization offenses. It is worth noting that the number of offenders involved in the offense is also associated with same-offender involvement (p < .05). As more offenders are involved in an offense, it becomes increasingly likely that the same offender(s) are responsible for

219

Download more at Learnclax.com

the repeat offense.

Figure 2 Multiple Victimization Offenses, for Solo Offenders Only

Figure 3 Multiple Victimization Offenses: Same Subgroup Ties, for Groups Only

Model 2 predicts the likelihood of same co-offender group involvement when the offenses do not involve all the same offender(s). To that end, all offenses involving the same offenders are excluded. Recall that offenses involving a mix of original offender(s) and new co-offender(s) remain in the model. In this way, we ask the question, “When repeat victimization offenses are not committed by the same offender(s), are the offenses likely to be committed by offender(s) connected to the primary offender?” This result offers support for Hypothesis 3; as the number of offenses committed at a location increases, the offending is significantly more

220

Download more at Learnclax.com

likely to involve connected co-offenders (p < .001) when it does not involve the original offender group.

“Returners” Compared With “Non-Returners”

Additional analyses were conducted examining differences between those offenders who returned to a location at least once (N = 26) and those offenders who committed multiple offenses but never returned to the same location (N = 61). For ease, these offenders are referred to as “returners” and “non-returners,” respectively. Among offenders who committed multiple offenses, returners (a) committed more total offenses (M = 14.6) compared with non-returners (M = 3.7 p < .001), (b) were connected to more co-offenders (M = 2.6) than non-returners (M = 1.3 p < .05), and (c) were active over a greater number of sample days (M = 3.6) than non- returners (M = 1.8 p < .001). Taken together, these results demonstrate returners to be generally more experienced in the 10-year sample period. More experienced offenders may be more likely to return to locations they are familiar with and at which they have successfully offended before. Moreover, returners are generally more connected to other co-offenders, suggesting additional access to resources, including knowledge, to successfully completed offenses.

Table 2

Note: N = 111 offenses nested within 51 locations. DBT = days between. a. Bernoulli distribution.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Limitations

The current analysis is limited in at least two respects. One disadvantage of the current study is the use of official data, which include only offenses reported to the police. The use of official records to examine repeat victimization suffers from an additional limitation because at least two offenses must be reported to the police in order for the offense to be classified as a repeat offense. It is also possible, however, that those offenders who commit repeat offenses may be the easiest to detect. It should be noted that, although the list of offenses was populated using conviction records, the final sample does not consist of only convicted offenses. Additional offenses were included in the sample if they were listed in the police reports or other supporting

221

Download more at Learnclax.com

court documents, even if the offender was not convicted of these offenses.

Second, the processes of repeat victimization may differ across locales. It is possible, for example, that co- offender networks may be differentially related to repeat offending in a different context. Networks, for example, may be denser in more urban environments. Conversely, it may be easier to identify targets without information from other offenders in a different context. That said, drawing offenders from one county offers the distinct advantage of reducing the effects of idiosyncratic differences between county criminal justice policies, while also reducing the impact of county community factors on outcome measures. These community factors and criminal justice policies should be relatively uniform across this sample.

Discussion

The present study is, as far as we know, the first to examine repeat victimization offenses from a quantitative network perspective. In particular, we attempt to explore the mechanisms behind repeat victimization. Polvi and colleagues (1991) posited that repeat burglary victimization may occur for one of three reasons: (a) A house represents a particularly attractive target, drawing burglars who are unconnected to each other only because of the features of the target, (b) the same offender returns to the residence, or (c) an offender tells other burglary offenders within the network of the target.

Although early research on repeat victimization generally framed the flag and boost hypotheses as opposing (see, for example, Nelson, 1980; Sparks, 1981), more recent research has found that both mechanisms may be operating (e.g., S. D. Johnson, 2008; Pitcher & Johnson, 2011). Consistent with this more recent research, we find support for both the flag and boost hypotheses for repeat victimization. That is, the mechanisms do not appear to operate exclusively.

First, there are a few offenses that are not linked, either through offenders or co-offender groups, in the current data set. Such disconnected multiple victimization offenses suggest that the offenses were committed by different offenders who were not connected through co-offending network ties. This pattern provides some partial support for the flag hypothesis. Recall that the flag hypothesis posits that repeat victimization occurs because there is something attractive about a target that leads (i.e., flags) offenders to choose the location to commit an offense. There are several locations in the current sample that appear to be generally attractive to all motivated offenders. The flag hypothesis does not appear to be the dominant factor driving multiple victimizations, however. Indeed, this mechanism would explain only a very small proportion of the 111 multiple victimizations in the current data set.

Second, in connection with the boost hypothesis, we suggested that the offender may return to the same offense location multiple times. The solo offenders in Figure 2 are unlikely to be obtaining information from other burglary offenders given that they were not connected to any other offenders during the 10-year period. Instead, the solo offenders are most likely returning to offense locations multiple times, providing support for same-offender involvement in repeat victimization offenses.

The within-location analyses of repeat victimization offenses are also consistent with this hypothesis. Repeat

222

Download more at Learnclax.com

victimization offenses often involve the same offender(s) returning to the location to commit another offense. This finding is consistent with past research suggesting that the offender who commits the initial burglary may subsequently consider the residence a more suitable target for future offending (Bernasco, 2008). As Ashton and colleagues (1998) find, the offender(s) now know the layout of the target and are aware of the items contained within the target. Offenders may then re-victimize the same location rather than face the increased risk that is associated with locating a new, less-certain target. Repeat victimization, therefore, may represent a rational decision process of the primary offender. After a successful primary offense, the offender can return to the location with increased certainty of the risk involved (e.g., type of security, lighting, presence of a dog), as well as increased certainty of the reward (e.g., different types of valuable goods contained within the residence).

Supplementary analyses suggested that returning offenders commit more total offenses over more days than non-returning offenders. Furthermore, these offenders were connected to more co-offenders than non- returning offenders. These results suggest that the returning offenders may represent more experienced, or professionalized, offenders than their counterparts. Although almost all of the offenders in the current sample were caught, the returners may be more adept at increasing certainty and minimizing risk. They may avoid apprehension for longer, and this may represent an increased willingness to return to known targets with a known risk and reward.

Earlier analyses with this data set indicate that, independent of age, burglars with more experience are more likely to offend by themselves (Lantz & Ruback, unpublished). Taken with our finding here that when there is a burglary of a previously victimized location by a different set of burglars, the offense is likely to be committed by co-offenders, these results suggest that co-offending at a previously victimized location is a way for novices to learn the trade. Such a socialization process makes sense, given that the co-offending apprentices are learning the profession by offending at places where they are likely to have success.

Past research has provided significant support for the hypothesis that repeat burglary offenses often involve the same offender, but the current study is among the first to be able to directly link offenders to offenses (e.g., Bernasco, 2008). Most prior research has relied upon linkage analysis, by which offenses are considered linked if they occur close to each other in space and time. The linkage approach suffers from two distinct disadvantages, however. First, repeat victimization offenses not occurring close to each other temporally (often within a few weeks) will not always be linked, even if they are committed by the same offender. Second, there is no direct measure of same-offender involvement. Instead, offenses are deemed more likely to be committed by the same person when they occur close to each other in a short amount of time. As the current study demonstrates, however, this pattern may also suggest co-offender network involvement.

The current study expands the literature on repeat victimization by explicitly considering these co-offender networks. The results suggest that the same offender is often involved in repeat offenses but that when it is not the same exact offender(s), co-offenders to whom the primary offender is connected are likely to be involved in repeat burglary offenses.

Three findings point to the importance of considering the influence of network dynamics on repeat

223

Download more at Learnclax.com

victimization. First, the likelihood that a location will be victimized multiple times is greatly increased when the offender(s) belong to a co-offender network. Ties to other burglary offenders increase the likelihood of repeat offending. Second, the visual analysis of repeat burglary offenses demonstrates that most of these offenses committed by offender(s) with network ties are committed by offender(s) within the same co- offending groups, suggesting that group communication processes are important. Information may spread within subgroups to other motivated offenders who then victimize the location. Finally, within-location analyses of repeat offenses reveal that when repeat offenses are not committed by the same offender(s), they are likely to involve offenders from the same co-offending group as the primary offender.

It is this third explanation—the role of networked co-offenders in repeat burglary victimization—that is the unique contribution of the present research. As far as we know, this is the first empirical demonstration that repeat victimization offenses can involve connected offenders. There are at least two mechanisms whereby connected co-offenders may commit further offending against a location, without directly being involved in the primary offense. First, and most likely, the current results probably represent the flow of information of some sort. Most obviously, the offender may notify others in his network of the target. They may either return with these new offenders, or the new offenders may victimize the locations absent the primary offender entirely. It is also possible, however, that both the network and the repeat offending are the result of the geographic clustering of offenders. Many offenders live in high crime neighborhoods, and the distance to crime is generally very short for burglary offenders (Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999). Although we consider the first explanation more likely, it is possible that neighborhoods structure both co-offender ties and crime location choice. Future research should test these two possible mechanisms.

Taken together, these results strongly support the boost hypothesis of repeat victimization. The boost hypothesis posits that something about the original offense increases the likelihood of additional victimization. In many cases, the original offender returns to the location to commit subsequent offenses. The current analysis, however, builds on the boost hypothesis of repeat victimization by demonstrating that the “boost” also comes from within co-offender groups. That is, repeat victimization is demonstrated to be largely a within-offender and within-group process. Repeat victimization offenses are more likely to be committed by offenders from within the same group than by offenders from different co-offender groups, or by solo offenders.

Heightened victimization risk after an initial burglary offense is an established fact in criminology (e.g., Farrell & Pease, 1993; Polvi et al., 1991). The causes and correlates of repeat victimization, however, are less understood. Repeat victimization accounts for a disproportionate amount of all burglaries, and identifying the correlates of repeat victimization could have important policy implications. If the process leading to repeat victimization is better understood, law enforcement agencies could better focus efforts on those locations most at risk of subsequent victimization. If these high-risk locations can be targeted successfully, the successful apprehension of the offenders most likely to be involved in repeat offenses should also increase, reducing burglary rates overall. The results here suggest that law enforcement should consider associates of offender(s) known to have offended in the area previously, a realistic goal given that most of the groups we observed were relatively small (M = 1.6, SD = 1.3).

224

Download more at Learnclax.com

The current study demonstrates the advantages of using a network approach to examine patterns in offenses. The distinct advantage of the affiliation matrix approach is the ability to examine the network from multiple perspectives. In the current study, the two-mode matrix offers an innovative method for analyzing repeat burglary victimization offenses, an approach that may be useful for studying other offenses as well.

Discussion Questions

1. What are the policy implications from the main findings of the article? 2. Do the findings support a boost or flag explanation of recurring victimization? Explain. 3. Do you think these findings can help inform researchers and criminal justice professionals about other

types of recurring victimization? Why or why not? 4. Would you expect the findings to change if the authors had used survey data or other forms of data

besides official records? Why or why not?

225

Download more at Learnclax.com

Notes

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

1. Victims are not always aware of the exact date and time of a burglary offense (if, for example, the victims were on vacation for several days). For this reason, police record the date and time within a range reflecting the earliest and latest possible date and time that the event could have occurred.

2. Only one offense location experienced more than three repeated offenses. This location was included in all visualizations but excluded from the hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses as an outlier as the additional waves provided by this location would represent only one observation.

226

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Ashton, J., Brown, I., Senior, B., & Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimization: Offender accounts. International

Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention, 3, 269–279.

Bernasco, W. (2008). Them again? Same-offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 411–431.

Bowers, K. J., Hirschfield, A., & Johnson, S. D. (1998). Victimisation revisited: A case study of non- residential repeat burglary on Merseyside. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 429–452.

Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Who commits near repeats? A test of the boost explanation. Western Criminology Review, 5, 12–24.

Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). Domestic burglary repeats and space-time clusters: The dimensions of risk. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 67–92.

Ericsson, U. (1995). Straight from the horse’s mouth. Forensic Update, 43, 23–25.

Ewart, B. W., & Oatley, G. C. (2003). Applying the concept of revictimization: Using burglars’ behavior to predict houses at risk of future victimization. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 5, 69–84.

Ewart, B. W., Oatley, G. C., & Burn, K. (2005). Matching crimes using burglars’ modus operandi: A test of three models. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 5, 69–84.

Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1993). Once bitten, twice bitten: Repeat victimisation and its implications for crime prevention. London: Crown Copyright.

Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2001). Repeat victimization. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Farrell, G., Phillips, C., & Pease, K. (1995). Like taking candy: Why does repeat victimization occur? British Journal of Criminology, 35, 384–399.

Hearnden, I., & Magill, C. (2004). Decision-making by house burglars: Offenders’ perspectives. London: Home Office Research.

227

Download more at Learnclax.com

Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garafalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Johnson, D. (2013). The space/time behavior of dwelling burglars: Finding near repeat patterns in serial offender data. Applied Geography, 41, 139–146.

Johnson, S. D. (2008). Repeat burglary victimization: A tale of two theories. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 215–240.

Johnson, S. D., Bernasco, W., Bowers, K. J., Elffers, H., Ratcliffe, J., Rengert, G., & Townsley, M. (2007). Space-time patterns of risk: A cross national assessment of residential burglary victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 201–219.

Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004). The stability of space-time clusters of burglary. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 55–65.

Johnson, S. D., Bowers, K. J., & Hirschfield, A. (1997). New insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of repeat victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 37, 224–241.

Johnson, S. D., Summers, L., & Pease, K. (2009). Offender as forager? A direct test of the boost account of victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 181–200.

Lantz, B., & Ruback, R. B. (Unpublished). The budding burglar: The relationship between co-offending, age, and experience among burglary offenders. [Unpublished manuscript].

Lauritsen, J. L., & Davis-Quinet, K. F. (1995). Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 143–166.

Nelson, J. (1980). Multiple victimization in American cities: A statistical analysis of rare events. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 870–891.

Palmer, E. J., Holmes, A., & Hollin, C. R. (2002). Investigating burglars’ decisions: Factors influencing target choice, method of entry, reasons for offending, repeat victimisation of a property and victim awareness. Security Journal, 15, 7–18.

Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimization: Taking stock. London: Home Office Research.

228

Download more at Learnclax.com

Pitcher, A. B., & Johnson, S. D. (2011). Exploring theories of victimization using a mathematical model of burglary. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 48, 83–108.

Polvi, N., Looman, T., Humphries, C., & Pease, K. (1991). The time course of repeat burglary victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 411–414.

Ratcliffe, J. H., & McCullagh, M. J. (1998). Identifying repeat victimization with GIS. British Journal of Criminology, 3, 651–662.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rengert, G. F., Piquero, A. R., & Jones, P. R. (1999). Distance decay reexamined. Criminology, 37, 427–446.

Robinson, M. B. (1998). Burglary revictimization: The time period of heightened risk. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 78–87.

Sagovsky, A., & Johnson, S. D. (2007). When does repeat burglary victimization occur? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 1–26.

Short, M. B., D’Orsonga, M. R., Brantingham, P. J., & Tita, G. E. (2009). Measuring and modeling repeat and near-repeat burglary effects. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 325–339.

Sparks, R. (1981). Multiple victimization: Evidence, theory, and future research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 762–778.

Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2003). Infections burglaries: A test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 615–633.

Wittebrood, K., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000). Criminal victimization during one’s life course: The effects of previous victimization and patterns of routine activities. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 37, 91–122.

229

Download more at Learnclax.com

230

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section V Victims’ Rights and Remedies

Let’s revisit Polly now that it has been a few days since she was victimized. Remember that Polly is a young undergraduate student who was accosted by two offenders as she was walking home. Her school bag was stolen, and she was assaulted. Unlike most victims, Polly called the police to report what had happened to her. She had to have 10 stitches at the hospital. Clearly a victim, she was still questioned by the police about why she was walking home alone at night. She very well may have felt victimized by this questioning—and we know that she had a hard time emotionally after being victimized. She found it hard to get out of bed, and she missed several classes—she even altered her schedule and stopped going out alone at night.

In Section III, you considered the toll this victimization took on Polly—on her emotions and her lifestyle, and of course financially. As you know, Polly is not alone in suffering these costs. Many victims experience real costs and consequences. But how do victims deal with these outcomes? Are they left to recover on their own, or are services available to them? Whose responsibility is it to help crime victims? What happens when crime victims do not get the help they need and deserve? All these questions are addressed in this section, and as you will see, a variety of rights and resources are available to crime victims today.

231

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victims’ Rights

Once essentially ignored by the criminal justice system and the law, victims are now granted a range of rights. These rights have been given to victims through legislation and, in 32 states, through victims’ rights amendments to state constitutions (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2009). The first such law that guaranteed victims’ rights and protections was passed in Wisconsin in 1979; now, every state has at least some form of victims’ rights legislation (Davis & Mulford, 2008). Despite each state having laws that afford victims’ rights, they differ in whom the law applies to, when the rights begin, what rights victims have, and how the rights can be enforced. Common to all these state laws, however, is the goal of victims’ rights—to enhance victim privacy, protection, and participation (Garvin, 2010).

Common Victims’ Rights Given by State

Slightly less than half of U.S. states give all victims rights (Howley & Dorris, 2007). In all states, the right to compensation, notification of rights, notification of court appearances, and ability to submit victim impact statements before sentencing are granted to at least some victim classes (Deess, 1999). Other common rights given to victims in the majority of states are the right to restitution, to be treated with dignity and respect, to attend court and sentencing hearings, and to consult with court personnel before plea bargains are offered or defendants released from custody (Davis & Mulford, 2008). Other rights extended to victims are the right to protection and the right to a speedy trial. Importantly, some states explicitly protect victims’ jobs while they exercise their right to participate in the criminal justice system. These protections may include having the prosecutor intervene with the employer on behalf of the victim or prohibiting employers from penalizing or firing a victim for taking time from work to participate (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2009). Some of these rights are discussed in more detail next, and others are discussed in separate parts of this section. To see an example of what rights a state grants, see Box 5.1 on victims’ rights in Virginia.

Notification

The right to notification allows victims to stay apprised of events in their cases. Notification is important for victims at various steps in the criminal justice process. In some jurisdictions, victims have the right to be notified when their offender is arrested and released from custody after arrest, such as on bail. Victims may also have the right to be notified about the time and place of court proceedings and any changes made to originally scheduled proceedings. Notification may also be given if the offender has a parole hearing and when the offender is released from custody at the end of a criminal sanction. Notification responsibilities may be placed on law enforcement, the prosecutor, and the correctional system. To make notification more systematic and reliable, some jurisdictions use automated notification systems to update victims (through letters or phone calls) about changes in their cases. These systems are often also set up so that a victim can call to receive updates. Some states have also moved to allowing e-mail updates for notification purposes. For instance, Maryland recently passed such legislation in 2014 (Basu, 2014). Victims of federal crimes can register to participate in the national automated victim notification system.

232

Download more at Learnclax.com

Box 5.1 Victims’ Rights in Virginia

The Victim Services Unit provides the following services to victims of crime:

Advocacy on behalf of crime victims Notification of changes in inmate transfers, release date, name change, escape, and capture Explanation of parole and probation supervision process Accompaniment to parole board appointments when requested by the victim ongoing support, crisis intervention, information, and referrals Training, education, and public awareness initiatives on behalf of victims of crime

Victims can register to be notified through Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE).

VINE is a toll-free, 24-hour, anonymous, computer-based telephone service that provides victims of crime two important features, information and notification. Victims may call VINE from any touch-tone telephone, any time, to check on an inmate’s custody status. For inmate information, call 1-800-467-4943 and follow the prompts.

Victims may register with VINE for an automated notification call when an inmate is released, transferred, escapes, and to learn of an inmate’s parole status if the inmate is parole eligible.

Victims of crime can address the Parole Board if they have any concerns regarding the release of an offender. Victims have the option of voicing their concerns through letters or through an in-person appointment with the Parole Board.

If victims would like a staff member of the Department of Corrections, Victim Services Unit, to accompany them to the appointment, they can contact the Department of Corrections, Victim Services Unit.

Source: Virginia Department of Corrections, Victim services. Retrieved from http://www.vadoc.state.va.us/victim

Participation and Consultation

One of the overarching goals of the victims’ rights movement was to increase participation and consultation by victims in all stages of the criminal justice system. One way victims are encouraged to participate is by submitting or presenting a victim impact statement, which is discussed later in this section under “Remedies and Rights in Court.” Another way victims may participate is by consulting with judges and/or prosecutors before any plea bargains are offered or bail is set. Consultation may also occur before an offender is paroled or sentenced (Davis & Mulford, 2008).

Right to Protection

Victims may also need protection as they navigate the criminal justice process. Victims may be fearful of the offender and the offender’s friends and family. Participation in the criminal justice system may, in fact, endanger victims. In response to this potential danger, many states include safety measures in their victims’ rights, falling under the category of right to protection. For example, victims may be able to get no-contact or protective orders that prohibit the defendant from having any contact with the victim. Victims may also be provided with secure waiting facilities in court buildings. Victim privacy is also protected ever-increasingly in states; some disclose only minimal victim information in criminal justice records—such as law enforcement and court records (Davis & Mulford, 2008).

Right to a Speedy Trial

You have probably heard of offenders having a right to a speedy trial, but did you know that about half of all

233

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.vadoc.state.va.us/victim

states also provide victims with this right? Although not as explicit as an offender’s right, this right given to

victims ensures that the judge considers the victim’s interests when ruling on motions for continuance. In other words, in states that give victims this right, decisions about postponing a trial cannot be made without consideration of the victim. Some states also explicitly provide for accelerated dispositions in cases with disabled, elderly, or minor children victims (Davis & Mulford, 2008).

Rights Related to Evidence

In general, crime victims have the right to have any of their property that has been taken as evidence returned to them. In addition to this general right, recent attention has been given to the storage and testing of evidence, particularly as it relates to sexual assault and rape cases. In some states, victims are protected from having to pay for evidence collected such as a rape kit. They also do not have to pay for the testing of these kits. Other states have passed legislation related to notification of the status of their kits and whether a match has been identified. California’s Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights passed in 2003 provides victims of sexual assault the right to be informed of the status of their kit and whether a match has been identified. Similar legislation was passed in 2013 in Texas. Texas grants victims the right to receive notice when evidence is compared to DNA profiles stored in databases (National Center for Victims of Crime, n.d.-a).

Ripped From the Headlines

Victims of sexual assault in Wisconsin also now have the ability to have DNA evidence stored and tests conducted free of charge at a state crime lab, whether or not they decide to move forward with a criminal case. This change in procedure will provide victims the ability to have tests conducted without feeling the pressure to report their assault to the police or to continue on with the case after an initial report. It also protects the evidence once collected and disallows police departments or the lab from destroying it. Victims will be given a consent form notifying them of this new right.

Source: Simmons (2014).

Issues With Victims’ Rights

Although victims’ advocates have hailed the adoption of legislation and state-level amendments that give victims rights, the adoption of victims’ rights has also come with problems. There has been some resistance to states and the federal government giving victims formal rights. Remember that criminal law is written in such a way as to make crimes harms against the state rather than the victim. Also think about how the U.S. Constitution provides widespread rights to those persons suspected of committing crimes. The U.S. Constitution does not currently include any language that provides victims with rights—but it does for persons suspected of committing crimes. Although this omission has been identified by some as deserving remedy, others argue that victims’ rights do not have a place in our Constitution (Wallace, 1997). Concerns have also been expressed that providing victims with rights will create a burden on our already overburdened criminal justice system (Davis & Mulford, 2008).

Also problematic is what to do when victims’ rights are not protected. What happens if a victim is not notified? Who is responsible? Does the victim have any recourse, legal or otherwise, when a right is violated? Many states do not have specific enforcement strategies in place in their victims’ rights legislation, although

234

Download more at Learnclax.com

states that have constitutional amendments generally have enforceable rights in the event that a state official violates a victim’s constitutional rights. Victims may also seek a writ of mandamus, which is a court order that directs an agency to comply with a law (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2009). For other victims, although they are given rights on paper, there is little they can do if their rights are not protected. To remedy this, some states—such as California, in its passage of Marsy’s Law—have legislation that is more comprehensive and includes language that gives victims the right to enforce their rights in court, called legal standing (National Victims’ Constitutional Amendment Passage, n.d.). Some states have set up a designated agency to handle crime victims’ complaints (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2009). Despite these developments, many state victims’ bills of rights specifically note that when victims’ rights are violated, the crime victim does not have the ability to sue civilly a government agency or official. Whatever the redress allowed to victims, you can probably see that for victims, not having their rights protected may feel like an additional victimization and one that they can do little about—at least not easily.

Federal Law

Thus far, we have discussed common rights that states grant to victims of crime, but the federal government has also recognized the importance of protecting the rights of crime victims. (See Table 5.1 for a timeline and brief description of key pieces of federal legislation related to victims’ rights.) In 1982, the President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime published a report that included 68 recommendations for how victims could receive recognition and get the rights and services they deserve. These recommendations led, in part, to the development of legislation that would grant victims their first federal rights. The first such piece of legislation passed was the Victim Witness Protection Act (1982). This act mandated that the attorney general develop and implement guidelines that outlined for officials how to respond to victims and witnesses. Two years later, the Victims of Crime Act (1984) was passed to create the Office for Victims of Crime and to provide funds to assist state victim compensation programs. The funds are generated from fines and fees and from seized assets of offenders who break federal law. A critical step in victims’ rights also occurred in 1990 with passage of the Child Victims’ Bill of Rights (1990), which extended victims’ rights to child victims and witnesses. Child victims and witnesses were granted rights to have proceedings explained in language they can understand; to have a victims’ advocate present at interviews, hearings, and trials; to have a secure waiting area at trials; to have personal information kept private unless otherwise specified by the child or guardian; to have an advocate to discuss with the court their ability to understand proceedings; to be given information about and referrals to agencies for assistance; and to allow other services to be provided by law enforcement. Also in 1990, the Crime Control Act and the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act were passed, creating a federal bill of rights for victims of federal crime and guaranteeing that victims have a right to restitution. Specifically, victims of federal crimes were given the right to

1. be reasonably protected from the accused; 2. reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime or any release or

escape of the accused and to not be excluded from such proceedings; 3. be reasonably heard at any public proceeding involving release, plea, or sentencing; 4. confer with the attorney for the government in the case;

235

Download more at Learnclax.com

5. full and timely restitution as provided by law; 6. proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and 7. be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

Table 5.1

236

Download more at Learnclax.com

The acts also provide that the court ensures that crime victims are afforded these rights.

The 1990s also saw the adoption of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), which

237

Download more at Learnclax.com

included the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act (1994) (VAWA) that gave more than $1 billion to programs designed to reduce and respond to violence against women. It also increased funding for victim compensation programs and established a national sex offender registry (Gundy-Yoder, 2010). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1996) was also passed, making restitution mandatory in violent crime cases and further expanding compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism. Victims were given the right to provide victim impact statements during sentencing in capital and noncapital cases, and the right to attend the trials of their offenders was clarified via the Victims’ Rights Clarification Act (1997).

Victims’ rights were further expanded in the first part of the 21st century. The Violence Against Women Act (2000) was signed into law as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. It reauthorized some previous VAWA funding. This legislation also authorized funding for rape prevention and education, battered women’s shelters, and transitional housing for female victims of violence. It also addressed violence against older women and those with disabilities and expanded the federal stalking statute to include stalking over the Internet. The Violence Against Women Act (2013) was reauthorized 13 years later. Among other provisions, it expands housing protections for victims of domestic violence in all federally subsidized housing programs and protects victims of sexual assault, adds additional protections for dating violence on college campuses, and expands protections for LGBTQ survivors of violence from discrimination so they can receive services. The Justice for All Act (2004) strengthened federal crime victims’ rights and provides enforcement and remedies when there is not compliance. It also provides monies to test the backlog of rape kits. Further attention has been given to the testing of rape kits at the federal level. The Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting Act (2013) (SAFER), which became law as part of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, amended the Debbie Smith Act (2004) to create grants to audit the sexual assault kit backlog (the Debbie Smith Act provided federal funding for state and local governments to address the backlog of kits at laboratories). It also mandates that at least 75% of allocated funding must be used to reduce the backlog and increase capacity of labs to process these kits through 2018 (National Center for Victims of Crime, n.d.-b).

Despite the provision and expansion of victims’ rights at the federal level, there is still not a federal constitutional amendment. This lack of adoption may be somewhat surprising because the National Victims’ Constitutional Amendment Network and Steering Committee was formed in 1987 and federal victims’ rights constitutional amendments were introduced in both the House and the Senate in 1996. Additional victims’ rights constitutional amendments were introduced in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2004 (Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center, 2007). Such an amendment has yet to be adopted.

238

Download more at Learnclax.com

Financial Remedy

In Section III, you read about the substantial costs that victims face after being victimized. Some of these costs are financial. Victims may lose time from work, have hospital bills, seek and pay for mental health care, need a crime scene cleaned, or lose income from a loved one’s death. To help assuage some of these costs, victims can apply for financial compensation from the state, receive restitution from the offender, or seek remedy civilly.

Victim Compensation

One way victims can receive financial compensation for their economic losses is through state-run victim compensation programs. First begun in 1965 in California, victim compensation programs now operate in every state. Money for compensation comes from a variety of sources. A large portion of funding comes from criminals themselves—fees and fines are collected from people charged with criminal offenses. These fees are attached to the normal court fees offenders are expected to pay. In addition, the Victims of Crime Act (1984) (VOCA) authorized funding for state compensation and assistance programs. Today, the VOCA Crime Victims Fund provides more than $730 million annually to states to assist victims and constitutes about one- third of each program’s funding (National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Board, 2014). Not only did VOCA increase funding for state programs, but it also required states to cover all U.S. citizens victimized within the state’s borders, regardless of the victim’s residency. It also required that states provide mental health counseling and that victims of domestic violence as well as drunk driving be covered. In the 2- year budget deal struck in 2015, $1.5 billion was diverted from the Crime Victims Fund, so it remains to be seen how the fund will continue to operate in the future and how states will fund their programs (Sowyer, 2015).

Not all victims, however, are eligible for compensation from the Crime Victims Fund. Only victims of rape, assault, child sexual abuse, drunk driving, domestic violence, and homicide are eligible, because these crimes are known to create undue hardship for victims (Klein, 2010). In some states, victims must have experienced physical injury, whereas in others, if they experienced serious emotional trauma from the victimization, they are also eligible (Evans, 2014). In addition to the type of victimization, victims must meet other requirements to be eligible:

Report the victimization promptly to law enforcement, usually within 72 hours of the victimization, unless good cause can be shown, such as being a child, incarcerated, or otherwise incapacitated Cooperate with law enforcement and prosecutors in the investigation and prosecution of the case Submit application for compensation that includes evidence of expenses within a specified time, generally 1 year from the date of the crime Show that costs have not been compensated by other sources such as insurance or other programs Not participated in criminal conduct or significant misconduct that caused or contributed to the victimization

239

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victims can be compensated for a wide variety of expenses, including medical care costs, mental health treatment costs, funeral costs, and lost wages. Some programs have expanded coverage to include crime scene cleanup, transportation costs to receive treatment, moving expenses, housekeeping costs, and child care costs (Klein, 2010). Other expenses for which victims may be compensated include the replacement or repair of eyeglasses or corrective lenses, dental care, prosthetic devices, and forensic sexual assault exams. Note that property damage and loss are not compensable expenses (Office for Victims of Crime, 2012), and only two states (Hawaii and Tennessee) currently pay for pain and suffering (Evans, 2014). States have caps in place that limit the amount of money a crime victim may receive from the Crime Victims Fund, generally ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 per incident. On average, the maximum victims can receive is $26,000. Some states also allow for monies for catastrophic injuries and permanent disability, ranging from $5,000 to $150,000 (Evans, 2014).

Although compensation clearly can provide a benefit for victims, there are some problems with current compensation programs. One problem is that only a small portion of victims eligible for compensation actually receive monies from these funds. In addition, even when people do apply for compensation, there is no guarantee they will receive benefits. Data from victim compensation claims in 2012 showed that about one-fourth of claims were denied (Office for Victims of Crime, 2013). The programs also do not seem to encourage participation in the criminal justice system. There is little evidence that persons who receive compensation are any more satisfied than others (Elias, 1984) or that they are more likely to participate in the criminal justice process (Klein, 2010).

Restitution

Unlike monies from crime victims’ funds, restitution is money paid by the offender to the victim. Restitution is made by court order as part of a sentence—the judge orders the offender to pay the victim money to compensate for expenses. Much like compensation programs, expenses that may be recovered through restitution include medical and dental bills, counseling, transportation, and lost wages. Restitution can also be ordered to cover costs of stolen or damaged property, unlike in crime victim compensation programs. Restitution cannot be ordered to cover costs associated with pain and suffering; it is limited to tangible and documentable expenses.

Restitution has its benefits. It is based on the notion of restorative justice, which seeks to involve the community, the offender, and the victim in the criminal justice system. Paying restitution helps restore both the offender and the victim to their precrime status. Problematic, however, is that the offender must first be caught for restitution to be ordered. Often, crimes go unreported and offenders remain free from arrest. Even if an offender is arrested, it may be difficult for the court to determine an appropriate amount for restitution. How much money should be paid in restitution to a victim whose mother’s engagement ring was stolen? The ring’s worth to the victim may far outweigh the dollar amount a judge would require the offender to pay in restitution. In addition, many offenders lack sufficient funds to pay victims immediately, even when court ordered. As a result, restitution may not be met.

240

Download more at Learnclax.com

Civil Litigation

Although compensation and restitution programs may significantly aid victims in recouping crime victimization costs, not all economic costs may be covered. Recall, too, that neither program addresses pain and suffering costs (except for the two states that allow compensation for pain and suffering). To seek redress for these uncompensated costs, victims may pursue civil litigation against the offender. There are some key advantages afforded to a plaintiff (the person filing the lawsuit) in a civil suit. That person is a party to the lawsuit and is allowed to make key decisions regarding whether to accept a settlement—unlike in criminal court, where it is the state versus the defendant (National Crime Victim Bar Association, 2007). Persons can seek money for emotional as well as physical harm.

In addition, the burden of proof is different in the civil justice system. Liability must be proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof in the criminal justice system. If the court finds that the defendant is in fact liable, then the offender is held financially accountable for the harm caused to the defendant. Much like with restitution, however, the likelihood of the victim actually receiving the money awarded is tied to the offender being identified and the offender’s ability to pay. Accordingly, it may be quite difficult for the victim to recover damages awarded. Also, the costs of entering into a civil lawsuit must be borne by the victim and can be quite expensive. The victim may have to hire an attorney, and civil lawsuits can sometimes drag on for years.

241

Download more at Learnclax.com

Remedies and Rights in Court

Rights are also afforded to crime victims in other phases of the criminal justice system. Although not discussed in detail in this section, police are often the first level of criminal justice with which crime victims interact. The response that victims receive from them may shape how they view the criminal justice system as a whole and may impact their future dealings (or not) with the system should they be victimized again. It seems that when police meet victims’ expectations, victims report high levels of satisfaction. When victims’ expectations are not met, however, victims report lower levels of satisfaction (Chandek & Porter, 1998). That is, it is expectation in conjunction with what the police do that impacts overall satisfaction with the police. In addition to the police, the prosecutor and the courts also provide crime victims with rights. These rights are discussed next.

Victim Impact Statements

As previously discussed, the criminal trial involves two parties in an adversarial system that reflects crime as a harm against the state. As such, historically, victims seldom played more than the role of witness in the criminal trial. Not until the 1970s did victims receive rights that guaranteed them at least some voice in the criminal trial process. One of these rights was first adopted in 1976 in Fresno, California, and it gave the victim an opportunity to address the court through a victim impact statement (VIS). The VIS can be submitted by direct victims and by those who are indirectly impacted by crime, such as family members. The VIS is either submitted in writing or presented orally (victim allocution).

In the VIS, the harm caused is typically detailed, with psychological, economic, social, and physical effects included. Depending on the jurisdiction, the victim or others presenting a VIS may also provide a recommendation as to what the offender’s sentence should be. Take a look at Box 5.2, “Excerpt From Stanford Rape Victim’s Impact Statement,” to see an example of a VIS. In this case, the woman who was raped wrote a 13-page 7,000-word VIS and read it during sentencing. Her assailant, although convicted of three felonies—sexual assault of an unconscious person, sexual assault of an intoxicated person, and sexual assault with intent to commit rape—was ultimately sentenced to 6 months in jail and 3 years of probation (Murdock, 2016). Not only may the victim enter a VIS at sentencing, but most states allow for the victim to make a VIS at parole hearings as well. In some cases, the original VIS is included in the offender’s file and will be considered during the parole process. In others, the victim is allowed to update the original VIS and include additional information that may be pertinent to the parole board. Less common, the victim may be allowed to make a VIS during bail hearings, pretrial release hearings, and plea bargaining hearings (National Center for Victims of Crime, 1999). Importantly, despite the victim’s wishes, the VIS is used only as information and may impact the court’s decision, but not always. As noted by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in State v. Johnson (1993), although the victim’s wishes are important, they are not the only consideration or determinative in the prosecutor’s decision to bring a case to trial.

Photo 5.1. A victim delivers her victim impact statement in court during sentencing.

242

Download more at Learnclax.com

There are many reasons to expect a VIS to benefit victims. It gives victims a right to be heard in court and allows their pain and experience to be acknowledged in the criminal justice process. As such, a VIS may be therapeutic, especially if a victim’s statement is referred to by the prosecutor or judge and if the victim’s recommendation is in accordance with the sentence the offender receives. In addition to this potential therapeutic benefit, a VIS may also provide valuable information to the court and criminal justice actors that allows them truly to understand the impact criminal behavior has on victims. It may help the judge give a sentence that is more reflective of the true harm caused to the victim. Also, it may prove beneficial to offenders to hear the impact of their crimes. Hearing the extent to which their actions hurt another person makes it more difficult for offenders to rationalize their behavior.

Despite these proposed benefits, not all victims use the right to make a VIS. For example, recent data from Texas show that only 22% of VIS applications distributed to crime victims were returned to district attorney’s offices. The type of victimization for which a VIS was submitted was most commonly sexual assault of a minor, followed by robbery (Yun, Johnson, & Kercher, 2005).

Box 5.2 Excerpt From Stanford Rape Victim’s Impact Statement

243

Download more at Learnclax.com

“One day, I was at work, scrolling through the news on my phone, and came across an article. In it, I read and learned for the first time about how I was found unconscious, with my hair disheveled, long necklace wrapped around my neck, bra pulled out of my dress, dress pulled off over my shoulders and pulled up above my waist, that I was butt naked all the way down to my boots, legs spread apart, and had been penetrated by a foreign object by someone I did not recognize. This was how I learned what happened to me, sitting at my desk reading the news at work. I learned what happened to me the same time everyone else in the world learned what happened to me. That’s when the pine needles in my hair made sense, they didn’t fall from a tree. He had taken off my underwear, his fingers had been inside of me. I don’t even know this person. I still don’t know this person. When I read about me like this, I said, this can’t be me. This can’t be me. I could not digest or accept any of this information. I could not imagine my family having to read about this online. I kept reading. In the next paragraph, I read something that I will never forgive; I read that according to him, I liked it. I liked it. Again, I do not have words for these feelings … .

When I was told to be prepared in case we didn’t win, I said, I can’t prepare for that. He was guilty the minute I woke up. No one can talk me out of the hurt he caused me. Worst of all, I was warned, because he now knows you don’t remember, he is going to get to write the script. He can say whatever he wants and no one can contest it. I had no power, I had no voice, I was defenseless. My memory loss would be used against me. My testimony was weak, was incomplete, and I was made to believe that perhaps, I am not enough to win this. That’s so damaging. His attorney constantly reminded the jury, the only one we can believe is Brock, because she doesn’t remember. That helplessness was traumatizing.”

Source: Knoll, 2016. Retrieved from https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2854755/Victimstatement.pdf

Nonetheless, the reasons that victims in general do not make a VIS are varied. They may not feel comfortable putting their feelings in writing or going to court and making a public statement; they may fear the offender and being retaliated against. Others may not be fully aware of their right to make a VIS or not know how to go about using this right. Although it is certainly a victim’s choice to make or not make a VIS, it may have an impact on the sentence the offender receives. Recent research shows that when a VIS is made in capital cases, there is an increased likelihood that the offender will be sentenced to death (Blumenthal, 2009). Although a clear impact on noncapital offenses is not evident, research suggests that when a VIS does impact sentencing, it does so in a punitive fashion (Erez & Globokar, 2010). Although speculative, the reason behind this influence may be tied to the influence that hearing from the victim and his or her family has on a jury member’s emotions. Research shows that being exposed to a VIS may increase feelings of hostility, anger, and vengefulness toward offenders (Paternoster & Deise, 2011). Other research has found that not all jury members respond the same to a VIS. Rather, it is those who have a tendency to approach emotions who are likely to respond with hostility and, as a result, recommend longer sentences (Wevodau, Cramer, Kehn, & Clark, 2014).

A VIS may be good for the victim, but it does raise the issue of equal justice for offenders. Does an offender deserve a more severe penalty because a VIS is made? Conversely, do victims not deserve to have their offenders penalized as severely as others if they are not able or willing to make a VIS? This issue underlies some of the debate surrounding the use of the VIS. The constitutionality of the VIS has been questioned, particularly in capital cases. Current case law makes it constitutional for a VIS to be made in capital cases. In Payne v. Tennessee (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court found that how the victim is impacted does not negatively impact the rights of the defendant—a VIS is a way to inform the court about the harm caused. This decision allowed states to decide whether to allow a VIS in capital cases.

The positive benefit for victims may be overstated in that making a VIS can be traumatizing for victims (Bandes, 1999). Victims may also be dissatisfied if their recommendations are not followed (Davis, Henley, &

244

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2854755/Victimstatement.pdf

Smith, 1990; Erez, Roeger, & Morgan, 1994; Erez & Tontodonato, 1992). Furthermore, victims who make a VIS may not be likely to use and participate in additional criminal proceedings if they are victimized again, one of the key considerations in granting victims’ rights (Erez & Globokar, 2010; Kennard, 1989). To read more about the potential benefits of a VIS to victims, see Reading 7 by Kim Lens, Antony Pemberton, Karen Brans, Johan Braeken, Stefan Bogaerts, and Esmah Lahlah (2014) in this section. In it, they examine the emotional impact of delivering a VIS among victims in the Netherlands.

Victim/Witness Assistance Programs

Victim/witness assistance programs (VWAPs) provide victims with assistance as they navigate the criminal justice system. These programs are designed to ensure that victims know their rights and have the resources necessary to exercise these rights. At their heart, however, is a goal to increase victim and witness participation in the criminal justice process, particularly as witnesses, with the notion that victims who have criminal justice personnel assisting them will be more likely to participate and to be satisfied with their experience.

These programs first began in the 1970s, with the first program established in St. Louis, Missouri, by Carol Vittert (Davies, 2010). Although not sponsored by the government, Vittert and her friends would visit victims and offer them support. Two years later, the first government victim assistance programs were developed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Brooklyn, New York. Not long after, in 1982, the Task Force on Victims of Crime recommended that prosecutors better serve victims. Specifically, the task force noted that prosecutors should work more closely with crime victims and receive their input as their cases are processed. It also noted that victims need protection and that their contributions should be valued—prosecutors should honor scheduled case appearances and return personal property as soon as possible. To this end, VWAPs have been developed, most commonly administrated through prosecutors’ offices but also sometimes run through law enforcement agencies. At the federal level, each U.S. attorney’s office has a victim witness coordinator to help victims of federal crimes.

Today, these programs most commonly provide victims with background information regarding the court procedure and their basic rights as crime victims. Notification about court dates and changes to those dates is also given. They also provide victims with information regarding victim compensation and aid them in applying for compensation if eligible. A victim who wishes to make a VIS can also receive assistance from the VWAP in doing so. Another service offered by VWAPs is making sure the victims and witnesses have separate waiting areas in the courthouse for privacy. In some instances, VWAP personnel will attend court proceedings and the trial with the victim and his or her family.

Despite the efforts of VWAPs, research shows that some of the first of these programs did little to improve victim participation. The Vera Institute of Justice’s Victim/Witness Assistance Project, which ran in the 1970s, provided victims with a wide range of services—day care for children while parents were in court, counseling for victims, assistance with victim compensation, notification of all court dates, and a program that allowed victims to stay at work rather than come to court if their testimony was not needed—to little success (Herman, 2004). An evaluation of the project showed that victims were no more likely to show up at court than those without access to these services. It was not until the Vera Institute developed a new program that

245

Download more at Learnclax.com

provided victim advocates to go to court with victims that positive outcomes emerged. This program did, in fact, then have a positive influence on attendance in court (Herman, 2004). Few of the programs provide services identified in the research literature as most critical; instead, VWAPs are largely oriented toward ensuring that witnesses cooperate and participate in court proceedings rather than that crime victims receive needed services (Jerin, Moriarty, & Gibson, 1996). Victims’ rights and the challenges that arise when trying to ensure that crime victims’ rights are protected are discussed by Robert C. Davis and Carrie Mulford (2008) in Reading 8 in this section.

Family Justice Centers

Family justice centers have recently begun opening throughout the United States to better serve crime victims. Because crime victims often need a variety of services, family justice centers are designed to provide many services in “one stop.” These centers often provide counseling, advocacy, legal services, health care, financial services, housing assistance, employment referrals, and other services (National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2011). The advantages of providing these services in one place are many—primarily, victims can receive a plethora of services without having to navigate the maze of health and social service agencies in their jurisdiction.

Restorative Justice

The traditional criminal justice system is adversarial, with the state on one side and the defense on the other attempting to determine if the offender did in fact commit a crime against the state. It is largely offender centered—the offender’s rights must be protected from investigation to conviction—and the victim traditionally has not been recognized as having a role beyond that of a witness, because crimes are considered harms against the state. Beginning in the 1970s, as discussed in Section I, the victims’ rights movement sought to garner a larger role for victims in the justice process and to ensure that victims are provided the services they deserve from the state and community agencies. Also during the 1970s, there was a movement in the criminal justice system to get “tough on crime.” In doing so, more people were sentenced to prison and for longer, and our correctional system moved away from a rehabilitation model to a justice model. No longer was the correctional system dedicated to “fixing” offenders—rather, its main focus became public safety by reducing crime. This reduction was thought to be achieved through the use of tough criminal sanctions rather than treatment for the offender. Although this experiment in incarceration is not over, another movement less focused on being punitive toward offenders within the criminal justice system also emerged during the 1970s —the restorative justice movement.

The restorative justice movement formally began in Canada in the 1970s, but some of its principles were in place long before. Our first “systems” of justice did not define crimes as harms against the state. As such, if a person was victimized, it was up to him or her or the family to seek reparation from the offender (Tobolowsky, 1999). It was essentially a victim-centered approach. As crimes were redefined as harms against the state (or the king), the system of justice that emerged was more offender focused. Such a system was in place until the 1970s in the United States, when people began to advocate for an increased role for the victim

246

Download more at Learnclax.com

and for victims to receive rights similar to those of offenders. The restorative justice movement was an outgrowth of the attention given to the need for victims’ rights and pushback from adoption of a crime- control model exclusively focused on punishment.

The restorative justice movement is based on the belief that the way to reduce crime is not by solely punishing the offender or by adhering to a strict adversarial system that pits the defendant against the state. Instead, all entities impacted by crime should come to the table and work together to deal with crime and criminals. In this way, the restorative justice movement sees crime as harm to the state, the community, and the victim (Johnstone, 2002). Accordingly, instead of offenders simply being tried, convicted, and sentenced without the victim and community playing more than a cursory role, the system should develop and adopt strategies to deal with crime that include all relevant parties. Instead of a judge or jury deciding what happens to the offender, the restorative justice movement allows for input from the offender, the victim, and community members harmed by the offense in making a determination of how to repair the harm caused by the offender. In this way, justice is not just handed down and does not just “happen”; it is a cooperative agreement. Simply stated, restorative justice is a process “whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (T. F. Marshall, 1999, p. 5).

What types of programs meet this objective? Many of the programs in use today in the United States and throughout the world were adapted from or based on traditional practices of indigenous people, who, given their communal living situation, often have a stake in group members’ ability to collaboratively resolve issues (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2008). The most common types of programs are victim–offender mediation or reconciliation programs and restitution programs. Victim–offender mediation is discussed shortly, and restitution was discussed earlier in this section as a financial remedy for victims. Another program that is restorative in nature is face-to-face meetings between the victim and offender that do not involve formal mediation. Family or community group conferencing is also restorative. In this type of program, the victim, offender, family, friends, and supporters of both the victim and offender collectively address the aftermath of the crime, with the victim addressing how the crime impacted him or her, thus increasing the offender’s awareness of the consequences of the crime. Because supporters of both sides are present, it allows additional people with a stake in the process and outcome to give input. Victims and offenders report high levels of satisfaction with group conferencing (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2008). Restorative justice is also practiced through a peacemaking circle or sentencing circle. A circle consists of the victim, the offender, community members, victim and offender supporters, and sometimes members of the criminal justice community such as prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, police, and court workers. The goals of the circle are to “build community around shared values” and to “promote healing of all affected parties, giving the offender the opportunity to make amends” and giving all parties a “voice and shared responsibility in finding constructive resolutions” (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2008, p. 2). The circles are also designed to address the causes of criminal behavior. In sentencing circles, the parties work together to determine the outcome for the offender, whereas peacemaking circles are more focused on healing.

Victim–Offender Mediation Programs

247

Download more at Learnclax.com

Some victims may not wish to sit in the background and interact only on the periphery of the criminal justice system. Instead, they may wish to have face-to-face meetings with their offenders. As a way to allow such a dialogue between victims and offenders, victim–offender mediation programs have sprouted up throughout the United States, with more than 300 such programs in operation today. With the American Bar Association endorsing the use of victim–offender mediation and what appears to be widespread public support for these programs, victim–offender mediation is likely to become commonplace in U.S. courts. Victim–offender mediation is already widely used in other countries, with more than 700 programs operating in Europe (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000).

Mediation in criminal justice cases most commonly occurs as a diversion from prosecution. This means that if an offender and victim agree to complete mediation and if the offender completes any requirements set forth in the mediation agreement, then the offender will not be formally prosecuted in the criminal justice system. In this way, offenders receive a clear benefit if they agree to and successfully complete mediation. Mediation can also take place as a condition of probation. For some offenders, if they formally admit guilt and are adjudicated, they may be placed on probation by the judge with the condition that they participate in mediation. In all instances, the decision to participate in victim–offender mediation programs is ultimately up to the victim. Most victims who are given the opportunity to participate in victim–offender mediation do so (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000).

Victim–offender mediation programs are designed to provide victims—usually those of property crimes and minor assaults—a chance to meet with their offenders in a structured environment. The session is led by a third-party mediator whose job it is to facilitate a dialogue through which victims are able to directly address their offenders and tell them how the crime impacted their lives. The victim may also ask questions of the offender. To achieve the objectives of restorative justice, mediation programs in criminal justice use humanistic mediation, which is dialogue driven rather than settlement driven (Umbreit, 2000). The impartial mediator is there to provide unconditional positive concern and regard for both parties, with minimal interruption. As noted by Umbreit (2000), humanistic mediation emphasizes healing and peacemaking over problem solving and resolution. He notes, “The telling and hearing of each other’s stories about the conflict, the opportunity for maximum direct communication with each other, and the importance of honoring silence and the innate wisdom and strength of the participants are all central to humanistic mediation practice” (p. 4).

One tangible outcome often but not always stemming from victim–offender mediation is a restitution plan for the offender, and in its developing, the victim plays a central role. This agreement becomes enforceable in court, whereby an offender who does not meet the requirements can be held accountable.

What happens after an offender and victim meet? Do both offenders and victims benefit? What about the community? It is important to evaluate programs in terms of their effectiveness in meeting objectives, and victim–offender mediation programs have been assessed in this way. Collectively, this body of research shows many benefits to victim–offender mediation programs. Participation in victim–offender mediation has been shown to reduce fear and anxiety among crime victims (Umbreit, Coates, & Kalanj, 1994), including post- traumatic stress symptoms (Angel, 2005) and desire to seek revenge against or harm offenders (Sherman et al.,

248

Download more at Learnclax.com

2005; Strang, 2004). In addition, both offenders and victims report high levels of satisfaction with the victim– offender mediation process (McCold & Wachtel, 1998; McGarrell, Olivares, Crawford, & Kroovand, 2000; see also Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000). Victims who meet with their offenders report higher levels of satisfaction than victims of similar crimes whose cases are formally processed in the criminal justice system (Umbreit et al., 1994). In addition to satisfaction, research shows that offenders are more likely to complete restitution required through victim–offender mediation (Umbreit et al., 1994). More than 90% of restitution agreements from victim–offender mediation programs are completed within 1 year (Victim–Offender Reconciliation Program Information and Resource Center, 2006). Reduction in recidivism rates for offenders also has been found (Nugent & Paddock, 1995; Umbreit et al., 1994).

As you can see, our system has changed from victim centered to entirely offender focused and is now bringing the victim back into focus. Crime victims are afforded many rights in the criminal justice system. But, as you have seen, it is sometimes difficult for victims to exercise these rights, and they often have little recourse if their rights are not protected. These issues will certainly continue to be addressed as victims’ voices are heard and their needs met.

249

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

Victims were first granted rights in the law in 1979. All states give the right to compensation, notification of rights, notification of court appearances, and ability to submit victim impact statements before sentencing. Other states may give the right to restitution, to be treated with dignity and respect, to attend court and sentencing hearings, and to consult with court personnel before plea bargains are offered or defendants released from custody. Other rights will also protect victims’ employment status so they can testify against their offenders. There has been some resistance to states and the federal government giving victims formal rights. Although numerous federal acts have been passed with victims’ rights in mind, there still is no victims’ rights amendment in the U.S. Constitution. To help assuage some of the financial costs of a crime, victims can apply for financial compensation from the state, can receive restitution from the offender, or can seek remedy in civil court. A victim impact statement can be submitted by direct victims and by those who are indirectly impacted by crime, such as family members. In the victim impact statement, the harm that was caused is typically detailed, with psychological, economic, social, and physical effects included. Victim/witness assistance programs provide victims with guidance as they navigate the criminal justice system. These programs are designed to ensure that victims know their rights and have the resources necessary to exercise these rights. Another goal of these programs is to increase the likelihood that a witness or victim will interact with the criminal justice system. The restorative justice movement is based on the belief that the way to reduce crime is not solely by punishing the offender or by adhering to a strict adversarial system that pits the defendant against the state. Instead, all entities impacted by crime should come to the table and work together to deal with crime and criminals. To increase dialogue between offenders and victims, victim–offender mediation programs have emerged throughout the United States.

250

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. Do you think it is the role of the criminal justice system to provide victims with rights? How else could we ensure that victims receive help?

2. What rights does the state in which you reside provide to crime victims? What rights do you think are most important?

3. Why would offenders be more likely to complete restitution in victim–offender mediation? Could it be used for other types of programs? Why or why not?

4. What types of services would Polly be eligible to receive? Explain.

251

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key terms

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1996) 139 Child Victims’ Bill of Rights (1990) 138 civil litigation 141 Crime Control Act (1990) 138 diversion 146 family or community group conferencing 146 Justice for All Act (2004) 139 notification 134 participation and consultation 135 peacemaking circle 146 restitution 140 restorative justice 145 right to a speedy trial 135 right to protection 135 sentencing circle 146 Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting Act (2013) 139 victim compensation 139 victim impact statement (VIS) 142 victim–offender mediation programs 146 Victims of Crime Act (1984) 138 victims’ rights 133 Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (1990) 138 Victims’ Rights Clarification Act (1997) 139 victim/witness assistance programs (VWAPs) 144 Victim Witness Protection Act (1982) 138 Violence Against Women Act (1994) 139 Violence Against Women Act (2000) 139 Violence Against Women Act (2013) 139 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) 139

252

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

Centre for Justice & Reconciliation: http://www.restorativejustice.org

The restorative justice movement is concerned with repairing harm caused by crime. The Centre for Justice & Reconciliation provides information for criminal justice professionals, social service providers, students, teachers, and victims. It includes links to research as well as more general information. It also provides information for restorative justice around the world.

Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim–Offender Mediation: https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/reports/96517-gdlines_victims-sens/ncj176346.pdf

Published by the Office for Victims of Crime, this is a compilation of six documents that cover issues related to restorative justice, including victim–offender mediation and family group counseling. It provides guidelines and criteria to enhance the quality of such restorative justice initiatives and to make them more victim sensitive.

National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards: http://www.nacvcb.org/links.html

This website provides links to federal agencies and resources, national victim organizations, national and state criminal justice victim-related organizations, victim-related education links, state crime victim compensation boards, federal and state correctional agencies, victim service units, sex offender registries, and other resources. It is your go-to website for links related to crime victims.

National Center for Victims of Crime Resource Library: http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library

The center disseminates information online for crime victims and people working with crime victims or in the area of policy. In its resource library, you can find information on victim impact statements; statistics regarding the extent of various kinds of victimization; and information on how to assist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer victims, among other topics.

253

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.restorativejustice.org

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/reports/96517-gdlines_victims-sens/ncj176346.pdf

http://www.nacvcb.org/links.html

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library

Reading /// 7

Writing or delivering a victim impact statement (VIS) is often thought to have beneficial effects for victims. These effects have not often been empirically examined, and victims who provide a VIS may be different in critical ways from those who choose not to. Kim Lens and colleagues (2014) perform an empirical examination using longitudinal data that allows them to examine these initial differences between victims to see whether giving a VIS is truly beneficial for victims. Their findings show that those who give a VIS are different initially from those who do not and that the effects of a VIS are not as clear-cut as they may appear to be.

Delivering a Victim Impact Statement

Emotionally Effective or Counterproductive?

Kim ME Lens, Antony Pemberton, Karen Brans, Johan Braeken, Stefan Bogaerts, and Esmah Lahlah

Crime victims play an increasingly important role in criminal justice procedures (for example, Groenhuijsen and Pemberton, 2009; Roberts, 2009). One of the instruments that allows victims to participate in criminal justice procedures is the Victim Impact Statement (VIS). VISs are written or oral statements made by the victim in which they express the (financial, social, psychological and physical) harm they have experienced as a part of the court proceedings (Erez, 1990, 2004). In the Netherlands, the right to deliver an oral VIS was afforded to victims of severe violent crimes in 2005. The implementation of this right was accompanied by the possibility of submitting a written VIS, which is added to the file of the criminal case. In the Netherlands, the content of the VIS is restricted in the sense that victims can speak only about the consequences of the crime, and are not allowed to speak about the facts of the crime or a desired punishment. The Dutch objectives of

the VIS are captured in multiple goals.1 The key victimological goal concerns the contribution of the VIS to the victim’s emotional recovery. This issue is also the main consideration in research and theory concerning VIS in other jurisdictions and comprises the main research question of the present article. In particular, it is presumed that the delivery of a VIS may facilitate recovery from the emotional harm that has been caused by the crime (see also Edwards, 2001; Roberts and Erez, 2004). Hence, the delivery of a VIS is supposed to have therapeutic benefits and to contribute to the emotional healing and recovery process of victims (Explanatory Memorandum of the Oral Victim Impact Statement Act, 2005, 2012).

Therapeutic Benefits?

The effectiveness of VISs in facilitating recovery is widely debated (Pemberton and Reynaers, 2011; Roberts, 2009). Whereas some argue that VISs are effective in helping victims to recover from the crime, others suggest that delivering a VIS may even be counterproductive, in the sense that it may lead to secondary victimization (also known as post-crime victimization). This duality is exemplified in contradictory statements such as ‘VIS, don’t work, can’t work’ (Sanders et al., 2001) and ‘VIS can work, do work (for those who bother to make them)’ (Chalmers et al., 2007). Whereas Sanders et al. (2001: 447) argue that VISs ‘fail in practice’, Chalmers et al. (2007: 366) claim that their therapeutic benefits ‘do have some value’.

According to Pemberton and Reynaers (2011), the debate about the effectiveness of the VIS is seriously hampered by a lack of empirical evidence concerning its therapeutic effects. Until now, few studies have

254

Download more at Learnclax.com

empirically examined whether and, if so, how the delivery of an oral VIS is related to emotional recovery (Erez, 2004; Roberts and Erez, 2004). Moreover, the empirical studies that did so are characterized by a number of important limitations (see also Roberts, 2009; Walklate, 2002). First, previous studies typically used victim ‘satisfaction’ (or a similar construct) as an outcome measure (see also Edwards, 2001; Erez, 2004; Roberts and Erez, 2004). This is troublesome, because neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction can be directly translated into therapeutic and antitherapeutic effects (McNally et al., 2003; Zech and Rimé, 2005). Moreover, advocates and critics of VIS regimes tend to hold very different views of the effects of VIS on the satisfaction levels of participating victims (Roberts, 2009): whereas some argue that submitting a VIS will increase victim satisfaction (for example, Alexander and Lord, 1994), others claim that victims are unlikely to ‘benefit’ from submitting a VIS (for example, Davis and Smith, 1994). Second, both proponents and opponents of the VIS have been inclined to extrapolate from (dis)satisfaction to other consequences. This is especially true of the extrapolation from dissatisfaction to secondary victimization. For example, it may well be true that failing to meet victims’ expectations may lead to dissatisfaction (Ashworth, 2000; Edwards, 2001; Sanders et al., 2001), but it is not synonymous with secondary victimization in the sense that it leads to negative effects on the victim’s well-being.

In sum, although a central goal of the VIS is to contribute to the victim’s emotional recovery (for example, Edwards, 2001; Roberts and Erez, 2004), empirical evidence about its therapeutic benefits in terms of emotional recovery is lacking (see also Edwards, 2001; Herman, 2003; Parsons and Bergin, 2010; Roberts, 2009; Roberts and Manikis, 2013). In a review paper, Herman (2003: 162) summarizes the lack of empirical knowledge about the effects of victim participation in the criminal justice procedure by arguing that ‘[a] systematic study of the mental health impact of crime victims’ participation, or nonparticipation, in the criminal justice system has yet to be conducted’. The goal of the present study is to fill this empirical gap with regard to examining the effects of delivering a VIS. In particular, we conducted a longitudinal study among victims of severe violent crimes to examine the impact of delivering a VIS on their emotional recovery.

Source: Lens, K. ME, Pemberton, A., Brans, K., Braeken, J., Bogaerts, S., & Lahlah, E. (2014). Delivering a victim impact statement: Emotionally effective or counterproductive? European Journal of Criminology, 12(1), 17–34. Reprinted with permission.

Theoretical Notions

Several theoretical notions are essential in understanding the complexity surrounding the determination (or measurement) of ‘emotional recovery’ after delivering a VIS. First, we elaborate upon ‘general notions’ of emotional recovery after crime. Second, we discuss specific theoretical assumptions regarding the effects of delivering a VIS.

Trajectories of Recovery After Crime

Numerous studies have shown the devastating effects that crime can have on victims for months and even years following the traumatic event. Nonetheless, there also is great variability in how individuals are affected by criminal acts (for example, Frazier et al., 2004). Recent theoretical models have argued for distinct

255

Download more at Learnclax.com

trajectories of mental health outcomes following traumatic events (Bonanno, 2004; Layne et al., 2007; Steenkamp et al., 2012). Bonanno (2004) described four main trajectories after experiencing a traumatic event: a resilience trajectory, which is characterized as an initial period of mild symptoms and disruption in functional abilities, followed by a return to adaptive functioning; a recovery trajectory, which is characterized by an initial period of moderate to severe symptoms that dissipate in the weeks and months following trauma; a chronic impairment trajectory, which involves persistently high levels of distress and dysfunction; and a delayed distress trajectory, in which individuals experience an increase in symptoms over time after little or no initial reaction (Bonanno, 2004). Layne et al. (2007) argued for an additional resistance trajectory, which involves enduring homeostasis (that is, the development of no or few symptoms).

Recent research (Lens et al., 2010; Lens et al., 2013) has connected the distinct trajectories of recovery for victims to the choice to deliver or to decline the opportunity to deliver a VIS, by showing that victims who choose to deliver a VIS display a significantly higher degree of psychological complaints after the crime, compared with those who decline their opportunity to do so (Lens et al., 2013). Whereas victims who opt for the delivery of a VIS show signs of severe mental health problems, presenting high levels of anger, anxiety and post-traumatic stress two weeks before the trial, victims who decline the opportunity to deliver a VIS are relatively free of emotional complaints. Moreover, Lens et al. (2013) found the time since victimization to be positively correlated with the likelihood of delivering a VIS. Hence, the high levels of psychological complaints for victims who opt to deliver a VIS cannot be explained by the fact that their crime has taken place a shorter time ago; if anything, their crime took place significantly longer ago. Following the categorization of Bonanno (2004), one could argue that the victims who opted for delivery of a VIS were more readily interpreted as following a ‘chronic impairment trajectory’, with clear signs of persistent and high levels of distress. This recovery process differs from the emotional state of victims who decline their opportunity to deliver a VIS. In effect, the latter group appeared to follow the ‘recovery trajectory’.

Recovery After Delivering a VIS?

Different lines of research would suggest that certain high levels of emotional complaints for victims who opt for the delivery of a VIS would not diminish through (single-shot) expressions of feelings or emotions, such as the delivery of a VIS. For example, single-shot therapeutic approaches involving expression of emotions have not proved effective in reducing symptoms of post-traumatic stress (for example, Van Emmerik et al., 2002), with research even suggesting counterproductive consequences (for example, Sijbrandij et al., 2006). Moreover, ongoing research into the social sharing of emotions reveals that the mere expression of emotions has no direct ‘healing’ effects in the sense of leading to a decrease in feelings of anger or anxiety (Kennedy- Moore and Watson, 1999; Rimé, 2009; Rimé et al., 2011). More generally, this research all but refutes the assumption that, once an emotion is shared, it vanishes (Rimé et al., 2011). Instead, the effects of social sharing have often been classified in terms of ‘perceived benefits’: participants who talk about their emotions and feelings often rate their sharing experience in terms of ‘cognitively helpful’, ‘interpersonally beneficial’ or ‘emotionally alleviating’ (Zech and Rimé, 2005).

Elaborating upon these research findings, we hypothesize that the effects of delivering a VIS are explained not

256

Download more at Learnclax.com

by the direct ‘therapeutic’ or ‘cathartic’ effects of expression (see also Edwards, 2001) but by more indirect paths: delivering a statement in court leads to an increased perception of procedural justice and control over the recovery process, which in turn contributes to the victims’ well-being.

Procedural Justice Theory

The theory of procedural justice examines decision-making processes in exchange relationships in which one party has decision-making authority over issues that concern the other party (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Whereas initial theories about procedural justice were concerned with the instrumental functions of participating in a certain procedure (that is, through participation people would be able to influence the outcome of the procedure) (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Thibaut and Walker, 1975), more recent research emphasizes that people’s motives for participating in such a procedure are more often defined in terms of participation as such: expressing one’s arguments and point of view has its own important function (Tyler, 1990, 2006).

This general finding also applies to the particular context of crime victims participating in the legal system. Perceived benefits of participating in criminal justice procedures may be defined in terms of participating in the procedure, rather than decision control over the sentence (for example, Shapland et al., 1985; Wemmers, 1996; Wemmers and Cyr, 2004). In this regard, Erez (1990) argued that studies of victims’ opinions concerning the importance of the VIS have confirmed the conclusion that this right to deliver a VIS is viewed as important, regardless of its effect on the sentence outcome. Different studies have shown that many victims cited communication with the offender as a reason for submitting impact statements (Erez, 1994; Erez and Tontodonato, 1992; Lens et al., 2013; Meredith and Paquette, 2001). Consequently, it has been argued that the value of delivering a VIS must be defined in terms of victim voice (Erez, 2004; Roberts, 2009; Roberts and Erez, 2004): delivering a VIS in court enables the victim to express their feelings about the crime and to communicate with the other participants in the process, in particular the judge and the defendant: ‘Beyond the symbolic recognition of victims in the criminal justice process, the expressive function of the VIS can help promote the welfare of crime victims’ (Roberts and Erez, 2004: 227). Moreover, experiencing a choice of whether or not to participate in the criminal proceedings is vital to an individual’s sense of locus of control, which in turn may contribute to emotional well-being (Winick, 1997). Winick (2008) argues that increasing feelings of procedural justice can help victims to ameliorate their psychological stress and restore their emotional equilibrium. Giving victims a choice of whether or not to participate in the criminal proceedings is not simply a message of sympathy but recognition that they have been wronged (for example, Roberts and Erez, 2004). As an illustration, Frazier (2003) showed that victims who concentrate on what they can do to feel better and experience feelings of control over their recovery process have a decreased chance of developing mental health problems.

The Present Study

The present longitudinal study was conducted to examine whether and, if so, how delivering a written or oral VIS contributes to a victim’s emotional recovery. We formulated four hypotheses (see Figure 1):

Figure 1 A Conceptual Model of Pre-trial Selection Effects Influencing the Choice for a Victim Impact

257

Download more at Learnclax.com

Statement (VIS) and the Baseline-Adjusted Effects on Post-trial Outcomes With a Potential Crucial Role for Procedural Justice and Perceived Control

Hypothesis 1 Selection effects

(see Figure 1, H1). The choice of whether or not to deliver a (written or oral) VIS is likely to be influenced by feelings of anger and anxiety and perceptions of control over the recovery process. We expected that victims who deliver a VIS display higher feelings of anger and anxiety and perceive less control over their recovery process than victims who do not deliver a VIS (Hypothesis 1).

Hypothesis 2. No direct ‘therapeutic effects’ of VIS

(see Figure 1, H2). Second, we expected that individual differences in anger and anxiety will remain relatively stable over time. That is, we expected that victims who feel relatively angry/anxious compared with other victims before the trial will remain relatively angry/anxious after the trial (Hypothesis 2). Hence, after the trial, having delivered a VIS is not expected to ‘resolve’ the differences due to the selection effects between the modality groups. That is, delivering a VIS has no direct ‘therapeutic’ effects.

Hypothesis 3. Delivering a VIS and perceived control as an indirect process

258

Download more at Learnclax.com

1. Victims who have delivered a VIS are expected to experience an increase in feelings of control over their recovery process (see Figure 1, H3a).

2. Victims who perceive more control over their recovery process are expected to experience decreased feelings of anger and anxiety (see Figure 1, H3b).

3. Delivering a VIS is expected to have an indirect negative effect on feelings of anger and anxiety by an increase in feelings of control over the recovery process.

Hypothesis 4 Procedural justice

1. Victims who experience more feelings of procedural justice are expected to experience less feelings of anger and anxiety.

2. Victims who experience more feelings of procedural justice are expected to feel more in control over their recovery process (see Figure 1, H4b).

3. If H3b also holds, then procedural justice leads indirectly to a decrease in feelings of anxiety and anger.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through all 19 district court offices of the Dutch Public Prosecution Service. To participate in the study, victims had to meet the following criteria: they had to (1) be eligible to submit a VIS (that is, be a victim of a severe violent crime or a surviving relative/co-victim of, for example, murder or a traffic offence), (2) face an upcoming trial, and (3) have sufficient mastery of the Dutch language. Eligible participants received information from the Prosecution Service about the study and the possibility that they would be further contacted by the investigators. Furthermore, a form was included through which they could opt out of receiving further information. If this form had not been returned within two weeks, victims were contacted by telephone and invited to participate in the study. Accordingly, over a period of 12 months, 319 victims who met these criteria were contacted by telephone.

Finally, 170 victims agreed to participate in the study and filled out an informed consent form. As no background information on the non-participants was available, possible non-response bias could not be estimated. From the 170 participants who filled out the pre-trial questionnaire (that is, two weeks before the trial: Time 1), 27 did not complete the post-trial questionnaire (that is, two weeks after the trial: Time 2), mostly owing to lack of time or the fact that follow-up contact attempts failed. These victims were excluded from the study. As a result, the final sample consists of 143 participants (60 men and 83 women), with a mean age of 38.20 (SD = 14.29).

Procedure and Design

This article reports the results of a multi-method study. First, participants were asked to fill out two structured questionnaires at two time points: the first questionnaire was completed two weeks before the victim’s trial was scheduled (pre trial), and the second one two weeks after their trial had taken place (post trial). Furthermore, participants were interviewed four weeks after the trial. This semi-structured interview was

259

Download more at Learnclax.com

conducted to further examine participants’ feelings and thoughts about the criminal justice proceedings and

the modality they had chosen (that is, a written and/or oral VIS or no VIS).

The set-up of the study is quasi-experimental, because victims themselves chose whether or not they wanted to deliver a VIS. Three conditions were distinguished, depending on whether or not the victim chose to deliver a (written or oral) VIS. As a result, three groups emerge, with the first group comprising victims who declined to make a VIS (n = 48), the second group comprising victims who delivered a written VIS (n = 55), and the third group comprising victims who delivered an oral VIS (or a combination of both a written and an oral VIS) (n = 40).

Dependent Measures

Anger

A Dutch translation of the seven-item Dimensions of Anger Reactions scale (DAR; Kunst et al., 2011; Novaco, 1975) was used to measure feelings of anger. This validated, self-report scale consists of seven items that are answered on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 8 (exactly so). Sample items include ‘When I get angry I stay angry’ and ‘My anger has had a bad effect on my health’. Test-retest reliability of the Dutch translation of the DAR was examined by Nederlof et al. (2009): a correlation coefficient of .84 was found, supporting the reliability of the scale. The DAR provides an indicator of key aspects of anger dysregulation, including frequency, intensity, duration, violent expression and problematic consequences for psychosocial functioning and well-being (Forbes et al., 2004). The instruction preceding the DAR was altered to ensure that respondents would report anger post victimization, rather than anger per se. In particular, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they had experienced feelings of anger in the past two weeks. The author of the DAR approved the appropriateness of this adaption (Kunst et al., 2011). A sum score of the DAR is computed by adding up the scores of all responses. Cronbach’s α was .89 at Time 1 and .91 at Time 2, indicating good reliability (Murphy and Davidshofer, 2001).

Anxiety

Feelings of anxiety were measured with the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale- Dutch version (HADS-NL). The anxiety subscale consists of seven items that are answered on a four-point Likert scale. A sample item is ‘I can sit at ease and feel relaxed’. A sum score was computed by adding up the scores of the seven items, with a score of 9 or more indicating a psychiatric state of anxiety. Cronbach’s α was .90 at Time 1 and .90 at Time 2, indicating good reliability (Murphy and Davidshofer, 2001).

Control over the recovery process

Feelings of control over the recovery process were measured with the Present Control subscale of the Rape Attribution Questionnaire (Frazier, 2003). This questionnaire has been validated before among victims of severe crimes, a group that is comparable to the victims who participated in the present study. A sample item of the Present Control subscale reads ‘I don’t feel there is much I can do to help myself feel better’ (reverse scored). The subscale consists of five items that are rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). After reverse scoring one item, a total score was obtained by summing the scores

260

Download more at Learnclax.com

on the five items. Cronbach’s α was .68 at Time 1 and .66 at Time 2, indicating acceptable reliabilities

(Murphy and Davidshofer, 2001).

Procedural justice

Feelings of procedural justice were examined by asking participants questions about their feelings towards the criminal justice proceedings in general and their use of a VIS more specifically.

Procedural justice in general

The semi-structured interviews were used to examine participants’ general feelings of procedural justice by analysing questions regarding ‘victim voice’ and ‘recognition’. More specifically, participants were asked whether (1) they felt that the consequences of the crime on their lives received enough attention during the trial (that is, ‘voice’) and (2) they felt they received the recognition they deserved during the trial (that is, ‘recognition’). Two of the authors analysed the interviews, scoring a ‘0’ when participants disagreed with the statement and a ‘1’ when participants agreed. When participants partially disagreed, they were given the score ‘0’.

Procedural justice use VIS

Feelings of procedural justice as a specific result of delivering a (written or oral) VIS were measured by summing the scores of seven items regarding participants’ feelings of ‘voice’ (for example, ‘By using a VIS I feel that the authorities have/defendant has a better knowledge of how I have experienced the crime’), recognition (for example, ‘By using a VIS I feel more acknowledged in the criminal proceedings’) and subjective feelings of controlling the outcome of the criminal proceeding (for example, ‘By using a VIS I feel that I have an influence on the outcome of the criminal proceeding’) on the post test. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α was .88 for the written-VIS and .84 for the oral-VIS group, indicating good reliability (Murphy and Davidshofer, 2001).

Data Analyses

Data analyses were conducted in the open-source statistical software ‘R’ (R Core Team, 2013) and followed the conceptual model as displayed in Figure 1. To investigate potential self-selection effects in the choice of whether or not to deliver a VIS and test Hypothesis 1, differences in background (that is, gender, age, time since victimization, familiarity with the perpetrator and previous victimization) and pre-trial outcome variables (that is, anger, anxiety and feelings of control over the recovery process) between the three modality groups were tested by means of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables and by means of logistic regression for categorical variables. To test Hypotheses 2 and 3, a structural equation model (SEM) consisting of a set of auto-regression equations to model the change from pre trial to post trial in feelings of control, anger and anxiety was carried out. Post-trial and pre-trial outcomes are centred around the pre-trial mean and post-trial outcomes are regressed on pre-trial outcomes. This allows us to (1) test for change from pre trial to post trial, controlling for potential baseline differences, and (2) assess the stability of individual differences in perceived control, anger and anxiety. The models were fitted using full information maximum

261

Download more at Learnclax.com

likelihood using all available data under the missing at random assumption (MAR). The mediation

propositions in Hypotheses 3 and 4 will be verified following Baron and Kenny (1986) and, when there is support for indirect effects, these will be formally tested using the currently recommended bootstrap approach (see, for example, MacKinnon et al., 2004; Shrout and Bolger, 2002).

Results

Participants and Crime Features

Our total sample consisted of 143 victims of severe violent crimes. More specifically, the sample consisted of 134 ‘direct’ victims, 3 co-victims of homicide, and 3 family members of a victim who was killed in a car accident. In the remaining three cases, an underage victim was represented during the trial by one of his parents. Crime types were divided into six categories: threat (n = 30, 21.0 percent), stalking (n = 26, 18.2 percent), homicide (n = 4, 2.8 percent), sexual offences (n = 18, 12.6 percent), traffic offences (n = 8, 5.6 percent), and other severe violent crimes (n = 57, 39.9 percent) (that is, grievous bodily harm, robbery, hostage taking, attempted murder, and a combination of crime types, for example threat and assault). If a victim indicated that he/she experienced more than one crime (for example, threat and sexual offence), he/she was assigned to the most severe category. On average, the crime took place 12.2 months (range = 1–191) before completion of the pre test. The respondents knew the perpetrator before the crime was committed in 63.6 percent (n = 91) of cases; most of them were acquaintances, friends or family members. Furthermore, 49 victims (34.3 percent) had previous victimization experiences, with either the same type of crime (n = 31, 21.7 percent) and/or a different type of crime (n = 33, 23.1 percent). Of these 49 victims, 10 (20.4 percent) had previously delivered a written VIS (n = 7, 14.3 percent) or an oral VIS (n = 3, 6.1 percent).

Selection Effects: Who Chooses to Deliver a VIS?

To examine possible differences between victims who deliver a VIS and victims who decline their opportunity to deliver a VIS, we computed descriptive statistics based upon the measurements taken before the actual trial, and hence before the VIS was delivered. Differences between the modality groups were tested by means of ANOVA for continuous variables and by means of logistic regression for categorical variables. The results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

262

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: For variables that showed significant modality group differences, the superscripts a,b indicate which groups differ. Groups with the same superscript are equal; groups with a different superscript are significantly different.

Both written- and oral-VIS groups consist of significantly more women than the no-VIS group. Moreover, the crime for those who deliver an oral VIS took place significantly longer ago than for those who decline their opportunity to deliver a VIS and for those who make a written statement. No age differences were found between groups. Also, no group differences were found for familiarity with the perpetrator and previous victimization experiences. Furthermore, it appears that victims who deliver a VIS are also those who are most psychologically affected by the crime: victims in both the oral- and written-VIS groups experienced significantly lower levels of control over their recovery process and felt significantly more anxious than victims in the no-VIS group. Furthermore, victims in the written-VIS group felt significantly more angry than victims in the no-VIS and the oral-VIS group. These group differences accounted for about 7 percent of the individual differences (that is, variance) in anger, 15 percent in anxiety, and 9 percent in control.

The presence of these significant modality group differences indicates that the decision whether or not to deliver a VIS results in self-selection. Overall, it appears that victims who feel more heavily affected by the crime opt for the delivery of a VIS. This provides support for Hypothesis 1, and also implies that, in any further analyses of the impact of delivering a VIS, these baseline differences need to be taken into account.

Therapeutic Effects of Delivering a VIS?

All three modality groups showed a tendency to decrease in anxiety post trial when compared with pre trial, with a significant average decrease for the no-VIS and written-VIS group (ΔM0 = −2.10, Z = −5.02, p < .001;

ΔM1 = −0.89, Z = −2.43, p = .015; ΔM2 = −0.57, Z = −1.26, p = .207). However, even after accounting for the

pre-trial selection effects, the two VIS groups were shown to have higher levels of anxiety post trial (β1 = 0.13,

Z = 2.20, p = .028; β2 = 0.15, Z = 2.41, p = .016) (Table 2).2 Furthermore, individual differences in anxiety

were shown to be very stable over time, with 67 percent of shared variance between measures before and after the trial. A rather similar pattern of results also applies to anger. After accounting for the pre-trial selection effects, the two VIS groups were shown to have higher levels of anger post trial (β1 = 0.13, Z = 1.59, p = .112;

β2 = 0.18, Z = 2.01, p = .044). Furthermore, individual differences in anger were shown to be very stable over

263

Download more at Learnclax.com

time, with 30 percent of shared variance between measures before and after trial. Only the no-VIS group showed a significant average decrease in anger when compared with pre-trial measures (ΔM0 = −4.33, Z =

−2.28, p = .022 as against ΔM1 = −0.30, Z = −0.17, p =. 862 and ΔM2 = −1.44, Z = 0.69, p = .491).

Table 2

Note: Continuous covariates are mean-centred and categorical covariates are effect coded. Stability represents the outcome variable measured pre-trial. Outcomes are centred using the pre-trial means. Modality group is dummy coded, with the no-VIS group as reference category.

Thus, these results are in line with Hypothesis 2: delivering a VIS does not appear to resolve the differences due to the selection effects between the modality groups and therefore has no direct ‘therapeutic’ effects.

Delivering a VIS and Perceived Control

We theorized that delivering a VIS would lead to an increase in victims’ feelings of perceived control over their recovery process (H3a). When taking into account the pre-trial selection effects, no significant modality group differences in perceived control were found (β1 = 0.06, Z = 0.79, p = .431; β2 = −0.02, Z = −0.18, p =

.854) (see Table 2) and there was no evidence for any significant absolute increase or decrease in perceived control in comparison to the pre-trial baseline (ΔM0 = −0.13, Z = −0.03, p = .976; ΔM1 = 0.43, Z = 1.13, p =

.260; ΔM2 = −0.14, Z = −0.29, p = .776). Individual differences in perceived control were shown to be quite

stable over time, with 34 percent of shared variance between measures before and after the trial. These results indicate that Hypothesis 3a is not supported by the data, and as a consequence Hypothesis 3c, which expected a mediation effect of delivering a VIS through perceived control, is also not supported. The only link from the theoretical mediation chain that did receive support is the beneficial effect of perceived control on anxiety and anger (βAnxiety = −0.24, Z = −4.47, p < .001; βAnger = −0.24, Z = −2.94, p = .003), which corresponds to

Hypothesis 3b.

Procedural Justice

264

Download more at Learnclax.com

Feelings of procedural justice were examined by asking participants questions about their feelings towards the criminal justice proceedings in general and their use of a VIS more specifically.

Procedural justice in general

Victims who delivered an oral VIS were more likely to experience feelings of procedural justice than victims in both the written-VIS and the no-VIS modality groups. Although the differences for the variable ‘voice’ did

not reach statistical significance (χ2(df = 1) = 1.85, p = .174), a significant effect was found for ‘recognition’

(χ2(df = 1) = 4.60, p = .032). Also, we theorized that victims who experience more feelings of procedural justice would feel more in control over their recovery process, and that, if Hypothesis 3b held, procedural justice would indirectly lead to a decrease in feelings of anger and anxiety. However, the addition of the two procedural justice variables to the auto-regressive models used for Hypotheses 2 and 3 resulted in evidence of

a significant contribution only in the case of anxiety (ΔR2 = .02, χ2 = 6.46, df = 2, p = .040), in which

‘recognition’ decreased anxiety post trial (β = −0.29, Z = −2.46, p = .014) but not anger (ΔR2 = .03, χ2 = 3.07,

df = 2, p = .216) or perceived control (ΔR2 = .01, χ2 = 0.853, df = 2, p = .653). This last observation is inconsistent with Hypothesis 4b because the link between general procedural justice and perceived control is

not supported.3

Procedural justice use VIS

The two VIS modality groups (n = 95) were also asked to assess the degree of procedural justice they experienced when delivering a VIS. This allows us to verify whether positive personal experiences with the VIS can help to reduce feelings of anger and anxiety. Consistent with Hypothesis 4b, feelings of procedural justice as a result of delivering a VIS had a significant positive effect on perceived control (β = 0.16, Z = 2.06, p = .040). Given that the link between perceived control and anxiety/anger was also supported (H3b), we conducted a more thorough mediation analysis. The total effect of procedural justice on anxiety was significant and negative (β = −0.14, Z = −2.14, p = .040), indicating that experiencing more procedural justice is related to a reduction in anxiety. About 24 percent (indirect/total) of the total effect of procedural justice on anger can be explained by perceived control, yet the indirect effect is not significant (β = −0.03, Z = −1.70, p = .089). A similar trend applies to anger (total: β = −0.12, Z = 1.29, p = .198/indirect: β = −0.03, Z = −1.46, p = .143). Hence, Hypothesis 4c is again not clearly supported. Because the direct effect of procedural justice is also no longer significant for either anxiety or anger (direct: β = −0.11, Z = −1.64, p = .102 and β = −0.09, Z = −0.92, p = .357), this might imply that perceived control is a more comprehensive construct than procedural justice in this context.

Discussion and Conclusion

A central question in the debate about the VIS is whether its delivery helps victims to recover from a crime, or on the contrary might lead to secondary victimization. Whereas some argue that ‘VIS can work, do work (for those who bother to make them)’ (Chalmers et al., 2007), others argue the exact opposite, namely that ‘VIS, don’t work, can’t work’ (Sanders et al., 2001). Therefore, empirical studies on the impact of victims’ participation or non-participation in the criminal justice system on their emotional well-being are very much

265

Download more at Learnclax.com

needed (see also Herman, 2003; Pemberton and Reynaers, 2011). This longitudinal study was conducted to

fill this gap with regard to examining the effects of delivering a VIS in court. More specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine whether and, if so, how delivering a VIS contributes to the emotional recovery of the victim. Understanding factors that affect emotional recovery among victims of severe violent crimes is particularly important given the high levels of symptoms experienced by this group (for example, Lens et al., 2013).

In support of our first hypothesis, the results of this study show that the decision to deliver a VIS results in a highly selective group of participants. It appears that the victims’ psychological state plays an important role in this choice: victims who decide to deliver a written or oral VIS display significantly higher levels of anxiety than victims who do not, while experiencing significantly lower levels of control over their own recovery process. Moreover, victims who make a written statement display a significantly higher level of anger compared with victims in both the no-VIS and the oral-VIS group. In other words, it appears that both groups indeed experience distinct trajectories of mental health outcomes following potentially traumatic events (Bonanno, 2004). These results are in line with social sharing research, which revealed that people who have not yet recovered from an event feel a continued need to share their emotions related to the event (Curci and Rimé, 2012). Furthermore, these findings are consistent with previous research on VIS delivery, which showed that the impact of a crime is positively correlated with the delivery of a VIS: victims who choose to deliver a VIS display a significantly higher degree of psychological complaints after the crime, compared with those who decline their opportunity to do so (Lens et al., 2013).

Second, and in support of our second hypothesis, the results of this study show that delivering a VIS has no direct ‘therapeutic’ effects in the sense that this leads to significant decreases in feelings of anger or anxiety. Overall, feelings of anger and anxiety are significantly stable: victims who feel relatively angry or anxious before the trial will remain relatively angry or anxious after the trial, whether or not they deliver a VIS. This finding is in line with ongoing research into the social sharing of emotions, which reveals that the mere expression of emotions has no direct ‘healing’ effects (Rimé, 2009; Rimé et al., 2011), and research on post- traumatic stress that challenges the assumption that a single-shot expression of emotions contributes to a diminishing of trauma complaints (Van Emmerik et al., 2002).

Regarding Hypothesis 3, the results show that victims who experience higher feelings of control over their recovery process experience a relatively stronger reduction in feelings of anger and anxiety. This finding is in line with previous research, which argued that victims who concentrate on what they can do to feel better and experience feelings of control over their recovery process have a decreased chance of developing mental health problems (for example, Frazier, 2003). However, we found no evidence that delivering a VIS results in significantly higher feelings of control over the recovery process as such.

Regarding Hypothesis 4, the results revealed that the total effects of feelings of procedural justice on anger and anxiety were significant and negative, indicating that experiencing more procedural justice is correlated with a reduction in feelings of anger and anxiety.

The current longitudinal study is the first to empirically examine the psychological effects of delivering a VIS

266

Download more at Learnclax.com

in terms of the two most important emotional reactions after experiencing a crime: anger and anxiety. It extends previous findings in two important regards. First, this study showed that victims who opt for the delivery of a VIS show high levels of psychological problems both before and after the trial. Following the different recovery trajectories from Bonanno (2004), these results imply that, especially within a limited time frame, the course of their psychological complaints is characterized by a great degree of stability. Moreover, compared with victims who experience a relatively limited degree of psychological complaints, these victims are assumed to be ‘resistant’ to therapeutic approaches. Therefore, we argue in this article that the high levels of psychological complaint for victims who opt to deliver a VIS point to the importance of continued research aimed at helping crime victims overcome the trauma they have experienced and examine possible positive effects of participating in criminal justice procedures. Second, this study showed that, although delivering a VIS does not give rise to direct ‘therapeutic’ effects, feelings of anxiety decrease for victims who experience higher feelings of procedural justice. Moreover, this study revealed that increasing feelings of control over the recovery process could lead to a decrease in feelings of anger and anxiety as well. Based on these results, which showed different patterns for different indicators, we argue that the effectiveness of delivering a VIS should not be viewed as a ‘black or white’ issue. The choice to participate sets victims apart from those who decline to do so, and subsequent effects are subtle, differentiated and indirect. As a result, ham-fisted and sweeping statements concerning the effectiveness of VISs are unwarranted. Discussion concerning the question of whether or not VISs ‘work’ should be replaced by a conditional and differentiated approach.

Although the relevance of this study is apparent, some limitations are worth mentioning. First, the set-up of this study is a non-equivalent control group design, which may give rise to differences in pre-test scores that in turn may influence the estimation of the treatment effect (that is, the delivery of a VIS). By conducting an experimental study, and randomly assigning victims to groups, one would have the opportunity to draw causal conclusions about the cause (that is, delivering a VIS) and its effects (that is, the psychological health of the victims). However, for our underlying research question, conducting an experimental study was (simply) not feasible because making the choice of whether or not to deliver a VIS for someone else would be considered ‘unethical’. Second, although a major strength of this study is its longitudinal design, it comprised only two measurement points: a pre test (around two weeks before the trial) and a post test (around two weeks after the trial). As a consequence, this study allows us to investigate only relatively short-term consequences of delivering a VIS. Future studies including more measurements over time (for example, a third measurement six months after the trial) could give more insight into the long-term effects of delivering a VIS.

Discussion Questions

1. According to procedural justice theory, what should the effect of giving a VIS be on a victim? 2. Why might not sharing emotions through a VIS be therapeutic for victims? 3. Identify and explain what the trajectories of recovery after crime are hypothesized to be. Which

trajectory of recovery do the main findings of the paper align with the most? 4. What are the policy implications from the main findings of the paper? How might they be used by

victim advocates?

267

Download more at Learnclax.com

268

Download more at Learnclax.com

Notes

Our research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

1. The Dutch Explanatory Memorandum of the Oral Victim Impact Statement Act mentions four goals of the VIS. First, the delivery of a VIS may contribute to the information provision to the trial judge. The second and third goals refer to its preventative purpose, which can be, on the one hand, general (that is, establishing societal norms) and, on the other hand, specific (that is, decrease the relapse risk of the suspected offender). Fourth, the delivery of a VIS may contribute to the victim’s emotional recovery.

2. Note that the full unstandardized regression results are summarized in Table 2, but the corresponding standardized regression coefficients are reported in the text for ease of interpretation.

3. Note that in these models a variable that showed whether victims attended the trial or not was added as an additional covariate to account for the structural missingness of victims who did not attend the trial.

269

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Alexander EK and Lord JH (1994) Impact Statements: A Victim’s Right to Speak, a Nation’s Responsibility

to Listen. American Prosecutors Research Institute.

Ashworth A (2000) Victims’ rights, defendants’ rights and criminal procedure. In: Crawford A and Goodey J (eds) Integrating a Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.

Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.

Bonanno GA (2004) Loss, trauma and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist 5: 20–28.

Chalmers J, Duff P and Leverick F (2007) Victim impact statements: Can work, do work (for those who bother to make them). Criminal Law Review, May: 360–379.

Curci A and Rimé B (2012) The temporal evolution of social sharing of emotions and its consequences on emotional recovery: A longitudinal study. Emotion 12: 1004–1014.

Davis RC and Smith BE (1994) Victim Impact Statements and victim satisfaction: An unfulfilled promise? Journal of Criminal Justice 22: 1–12.

Edwards I (2001) Victim participation in sentencing: The problems of incoherence. The Howard Journal 40: 39–54.

Erez E (1990) Victim participation in sentencing: Rhetoric and reality. Journal of Criminal Justice 18: 19–31.

Erez E (1994) Victim participation in sentencing: And the debate goes on… International Review of Victimology 3: 17–32.

Erez E (2004) Integrating restorative justice principles in adversarial proceedings through victim impact statements. In: Cape E (eds) Reconcilable Rights? Analysing the Tension between Victims and Defendants. London: Legal Action Group.

270

Download more at Learnclax.com

Erez E and Tontodonato P (1992) Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Quarterly 9: 393–417.

Forbes D, Hawthorne G, Elliott P, McHugh T, Biddle D and Creamer M (2004) A concise measure of anger in combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress 17: 249–256.

Frazier PA (2003) Personality processes and individual differences. Perceived control and distress following sexual assault: A longitudinal test of a new model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(6): 1257–1269.

Frazier P, Steward J and Mortensen H (2004) Perceived control and adjustment to trauma: A comparison across events. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23: 303–324.

Groenhuijsen MS and Pemberton A (2009) The EU framework decision for victims of crime: Does hard law make a difference? European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 17: 43–59.

Herman JL (2003) The mental health of crime victims: Impact of legal intervention. Journal of Traumatic Stress 16(2): 159–166.

Kennedy-Moore E and Watson JC (1999) Expressing Emotion: Myths, Realities, and Therapeutic Strategies. New York: Guilford.

Kunst MJJ, Winkel FW and Bogaerts S (2011) Posttraumatic anger, recalled peritraumatic emotions, and PTSD in victims of violent crime. Journal of interpersonal violence 5: 1–19.

Layne CM, Warren JS, Watson PJ and Shalev AY (2007) Handbook of PTSD Science and Practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Lens KME, Pemberton A and Bogaerts S (2013) Heterogeneity in victim participation: A new perspective on delivering a Victim Impact Statement. European Journal of Criminology 10(4): 479–495.

Lens KME, Pemberton A and Groenhuijsen MS (2010) Het spreekrecht in Nederland: Een bijdrage aan het emotioneel herstel van slachtoffers? Tilburg: INTERVICT/PrismaPrint.

Lind EA and Tyler TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.

271

Download more at Learnclax.com

MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM and Williams J (2004) Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39: 99–128.

McNally RJ, Bryant RA and Ehlers A (2003) Does early psychological intervention promote recovery from posttraumatic stress? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4(2): 45–80.

Meredith C and Paquette C (2001) Summary Report on Victim Impact Statement Focus Groups. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.

Murphy KR and Davidshofer CO (2001) Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nederlof AF, Hovens JE, Muris P and Novaco RW (2009) Psychometric evaluation of a Dutch version of the Dimensions of Anger Reactions scale. Psychological Reports 105: 585–592.

Novaco RW (1975) Anger control: The development and evaluation of an experimental treatment. Contemporary Psychology 21: 397–398.

Parsons J and Bergin T (2010) The impact of criminal justice involvement on victims’ mental health. Journal of Traumatic Stress 23(2): 182–188.

Pemberton A and Reynaers S (2011) The controversial nature of victim participation: Therapeutic benefits in victim impact statements. In Erez E, Kilchling M and Wemmers JJM (eds) Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Procedural Justice for Victims of Crime: International Perspective. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Publishing.

R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Austria: Vienna, R foundation for statistical computing. URL: http://www.R-project.org.

Rimé B (2009) Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review. Emotion Review 1: 60–85.

Rimé B, Kanyangara P, Yzerbyt V and Paez D (2011) The impact of Gacaca tribunals in Rwanda: Psychosocial effects of participation in a truth and reconciliation process after a genocide. European Journal of Social Psychology 41: 695–706.

272

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.R-project.org

Roberts JV (2009) Listening to the crime victim: Evaluating victim input at sentencing and parole. In: Tonry M (ed.) Crime, Punishment, and Politics in Comparative Perspective. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 38. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Roberts JV and Erez E (2004) Communication in sentencing: Exploring the expressive function of victim impact statements. International Review of Victimology 10: 223–244.

Roberts JV and Manikis M (2013) Victim personal statements in England and Wales: Latest (and last) trends from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey. Criminology & Criminal Justice 13: 245–261.

Sanders A, Hoyle C, Morgan R and Cape E (2001) Victim Impact Statements: Don’t work, can’t work. Criminal Law Review 6: 447–458.

Shapland J, Willmore J and Duff P (1985) Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.

Shrout P and Bolger N (2002) Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Bulletin, 7: 422–445.

Sijbrandij M, Olff M, Reitsma JB, Carlier IVE and Gersons BPR (2006) Emotional or educational debriefing after psychological trauma: Randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 189: 150–155.

Steenkamp MM, Dickstein BD, Salters-Pedneault K, Hofmann SG and Litz BT (2012) Trajectories of PTSD symptoms following sexual assault: Is resilience the modal outcome? Journal of Traumatic Stress 25, 469–474.

Thibaut J and Walker L (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tyler TR (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Tyler TR (2006) What do they expect? New findings confirm the precepts of procedural fairness. California Court Review, Winter: 22–24.

Van Emmerik AP, Kamphuis JH, Hulsbosch AM and Emmelkamp PMG (2002) Single session debriefing after psychological trauma: A meta-analysis. The Lancet 360: 766–771.

273

Download more at Learnclax.com

Walklate S (2002) Victim Impact Statements. In: Williams B (ed.) Reparation and Victim Focused Social Work. London: Kingsley.

Wemmers JJM (1996) Victims in the Criminal Justice System. The Hague: WODC/Kugler.

Wemmers J and Cyr K (2004) Victims’ perspective on restorative justice. How much involvement are victims looking for? International Review of Victimology 11: 1–16.

Winick BJ (1997) Coercion and mental health treatment. Denver University Law Review 74: 1145–1168.

Winick BJ (2008) A therapeutic jurisprudence approach to dealing with coercion in the mental health system. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 15: 25–39.

Zech E and Rimé B (2005) Is talking about an emotional experience helpful? Effects on emotional recovery and perceived benefits. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 12: 270–287.

274

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 8

In their article, Davis and Mulford (2008) provide an overview of the most common rights provided to crime victims in the United States. The authors note the challenges victims face as they try to assert these rights. They also discuss current developments in victims’ rights and remedies, including compliance programs and victim law clinics, which are designed to increase agency compliance.

Victim Rights and New Remedies

Finally Getting Victims Their Due

Robert C. Davis and Carrie Mulford

During the last two decades, federal and state governments have dramatically expanded the rights of crime victims. Many forces have spurred this change, including activism by crime victims as well as national crime victimization surveys documenting surprisingly high rates of crime, yet low levels of crime reporting by victims (Tobolowsky, 1997; Young, 1999). In the early 1980s, President Reagan convened a Presidential Task Force on Victims of Crime to investigate crime trends and the treatment of victims by the criminal justice system. The Task Force’s 1982 final report defined an agenda for restoring a balance between the rights of defendants and victims. It called for increased participation by victims throughout criminal justice proceedings and restitution in all cases in which victims suffer financial loss.

Even before the Task Force issued its report, however, Congress anticipated many of its recommendations in the 1982 Victim Witness Protection Act. This act authorized victim restitution and the use of victim impact statements at sentencing in federal cases. It also required the attorney general to issue guidelines for the development of further policies regarding victims and witnesses of crimes. Soon after, the 1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) implemented more of the Task Force’s recommendations on victim compensation. This second act by Congress redistributed monies levied from federal offenders to states, funding local aid to victims (Smith & Hillenbrand, 1999).

Recommendations by the Reagan Task Force regarding procedural rights for crime victims were at least as influential as those regarding restitution. First, Congress revised the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require pre-sentence reports to include “any harm done to or loss suffered by any victim of the offense” along with “any other information that may aid the court in sentencing.” Then, in the 1990 Victim Rights and Restitution Act, Congress gave crime victims in federal cases the right to notification of court proceedings and the right to attend them, the right to notice of changes in a defendant’s detention status, the right to consult with prosecutors, and the right to protection against offender aggression. Under President Clinton, the 1994 omnibus Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act gave victims in federal cases the right to speak at sentencing hearings, made restitution mandatory in sexual assault cases, and expanded funding for local victim services (Kelly & Erez, 1999; Kilpatrick, Beatty, & Howley, 1998).

In 2004, the Victim Rights Act, which provides for crime victims’ rights in federal courts, was signed into law. As part of the 2004 act, victims of crime were given significantly expanded rights, including the right to be

275

Download more at Learnclax.com

present and heard at public court proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, or parole. The act also placed on the federal courts a duty to ensure that victims are afforded those rights. Previous federal law did not provide any means of enforcement and only recognized the right to be heard in federal district court for victims of violent crimes or sexual abuse.

Source: Davis, R. C., & Mulford, C. (2008). Victim rights and new remedies: Finally getting victims their due. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 198–208. Reprinted with permission.

The Rights of Victims Under State Laws

During the past 30 years, victims who previously had no rights to be notified or to participate in the criminal justice process have acquired statutory basic rights and protections in every state, the first of which was passed in Wisconsin in 1979. Although every state has some form of victim rights legislation, the states differ in their definitions of who is eligible for rights, with some limiting rights only to victims of violent felonies or other subcategories of victims. About 40% of states extend rights to all classes of victims of crime (Howley & Dorris, 2007). States also differ in the types of rights provided. A study by researchers at the Vera Institute analyzed victim rights legislation from every state and then coded it using a standardized evaluation form (Deess, 1999). The study showed that rights to compensation, notification of court appearances, and submission of a victim impact statement before sentencing were provided in all states (at least for some victims). A majority of states also gave victims the right to restitution, to attend sentencing hearings, and the right to consult with officials before offers of pleas or release of defendants from custody. States vary widely in their eligibility requirements and organizational responsibility for the implementation of the rights (Goddu, 1993).

Notification

The right to notification is perhaps the most basic. Victims unaware of their rights and available services, or of the proceedings themselves, will be unable to exercise any rights they may have (Kilpatrick et al., 1998). Kilpatrick and his colleagues (1998) asked more than 1,300 victims to rank, in order of importance, 13 different rights. Three rights to notification ranked among the five most important, with the right to notification of suspect’s arrest seen as “very important” by more than 97% of the victims interviewed—the highest rating overall. The researchers also categorized states as either strong-protection states or weak- protection states on the basis of the specificity, strength, and comprehensiveness of their victim rights to notification, participation, and restitution. They found that victims from strong-protection states were more likely to receive notification throughout criminal justice proceedings, including notice of arrests, trials, and parole hearings. Nonetheless, stronger legislation did not guarantee notification. Even in strong-protection states, 25% to 35% of victims did not receive required notification (Kilpatrick et al., 1998).

Participation and Consultation

The best-known form of participation by victims is the submission of a victim impact statement at the time of sentencing. Most states also authorize submission of a victim statement of opinion, a more subjective assessment by victims of the appropriate sentence. By 1997, 40 states had mandated that criminal justice

276

Download more at Learnclax.com

officials consult victims before making decisions on bond, plea, sentencing, or parole (Kelly & Erez, 1999).

According to Kilpatrick et al.’s (1998) study, victim impact statements are the most frequent form of victim participation, submitted by more than 90% of people informed of their right to do so. In strong-protection states, the survey found that participation frequently went beyond these statements, with victims significantly more likely than those within weak-protection states to have input during bond hearings, provide testimony in court, and submit victim impact statements at parole hearings (Kilpatrick et al., 1998).

One fear voiced by opponents of expanded victim rights has been that more participation by victims would lead to harsher sentencing by judges. Injecting personal statements into the sentencing decision would reduce uniformity in sentencing, introduce a greater degree of arbitrariness, and result in harsher treatment of convicted offenders across the board (Abramovsky, 1986; Talbert, 1988). There is little research on this question, and the few studies that have examined it have produced inconsistent results (Erez & Tontodonato, 1990; Davis & Smith, 1994). This inconsistency may be the product of weak commitment to the use of these statements and other input from victims. For example, the study by Davis and Smith (1994) found that although prosecutors and judges endorsed victim impact statements in theory, many resisted integrating them into their established routines.

Compensation and Restitution

Crime victims can incur medical costs associated with physical or emotional trauma, repair, and replacement costs associated with property crime, and opportunity costs of time they lose, measured in lost income. In theory, victims can recover these costs either from offenders required to pay restitution or through public compensation. Nearly all states authorize corrections officials to require restitution from offenders as a condition of parole. In addition, officials in a majority of states have the authority to order offenders to pay restitution as part of a suspended sentence or work release (Smith & Hillenbrand, 1999).

Likewise, public victim compensation programs in the large majority of states are funded by fees or charges paid by the offender. Since 1984, the federal VOCA legislation has encouraged states to institute victim compensation programs, and in 1988, VOCA was amended to ensure that victims of domestic violence and drunk driving were not excluded from compensation. States whose programs meet VOCA requirements can draw on federal subsidies that cover up to 40% of their payments to victims. All states limit eligibility to victims who report crime to the police and help prosecute offenders (Smith & Hillenbrand, 1999).

In practice, a minority of victims appear to receive compensation or restitution. A 1991 study found that less than a third of victims of violent crime were encouraged by a criminal justice official to file for compensation (McCormack, 1991). Kilpatrick et al.’s (1998) survey found that fewer than 20% of people eligible for restitution received it. Moreover, contrary to expectation, judges in states with stronger victim protections were significantly less likely to order victim restitution for economic losses than were judges from states with weaker victim rights protections.

Right to Protection

277

Download more at Learnclax.com

Criminal justice officials are increasingly concerned with the safety of victims and witnesses, especially in cases involving intimate partner violence or gang crimes. A majority of states provide victims with some right to protection including information about measures to take in the event of intimidation by the defendant, no contact orders, and separate and secure waiting facilities in court buildings. An increasing number of states are protecting victims from possible intimidation by limiting disclosure of victim information in law enforcement or court records or by not requiring that they provide their address or place of employment in testimony given in open court (Howley & Dorris, 2007).

Right to a Speedy Trial

Approximately half of states provide victims the right to a speedy disposition or trial. Generally, such legislation requires the court to consider the interests of victims in ruling on motions for continuance (Howley & Dorris, 2007). In some states, the law also provides for accelerated dispositions in cases involving victims who are elderly, disabled, or minor children.

The Challenge of Implementing Victim Rights Legislation

One of the most frequent conclusions from empirical research in victim rights is that despite the scope of federal and state legislation, criminal justice systems do not honor these rights. Consequently, some states began to develop state-level victim services offices that serve as both oversight agencies monitoring compliance and centers for referrals and linkages to victim services organizations. In the early 1990s policymakers in Wisconsin created the Wisconsin Victim Resource Center, a body that functions to enforce the new victims’ rights laws (Office for Victims of Crime, 1998). Still, as Kilpatrick and his colleagues observed after their 1998 survey, even within states with strong victim rights legislation, many victims are not notified about key hearings and proceedings, many are not given the opportunity to be heard, and few receive restitution. Although victims in these states generally fared better than those in states with weak victim rights legislation, as many as one third of victims in strong-protection states were not afforded the opportunity to exercise certain rights.

Kilpatrick et al.’s (1998) findings have been echoed in other recent studies. A study of Texas law enforcement officers revealed that only 25% fulfilled their statutory obligation to notify victims of the state compensation program (Fritsch, Caeti, Tobolowsky, & Taylor, 2004). An audit conducted in Florida found that between one quarter and one half of victims did not receive information on victim rights from first responders and that agencies were not consistently documenting compliance with victim notification requirements (Auditor General, 2001). Similarly, a survey of Oregon crime victims found that 30% to 60% were denied rights to be notified of court dates, parole hearing dates, and restitution (Regional Research Institute for Human Services, 2002).

Officials in criminal justice agencies responsible for victims argue that state legislatures often do not provide funding to implement victim rights statutes. Criminal justice officials surveyed by the American Bar Association in 1989 were quite happy with their state’s victim rights legislation, believing that it increased victims’ satisfaction with officials and the criminal justice system, increased victims’ willingness to cooperate,

278

Download more at Learnclax.com

increased information for making case decisions, and improved their job satisfaction. But a major source of dissatisfaction was with the lack of resources provided to implement the legislation (Smith & Hillenbrand, 1999). These complaints were echoed in the Kilpatrick et al. (1998) study, in which state and local officials indicated that inadequate funding, training, and enforcement of rights still present problems. According to this study, only 39% of local officials from strong-protection states and 27% of those from weak-protection states felt that funding for victim rights implementation was sufficient. A more recent study by the Vera Institute found that a majority of prosecutors believed that victim rights laws had imposed significant costs on their offices and other criminal justice agencies, requiring them to hire new staff and spend more money to contact victims by mail and by phone (Davis, Henderson, & Rabbitt, 2002).

Few states provided some form of remedy in their original victim rights legislation for victims whose rights were not honored by criminal justice officials. In fact, at one point, more than 15 states banned legal challenges to case resolutions or other redress for denial of victim rights by including clauses stating that the violation of a right did not create a civil cause of action against any government agency or official and that the failure to provide a right to a victim could not be used as a ground for appeal (Tobolowsky, 1997).

Those concerned with the rights of victims have come to realize that it is not enough to grant rights to victims: These rights must be backed up with ways to ensure that the agencies and officials responsible for informing victims of rights actually provide that information to victims. Beloof (2005) argues that there are three obstacles to full ability of victims to exercise their rights: government discretion to deny rights, lack of a way to enforce rights, and appellate court discretion to deny review. He further argues that victims will achieve real rights when they get legal standing to defend their rights, when appellate courts can void court decisions made in violation of victim rights, and when review of violations is a matter of right. These remedies have been the focus of new legal and programmatic efforts on behalf of victims.

Constitutional Amendments

In 1982, California was the first state to pass a constitutional amendment enumerating crime victims’ rights that included the right to public safety. The Reagan Task Force helped to spur the adoption of constitutional amendments by other states with its recommendation for a federal constitutional amendment to ensure victim rights. As a step toward building support for a federal constitutional amendment, members of the Task Force helped launch a 1986 National Victims’ Constitutional Amendment Network of crime victim advocacy groups pursuing state-level victim rights and state constitutional amendments (Young, 1999). Today, 32 states have adopted constitutional amendments regarding victim rights (Howley & Dorris, 2007).

Constitutional amendments provide greater assurance that victim rights will actually be observed. Because amending a state constitution is more difficult than passing a statute, this approach gives victim rights a greater degree of permanence. Also constitutional amendments take precedence over conflicting statutory provisions; courts have generally honored rights contained in constitutional amendments as indicative of the public will (Howley & Dorris, 2007). Finally, constitutional protection for victim rights makes enforcement potentially more likely. Court decisions in some states have held that victim rights amendments give victims legal standing to pursue their rights.

279

Download more at Learnclax.com

However, Beloof (2005) argues that constitutional amendments alone are inadequate because most state constitutional rights of victims are silent about available review and remedies. Moreover, government discretion typically curtails victim standing to enforce constitutional rights. Contrary to the intent of constitutional amendments, Beloof cites cases in some states in which state court judges have declared victim constitutional rights to be advisory rather than mandatory.

Compliance Programs

Victim rights compliance programs are responsible for educating criminal justice agencies and often the public about victims’ rights. Crime victim compliance programs currently exist in 13 states. In most of the states where compliance programs exist, the programs were established as part of the enabling legislation that accompanied the state constitutional amendments. However, there is a great deal of variety in the autonomy and authority among the programs. Most of the compliance programs are located in either the governor’s office or in the state’s Department of Justice. At least a couple of states (e.g., Alaska and Connecticut) created independent “watchdog” agencies to oversee the enforcement of victims’ rights. Most states rely on legislative appropriations and or VOCA funds to support their victim rights compliance programs.

Many programs conduct trainings, either on their own or in conjunction with other mandatory training programs. The programs also field calls from victims and the general public and provide information about victim rights and referrals to other victim services, including compensation. All the crime victim compliance programs receive complaints from victims when an individual feels that his or her rights have been violated. Most of the programs have a formal complaint process, whereby the victim fields a complaint and the compliance officer (also known as compliance coordinators or ombudsman) communicates the complaint to the individual or agency against whom the complaint was directed. Usually, the complaint is investigated by the compliance officer or a compliance board, and the officer or board determines if the compliance programs differ in how violations are handled. In most states, the compliance officer communicates the violation to the agency against whom the complaint was made and attempts to educate the agency about victims’ rights. Some states file annual reports to the legislature or other commissions or boards in which the offending agencies are named, whereas others are not permitted to name specific agencies (e.g., South Carolina). Mandated training (e.g., Maryland) and corrective action plans (e.g., Colorado) are available to some compliance programs. Alaska is the only state that has the authority to set fines or apply for criminal misdemeanor charges for serious infraction. Connecticut has used press conferences and public release of infractions as mechanisms to gain compliance.

Several victims’ rights compliance programs provide an arbitration role and do not consider themselves to be either victim advocates or agency advocates, whereas others consider themselves to be victim advocates (Edwards, Myrus, & Felix, 2006). In only a couple of states (e.g., Connecticut and Alaska) are the compliance programs given the authority to appear in court on behalf of victims.

Victim Rights Clinics

In an effort to promote the enforcement of victims’ rights, as well as awareness and education in the area of

280

Download more at Learnclax.com

crime victim rights, the National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) was established in 2000. In 2002, to help address the enforcement of victims’ rights through direct pro bono representation of victims in the court process, the Office for Victims of Crime within the U.S. Department of Justice entered into a cooperative agreement with NCVLI to establish legal clinics in several jurisdictions. The clinic demonstration project was created to advocate for the expansion of the enforcement of victims’ rights in the criminal justice system and to educate legal professionals about victim rights law. Then in 2006, Congress appropriated monies to support NCVLI in its efforts to enforce crime victims’ rights in federal jurisdictions through federal clinics.

The first state clinic was funded in Arizona, followed by clinics in California, Maryland, New Mexico, and South Carolina the following year. In 2005, four additional clinics were added, including state clinics in Idaho, New Jersey, and Utah and a federal clinic in Arizona. Two additional federal clinics, one in South Carolina and one in Maryland, were added in 2007. NCVLI continues to expand and provide funding to the existing clinics. NCVLI serves as an umbrella organization and, in addition to funding the clinics, provides them with training and technical assistance, including programmatic and financial monitoring, and legal support and research.

The eight state clinics all have the same basic mission and goals but operate through a variety of models. Two of the clinics, California and Idaho, are operated as law school clinics, with supervision of law students by the clinic director. Several clinics were developed within existing victim service organizations and employ staff attorneys to represent victims (e.g., Maryland, South Carolina, and Arizona). Two other clinics developed within nonprofit organizations that serve targeted victim populations (e.g., Utah’s clinic was initially located within the Salt Lake Rape Recovery Center and New Mexico’s clinic is located within the DWI Resource Center). New Jersey is the only clinic that was developed independently, specifically to enforce the rights of crime victims. The various models offer different strengths and weaknesses (Small, Roman, Owens, & Shollenberger, 2006). For example, the clinics that are operated through law schools have better access to law students, so are better able to fulfill the goal of educating future lawyers in victim rights law. However, it is more difficult for these clinics to access client populations in need of representation in victim rights law cases. On the other hand, a state clinic that is located in a reputable victim service organization, such as Maryland that has well-established relationships with victims and other victim serving organizations, has ready access to victims but less interaction with law students.

One of the goals of the clinics is to represent victims in cases that have the best chance of making a significant impact to future victims. Some of the clinics have embraced this goal more fully than others (Small et al., 2006). Some of the clinic directors find it difficult to turn away any victims in need of representation, whereas other clinics would like to be more selective, but do not have a large enough case load to justify turning cases away. NCVLI provides training and assistance to the clinics in selecting the most significant cases. The issues involved in the selection of significant cases are jurisdiction specific, but include such things as rights to be present, be heard, receive notice, and rights to privacy.

The NCVLI organization also hosts an annual conference on crime victim rights law, a cluster meeting of the clinic directors, and a membership organization, the National Alliance of Victims’ Rights Attorneys

281

Download more at Learnclax.com

(NAVRA). As indicated on NCVLI’s Web site, NAVRA is an “alliance of attorneys committed to the protection, enforcement, and advancement of crime victims’ rights nationwide.” NAVRA membership allows attorneys to use the list server, receive conference call training on crime victim rights issues, and receive case updates. A federally funded evaluation of NCVLI and the state clinics began in January 2008.

Conclusion

The process of securing rights for crime victims has been a long and uneven one. Federal and state government efforts to pass legislation providing rights to crime victims helped to give victims greater involvement in criminal cases. However, legislation was not enough to guarantee victims’ rights in the process. It soon became clear that those charged with assisting victims to exercise their rights were not always complying with statutes and that there was little recourse when they did not.

To try to ensure that victims received rights in practice, new approaches were adopted. Constitutional amendments were efforts to make victim rights fundamental and more enforceable. Compliance programs and victim rights clinics are more recent initiatives designed to improve compliance with victim rights statutes. These programs attempt to ensure that more victims are able to exercise their rights through training of criminal justice officials, representation of victims in individual cases, and filing complaints against agencies or individuals who deny victims their rights. A current evaluation will examine the extent to which the clinics are making the exercise of victim rights more universally accepted.

Discussion Questions

1. Why are the victim rights granted in most states the ones that are most common? What rights are not commonly provided but should be?

2. Why do you think so few victims receive compensation? 3. What barriers are in place to prevent agency personnel from meeting the requirements of victim rights

legislation or victim rights amendments? 4. What else can be done to ensure that agencies provide victims rights that are guaranteed to them?

282

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Abramovsky, A. (1986). Crime victim rights. New York Law Journal, 3, 1, 3.

Auditor General. (2001). The provision of victim services pursuant to section 960.001, Florida statutes: Operational audit (Report No. 02-044). Tallahassee, FL: Office of the Florida Auditor General.

Beloof, D. E. (2005). The third wave of crime victims’ rights: Standing, remedy, and review. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2005, 256–370.

Davis, R. C., Henderson, N. J., & Rabbitt, C. (2002). Effects of state victim rights legislation on local criminal justice systems. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Davis, R. C., & Smith, B. E. (1994). The effects of victim impact statements on sentencing: A test in an urban setting. Justice Quarterly, 11, 453–469.

Deess, P. (1999). Victims’ rights: Notification, consultation, participation, services, compensation, and remedies in the criminal justice process. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Edwards, J., Myrus, E., & Felix, T. (2006). Evaluability assessment: State compliance projects. Unpublished report completed for the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice.

Erez, E., & Tontodonato, P. (1990). The effects of victim participation on sentencing outcomes. Criminology, 28, 452–474.

Fritsch, E. J., Caeti, T. J., Tobolowsky, P. M., & Taylor, R. W. (2004). Police referrals of crime victims to compensation sources: An empirical analysis of attitudinal and structural impediments. Police Quarterly, 7, 372–393.

Goddu, C. R. (1993). Victim rights or a fair trial wronged? Buffalo Law Review, 41, 245–272.

Howley, S., & Dorris, C. (2007). Legal rights for crime victims in the criminal justice system. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio, & S. Herman (Eds.), Victims of crime (3rd ed., pp. 299–314). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kelly, D. P., & Erez, E. (1999). Victim participation in the criminal justice system. In R. C. Davis, A. Lurigio, & W. Skogan (Eds.), Victims of crime (2nd ed., pp. 231–244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

283

Download more at Learnclax.com

Kilpatrick, D. G., Beatty, D., & Howley, S. S. (1998). The rights of crime victims: Does legal protection make a difference? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

McCormack, R. (1991). Compensating victims of violent crime. Justice Quarterly, 8, 329–346.

Office for Victims of Crime. (1998). Victims’ rights compliance efforts: Experience in three states. Washington, DC: Author.

Presidential Task Force on Victims of Crime. (1982). Final report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Regional Research Institute for Human Services. (2002). Oregon crime victims’ needs assessment: Final report. Portland: Oregon Department of Justice.

Small, K., Roman, C., Owens, C., & Shollenberger, T. (2006). Evaluability assessment of the State and Federal Clinics and System Demonstration Project: Final report. Unpublished report for the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice.

Smith, B. E., & Hillenbrand, S. W. (1999). Making victims whole again: Restitution, victim-offender reconciliation programs, and compensation. In R. C. Davis, A. Lurigio, & W. Skogan (Eds.), Victims of crime (2nd ed., pp. 245–256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Talbert, P. A. (1988). Relevance of victim impact statements to the criminal sentencing decision. UCLA Law Review, 36, 199–232.

Tobolowsky, P. M. (1997). Constitutionalizing crime victim rights. Criminal Law Bulletin, 33, 395–423.

Young, M. A. (1999). Victim rights and services: A modern saga. In R. C. Davis, A. Lurigio, & W. Skogan (Eds.), Victims of crime (2nd ed., pp. 194–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

284

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section VI Homicide Victimization

On the surface, Justin Lopez is your typical American college student. The child of divorced parents, Justin is the first person in his family to attend college. To make ends meet, he works full-time while attending a local state university. In his limited free time, he enjoys watching football and hanging out with friends. Justin has one other responsibility, however, that sets him apart from most of his peers; he’s raising his 14-year-old sister Porsha. Justin became Porsha’s legal guardian after their mother was brutally murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 2012. This is their story.

On September 15, 2012, Justin Lopez, 22, was driving down Texas Highway 6 on his way to a football game when he received a frantic call from his mother’s neighbor. The news was devastating: His mother had been shot and was en route to the hospital. With very few details of the event, he turned around and drove the 200 miles to the hospital as fast as he could. Upon arrival, he found his 12-year-old sister Porsha outside in tears. He was too late. Their mother was dead, a victim of intimate partner homicide.

Angela (Angie) Renee Lopez, 42, had been killed by her ex-boyfriend William (Billy) Ray Parker, 44. Just a few weeks prior to the incident, Angie had ended their 3-year relationship. Angie had never indicated that Billy was abusive. Friends said she left the relationship over differences in parenting styles (Billy had three kids from a previous relationship).

On that fatal day, Billy pulled up in the driveway of the apartment duplex Angie had recently moved into, parked his truck, and finished off a bottle of liquor. After about 30 minutes, he walked up to Angie’s front door and knocked. Angie opened the door to find Billy drunk. She asked him to leave, and they began to argue. Porsha, asleep upstairs, woke to the sounds of arguing and came down to see what was going on.

It wasn’t long after that when Billy fired the first shot. The gun misfired, and Porsha ran toward Billy, knocking him off balance. This gave Angie and Porsha the opportunity to run. Billy fired again, hitting Angie in the left shoulder.

Photo 6.1 Justin and Porsha Lopez and their mom, Angela (Angie) Lopez. Angie was murdered in 2012 in a domestic violence incident, and since then, Justin has become an outspoken advocate of victims’ rights, creating Angie’s Awareness Angels to increase support for domestic violence victims.

285

Download more at Learnclax.com

Courtesy of Justin and Porsha Lopez

Injured, terrified, and in pain, Angie ran out the front door and into a neighbor’s lawn screaming for help. Billy followed, continuing to fire his gun. Angie was shot three more times before she fell to the ground. Then, in front of seven eyewitnesses, including Angie’s daughter, Billy got on top of her and fired off the fifth and final shot before a neighbor tackled Billy and beat and restrained him until the police arrived. Angie was airlifted to the hospital in Galveston but succumbed to her injuries in the helicopter.

On September 27, 2013, Billy was convicted of murder and sentenced to 99 years in state prison, the maximum sentence allowable under Texas law.

286

Download more at Learnclax.com

Defining Homicide Victimization

According to various legal dictionaries, homicide is a general term referring to “the killing of one human being by another.” There are generally three types of homicide: excusable, justifiable, and criminal homicide/murder.

Excusable Homicide

With excusable homicide, there is no guilt. These are accidental or unintentional killings. The Uniform Crime Reports’ (UCR) definition of homicide inserts the phrase “willful (non-negligent) killing” to focus its definition solely on criminal homicide and does not, therefore, count accidental or excusable homicides (FBI, 2015l). An example of excusable homicide occurred when two children were being taught to swim by a swim instructor. One of the children had an asthma attack and needed his inhaler. The instructor told the other child to stay out of the pool even though she was a good swimmer. While the instructor was retrieving the inhaler, the girl got back in the pool and drowned.

Justifiable Homicide

Justifiable homicide is judged to be acceptable because it occurs in defense of life or property. The UCR identifies justifiable homicides as being limited to “the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty,” or “the killing (during the commission of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen” (FBI, 2015l). The UCR makes a distinction between its definition and any legal action; thus, the UCR’s definition is not based on a claim of self-defense or the actions of a prosecutor, judge, or other legal personnel. An example of justifiable homicide would be homicides that occur under stand-your-ground laws and the castle doctrine. Stand-your- ground laws are formally mandated laws stating that individuals are not required to retreat from their location prior to using force in self-defense. More specifically, stand-your-ground laws can be enforced regardless of where an event occurs (e.g., in your residence, on a public street). Somewhat similar to stand-your-ground laws is the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine states that there is no duty to retreat prior to using force in self- defense, but these events are limited only to those occurring within or on an individual’s personal property (such as a residence [house and yard]). In states without stand-your-ground laws or the castle doctrine, the law requires that an individual flee to safety, if this may reasonably be achieved, prior to using force in self- defense.

Criminal Homicide

The legal definition of criminal homicide is, more specifically, “the purposeful, knowing, reckless, or negligent killing of one human being by another” (“Model Penal Code,” n.d.). Thus, any death resulting from injuries pursuant to a fight, quarrel, argument, or commission of a crime falls under the umbrella of criminal homicide. Criminal homicide (specifically murder or manslaughter) does not include justifiable or excusable homicide, attempted murder, death stemming from accidents and traffic-related incidents, and suicide. Moreover, instances whereby an individual dies from medical issues (e.g., heart attack) while involved in or

287

Download more at Learnclax.com

witnessing a crime also do not fit into the categorization of criminal homicide. Again, aside from justifiable

homicide, this is the only type of homicide that the UCR includes in its statistics. There are four types of criminal homicide: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, felony murder, and manslaughter.

First-Degree Murder

First-degree murder is murder committed with deliberate premeditation and malice. Premeditation means the act was considered beforehand. Deliberation indicates the act was planned after careful thought (not on impulse). The planning does not need to take a long time. The UCR’s definition also includes malice that goes to intent, proving that a person intended to cause harm. Express malice is actual malice, such as when a person in a fight shoots the other person, showing that he or she intended to cause serious injury. Implied/constructive malice exists when death occurs due to negligence rather than intent. First-degree murder is the only type of murder eligible for the death penalty. A prime example of this is evident in the opening story involving Billy Ray Parker.

Second-Degree Murder

Second-degree murder involves murder committed with malice but without premeditation and deliberation. In other words, the offender intended to cause harm, but the murder was not planned. This type of murder is considered to be a less serious offense. For example, John returns home early to find his wife, Rebecca, having an affair with Jeff. Without thinking, John grabs his semiautomatic handgun out of the nightstand and shoots and kills both Rebecca and Jeff. Because the murders were fueled by rage and were not premeditated, this would be considered second-degree murder.

Felony Murder

Felony murder is the often-unintentional killing during the commission of another felony, such as striking someone on the head during a robbery who later dies. This type of murder is usually considered first-degree murder. Let’s use an example to illustrate. Tom breaks and enters into a residential house owned by Mary and Bill. As Tom begins to steal jewelry from the master bedroom, Bill walks in. Startled, Bill screams at Tom to leave. Rather than fleeing the scene, Tom comes after Bill with a knife and stabs him. If Bill dies from stab wounds inflicted by Tom, this would be considered felony murder because Tom was in the act of burglary (a felony charge), which resulted in the death of Bill.

Manslaughter

Manslaughter deems the degree of responsibility is less than for murder; however, it is still an unlawful killing. This killing can include voluntary manslaughter, which is the intentional infliction of injury that is likely to and actually does cause death. It could also include excessive use of force in self-defense. An example of this would be if at a party one evening, Luis got into a verbal confrontation with Tony. Tony punches Luis in the face, but did not use any other physical force. As Tony was walking away from the confrontation, Luis gets up, pulls out a gun, and shoots Tony in the back repeatedly until he dies. In this case, Luis used excessive force, so this scenario would be classified as voluntary manslaughter.

288

Download more at Learnclax.com

Manslaughter can include involuntary/negligent manslaughter, which is death resulting from gross negligence (ignoring the possible danger or potential harm to other people). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2015l) defines negligent manslaughter as “the killing of another person through negligence.” Included in this offense are “killings resulting from hunting accidents, gun cleaning, children playing with guns, etc.” Not included are “deaths of persons due to their own negligence, accidental deaths not resulting from gross negligence, and accidental traffic fatalities” (FBI, 2015l). One such scenario would be when a young college student, Kevin, decides to drive home from the bar while under the influence of alcohol. On the way home, Kevin blacks out and strikes Veronica with his vehicle, instantly killing her. This case would be considered negligent manslaughter because Kevin did not intend to kill Veronica but was deemed negligent because he was operating a vehicle while under the influence.

289

Download more at Learnclax.com

Measurement and Extent of Homicide Victimization

Homicide Victimization in the United States

Homicide victimization data are not available through victimization surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Study. However, in the United States, there are a few methods for measuring murder. They include the Uniform Crime Reports, the Supplemental Homicide Reports, and the National Center for Health Statistics.

Uniform Crime Reports

As discussed in Section II, the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) provide a yearly summation of crime data collected by law enforcement agencies across the United States. This measurement tool includes both aggregate murder rates and clearance rates (a measure of crimes solved by the police) for murder, similar to other offense types. The UCR reported 15,696 murders in 2015 (FBI, 2015l) (Table 6.1). This is a rate of 4.9 homicides per 100,000 people. Murders constitute about 1% of all violent index crimes reported to police.

Table 6.1

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016. Crime in the U.S. 2015. Expanded Homicide Data Table 1.

Supplemental Homicide Reports

Beginning in the 1960s, the UCR included the Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR), which provide case- specific information for each murder reported in the UCR. The SHR includes the age, race, and sex of victims and offenders (if caught), as well as information pertaining to weapon used and situational information such as the relationship between the victim and offender and the circumstance leading up to the murder. Table 6.2 shows the circumstance codes used in the SHR.

Table 6.2

290

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: New York Department of Criminal Justice (2016).

It is important to point out that the SHR is one of the few sources of official data that provides detailed information on crime victims. According to the SHR, victims of homicide share certain characteristics with their perpetrators. Specifically, homicide victims and offenders are likely to be male (men are 3.6 times more likely to be the victim and 8.1 times more likely to be the offender), young adults (highest rates of victimization and offending are from ages 18 to 24), and intraracial (90% of murders involve victims and offenders from the same race). Murders also typically occur between people who know each other, and this relationship differs by the sex of the victim. This phenomenon is labeled intimate partner homicide (and discussed in further detail later in this section).

291

Download more at Learnclax.com

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is another source of nationwide mortality data collected since the early 1930s. These data are derived from death certificates forwarded to the Vital Statistics Division of the NCHS by coroners and medical examiners. Whereas all types of deaths are reported, there are specifics codes for homicides (with distinctions between justifiable homicides and criminal homicides) that allow for the estimation of trends and patterns at the national level by selected characteristics (age, sex, Hispanic origin, race, and state of residence). In 2010, homicide dropped from among the top 15 leading causes of death for the first time since 1965. Since 2010, homicide has been ranked the 16th leading cause of death (Xu, Murphy, Kochanek, & Bastian, 2013).

Homicide Victimization Across the Globe

Unlike other types of criminal victimization, homicide victimization is one of the few types of criminal victimization that can be compared across countries. This ability to compare is due to a general consensus between countries regarding what constitutes homicide. High rates of reporting and recording of murders are evident across countries due to (1) the ease of identifying whether a homicide occurred (i.e., finding a body or not) and (2) a relatively uniform moral opposition across societies pertaining to homicide, resulting in a significant amount of agency attention being placed on this type of crime.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Since 2000, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has collected data on intentional homicides from 219 countries and territories across the globe from criminal justice and public health agencies as part of the Homicide Statistics Dataset. Information from this dataset is currently being used for the UNODC’s Global Study on Homicide, which provides information on intentional homicides from a global perspective.

According to the most recent report, nearly half a million people (437,000) across the globe fell victim to homicide in 2012 (UNODC, 2013). This equates to a global average murder rate of 6.2 per 100,000 inhabitants. Roughly 1 in 3 (36%) of all intentional homicides occurred in the Americas, followed by Africa (31%), Asia (28%), Europe (5%), and Oceania (0.3%). Similar to homicide patterns in the United States, globally victims are disproportionately male (79% of all homicide victims) and young (almost half of all homicide victims were aged 14 to 29).

World Health Organization

Since 1951, mortality data are collected for 120 countries from individual death certificates and reported in aggregate form annually by the World Health Organization (WHO). Whereas information is collected for homicides, there is no distinction made between intentional and unintentional homicides. Additionally, because of changes in definitions over time, earlier inclusion of war-related casualties in homicide-related deaths, and capabilities of nation-states to participate, caution is warranted when making comparisons of WHO data over time.

292

Download more at Learnclax.com

293

Download more at Learnclax.com

Risk Factors for and Characteristics of Homicide Victimization

Risk for homicide victimization is not evenly distributed among the population. Rather, your risk depends on a number of characteristics, including your age, your sex, your race, where you live, and how much money you make. Across the globe, homicide is the 16th leading cause of premature death (UNODC, 2013). In the United States, homicide is one of the foremost causes of death for young African American males.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Victims and Offenders

Sex

Sex is an important characteristic when investigating homicide victimization because, as previously stated, males are overrepresented as both homicide victims and offenders (Muftić & Moreno, 2010). In the United States, data collected by the police indicate that males are nearly 4 times more likely to be murdered and 7 times more likely to be the murderer than females (Cooper & Smith, 2011) (Tables 6.3 and 6.4). Similar patterns are found globally. Homicide research has consistently found victim sex correlated with homicide type (e.g., intimate partner homicide), motive, and method, not to mention various demographic characteristics of both homicide victims and perpetrators. For instance, Muftić and Moreno (2010) studied 360 homicide incidents involving juvenile victims that took place in Dallas, Texas, and found that male homicide victimization in later adolescence was linked to overall involvement in criminal networks. In other words, male homicide victims (compared to female victims of the same age) were more likely to have been killed while committing another crime (e.g., during a robbery) or as a result of a dispute (e.g., during a fight). Male victims were also more likely to have prior offending histories, gang ties, and used alcohol and/or drugs prior to their death. In contrast, female victims in later adolescence were most likely to be killed as a result of family or sexual violence, indicating that female homicide victimization is an extension of family violence.

Table 6.3

294

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016. Crime in the U.S. 2015. Expanded Homicide Data Table 2 and Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.

Table 6.4

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016. Crime in the U.S. 2015. Expanded Homicide Data Table 6.

Age

Homicide is an offense often committed by the young, with victims and perpetrators likely to be aged 18 to 24 (Cooper & Smith, 2011). As such, homicide is one of the leading causes of death of juveniles in the United States. Yet very little is known about these victims. Who are they? Why are they victimized? Copeland (1985) conducted one of the first published research articles that examined the phenomenon of juvenile homicide

295

Download more at Learnclax.com

victimization. Using data acquired from the Dade County Medical Examiner, Copeland (1985) provided a descriptive profile of 263 juvenile homicide victims who were killed in Metro-Dade County, Florida, between 1973 and 1982. Overall, the majority of victims were aged 17 to 19 (70%), were male (76.8%), were Black (53.2%), and were killed by a firearm (78.7%). In cases where alcohol and/or drug use could be detected via the autopsy, one-third of juvenile victims had been drinking and a little over one-fourth of juvenile victims tested positive for drugs at the time of their death.

Race

Homicide is an overwhelmingly intraracial event. According to official records, homicide victimization and perpetration are unevenly distributed by race, with Blacks having higher victimization and perpetration rates than Whites (E. L. Smith & Cooper, 2013). Additionally, it has been suggested that a victim’s race may be related to the type of homicide to which he or she falls victim. For instance, one study found that stranger killings were significantly more common among White women than Black women (Moracco, Runyan, & Butts, 1998) and that Asian women were far more likely to fall victim to intimate partner homicide than White or Black women (Frye, Hosein, Waltermaurer, Blaney, & Wilt, 2005).

Urbanity and Socioeconomic Status

Homicide victimization rates are highest in urban areas, compared to suburban and rural areas. Whereas the murder rate has declined across community type (i.e., large and small cities, suburban areas, and rural areas), rates continue to remain highest where population is greatest. For example, the homicide rate in large cities with 250,000 or more residents was 10.1 per 100,000 individuals in 2015. For the same year, the homicide rate was 3.3 per 100,000 in cities with between 50,000 and 99,999 residents (FBI, 2015l). Moreover, the highest victimization rates are generally found in families located in the lowest socioeconomic bracket. In other words, as family income increases, victimization rates decrease. For example, research by Levitt (1999) has indicated that an increase of $1,000 in median household income decreases the homicide rate by 0.7 homicides per 100,000 persons.

Victim–Offender Relationship

When the police are able to determine the relationship between the victim and the offender in a homicide case, most homicides (roughly 3 out of 4) involve people who knew each other, referred to as nonstranger homicides. Within nonstranger homicides, about half (40%) of victims were acquaintances of the perpetrator, and another 20% were killed by a spouse or other family member (FBI, 2015i). Although most murders involve people known to one another, your risk of being killed by a loved one is drastically higher if you are female. Nearly one-quarter of female murder victims were killed by a husband or boyfriend (FBI, 2015i). In contrast, less than 3% of male murder victims were killed by a wife or girlfriend (Cooper & Smith, 2011). To learn more about how characteristics of homicides may influence how quickly a homicide is cleared (i.e., solved) by the police, see Reading 9 by Jason Rydberg and Jesenia M. Pizarro (2014) in this section.

Incident Characteristics

296

Download more at Learnclax.com

Weapon Usage

Firearm involvement is especially common in homicides, and official statistics indicate such involvement makes up about 71.5% of homicide cases known to the police (FBI, 2015j). Interestingly, firearms are more likely to be used in homicides involving male victims (73%) than homicides with female victims (35%) (E. L. Smith & Cooper, 2013). When firearms are used, handguns are the most common (68.5%). Other weapons, such as knives, hands and feet, and blunt objects, are less commonplace.

Circumstances

Because there are many different reasons for homicide, understanding the circumstances that surround the homicide event is an important component of the homicide investigation. For about 1 out of every 3 homicides (37.7%), the police are unable to determine the circumstances surrounding the murder. For the cases in which they are, almost 40% were murdered during an argument. In about 1 out of 4 murders, felony circumstances such as rape, robbery, or burglary were involved (FBI, 2015k).

Location

The location of the homicide is another important consideration in the homicide investigation. Homicides are likely to occur in private dwellings, such as the victim’s residence, especially if the homicide is domestic in nature or involves a victim who is elderly.

Substance Use

The relationship between substance use and homicide is complex. Though not all homicides involve substance use, studies have found that murderers and their victims are likely to have consumed alcohol, drugs, or both prior to the homicide incident. One study found that two-thirds of men who either killed or attempted to kill their intimate partners had used alcohol, drugs, or both during the incident (Sharps, Campbell, Campbell, Gary, & Webster, 2001). Another study found that one-third of victims and one-fourth of suspects had consumed alcohol at the time of the murder (Muftić & Hunt, 2013).

297

Download more at Learnclax.com

Types of Homicide Victimization

Filicide

Filicide refers to the killing of a child by a parent or caretaker. Infanticide, a type of filicide, involves homicides in which the victim is under 1 year of age. Both filicide and infanticide are, by definition, a type of child abuse. Determining the number of fatalities attributable to child abuse is difficult. When a child dies, his or her death may be explained as an accident or the result of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Official reports typically indicate that the younger the child, the greater the risk of being a victim of homicide. During the period 1980–2008, infants under the age of 1 had the highest rate of victimization of all children under the age of 5. When a child under 5 is killed, he or she is most likely to be killed by a parent (63%), followed by a male (23%) or female (5%) acquaintance, or other relative (7%). It is rare for a young child to be killed by a stranger, with only 3% of children under the age of 5 being murdered by a perpetrator unknown to the child (Cooper & Smith, 2011).

Parricide

Parricide refers to the murder of one’s parent. Within parricide, patricide is the killing of one’s father and matricide the killing of one’s mother. Both are rare events, although patricide is more common than matricide (Dantas, Santos, Dias, Dinis-Oliveira, & Magalhães, 2014). Parricide is more likely to occur in families that are characterized as being dysfunctional and where the child has experienced maltreatment at the hands of his father, mother, or both (Heide, 2014).

Eldercide

Eldercide is a type of homicide categorized by the age of the victim. In other words, eldercide is a murder that involves a victim who is 65 years of age or older. In the United States, only about 5% of all homicide victims are elderly (FBI, 2015m). As with other types of homicide, males comprise the largest proportion of eldercide victims, accounting for nearly 6 out of every 10 elderly homicide victims (Cooper & Smith, 2011). Whereas eldercide includes the homicide of elderly individuals over the age of 65, the category can be subdivided into multiple age categories. Addington (2013) describes the youngest category of elderly as “young old,” aged 65 to 74. Aside from this category, elderly aged 75 to 84 are labeled as “aged,” whereas persons older than 85 are deemed the “oldest old.”

Felonious Homicide Risk and the Elderly

For most of us, our risk of being the victim of homicide decreases as we age. However, in the last four decades, the proportion of felony homicides has increased for elderly victims compared to victims in other age categories (Cooper & Smith, 2011). Read more about felonious homicide risk and the elderly in Box 6.1.

Box 6.1 Grandmas at Risk?

298

Download more at Learnclax.com

Most of us find it comforting to know that our grandparents’ risk of violent victimization, including being murdered, generally declines with age. However, recent research has found that the elderly may be at an increased risk of being the victim of a felony- related murder. The very factors that decrease an older individual’s risk of violent victimization in general (i.e., isolated lifestyles, such as living alone) may increase their risk of being the victim of felonious murder. In fact, two researchers found just that when they examined felony- and argument-related homicides involving elderly victims using data from 195 cities contained within the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. They found the rate of felonious eldercide was significantly influenced by the robbery rate (per 100,000 persons), the proportion of elderly individuals living alone, and the proportion of elderly persons with disabilities.

Source: A. Roberts & Willits (2013).

Intimate Partner Homicide

According to the World Health Organization (2013), 1 out of every 7 murders around the world is a result of domestic violence. As noted in Section VIII, in the United States, intimate partner homicides comprised 14% of all homicides (Catalano, Smith, Snyder, & Rand, 2009). Intimate partner homicide is defined as a homicide involving spouses, ex-spouses, persons in current or de facto relationships, boyfriends or girlfriends, or partners of same-sex relationships.

Intimate partner homicide is a gender-differentiated offense that most likely involves a male offender and a female victim. Current victimization rates of intimate partner homicide for females are approximately 6 times the rate for male victims globally (Stöckl et al., 2013) and 4 to 5 times the rate for male victims in the United States (Cooper & Smith, 2011). When women are the perpetrator, they have often killed a husband or boyfriend who was abusive to them in the past.

Over the last three decades, we have witnessed a general decline in intimate partner homicides. However, this decline has not been experienced equally by all victims. When we look at rates of intimate partner homicide by the sex of the victim, it is evident that the number of male victims has decreased, but the number of female victims has remained relatively stable. Why the difference? As discussed in Section VIII, since the 1980s, there has been a shift in policy as to how the criminal justice system responds to domestic violence as well as a growing number of resources made available to intimate partner victims. As a result, more women are finding help within the community (social service agencies, programs, and domestic violence shelters), rather than resorting to homicide in an attempt to end an abusive relationship. These resources may have resulted in fewer incidents of intimate partner homicide involving female perpetrators and male victims. For male offenders, their motivations for intimate partner homicide are generally not addressed by resources that are, for the most part, designed for female victims, and this may be why we are not seeing comparable decreases in the number of female victims.

Researchers have identified the factors that place individuals at risk of being killed at the hands of their intimate partners. A review of this research suggests that women are likely to be murdered in this context when they have experienced violence in the past, especially if the violence involved attempts of strangling or choking. Women are at greatest risk in the time immediately after a previous violent episode. Half of women killed by their partners in Chicago had experienced violence during the previous 30 days. Even though previous violence is a risk factor, 20% of women who are killed by an intimate partner experienced no previous violence. For these women, their partners are likely to be controlling, jealous, abusing drugs, and/or violent

299

Download more at Learnclax.com

outside of the home (Block, 2003).

Intimate Partner Homicide Followed by Suicide

Some intimate partner homicides are characterized by the perpetrator killing himself or herself after murdering his or her intimate partner, referred to as homicide followed by suicide or homicide-suicide. In the United States, homicide-suicide is a relatively rare event with an estimated rate of 0.19–0.46 per 100,000 individuals (Morton, Runyan, Moracco, & Butts, 1998). The most prevalent type of homicide-suicide involves males killing their female intimate partners and then themselves. An evaluation of 1,108 homicide- suicides in 2007 found that almost three-quarters of such events involved intimate partners, the vast majority of which were committed by males using a firearm in the home (J. V. Roberts & Manikis, 2011). Various motives for intimate partner homicides followed by the suicide of the perpetrator have been cited in the literature, including amorous jealousy, declining health (resulting in what may be viewed as a mercy killing), precipitating crisis (e.g., job loss, divorce, financial emergency), and psychosis (D. W. Harper & Voigt, 2007).

Femicide

Across the globe, women and girls are at risk for violence because of their gender, a phenomenon referred to as gender-based violence. Gender-based violence can take various forms, ranging from the relatively minor (e.g., being pushed, grabbed, or shoved) to the severe (e.g., being kicked, punched, or raped). In some instances, the violence inflicted upon a victim, often at the hands of an intimate partner or family member, results in her death, an act researchers and activists have labeled femicide.

Whereas femicide can mean different things to different individuals, Diana Russell is largely credited with having shaped the most commonly used definition. Russell defines femicide as “the killing of females by males because they are female” (Russell & Harmes, 2001, p. 3). This definition revolves around two general understandings: (1) that femicide is the end product of misogyny and sexism and (2) that the gender of the victim mattered to the perpetrator. Thus, not all murders involving women are acts of femicide. For example, a woman killed during a robbery is not necessarily a victim of femicide.

So what exactly comprises femicide? At its most basic, femicide is any form of gender-based violence that results in the death of a female victim. The United Nations, in its 2013 Vienna Declaration on Femicide, outlined the various forms femicide can take. Read this declaration in Box 6.2. What each of these types of gender-based violence have in common is that they involve the murder of women and/or girls because of the victim’s gender and thus are considered femicide.

Box 6.2 Vienna Declaration on Femicide

Femicide is the killing of women and girls because of their gender, which can take the form of inter alia (1) the murder of women as a result of intimate partner violence; (2) the torture and misogynist slaying of women; (3) killing of women and girls in the name of “honour”; (4) targeted killing of women and girls in the context of armed conflict; (5) dowry-related killings of women; (6) killing of women and girls because of their sexual orientation and gender identity; (7) the killing of aboriginal and indigenous women and girls because of their gender; (8) female infanticide and gender-based sex selection foeticide; (9) genital mutilation related deaths; (10) accusations of witchcraft; and (11) other femicides connected with gangs, organized crime, drug dealers, human trafficking, and the proliferation of small arms.

300

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Academic Council on the United Nations System (2013).

Gauging the extent of femicide is a bit more difficult. As previously discussed, whereas we are getting a better understanding of the extent of females killed by their intimate partners (sometimes labeled as intimate partner femicide), there are less data that measure the magnitude of other forms of femicide (e.g., honor killings) in the United States and elsewhere. What is known is that femicide is a complex phenomenon that depends on a number of key victim and offender characteristics. Overall, research indicates that femicide victims and perpetrators typically resemble each other in terms of race, educational background, and employment status (Frye et al., 2005; Moracco et al., 1998; Mouzos, 1999; Muftić & Baumann, 2012).

Honor Killings

From a cultural standpoint, the construct of honor varies in the importance attached to it. Most cultures place value on honor, defined as “virtuous behavior, good moral character, integrity, and altruism” (Vandello & Cohen, 2003, p. 997). In some cultures, however, there is additional social significance having to do with status, precedence, and reputation. As such, honor “is based on a person’s (usually a man’s) strength and power to enforce his will on others or to command deferential treatment” (Vandello & Cohen, 2003, p. 998). In such cultures, it is deemed justifiable for violence. These incidents are often referred to as honor violence or honor killings.

Honor violence against females is usually committed with the idea that the perpetrator is protecting or regaining his honor or that of the family or community. Victims of honor violence are targeted because how they behave or seem to behave is considered shameful or a violation of cultural or religious norms. For instance, the Human Rights Watch lists a variety of reasons, including “refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce (even from an abusive husband), or (allegedly) committing adultery” (HRW, 2001). Although men, often homosexuals, can be the victim of an honor killing, women and girls comprise the majority of victims.

It is very difficult to determine if an incident is, indeed, an honor killing. Data on this type of violence are not collected systematically. Furthermore, the killings may be falsely reported as suicides by families and recorded as such. In spite of the notion that honor killings are often associated with Asia, especially South Asia and the Middle East, they actually occur all over the world. For example, in Canada, honor killings have become such a concern that the Canadian citizenship study guide mentions them specifically, saying, “Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric practices that tolerate spousal abuse, honor killings, female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence” (Weese, 2011).

Homicides Involving Multiple Victims

One of the most heinous examples of homicide victimization in recent history is the Sandy Hook massacre committed by Adam Lanza. Read about the Sandy Hook massacre in the next box.

What makes this homicide especially heinous is the number of victims involved and their ages. Homicides that involve multiple victims are often referred to as serial murder, mass murder, or spree murder.

301

Download more at Learnclax.com

Serial murder is defined by federal law as “a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors” (Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998, Title 18, US Code, Chapter 51, Section 1111). Mass murder involves the killing of four or more victims in one location in one incident. A spree murder, such as the Sandy Hook massacre, is the killing of multiple victims at two or more separate locations but with no cooling-off period in between; each event is emotionally connected.

Ripped From the Headlines

Sandy Hook Massacre

In the early morning hours of December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza murdered his mother in the home they shared in Newtown, Connecticut. Nancy Lanza, age 52, was shot dead by her son with a .22 caliber rifle.

Neighbors later reported that they heard gunshots but dismissed it as nearby hunters. A delivery driver left a package at the front door of the residence prior to 10:00 a.m. He had no way of knowing what horror had happened inside the peaceful-looking residence.

But the story didn’t end there. Adam entered Sandy Hook Elementary by shooting out a window after finding the front doors to the school locked. Armed with multiple firearms including a semiautomatic rifle and two handguns, he shot and killed Principal Dawn Hochsprung and May Sherlach, the school psychologist. Two other staff members were also shot but survived.

Adam turned his attention toward the main office, which he entered, but did not kill any of the staff members who were hiding. Although the exact events following Adam’s exit of the main office remain unclear, what is known is that he eventually entered classrooms 8 and 10 (the order is unknown), which contained first graders and their teachers. Between the two classrooms, a total of 20 children and four adults were killed. At approximately 9:40 a.m., upon the arrival of first responders, Adam Lanza shot himself in the head.

Source: Sedensky, S. J. (2013).

The key definitional distinction is usually time and place. That being said, it is often difficult to distinguish who falls into which category, more so between spree and serial. Roughly 1 out of 10 homicides committed in the United States involves multiple victims (FBI, 2015n).

302

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victim Precipitation

Now that you know about the different types of homicide, let’s consider how a person’s own actions may influence the risk that he or she dies at the hands of another. As previously defined in Section I, victim precipitation is typically defined as the extent to which a victim is responsible for his or her own victimization. The concept of victim precipitation is rooted in the notion that although many victims are not responsible for their victimization, other victims are.

Marvin Wolfgang is credited with coining the term victim precipitation when, in his seminal work on homicide, he argued that, in some instances, the victim may initiate the behavior of the perpetrator. To test his claim, Wolfgang collected official homicide data over the course of 4 years in Philadelphia. Of 588 homicide incidents, almost 26% corresponded with Wolfgang’s definition of victim precipitation. Subsequent studies have found that victim-precipitated violent crimes are most likely to occur between a victim and offender who know each other, with one or both parties having consumed alcohol prior to the incident (Muftić & Hunt, 2013).

Victim Precipitation Theories

Victim precipitation theories generally involve an explanation of how an individual’s behavior may contribute to his or her own victimization. For instance, Luckenbill (1977) talks about violence and homicide as a “situated transaction.” In his study of criminal homicide in California, he examined in detail how each incident played out. The majority of homicides involved some type of “character contest” (also referred to as “honor contest” or “confrontational homicides”) with an identifiable pattern of give and take (involving insults, verbal and physical challenges, and use of violence) between the actors involved that eventually resulted in the death of one of the parties involved.

Similarly, Polk (1999) found that confrontational homicides are likely to involve young males engaging in a complex interaction, which he labels an “honor contest,” that begins with some type of provocation, such as an insult, joke, or shove, and in a sequential chain, results in a challenge, acceptance of the challenge, and a fight. The fight may or may not result in death. These honor contests are more likely to occur in leisure settings (e.g., a bar) and within the presence of a social audience, which serves two purposes: It makes the challenge public, and the response of the audience reaffirms the perception of the actors. Finally, Polk found that the presence of alcohol was also a major contributor to the honor contest in that it influenced the judgment and impulsivity of the parties involved.

This understanding fits with what we know about the facts of murder. The SHR indicates that murder most frequently occurs as the result of a fight or an argument. Nearly 40% of homicides are argument related. Many homicides involve some degree of victim precipitation. The victim may have been the first person to use physical force or start the violence that eventually resulted in his or her own death. For instance, Muftić and Hunt (2013) found that 1 in 4 homicides involving adult victims and adult offenders over a 10-year time span in Dallas, Texas, were clearly victim precipitated.

303

Download more at Learnclax.com

Interestingly, Luckenbill (1977) points out that this explanation can also be useful in understanding situations in which parents kill their children. Often the child is challenging the parent’s authority, and the parent feels he or she must save face. Any question of the victim’s intent is irrelevant, only the killer’s interpretation is important. Can these situations be classified as victim precipitated?

As the last question demonstrates, the examination of victim precipitation, though important in understanding the context surrounding victimization, is not without controversy. Victim precipitation theories have been accused of being indirect attempts at victim blaming. In addition, studies that have examined the concept of victim precipitation have been criticized for relying on poor methodology.

304

Download more at Learnclax.com

Indirect or Secondary Victimization

Remember Angie from the beginning of the section? Angie was the victim of a brutal act of intimate partner homicide. Angie is not, however, the only victim from that incident. If you recall, her death profoundly impacted the lives of the children she left behind, Justin and Porsha. The survivors of homicide victims are referred to as indirect or secondary homicide victims. Whereas indirect or secondary victimization most often applies to close family and friends of the primary homicide victim, such as Justin and Porsha, it can also be applied to individuals who witness a homicide and professionals (e.g., law enforcement) who, because of their occupation, deal with a homicide’s aftermath (Morrall, Hazelton, & Shackleton, 2011). For a review of how homicide impacts others, see Reading 10 by Jennifer Connolly and Ronit Gordon (2015) in this section.

Common Reactions to Homicide

Once notified of a loved one’s murder, a survivor’s reaction to the homicide depends on a number of factors, including the suddenness of the event, the survivor’s ability to comprehend what has taken place, his or her state of mind leading up to the homicide, and homicide type (e.g., stranger homicide, domestic homicide, act of terrorism).

Bereavement

Bereavement is typically defined as the state of being sad after an individual you have cared for has passed. Typical reactions for grieving individuals include crying, insomnia, and loss of appetite. The bereavement process is influenced by the manner in which a person dies. When a death is caused by something sudden and unexpected, such as homicide, the bereavement process may be prolonged. Because homicide causes severe personal suffering, reaction to the loss may be more acute than those of “normal” mourning. Take Justin for instance. Bombarded by requests to update family members and friends on Facebook of the proceedings of the murder trial, he shared the following Facebook post after a particularly long day in court.

Homicide survivors may find themselves experiencing intense feelings of anger and rage and/or terror, flashbacks, and nightmares. Research has also indicated that traumatic loss may trigger panic attacks, anxiety, depression, or obsessive behaviors in homicide survivors (Morrall et al., 2011).

Photo 6.2 Facebook post made by Justin Lopez on September 24, 2013, during the murder trial of Billy Ray Parker, who was convicted of killing Justin’s mother, Angela Renee Lopez, in 2012.

305

Download more at Learnclax.com

Angie’s Awareness Angels Facebook page. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/AngiesAwarenessAngels

Additional Stressors

Having to deal with the murder of a loved one is especially stressful and is usually aggravated by other stressors unique to the situation. Take, for instance, the notification process. Many homicide survivors remember the notification process as a severely traumatic event (Parents of Murdered Children, 2014). Death or casualty notification is the process by which family members of the deceased are notified of their loved one’s passing. Whenever possible, this is done in person, in time, and by a team of at least two trained law enforcement officers. Notifications that are done over the phone, with incomplete or inaccurate information, or via the media compound an already difficult situation.

The criminal justice system provides another source of stress for homicide survivors. When a loved one is murdered, involvement with the criminal justice system may be unavoidable. For many secondary victims, this experience may be especially traumatic if they perceive they are being treated unfairly, insensitively, or inappropriately by agents of the system. For instance, secondary victims may be banned from entering the crime scene in an effort to preserve evidence. They may be asked about their whereabouts when the murder occurred. If the police are unable to solve the murder, which happens in about 1 out of 3 cases, secondary victims may feel a lack of closure. If a perpetrator is identified and the case goes to trial, details of the murder presented in court, inability to defend the victim, the length of the trial, and outcome of the trial (e.g., hung jury) provide additional sources of anxiety for homicide survivors, magnifying their original trauma.

306

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.facebook.com/AngiesAwarenessAngels

Legal and Community Responses to Homicide Victimization

Throughout history, homicide has been viewed as one of the most, if not the most, significant forms of victimization a person can experience. Homicide victimization has been seen as violating moral and societal norms and has been conceptualized in a variety of ways, such as first- or second-degree murder. Regardless of the type of homicide, the event can have a substantial impact on family members of the victim as well as the community. At an individual level, family members who have lost loved ones to homicide have experienced significant issues related to homicide-induced post-traumatic stress syndrome (e.g., Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 1991). The community is also impacted by homicide, with violence taking a significant toll on the emotional and psychological well-being of children, while also escalating the risk of issues related to substance use and cognitive functioning (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008). These problems suggest that the criminal justice system, as well as the community, might benefit from the use of specific tactics to respond to homicide victimization.

Police Response

From the perspective of law enforcement officers, a few responses have been used to reduce homicide victimization. Some of the most popular methods to reduce homicide occurred during the 1990s in Boston and New York City, titled Operation Ceasefire and CompStat, respectively (Rosenfeld, Fornango, & Baumer, 2005). Moreover, each program represented a unique technique to reduce homicide, with Operation Ceasefire having addressed gun-related gang violence. On the other hand, CompStat, which functioned as an organizational system centered on the dissemination of crime data and promoting unique problem-solving practices, focused on reducing crime and disorder more generally (Weisburd, Mastrofski, McNally, Greenspan, & Willis, 2003). Research has found that both programs were not entirely successful at reducing homicide victimization. Overall, data indicated that Operation Ceasefire did not result in a significant drop in the rate of firearm-related youth homicides during or after the intervention period compared to the average trend across 95 cities examined. On the other hand, CompStat achieved a significant yet minimal decline on the homicide rate during the intervention compared to the average homicide rate across all cities. However, once other factors, such as population density and police size, were taken into account, the decline was no longer significantly different from the rate of homicides for the rest of the included cities (Rosenfeld et al., 2005).

Court Response

Within the legal environment, a number of tactics have been incorporated to respond to homicide. A third intervention highlighted by Rosenfeld et al. (2005), titled Project Exile (in Richmond, Virginia), focused on increasing federal sentences for firearm-related drug and violent offenses. Compared to Operation Ceasefire and CompStat, the findings for Project Exile were relatively successful. Specifically, the intervention had a significant impact on decreasing the firearm-related homicide rates compared to the sample average after the previously identified factors were included. Thus, whereas the other two law enforcement strategies previously mentioned did not produce the intended results, this program did significantly decrease homicide rates.

307

Download more at Learnclax.com

A similar example focusing on a specialized homicide prosecution unit (Operation Hardcore) focused on gang-related incidents in Los Angeles during the mid to late 1970s also produced positive results (Pyrooz, Wolfe, & Spohn, 2011). Following the incorporation of the specialized unit, results suggested that cases processed through nonspecialized units were significantly more likely to be rejected than cases prosecuted through a specialized unit. As a whole, court responses to gun- and gang-related homicides have been successful in decreasing homicide rates.

Community Response

One increasingly used community response to homicide victimization has been fatality reviews. Fatality reviews are community-based programs that seek to review the circumstances of the homicide to gain a better understanding of the cause of death. In the United States, there have generally been two types of fatality reviews: child and domestic. Child fatality reviews (also discussed in Section IX) have become an increasingly popular tool used in almost every state, with such reviews commonly having focused on inquiry into most types of child death. Recent work on child fatality reviews has indicated that the majority of these programs included members from various criminal justice agencies (i.e., law enforcement officers, prosecutors), the medical and public health community (i.e., medical examiner, public health representative, and emergency medical personnel), and members of child protective services (Shanley, Risch, & Bonner, 2010). Although the majority of states have legislation in place pertaining to child fatality reviews, the majority do not review all cases of juvenile deaths but rather only those occurring because of maltreatment or neglect or those that could possibly have been prevented.

The second type of fatality review that has become popular has focused on homicides occurring as the result of domestic violence. Similar to fatality reviews used to examine juvenile deaths, those focusing on domestic violence incorporate various members of the community to identify “relevant social, economic, and policy realities that compromise the safety of battered women and their children” (Websdale, 2003, p. 27). Domestic fatality reviews can be beneficial for showcasing deficiencies in various criminal justice and political strategies, underscoring the need for change in both domains. As a whole, both fatality reviews provide a positive outlet whereby members of the community come together to provide a more comprehensive examination of specific types of homicide.

One specific example of a community-based program to examine homicides is evident in the work of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission. The commission was structured as a multi-agency intervention effort focused on homicide prevention and intervention initiatives (Azrael, Braga, & O’Brien, 2013). A range of groups from various sectors, including the criminal justice system, community service organizations, and domestic violence agencies, have been involved in the review commission. Evaluation of the intervention indicated a significant decrease (52%) in the number of homicides during the intervention period in specific areas receiving the intervention. As a whole, this review commission was relatively successful in reducing homicides in areas that had received the intervention.

In some communities, bereavement centers have been established. Bereavement centers are designed to assist homicide survivors primarily with the emotional difficulties that result from the death of the homicide victim;

308

Download more at Learnclax.com

however, some centers provide financial, social, and legal support related to the homicide. For example, the Center for Homicide Bereavement in Cambridge, Massachusetts, provides crisis intervention, grief therapy, victim advocacy, psychiatric triage, bereavement groups, and community outreach (Aldrich & Kallivayalil, 2013).

A final example of a community-based program focusing on homicide victims and their family members, one with a strong media presence, is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Although the organization focuses broadly on drunk driving, a range of materials are provided on emotional issues (e.g., grief, guilt, mourning, and healing), financial concerns (as well as victim compensation), and legal rights of victims and their family members (e.g., Victims of Crime Act) affected by homicide victimization. Moreover, the organization provides information on the prevention of drunk driving and the possible deaths that might be associated with such an activity. From a service standpoint, the organization is one of the largest in the United States, providing a range of services through 1,200 victim advocates who have focused on assisting persons with emotional and legal support. MADD represents a unique avenue of response by the community to assist family members (as well as victims and survivors in general) affected by drunk driving homicide victimization through a variety of available literature and services.

Restorative Justice Efforts

Although restorative justice efforts might seem unreasonable for homicide victims, one avenue is victim– offender mediation efforts between the family members of a homicide victim and the offender. One of the most compelling examples is evident in the mediation process that occurred between the family members of homicide victims and their perpetrators who were on death row in Texas (Umbreit & Vos, 2000). Different reasons for participation in the mediation process were evident between the family members and offenders. In general, family members of the deceased wished to physically see the offender as well as to gain more information in general and pertaining to the event. In contrast, the offenders participated as part of a healing process and the increasing importance of religion in their lives. All participants, both family members and offenders, explained that the mediation process they experienced was beneficial and served as a healing process.

309

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

Homicide is defined as “the killing of one human being by another” and can be subdivided into excusable, justifiable, and criminal homicide. Excusable homicides are killings that are either unintentional or accidental. Guilt is not a factor in cases of excusable homicide. Justifiable homicides represent killings occurring in defense of property or life. However, the UCR defines a justifiable homicide as the killing of a felon by a police officer (in the line of duty) or a private citizen (if the felon is in the act of committing a felony). Criminal homicides represent “the purposeful, knowing, reckless, or negligent killing of one human being by another.” This form of homicide can be divided into first-degree murder (premeditated and malicious), second-degree murder (malicious but not premeditated), felony murder (a homicide committed during the commission of a felony), and manslaughter (reduced responsibility compared to a murder). Manslaughter can also be subdivided into voluntary (intentional) and involuntary/negligent (not necessarily intentional but based on neglect). Homicide victimization in the United States is measured with the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), which includes the Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR), as well as through the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). On average, there were 4.9 homicides per 100,000 people in the United States in 2015. Homicide victimization across the globe is measured by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). At the international level, the homicide rate was 6.2 homicides per 100,000 persons, with the largest proportions coming from the Americas and the least from the Oceania region. Information available on sociodemographic characteristics indicates that homicide offenders and victims are likely to be demographically similar. Data indicate that males are more likely than females to be victims and perpetrators of homicides. Younger individuals (18–24 years) are likely to be both homicide victims and perpetrators. The majority of homicides are intraracial (within a racial group, i.e., White on White). The homicide rate is highest in urban environments, with a homicide rate of 10.9 per 100,000 persons in cities with a population over half a million. In addition, the majority of homicides occur between victims and offenders who know one another and not between strangers. Incident characteristics indicate that weapons are used in the majority of homicides. Whereas circumstances around homicides are not always entirely clear, literature highlights that homicides are likely to occur during an argument or commission of another felony. Private residences are common locations for elderly and domestic homicides. Moreover, although not all homicides involve drugs or alcohol, a moderate proportion of victims and offenders have been found to have used these substances prior to the event. Filicide represents a parent or guardian killing a child, whereas infanticide represents the killing of an infant by these same individuals. When a child under the age of 5 is killed, the parent is most likely the offender.

310

Download more at Learnclax.com

Parricide represents the killing of a parent, with more specific definitions present for the killing of a mother (matricide) and father (patricide). Eldercide refers to the killing of an individual over the age of 65. Felonious homicide risk for the elderly is significantly influenced by an area’s robbery rate and by the proportion of elderly living alone and who have disabilities. Intimate partner homicide (IPH) involves the killing of a current or former partner or spouse regardless of sexual orientation. In the majority of situations, the offender is male and victim is female. A number of risk factors exist for intimate partner homicide for women, notably if they have been violently victimized in the past and the amount of time since the last violent incident. IPH perpetration by females is likely to occur based on these factors: extent and type of violence, lack of educational and financial resources, marital status and children, and notification of police following violent events. Suicide of a perpetrator following an instance of IPH is a relatively rare event. When a homicide-suicide does occur, it is likely that the male is the perpetrator and that it occurs with a firearm. Femicide represents the killing of females by males because they are female and might occur for a variety of reasons (e.g., honor killings, sexual orientation, witchcraft). Although the prevalence of femicide is hard to estimate, the practice has been present on an international level. Honor killings are homicides perpetrated by males against females to ensure that honor (which can be his own, his family’s, or his community’s) is maintained. These killings are justified on the grounds that in some way the females they are victimizing have gone against cultural or moral values. Homicides containing multiple victims are relatively rare in the United States, with only 1 out of 10 homicides involving multiple victims in 2015. Homicides that involve multiple victims include serial murder, mass murder, and spree murders. Victim precipitation suggests the extent to which a victim is responsible for his or her own victimization. This process may occur based on an escalation of verbal to physical violence when protecting one’s honor. Indirect or secondary homicide victimization is commonly viewed as being a relative or a friend of the homicide victim. A wide range of reactions to homicide have been found for family members of victims. Whereas bereavement is a common practice after the death of a family member or friend, individuals may also feel a sense of anger. Stress might additionally be brought on by the criminal justice system if the family members and friends of the victim do not feel as though justice has been served or they have been treated unfairly. Although specialized police responses have been used to combat homicide (and gang-related gun violence), the impact of these programs on decreasing homicide has been mostly minimal. A number of court responses exist to combat homicide. The most effective methods have been specialized units to combat gang and firearm violence as well as increased federal sentences. A variety of community responses are evident for homicides. Restorative justice efforts for homicide victims are present in a mediation process between family members of homicide victims and their offenders.

311

Download more at Learnclax.com

312

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. Can you think of an example (aside from the one provided) where a homicide is excusable (not justifiable homicide)?

2. What preventative methods might be reasonable for reducing the occurrence of intimate partner homicide?

3. How does victim-precipitated homicide fit into the victim–offender overlap? 4. What additional police and court responses might be beneficial in reducing homicide victimization? 5. What are the possible advantages and disadvantages of a mediation process between family members of

a homicide victim and their offender?

313

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key terms

bereavement 184 bereavement centers 187 castle doctrine 171 criminal homicide 171 death or casualty notification 185 deliberation 172 eldercide 179 excusable homicide 171 express malice 172 fatality reviews 186 felony murder 172 femicide 181 filicide 179 first-degree murder 172 gender-based violence 181 homicide 171 homicide-suicide 181 honor killing 182 implied/constructive malice 172 indirect or secondary victimization 184 infanticide 179 intimate partner homicide 180 involuntary/negligent manslaughter 172 justifiable homicide 171 manslaughter 172 mass murder 182 matricide 179 Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) 187 parricide 179 patricide 179 premeditation 172 second-degree murder 172 serial murder 182 spree murder 182 stand-your-ground laws 171 voluntary manslaughter 172

314

Download more at Learnclax.com

315

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

Global Study on Homicide: http://www.unodc.org/gsh/

Contained within the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the Global Study on Homicide (GSH) represents an international picture focusing explicitly on homicides. The website has information on criminal justice responses to homicide, drug- and firearm-related factors influencing homicide, and changing trends in the rate of homicide. In addition to graphics and a basic overview of homicide on an international level, a publication providing a comprehensive review of homicide is available.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: http://www.madd.org

The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) website has a number of publications and services available for survivors of drunk driving and for family members of individuals who have passed away after being victims of a drunk driver. Publications focus on the bereavement process, grief, coping, survivor guilt, and legal concerns. As important are a variety of services offered by the organization focusing on assistance throughout the criminal justice process as well as dealing with emotional issues.

Supplementary Homicide Reports: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/addendum-for-submitting- cargo-theft-data/shr; http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr

Contained within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) represent data on homicide victims and offenders. At the first website, you can find the variety of demographic and situational factors associated with the homicide event. The second website provides easy access to data from the supplementary homicide reports.

Vital Statistics Division of the NCHS: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm

Within the National Vital Statistics System (which is contained within the Centers for Disease Control [CDC]), data are available on factors related to causes of death and mortality trends more generally. In addition, the statistics allow for cross-country comparisons to gain a better understanding pertaining to mortality on an international level. This website lists a variety of publications generally pertaining to mortality.

World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/surveillance/databases/mortality/en

The World Health Organization (WHO) website contains data similar to the CDC’s but focuses more generally on an international level. Mortality information for causes of death and demographics is available for approximately 120 countries. More narrowly, the website offers an online database as well as raw data dating back to 1979 to specifically investigate morality on an international level.

316

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.unodc.org/gsh/

http://www.madd.org

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/addendum-for-submitting-cargo-theft-data/shr

http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/surveillance/databases/mortality/en

317

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 9

You are probably not surprised to learn that homicides have the highest clearance rate of any crime—that means the police make arrests or solve the crime of homicide more often than other types of crimes. Still, not all homicides result in an arrest being made or the police being able to close the case because they know who committed the crime. Imagine the anguish this could cause the family of a homicide victim. Researchers, such as Jason Rydberg and Jesenia M. Pizarro (2014), have attempted to uncover the factors that influence clearance for homicide. In their study, they use victim lifestyle and event characteristics to examine time to clearance.

Victim Lifestyle as a Correlate of Homicide Clearance

Jason Rydberg and Jesenia M. Pizarro

Introduction

Over the past 50 years, the proportion of homicides cleared by an arrest has steadily decreased within the United States. Although the United States once enjoyed a homicide clearance rate in excess of 90% in the 1950s (Wolfgang, 1958), that figure has hovered between 60% and 65% since the mid-1990s, with the most recently available data indicating a homicide clearance rate of 64.8% in 2010 (United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2011). In other words, of the 12,670 homicides known to the police in 2010, more than one third (4,460) did not result in an arrest. Riedel (2008) has noted that the precipitous drop in homicide clearance rates is of key concern to the victims of crime and their families, as the lack of an arrest does little to reduce the fear of victimization and subdue trauma. Simultaneously, falling clearance rates undermine police organizational morale and compromises the public’s trust in the police to deliver on their mandate (Riedel, 2008; Roberts & Lyons, 2011).

In light of these trends, research has explored the correlates of homicide clearance. This body of research has included analyses of aggregate-level clearance rates (e.g., Borg & Parker, 2001; Davies, 2007; Maguire, King, Johnson, & Katz, 2010; Xu, 2008) and the clearance of individual homicide incidents (e.g., Jiao, 2007; Litwin, 2004). This literature has produced several regularities, but many questions regarding the correlates of homicide clearance remain unanswered. For example, considering examinations of individual-level homicide clearance, scholars have debated the salience of two primary theoretical frameworks. The first is the event characteristics perspective (Klinger, 1997) in which the police deploy equitable effort and resources toward solving all homicides, and variation in clearance is due to practical considerations such as the amount of available evidence. The second is the victim devaluation perspective typically attributed to Black (1976), in which the police differentially expend effort and resources on homicide cases by focusing on particular kinds of victims (e.g., White children) at the expense of others (e.g., minority young adults).

The current inquiry contributes to the empirical homicide literature by considering a third theoretical framework that overlaps both the event characteristics and victim devaluation perspectives. Utilizing a rich dataset of homicides known to the police in Newark, New Jersey, we ask two specific research questions: (a) Do the event and victim devaluing characteristics of homicide incidents vary across levels of deviant victim lifestyle, and (b) does deviant victim lifestyle explain variation in the probability of and timing to clearance,

318

Download more at Learnclax.com

independent of other factors? This study contributes to the homicide clearance literature in two ways. First, although individual indicators of victim lifestyle have been included in some previous studies, this is the first study to systematically use lifestyle theory in the explanation of homicide investigations. We posit that this perspective further elucidates the dynamic nature of homicide clearance in a manner that respects the empirical status of earlier theories. Second, this study uses measures that directly tap into the criminal lifestyles of victims, instead of proxy measures such as homicide circumstance. Apart from previous research, we scale four lifestyle variables to capture the increasing levels of a victim’s enmeshment in deviant activities. Overall, the findings of this study contribute to the understanding of the dynamic nature of homicide and investigative work, and can inform police investigation practices.

Source: Rydberg, J., & Pizarro, J. M. (2014). Victim lifestyle as a correlate of homicide clearance. Homicide Studies, 18(4), 342–362. Reprinted with permission.

Theoretical Perspectives

The covariates of homicide clearance have been interpreted through two competing perspectives (see Lee, 2005; Litwin, 2004)—event characteristics and victim devaluation. Under the event characteristics perspective, variation in homicide clearance is a function of homicide incident characteristics that complicate the investigation, opposed to any factors associated with selective efforts on behalf of law enforcement. Klinger (1997) posits that informal workgroup norms among the police preclude expending subpar effort and resources to particular homicides:

No matter how busy the district, no matter how cynical the officers, no matter how routine the homicide, and no matter how undeserving the victim, the rule regarding murder in each and every district will be the same—all murders should receive highly vigorous police action by patrol officers. (p. 295)

Puckett and Lundman (2003) contend that because homicide detectives deal with relatively rare events receiving high degrees of public attention, they are generally unable to allocate resources toward solving homicides based on victim characteristics, even if they wanted to. To this extent, the factors predicted to cause variation in homicide clearance would be incident characteristics and other practical concerns such as witness cooperation and trace evidence left by the perpetrator.

To date, researchers have used a variety of indicators to capture the impact of event characteristics on homicide clearance. They include variables such as the location of the body (Addington, 2006; Litwin, 2004), available witnesses (Wellford & Cronin, 1999), and whether the homicide is committed with a firearm or a contact weapon (Addington, 2006; Alderden & Lavery, 2007), among others. This body of literature has demonstrated varied and modest results. For example, in one of the earliest examinations of homicide clearance, Wolfgang (1958) observed that unsolved homicides in Philadelphia between 1948 and 1952 were more likely to include deaths occurring in areas other than the victim’s home. More than 20 years later, Litwin (2004), Roberts (2007), and Jiao (2007) produced similar findings in their examination of national and Chicago clearance trends. They explained their finding by positing that incidents taking place inside

319

Download more at Learnclax.com

residences are more likely to have been committed by family members. Homicides committed with contact weapons are also more likely to be cleared relative to those committed with firearms (Litwin, 2004; Puckett & Lundman, 2003; Roberts, 2007; Roberts & Lyons, 2011). This is at least partially attributable to the amount of evidence that is left at the crime scene by non-firearms (Addington, 2006).

The few studies that have examined the effect of police resources and management aspects have resulted in conflicting results. In the seminal study of investigative procedures conducted by the RAND Corporation (Chaiken, Greenwood, & Petersilia, 1976), the findings suggest that factors related to officer workload explain variation in clearance. For instance, the more cases there are in the detective’s workload the lower the likelihood of clearance. However, Puckett and Lundman (2003) observed a null relationship between detective workload and clearance.

Unlike the event characteristics perspective, the victim devaluation perspective has used the social conflict perspective offered by Black’s (1976) theory of law to contend that the probability of formal social control (i.e., police attention and resources) being invoked on the homicide victim’s behalf is correlated with the victim’s location in social space (i.e., in relation to stratification, morphology, and culture). That is, the higher the social status of the victim, the more law (i.e., police attention) the case would receive, and thus, the odds of clearance increase. Black (1995) is clear, however, that the theory (to the extent that it is influenced by Black’s writing) does not claim variation in homicide clearance is due to prejudices by individual police officers and detectives, as some scholars critical of the perspective have contended (see Puckett & Lundman, 2003).

When testing the victim devaluation perspective, scholars have typically used indicators revolving around victim demographic characteristics. This perspective has received mixed empirical support. The most consistent finding concerns victim age, with homicides involving child victims more likely to be cleared (Addington, 2006; Alderden & Lavery, 2007; Jiao, 2007; Litwin & Xu, 2007; Puckett & Lundman, 2003; Roberts, 2007). This is a perplexing finding for Black’s (1976) theory, given that children are predicted to receive less law relative to adults. Other indicators of victim social geometry—such as race, ethnicity, and gender—have produced mixed effects in the prediction of clearance (see Riedel, 2008). Previous studies have noted that incidents involving Caucasian victims are more likely to be cleared relative to cases with minority victims (Addington, 2006; Lee, 2005; Litwin & Xu, 2007; Regoeczi, Jarvis, & Riedel, 2008). Conversely, several studies noted either nonsignificant effects for race/ethnicity variables (Addington, 2006; Jiao, 2007; Puckett & Lundman, 2003) or positive effects for minority victims (Trussler, 2010). Regarding victim gender, the general trend is that females are more likely to have their cases cleared (Lee, 2005; Regoeczi et al., 2008). Several other studies, however, found null effects for victim gender (Addington, 2006; Litwin & Xu, 2007; Wellford & Cronin, 1999; Wolfgang, 1958). As with victim age, this finding supports the notion that certain victims are more likely to have their cases cleared, but in a fashion antithetical to Black’s (1976) theory of law, because women are predicted by the theory to receive less law than male victims.

Despite the various studies examining the covariates of clearance published to date, it is still unclear how the event and victim devaluation perspectives account for one another. Proponents of the event characteristics perspective suggest that their approach is incommensurable with victim devaluation (see Puckett & Lundman,

320

Download more at Learnclax.com

2003). Victim devaluation proponents do not seem to have completely ruled out the possibility of event characteristic effects but have overstated the salience of victim characteristics on homicide clearance relative to other factors (Litwin, 2004; Wellford & Cronin, 1999). The current inquiry attempts to provide a more internally consistent explanation for homicide clearance by utilizing lifestyle theory (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garafalo, 1978) as an explanation that straddles both the event characteristics and victim devaluation perspectives.

Victim Lifestyle Perspective on Homicide Clearance

Lifestyle theory as originated by Hindelang et al. (1978) focused on the explanation of why some demographic groups (i.e., males, youth) are more at risk of criminal victimization than others. It begins with the assumption that role expectations are dependent on an individual’s demographic group (i.e., gender, age, race, socioeconomic status [SES]), and that such expectations are conducive to lifestyle choices that may contribute to future victimization. In essence, this assumption provides an explanation for why younger, African American males who reside in inner cities have a higher victimization rate. The theory contends that particular lifestyle choices, such as going out at night and spending time away from the residence, may contribute to future victimization by facilitating the convergence in time and space with potential offenders and other risky situations. For example, a person who becomes a gang member may start frequenting gang territories and high crime geographic areas to fraternize with fellow gang members. A drug dealer might start going out at night or frequenting pubs to sell their product.

Although previous research has considered the role of deviant lifestyles in the probability of homicide victimization (Broidy, Daday, Crandall, Sklar, & Jost, 2006; Ezell & Tanner-Smith, 2009), this theoretical framework has yet to be used in the examination of homicide clearance. While offering new insights about clearance, the victim lifestyle perspective remains consistent with the predictions of both the event and victim devaluation perspectives. Although victim lifestyle may not be a separate perspective on homicide clearance, it can account for the simultaneous operation of event characteristic and victim devaluation mechanisms.

Lifestyle may present a mosaic of factors that increase or decrease the probability of law enforcement clearing a homicide (see Figure 1). For example, aspects of lifestyle, such as associations with high-risk individuals, may be correlated with the presence of evidence and witnesses willing to aid in homicide investigations (Lee, 2005). Lifestyle can also increase the odds that a homicide incident takes place outdoors, be committed with a firearm, involves strangers, and involves multiple suspects, which are all clearance inhibiting incident characteristics (Roberts, 2008). Involvement in deviant activities may also determine the neighborhood where a homicide takes place, which in turn can affect the odds a case is cleared by police (Regoeczi & Jarvis, 2013).

Figure 1 Lifestyle, Devaluation, and Event Perspective Theoretical Model

321

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: SES = socioeconomic status; VOR = victim–offender relationship.

Lifestyle may also influence clearance through the devaluation of those enmeshed in deviant activities. For instance, given the social role expectations placed on specific demographic groups (i.e., those who reside in economically disadvantaged inner cities), these individuals may adopt lifestyles that are considered deviant and/or criminal. Such adoption may precipitate devaluation by agents of social control. Individuals who routinely interact with criminals may also be offered less protection from criminal justice authorities particularly because they might not seek the aid of the police when victimized (see Dobrin, 2001). Law enforcement may also be less likely to deploy adequate protection to citizens thought to be involved in deviant activities due to their place of residence or the company they keep. Indeed, Anderson’s (1999) ethnographic research indicates that law enforcement demonstrates relative indifference toward the victimization of marginalized families and neighborhoods.

Previous Literature Using Lifestyle Measures

To date, there has been no explicit or systematic application of lifestyle theory to the explanation of variation in homicide clearance. Most analyses are limited to information available in officially published statistics such as National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) or the Chicago Homicide dataset. To the extent that factors consistent with lifestyle theory have been included in previous analyses, they have been primarily conceptualized through gang or drug involvement in the homicide circumstances, or through consideration of the victim’s criminal record.

The most common finding is of a negative relationship between gang and drug event circumstances and homicide clearance. Using Chicago Homicide data, Litwin (2004), Alderden and Lavery (2007), Litwin and Xu (2007), and Xu (2008) observed that gang/drug-related circumstances reduced the likelihood of clearance, although Litwin chose to interpret this effect through a police devaluation perspective, and Alderden and

322

Download more at Learnclax.com

Lavery through event characteristics. Similarly, Lee’s (2005) examination of Los Angeles homicides suggests that gang-related incidents were 33% less likely to be cleared, relative to those of a non-gang-related nature. Similarly, Trussler’s (2010) examination of Canadian homicides found that cases with no gang or drug activity were significantly more likely to be solved, relative to cases with either or both. However, Roberts and Lyons’ (2011) examination of NIBRS drug- and gang-related homicides found that these cases were actually more likely to be cleared.

To a lesser extent, previous studies have attempted to capture victim deviant activity by including an indicator for victim criminal history in their analyses. These findings have shown less consistency than gang or drug circumstance effects. For instance, Alderden and Lavery (2007) found that if the victim had a prior arrest record, instrumental homicides were less likely to be cleared, but the odds of clearing a gang-related incident increased. Litwin and Xu (2007) examined homicide clearance across three time periods in Chicago and observed that victim arrest history decreased the likelihood of clearance in the earliest period (1966–1975), but not in the other two more recent ones. In addition, using data from Chicago, Jiao (2007) found that if the victim had an arrest record, the likelihood of clearance decreased. Finally, Litwin (2004) and Xu (2008) observed no significant effect for victim prior record on homicide clearance in Chicago.

The examination of specific victim lifestyles has also produced mixed results. Wellford and Cronin’s (1999) examination of homicides in four major U.S. cities found that a victim’s history of drug use decreased the likelihood of clearance. A bivariate regression, however, found that victim membership in a gang or drug organization increased the likelihood of clearance. More recently, Jiao (2007) found that compared with domestic violence homicides, gang-related incidents were not significantly more or less likely to be cleared, but homicides involving alcohol or drug use on the part of the victim were significantly more likely to be solved.

Present Study

Using data from 718 homicide incidents that occurred in Newark, New Jersey, from January 1997 to December 2007, this study focused on the potential effect of victim lifestyle on homicide clearance. Two research questions are examined.

Research Question 1: Do the event and victim devaluing characteristics of homicide incidents vary across levels of deviant victim lifestyle? Research Question 2: Does deviant victim lifestyle explain variation in the probability of and timing to clearance, independent of other factors?

The first research question concerns the relationship between victim lifestyle and clearance enhancing characteristics (Roberts, 2008). It may be that victim lifestyle serves to structure the “solvability” of homicide incidents through the differential arrangement of other variables that increase or decrease the probability of, and time to, clearance. In consideration of this question, the dataset we examine contains a robust set of clearance covariates, including several variables that are rarely examined in the previous literature (e.g., media coverage, the mode of how the homicide was earned out, detective workload).

323

Download more at Learnclax.com

The second research question addresses whether victim lifestyle is related to homicide clearance in a manner other than how it structures the characteristics of homicide incidents. Although previous inquiries have used a scattered sample of lifestyle indicators (e.g., gang involvement, criminal history), in the present analysis, we scale the variables to capture increasing levels of a victim being enmeshed in a deviant lifestyle. To our knowledge, this is the first study to use this approach, which is more consistent with Black’s (1976) theorizing on the continuous, quantitative nature of social geometry.

Data and Method

Data Description

Data for this study were obtained from the Newark Police Department’s Homicide Unit. Unlike cities commonly examined in the clearance literature (i.e., Chicago and Los Angeles), Newark is a midsize, northeastern city with a population of approximately 275,000 citizens. Approximately 84% of the population is non-White with the predominant minority racial/ethnic groups being African American (50%) and Hispanic (34%). During the past decade, Newark has continuously ranked within the top 20 most violent cities within the United States and thus, is very similar to cities currently experiencing high homicide rates and a decrease in clearance (e.g., Detroit, Michigan; Flint, Michigan; etc.).

Information for a total of 814 homicides that occurred from January 1997 to December 2007 was collected by one of the authors. During the study period, homicides in the city increased from 58 in 1997 to 98 in 2007, whereas in the same period, the clearance rate by arrest decreased from 72% to 49%. The data were obtained from investigation files compiled by detectives. The files contained detailed information on the homicide incident and characteristics of victims and offenders, which have been described elsewhere (Pizarro, Zgoba, & Jennings, 2011). Data on the demographic and lifestyle characteristics of each victim and offender as well as information describing circumstances and the location where the incident occurred were collected from the investigation files. Victim criminal history information was obtained from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ Offender Based Correctional Information System (OBCIS). Victim lifestyle information, such as gang affiliation and involvement in the drug business, was obtained from the victim profiles put together by the investigating detective.

Measures

Dependent variables

All variables utilized in the analysis are detailed in Table 1. The current inquiry uses two inter-related dependent measures of homicide clearance. The first, clearance, measures whether the homicide case was cleared during the observation period. A case was considered cleared once a suspect was arrested and charged with the homicide. After that point, the case was no longer considered “open” by Newark detectives, even if other suspects remained at large or if the arrested suspect was acquitted in a court of law. To this extent, the definition of homicide case clearance is similar to that used by the FBI (Riedel, 2008). The second dependent variable, time to clearance, captures the amount of time elapsed between the moment the investigation began and the moment of clearance or right-censoring, which occurred if the case was still open as of December 31,

324

Download more at Learnclax.com

2007.1 Cases that were cleared had an average investigation of 47 days with a median of 10 days. One fifth of

cases were cleared within the first 48 hours. Only homicides with known information for both clearance and time to clearance were included in the analyses. Of the 814 homicides investigated during the study period, 21 were exceptionally cleared and 75 were missing information on the time to clearance variable. As suggested in the literature, these cases were discarded from the analyses, resulting in a final sample of 718 homicides.

Independent variables

The primary independent variable of interest is the measure of deviant lifestyle. This variable captures the victim’s involvement in several measures of lifestyle, including whether the victim was a gang member, whether the victim was a drug dealer, whether the victim was involved in illegal activities apart from gang involvement or drugs, and whether the victim had a prior criminal record. We created a summative scale of these items approximating how enmeshed the victim was in a deviant lifestyle. Although a homicide victim could have a score of 4 on the scale, only 18 of the 718 homicide victims exhibited this. Due to the low number of cases, the scale ranges from 0 to 3+, with higher values indicating higher levels of involvement.

Two groups of control variables are used. The first group of control variables captures theoretically relevant characteristics of the homicide event that may impede or facilitate clearance—incident location, incident mode, victim–offender relationship, weapon, and police workload variables. The variable location indicates the category of physical space in which either the homicide occurred or the police located the victim’s body. Mode refers to how the homicide was carried out. Three variables were used to tap into workload—time since last case, open cases, and previous case open. These three variables are meant to capture workload intermittency, intensity, and multi-tasking. In addition, we capture whether the case was covered in The Star Ledger, the most widely read newspaper in the city. The only previous study utilizing a media coverage variable is Lee (2005), who found that the coverage of homicides in the Los Angeles Times was positively related to the probability of clearance but negatively associated with the time to clearance. This variable was included in the model because Newark investigators often utilize the media to enhance community awareness of particular cases and to offer rewards to potential witnesses that may come forward with information that can help them solve the case. Therefore, it can influence and facilitate the workload of the investigating detective.

Table 1

325

Download more at Learnclax.com

326

Download more at Learnclax.com

a. The “other location” category includes incident locations such as parking lots, abondoned buildings, residences belonging to neither the victim nor suspect, public outdoor locations, schools, and establishments such as businesses, bars, and restaurants.

b. Face-to-face encounters between the victim and perpetrator where communication took place immediately prior to the homicide walk-bys and drive-bys (i.e., incidents where the perpetrator approached the victim on foot or within a motor vehicle and engaged in the homicide without immediately verbally communicating with the victim), and other modes (i.e., incidents in which the mode was poisoning, arson, or starvation).

* Because this variable was highly skewed. We utilized its natural logarithm in all analyses.

The second group of variables captures demographic details of homicide victims, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and age. The bulk of victims (83%) were African American, 13% were Hispanic, and 4% were either Caucasian or Asian. Given the lack of variation, this variable was coded dichotomously (African American or not African American). Because age has been shown in the past to have a non-linear effect on clearance (e.g., Puckett & Lundman, 2003; Roberts, 2007), we split age into three binary indicators, victim age under 14 (child victims), age 14 to 44 (adolescent/middle aged victims), and age 45 and older (middle age/elderly victims). The 14 to 44 variable is used as the reference category due to both the size of the category and the meaningfulness of comparing it with the other two categories.

Missing data

Missing values for the variables used to construct the deviant lifestyle measure and victim/offender

relationship were problematic in the dataset.2 Although a small number of values missing at random could be addressed with listwise deletion, missing cases were dispersed across variables and cases in a non-arbitrary fashion. To address this issue, we utilized the Fully Conditional Specification multiple imputation procedure offered in SPSS 19 (2010). Through this procedure, potential values for missing cases were estimated across 25 different imputed datasets using maximum likelihood estimation. No auxiliary variables were utilized in the imputation. SPSS conducts all analyses for each of the 25 datasets separately and then pools the estimates by averaging. Descriptive statistics and parameter estimates presented in the present analyses thus reflect averages across the imputed datasets. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the raw and imputed variable.

Analysis

Pursuant to the first research question, we conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs to examine the conditional distribution of homicide event and victim characteristics across increasing levels of the Deviant Lifestyle Scale. The goal in using this technique is to examine the presence or absence of between-group variation on the lifestyle scale. To address our second research question, we estimate a series of Cox proportional hazard models. Cox proportional hazard modeling is the optimal procedure for investigating homicide clearance because it can incorporate observed information on the timing of clearance into parameter estimates, as well as differentiating between cleared and right-censored cases (i.e., those that remained open at

327

Download more at Learnclax.com

the end of the data collection; Roberts, 2007).3

Table 2N

328

Download more at Learnclax.com

329

Download more at Learnclax.com

a. All transformations (Deviant Lifestyle Scale and logged time since last case) in the imputed data were computed after the imputation procedure. They were not included in any of the imputation equations.

Results

Homicide Incident Characteristics by Victim Lifestyle

The bivariate relationships between various aspects of homicide incidents and victim lifestyle measures are listed in Table 3. Percentages displayed represent averages across the 25 imputed datasets. Average F and p values across the imputations are displayed. Because significant relationships tended to be linear, results are presented as a contrast between incidents involving victims scoring in the highest and lowest categories of the Deviant Lifestyle Scale.

The bivariate analysis suggests that deviant victim lifestyle is significantly related to both the probability of and the time to clearance, and that homicide incidents involving victims of varying degrees of deviant lifestyle are significantly different on a variety of event, victim, and location characteristics. First, both the probability of clearance and time to clearance variables are significantly related to victim lifestyle at this bivariate level. Incidents involving victims scoring the lowest on the Deviant Lifestyle Scale were the most likely to be cleared by arrest (76%) and were cleared more quickly (495.49 days), whereas a significantly lower proportion were cleared when the victim presented three or more of the deviant lifestyle components (40%), and those clearances occurred after a longer period of time (782.73 days).

When differentiated by victim lifestyle, homicide incidents also showed variation in the event and victim characteristics. For instance, victims scoring highest on the scale were less likely to be killed in residences (7% vs. 39%) and more likely to be killed in public street settings (68% vs. 41%). Concerning the mode of homicide, of those scoring highest on the scale, there were walk-bys or drive-bys (49% vs. 8%), and were almost exclusively committed by use of a firearm instead of a contact weapon (98% vs. 51%). Victims scoring highest on the scale were also more likely to be killed by acquaintances when compared with those scoring lower on the Deviant Lifestyle Scale, and strangers were more likely to victimize those scoring lower (64% vs. 39%).

The type of victims involved in homicide incidents was significantly different across the increasing values of the Victim Lifestyle Scale. Relative to homicides involving victims scoring a zero on the lifestyle scale, those incidents involving victims who scored a three or more on the scale were significantly more likely to involve an African American victim (95% vs. 64%), and significantly less likely to involve a female victim (1% vs. 32%). The age measures indicate that the victims more involved in deviant lifestyles are most likely to fall under the middle-aged category.

Victim Lifestyle as a Correlate of Homicide Clearance

The results of our Cox regression models are displayed in Table 4. Four models were estimated, each of which includes a combination of lifestyle, event, and victim indicators. The parameters represent estimates pooled from the 25 imputed datasets. Concerning the interpretation of parameter estimates, hazard ratios (HRs) are

330

Download more at Learnclax.com

presented and are interpreted analogously to odds ratios (ORs). HRs above 1.00 indicate that the independent

variable is associated with a homicide incident being cleared more quickly, and values below 1.00 indicate that the incident is cleared less quickly (Cox, 1972). Regression diagnostics (tolerance, variance inflation factor, and condition indices) were conducted on each imputed dataset and all indicators were at good to acceptable levels.

Two of the victim lifestyle variables were significantly related to cases taking a longer period of time to be cleared (HR = 0.67, p = .020; HR = 0.50, p = .003) (for two and three or more indicators, respectively). There were five variables that significantly increased the time to clearance (public street, other location, walk- or drive- bys and other modes, homicides committed with firearms, and when there has been a longer period since the detective’s last case). Incidents receiving media coverage were solved more quickly. Incidents taking place in public streets took longer to clear than those in residences.

Table 3N

331

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 4N

332

Download more at Learnclax.com

333

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: HR = Hazard Ratio; AIC = Akaike information criterion: BIC = Bayesian information criterion; Status for clearance—Suspect arrested = 1; No arrest made = 0.

a. The reference category is incidents where the victim had zero deviant lifestyle indicators present.

b. The reference category is incidents in residental locations.

c. The reference category is incidents involving face-to-face contact between victim and perpetrator.

d. The reference category is incidents committed by an acquaintance of the victim.

* p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion and Conclusion

The present inquiry sought to contribute to the homicide literature by incorporating lifestyle theory as a possible explanatory perspective of homicide clearance. Although previous inquiries had used individual victim lifestyle indicators, we operationalized lifestyle through increasing levels of enmeshment in deviant activities. By applying this perspective to explain the timing of homicide clearances, the current inquiry suggests mechanisms for the simultaneous occurrence of particular homicide event characteristics and the devaluation of victims, in turn elucidating the dynamic nature of case clearance.

Specifically, we asked two research questions concerning the relationship between victim lifestyle and clearance. Our first research question focused on whether victim lifestyle structures the clearance enhancing (or impeding) characteristics of homicide cases. Although previous research had found mixed relationships between individual lifestyle indicators (or proxies of these indicators) and clearance, we asked whether considering the stacking level of involvement in a deviant lifestyle made homicide incidents even more difficult to clear. Our findings suggest that this is the case. Victim lifestyle is associated with the distribution of clearance impeding factors across homicide incidents. Our second research question focused on whether victim lifestyle demonstrates a direct effect on clearance, independent of other variables. In essence, if lifestyle is not important, then there should be no independent effect for lifestyle on clearance once event and devaluation characteristics are controlled for in the multivariate analysis. We found that this was not the case, as incidents with victims scoring higher on the Deviant Lifestyle Scale took significantly longer to clear.

Three likely mechanisms can explain the relationship between lifestyle and time to clearance. The first is that victims deeply enmeshed in a deviant lifestyle are socially devalued, relative to those not participating in such lifestyles (Anderson, 1999; Black, 1976). The fact that we observed that detective workload factors did not significantly vary by victim lifestyle does not support this interpretation, given that it does not appear that victims deeply enmeshed in a deviant lifestyle are assigned to particularly busy detectives, relative to non- enmeshed victims. Although the evidence is not suggestive of law enforcement devaluing victims who scored highest on the scale, the public might be the source of the devaluation. Indeed, Newark detectives often cite difficulties in finding witnesses in cases that involve victims who are known criminals. They posit that this is due to potential witnesses not wanting to risk their lives, or be labeled a snitch for someone they deem not worthy. Interestingly, investigators point out that the opposite occurs in cases where the victim has an

334

Download more at Learnclax.com

upstanding public reputation. Recent research on the neighborhood effects on homicide clearance is supportive of this supposition (Regoeczi & Jarvis, 2013).

Related to this, the second possible interpretation is that victims highly enmeshed in deviant lifestyles are murdered by similar offenders. Due to the high criminality of the offender, potential witnesses might not come forward due to fear of retaliation. Although a rigorous test of this hypothesis was not possible given the available data, prior research does indeed suggest that homicide victims and offenders often resemble each other in terms of lifestyle and other characteristics (Pizarro et al., 2011). In addition, the friends and associates of victims involved in deviant lifestyles might also be involved in illegal activities, and thus, be hesitant to serve as witnesses. Of course, it may also be the case that victim association with individuals holding criminal records may actually be solved more quickly, as those individuals can attempt to neutralize charges on unrelated cases with law enforcement by bargaining for their information.

Finally, the third potential explanation of this effect is model misspecification. It may be that there are additional events and social characteristics that, once controlled for, would mediate the relationship between victim lifestyle and homicide clearance. For example, we did not have detailed information on the types of evidence available to detectives on scene, as other inquiries have collected (McEwen, 2009), or the amount of overtime allowed for working on specific cases. In addition, victim lifestyle may be relevant to homicide clearance through an alternative police devaluation perspective, in which homicides become more difficult to clear when the local community is cynical toward law enforcement. In this legal cynicism perspective, law enforcement effort is constant across homicide victims, but variation in clearance is driven by the unwillingness of the community to assist in homicide investigations (Puckett & Lundman, 2003; Regoeczi & Jarvis, 2013; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998).

Our analyses found little support for traditional measures in the victim devaluation perspective. None of the victim characteristics were significantly related to homicide clearance in the full model. Only when victim characteristics were considered alongside victim lifestyle did it appear that cases involving child victims were cleared significantly more quickly than cases involving middle-aged adults. Once event characteristics were included, the relationship between child victim and clearance was mediated. A possible explanation for this finding may be that homicide incidents involving children are cleared more quickly because they often take place within the home, are committed by family members of the victim, and are less likely to be committed with a firearm (Riedel & Rinehart, 1996). Indeed, once these variables were controlled for in the final model, the relationship disappeared. Another potential explanation is that demographic characteristics themselves do not lead to devaluation, particularly in a city composed primarily of ethnic minorities, but that it is the interaction of demographics and being deemed a “criminal” and/or “deviant.” This interesting dynamic might be fruitful to explore in future research.

The event characteristics perspective, however, received much stronger support from our analyses. We were able to contribute to this literature by including several measures that are rare in previous inquiries. We observed that the mode of how a homicide was committed matters. More specifically, homicides taking the form of a walk- or drive-by took significantly longer to clear than face-to-face encounters. We also observed

335

Download more at Learnclax.com

that incidents receiving media coverage were cleared significantly more quickly than those that did not. In addition, we observed that one of the detective workload variables, the amount of time elapsed since the detective’s last homicide case, had a negative relationship with the timing of homicide clearance. In essence, the longer the time between the detective’s last case and the current case, the longer it took to clear the current case. It is difficult to interpret the mechanism of this effect. Although it may be indicative of a “getting rusty” effect, it may also be that there is something qualitatively different about homicide incidents assigned to detectives who have not handled a case in some time. Consequently, homicide researchers may find it useful to examine the dynamics of case assignment and how this affects homicide clearance in future research.

Overall, lifestyle does appear to cut across the two major perspectives used by scholars to explain clearance. As indicated above, this theory offers an antecedent explanation to the event and victim devaluation perspectives, and in doing so, contributes to the understanding of how the situated transactions that lead to homicide affect the investigation. A deviant lifestyle can also be considered an attribute that can lead to the devaluation of a victim. Based on the tenets of lifestyle theory, one can also surmise that demographic characteristics can give rise to lifestyle types that might not be valued by the police and the public (see Figure 1).

The findings presented here are also suggestive of potential effective investigation strategies. Indeed, police investigators might use lifestyle in the planning of their investigation tactics. For example, detectives may apply more proactive strategies in the investigations of individuals who are criminally enmeshed such as notifying media outlets and having them report stories of the incident. Indeed, based on the findings of this study, it might be useful for the police to release some information at the beginning stages of a homicide investigation to news outlets to raise awareness of the incident and possibly locate witnesses. We did not include any indicators of the media coverage content, so it is unclear whether particular kinds of media coverage are required to reproduce this effect. As such, future research should examine this issue.

The findings of this study shed light on the complex set of events that facilitate police investigations; however, the analyses presented here are not without limitations. First, we only offer a glimpse of a city that is socially and demographically different from others studied in prior research (e.g., Los Angeles and Chicago). Newark’s population is primarily composed of ethnic minorities, the city suffers from acute economic deprivation and isolation, and it is one of the most violent cities in the country. Due to these characteristics, we acknowledge that the findings presented here are not generalizable to the majority of cities throughout the United States. Similar findings may arise, however, in cities that resemble Newark structurally, demographically, and in violence rates. Second, because we relied solely on official investigation files and offense histories, there is a possibility that we do not have data on all deviant and criminal behavior the victims were involved in prior to the murder. Finally, the use of multiple imputation carries its own limitations. Multiple imputation makes the assumption that data are missing at random (MAR), meaning that missing data are related to observable values of other variables but not missing data from other variables. Unfortunately, this assumption cannot be tested empirically but can only be minimized through appropriate model specification (White, Royston, & Wood, 2010). We believe that the variables included in the analysis models minimize this threat.

336

Download more at Learnclax.com

In conclusion, although this inquiry sheds further light on the dynamic nature of homicide investigations, future studies can build on these findings in several ways. Specifically, researchers should further explore the role of media coverage in the clearance of crime and analyze the types of coverage that may contribute to a more effective and efficient police investigation. It might also be beneficial to include in future inquiries information on offender lifestyle and other characteristics, because this too is related to the situated transactions of homicide events, and thus can have an effect on a police investigation. Qualitative studies focusing on the investigation of homicide might also contribute to the knowledge base in this area by providing information on the situational contexts that have resulted in the significant findings of the current and previous quantitative based results. Finally, researchers should also attempt to replicate the methods of this study in similar and socially and demographically distinct municipalities. These types of investigations can further increase the understanding of the dynamic nature of investigations, which can in turn lead to positive outcomes such as increasing police morale and better police community relations.

Discussion Questions

1. Why would participation in risky lifestyles influence clearance rates? 2. Why have clearance rates for homicide declined over the past 50 years? 3. What is the event characteristic perspective? Which perspective was found to have more support in the

data? Why? 4. What are the policy implications from the major findings? How can they be used to improve responses

to homicide?

Notes

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

1. The gap between the final homicide in the dataset and the final censoring point (the point at which it was last checked whether cases had been cleared) was approximately 10 months. Given that the median number of days to clearance for cleared cases was 10 days, this is more than adequate time to allow for case clearance.

2. Of the 718 cases, 288 were uncleared (40.1%). Of those 288 cases, 198 had an “unknown” victim-offender (V/O) relationship (68.8%). There were valid responses for 90 of the 288 uncleared cases (31.3%). Of the 218 total unknown V/O relationship cases, 20 were cleared (9.2%). As such, about two thirds of the uncleared cases needed the V/O relationship to be imputed.

3. In the current analysis, 40% of the cases were censored, a rate consistent with other clearance analyses (e.g., Roberts, 2007). The drawback with having this many right-censored cases is that we may be missing a sizable number of clearances that occur after the end of data collection, resulting in our potentially underestimating the effect of particular variables on clearance and time to clearance. However, after a case has been open for an extended period of time, the probability of a case being cleared in the distant future may be increasingly unlikely. As a sensitivity check, we restricted the analysis to only those cases that were cleared or censored within 2 years (730 days). Our results were unchanged with the exception of the media coverage variable,

337

Download more at Learnclax.com

which was no longer significantly related to time to clearance within the restricted period.

338

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Addington, L. A. (2006). Using national incident-based reporting system murder data to evaluate clearance

predictors: A research note. Homicide Studies, 10, 140–152.

Alderden, M. A., & Lavery, T. A. (2007). Predicting homicide clearances in Chicago. Homicide Studies, 11, 115–132.

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: Norton.

Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. New York: Academic Press.

Black, D. (1995). The epistemology of pure sociology. Law & Social Inquiry, 20, 829–870.

Borg, M. J., & Parker, K. F. (2001). Mobilizing law in urban areas: The social structure of homicide clearance rates. Law & Society Review, 35, 435–466.

Broidy, L. M., Daday, J. K., Crandall, C. S., Sklar, D. P., & Jost, P. F. (2006). Exploring demographic, structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide Studies, 10, 155–180.

Chaiken, J. M., Greenwood, P. W., & Petersilia, J. (1976). The criminal investigation process: A summary report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 34, 187–220.

Davies, H. J. (2007). Understanding variations in murder clearance rates: The influence of the political environment. Homicide Studies, 11, 133–150.

Dobrin, A. (2001). The risk of offending on homicide victimization: A case control study. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 38, 154–173.

Ezell, M. E., & Tanner-Smith, E. E. (2009). Examining the role of lifestyle and criminal history variables on the risk of homicide victimization. Homicide Studies, 13, 144–173.

339

Download more at Learnclax.com

Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garafalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime. An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Jiao, A. Y. (2007). Explaining homicide clearance: An analysis of Chicago homicide data 1965–1995. Criminal Justice Studies, 20, 3–14.

Klinger, D. A. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: An ecological theory of police response to deviance. Criminology, 35, 277–306.

Lee, C. (2005). The value of life and death: Multiple regression and event history analyses of homicide clearance in Los Angeles County. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 527–534.

Litwin, K. J. (2004). A multilevel analysis of factors affecting homicide clearances. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 41, 327–351.

Litwin, K. J., & Xu, Y. (2007). The dynamic nature of homicide clearances: A multilevel model comparison across three time periods. Homicide Studies, 11, 94–114.

Maguire, E. R., King, W. R., Johnson, D., & Katz, C. M. (2010). Why homicide clearance rates decrease: Evidence from the Caribbean. Policing and Society, 20, 373–400.

McEwen, T. (2009). Volume II: Research analysis of the Phoenix Homicide Clearance Project. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Policy.

Pizarro, J., Zgoba, K. M., & Jennings, W. (2011). Assessing the interaction between offender and victim lifestyles and homicide type. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 367–377.

Puckett, J. L., & Lundman, R. J. (2003). Factors affecting homicide clearances: Multivariate analysis of a more complete conceptual framework. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 40, 171–193.

Regoeczi, W. C., & Jarvis, J. (2013). Beyond the social production of homicide rates: Extending social disorganization theory to explain homicide case outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 30, 983–1014.

Regoeczi, W. C., Jarvis, J., & Riedel, M. (2008). Clearing murders: Is it about time? Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 142–162.

340

Download more at Learnclax.com

Riedel, M. (2008). Homicide arrest clearances: A review of the literature. Sociology Compass, 2, 1145–1164.

Riedel, M., & Rinehart, T. A. (1996). Murder clearances and missing data. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 83–102.

Roberts, A. (2007). Predictors of homicide clearance by arrest: An event history analysis of NIBRS incidents. Homicide Studies, 11, 82–93.

Roberts, A. (2008). Explaining differences in homicide clearance rates between Japan and the United States. Homicide Studies, 12, 136–145.

Roberts, A., & Lyons, C. J. (2011). Hispanic victims and homicide clearance by arrest. Homicide Studies, 15, 48–73.

Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society Review, 32, 777–804.

Trussler, T. (2010). Explaining the changing nature of homicide clearance in Canada. International Criminal Justice Review, 20, 366–383.

United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011, September). Crime in the United States, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in- the-u.s.-2010/10Clearance.gif

Wellford, C., & Cronin, J. (1999). Analysis of variables affecting the clearance of homicides: A multistate study. Washington, DC: Justice Research Statistics Association.

White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2010). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 377–399.

Wolfgang, M. E. (1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Xu, Y. (2008). Characteristics of homicide events and the decline in homicide clearance: A longitudinal approach to the dynamic relationship, Chicago 1966–1995. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 453–479.

341

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/10Clearance.gif

342

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 10

When someone is murdered, it has obvious effects for that person, but the effects can be far-reaching and long-lasting for those who loved that person. Depending on the context, homicide can also leave whole communities hurting (think about mass shootings). The consequences that homicide victimization carries for family members, including how people cope, are described by Jennifer Connolly and Ronit Gordon (2015) in their comprehensive review of the literature on homicide co-victims.

Co-Victims of Homicide

A Systematic Review of the Literature

Jennifer Connolly and Ronit Gordon

In the United States, 24,748 homicides occurred in 2010, which is a rate of 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, table 1). A homicide is defined as one individual intentionally taking the life of someone else; the act is unanticipated and aggressive (Clements & Vigil, 2003). It has been projected that for each murder victim, there are 6–10 family members who become co-victims of the homicide (Gross, 2007; Kilpatrick & Acierno, 2003). Co-victims, also known as survivors of homicide, are individuals who have familial connections with the victim and are thus indirectly victimized, first by losing a loved one and afterward, by the conditions attendant to the murder (MacVane, Miranda, & Molina, 2003).

There is increased concern in North America as well as internationally about how to adequately address the needs of homicide co-victims (Gross, 2007). While perpetrators are provided with support in the criminal justice system (CJS), there is increasing acknowledgment of the importance of offering support to co-victims and their families in both the short and long term. Homicide is a violent and traumatic event that significantly affects surviving family members. Norris, Ruback, and Thompson (1996) emphasized that signs of trauma were consistently demonstrated by homicide survivors.

A growing literature examines the effects of homicide on family member survivors. The findings from this research can significantly inform clinical practice with family member survivors who are increasingly recognized as individuals worthy of concern and in need of clinical care and social services. Despite this clinical relevance, to our knowledge, no systematic literature review has been conducted on the effects of homicide on surviving family members. The goal of the current article is to conduct a systematic review of the literature and to summarize the findings.

Source: Connolly, J., & Gordon, R. (2015). Co-victims of homicide: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1–12. Reprinted with permission.

Method

Search Methodology

We searched seven electronic databases for relevant research articles. The following search terms were used:

343

Download more at Learnclax.com

survivor/survivors, co-victim/co-victims, parent/parents, parental, family, family members, familial, relative/relatives, sibling/siblings, child/children, offspring, grief, grieving, reaction, response, homicide, murder, killing, psych, ill/illness, disorder, counseling, treatment, and therapy. This search strategy yielded a total of 6,575 articles.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We applied the following inclusion criteria to the articles obtained from the literature search: The article was published from the beginning of the year 1985 to the year 2012, inclusive; the death of the family member was the result of a murder; and the article referred to the homicide survivor as a family member. Publication in English was initially an inclusion criterion; however, no articles in a language other than English were identified. Articles were also excluded if death occurred as a result of a suicide, motor vehicle accident, or fatal incident other than murder.

Review Methodology

Forty articles met the study inclusion criteria. The majority of the articles reported research conducted in the United States; one article reported research conducted in Jamaica, two articles reported research conducted in the United Kingdom, and one article reported research conducted in Israel.

To conduct the review, the two coauthors undertook a content analysis of each article in which we identified, coded, and categorized the themes and subthemes expressed in the results reported by the authors (Mayan, 2001). Since we did not have categories determined a priori, we used an inductive process in which we reviewed findings from the articles and arrived at a consensus opinion about the themes and subthemes. First, a detailed review of each article was undertaken with the goal of identifying words and phrases that best characterized the findings. Second, similar words and phrases that appeared across articles were noted in order to identify common findings, defined as occurring in a minimum of five articles. We repeated this procedure 3 times to ensure completeness of the analysis. The following 10 subthemes were identified: psychological effects, academic effects, social effects, occupational effects, familial effects, survivors’ grieving processes, the impact of the CJS on grieving, coping strategies, survivor support groups, and survivor family therapies. Finally, the authors searched for consistencies in the subthemes to determine higher order themes. The subthemes of psychological, academic, social, occupational, and familial effects were grouped under the theme “effects of homicide on family members” with 19 articles assigned to it. The subthemes of grieving processes, impact of CJS on survivors’ grieving, and coping strategies were grouped under the theme of “grief experienced by family member survivors” with 13 articles assigned to it. The subthemes of survivor support groups and survivor family therapy were grouped in the theme of “treatment interventions” comprising eight articles. On occasion, articles could have been assigned to more than one subtheme or theme. In those cases, the article was assigned to the category that represented the predominant and best supported findings.

To determine coder interreliability, a research assistant, who was not familiar with the goals of the project, independently coded the set of 40 articles. Following training, the research assistant read the articles thoroughly and assigned them to 1 of the 10 subthemes and 1 of the 3 themes. The coder interreliability

344

Download more at Learnclax.com

agreement between the original codes and those subsequently obtained were 70% and 80%, respectively. Disagreements were noted for seven articles, and these were resolved by consensus discussion, with final assignment reflecting the determination of the senior author.

Findings

Theme #1: Effects of Homicide on Family Member Survivors

Within the theme of effects of homicide on family member survivors, the most common subtheme, with 10 articles, was psychological effects, which especially focused on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Other psychological effects noted in the studies were behavioral changes in children and adolescents, emotional reactions such as rage, guilt, and blame, and cognitive effects such as loss of confidence in society, increased fearfulness, and changes in worldview. Additional subthemes within the theme of effects of homicide were academic effects (three articles), social effects (two articles), occupational effects (three articles), and familial effects (one article).

Subtheme: Psychological Effects

Anxiety, depression, and PTSD

Distress is ubiquitous among family homicide survivors. A study conducted by Norris, Ruback, and Thompson (1998) focused on general symptoms of distress and found that 26% of the family member homicide survivors in their sample could be deemed clinically distressed on measures of depression, aggression, anxiety, and somatization. Six studies indicate that family member survivors are very likely to suffer from symptoms of PTSD (Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, Smith, & Veronen, 1989; Asaro, Clements, Henry, & McDonald, 2005; Burke, McDevitt-Murphy, & Neimeyer, 2010; Chery, Feldman Hertz, & Prothrow-Stith, 2005; Clements & Vigil, 2003). For example, the study conducted by Chery, Feldman Hertz, and Prothrow-Stith (2005) revealed that 50% of the family member homicide survivors in their sample showed symptoms of PTSD and 23% developed the full disorder.

The following outlines the most commonly reported symptoms of PTSD. Family survivors frequently reexperience the homicide. For example, they may have recurring dreams about the homicide (McCreery & Rynearson, 1993), in which the victim was saved or dreams that concentrated on a painful part of the homicide (Miller, 2009a). When a child is the homicide victim, family members, and especially parents, may have repetitive thoughts about the homicide, including worries about how much pain the child had endured when he or she was murdered. Survivors also report that they suffer from “emotional anesthesia,” where they felt incapable of feeling any kind of emotion, including love for the lost child or family member (Rinear, 1988). Family co-victims can also suffer memory loss, attentional problems, or sleep problems (Charmaine & Mahoney, 2004; Rinear, 1988). Finally, they can show decreased interest in important activities in their lives and avoid situations that remind them of the homicide and of the deceased family member (Chery et al., 2005).

PTSD can influence how children and adolescents develop, as it can alter their understanding of the

345

Download more at Learnclax.com

consequences of their behavior, their moral reasoning, and their desire to have a stable family life (Clements

& Vigil, 2003). Among children, frequent discussion of the homicide and attempts to reenact it were commonly reported behaviors that are symptomatic of PTSD (Charmaine & Mahoney, 2004).

Behavioral changes in children and adolescents

Children and adolescents who have lost a family member to homicide can manifest their distress through both externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Externalizing behaviors are expressions of maladaptation directed outward toward others. Three studies (Asaro et al., 2005; Burgess & Clements, 2002; Chery et al., 2005) reported that when children and adolescents are grieving, they might have angry outbursts and become agitated or aggressive with others. At the same time, children can also exhibit internalizing symptoms, such as feelings of sadness or social withdrawal, which could result in the children’s emotional distancing from others and a reduction in their involvement in previously enjoyed activities (Chery et al., 2005).

These behavioral changes can manifest differently across age. Infants and toddlers between the ages of 1 and 3 years do not understand what death is, but still strongly sense the absence of the deceased parent (Miller, 2009a). Preschoolers between the ages of 3 and 4 years may become reserved, combative, or anxious; have nightmares or difficulty focusing; and may easily become upset if their day-to-day schedule is altered (Levy & Wall, 1996). Children between the ages of 4 and 7 years understand that death means the person is gone, but they may still believe that the deceased individual will return. Because of this, they may distract themselves from the homicide, refusing to accept that the murder has occurred and appearing to be untroubled by the death. They may also engage in “repetitive play” sequences during which they reenact the homicide (Miller, 2009a). Older children, between the ages of 8 and 12 years, might use involvement with friends, school, and extracurricular activities to create a barrier, so they can control the pain that they feel about the murder. Children of this age can experience a range of emotions. For example, they may feel humiliated when they cannot avoid remarks that their classmates or neighbors make about their family member’s murder, and they may fear that another family member or themselves will be murdered (Burgess & Clements, 2002). Children in this age group know that death is permanent and that the deceased family member will not return (Clements & Vigil, 2003). They may erroneously believe that a behavior or action they engaged in led to the murder (Levy & Wall, 1996) or they may objectify death as the “boogey man” or as the living form of a person they remember from a frightening movie (Miller, 2009a). Between the ages of 12 and 13 years, adolescents are similar to adults in their understanding of death and they can grasp that it is universal. During these years, however, it is not uncommon for adolescents who have experienced the homicide of a family member to become obsessed with their own mortality, and they may behave in a dangerous manner or engage in risky acts more frequently than their peers who have not experienced the murder of a family member (Miller, 2009a).

Emotional reactions: Rage, guilt, and blame

Family homicide survivors were reported by two articles to be likely to experience intense feelings of rage, guilt, and blame after a family member was murdered (Evans, Hobdell, & Mezey, 2002; Friedman, Getzel, & Masters, 1988; Miller, 2009a). In a study conducted by Evans, Hobdell, and Mezey (2002), 66% of family members of a murder victim said that after the murder occurred, they were angrier people than they had been

346

Download more at Learnclax.com

before the murder occurred. Fifty percent said they were more verbally hostile, and 7% said they were more physically assertive. The rage survivors felt could at times be translated into “fantasies of revenge” in which they imagined avenging themselves on the murderer (Gross, 2007; Klass & Peach, 1987). Survivors were frequently angry with the murderer and might also have experienced anger at society or at family members who had not kept the victim safe from harm. These hostile feelings do not always surface, as survivors may displace their anger and blame other individuals for the death (Friedman et al., 1988). For example, parents may have blamed employers who were unsuccessful in supplying sufficient protection in the workplace, law enforcement employees such as prison guards who were unsuccessful in ensuring that prisoners did not escape, legislators who advocated for liberal gun laws, or individuals who involved their child in a risky activity such as selling illegal drugs (Rinear, 1988).

Alternatively, family homicide survivors sometimes transform their anger into guilt about the murder and blame themselves for the death. Self-blame can result in self-criticism and lead parents to become overprotective of surviving children (Rinear, 1988). Survivors frequently suffered from “survivor guilt” if they had witnessed the murder but had not been physically harmed themselves (Gross, 2007). For example, family members may feel guilty for not cautioning or safeguarding the victim, for not helping the victim earlier, or for not predicting that the murder was going to occur. They could also believe that they unintentionally encouraged the victim to engage in a risky activity, which led to his or her death (Friedman et al., 1988).

Cognitive effects: Loss of confidence, fearfulness, and changed worldviews

Family homicide survivors frequently suffer from negative cognitions. After a homicide has occurred, family member survivors’ confidence in society frequently declines because they come to believe that society had not protected the victim from harm. This lack of confidence could result in parent survivors fearing that further traumatic events would occur to their surviving children (Beard & Kashka, 1999). Two articles outline that numerous parents also feared for their own safety (Klass & Peach, 1987). Like adults, children and adolescents might be afraid that they or another family member would be murdered (Clements & Vigil, 2003).

Second, after a family member was murdered, family survivors’ worldview was reported to change drastically, along with their assumptions of a stable world order. These assumptions were altered because the loss of a family member to homicide contradicted peoples’ assumptions about a world in which they felt secure. Before a homicide occurred, family members believed they were not vulnerable to such a tragedy (Miller, 2009a). After a murder has occurred, family members lose their sense of invulnerability, and this leads them to alter their day-to-day routines. The survivors in Miller’s sample said they avoided leaving the house when it was dark, avoided specific places, took possession of weapons, or bought vehicle or house alarms. Explaining these actions, Rinear (1988) stated that parents of a murdered child had realized that they could not always keep their family safe, so they may have engaged in protective actions to reduce the risk of another homicide occurring.

In addition, Miller (2009a) stated that people normally assume that the world is orderly and meaningful. After a homicide, family members lose this assumption and instead view the world as cruel and lacking in compassion (King, 2004). In the study reported by Clements and Vigil (2003), the violent nature of murder

347

Download more at Learnclax.com

contradicted children’s understanding of their family as a safe haven and of their environment as permanent. Overall, while individuals usually viewed themselves in a positive light, this opinion was quickly dismantled after a family member was murdered (Miller, 2009a).

Subthemes: Academic, Social, Occupational, and Familial Effects

Three studies have reported adverse effects on children’s academic and school performance. For example, after a family member’s homicide, children often had a form of cognitive disturbance, including diminished ability to focus on their school work or retain the information taught in class. These cognitive problems had an impact on children’s school achievement (Miller 2009a). They also had difficulty completing school assignments or avoided school altogether (Clements & Vigil, 2003). In turn, children’s school grades frequently dropped in the aftermath of a family homicide (Charmaine & Mahoney, 2004). Adolescents experienced significant problems, as the murder led them to fear being murdered themselves. It also led them to feel that there was little reason to remain in school or to plan for the future (Miller, 2009a).

Significant changes in how family survivors socialized after a homicide were described in two studies. Some family homicide co-victims reported that the murder had alienated them from colleagues and friends (Rinear, 1988) and their social support decreased in response to the stigma of murder. Similar to this, parent survivors reported they felt the need to adjust to their new role as the parent of a murdered child, a status that society views negatively (Klass & Peach, 1987). The socialization of child survivors is also negatively affected (Chery et al., 2005). For example, the study conducted by Charmaine and Mahoney (2004) reported that children withdrew from their classmates or experienced rejection from their classmates following the murder.

In addition to social disruptions, family survivors’ occupational adjustment declines when they were mourning the murder of a family member, which was described in three studies. For example, Buzzi and DeYoung (2003) reported that the majority of the parents in their study found it hard to return to work after their child was murdered. More troubling, family survivors sometimes quit their jobs or were dismissed from them for absenteeism from work. Evans et al. (2002) reported that after a homicide, 27% of family members terminated their employment, either voluntarily or through dismissal, while 6% of them subsequently obtained new employment.

Last, everyday functioning of families changes after their loved one was murdered, which is outlined in two studies. Families might reorganize themselves by modifying the day-to-day roles and responsibilities of each family member or by changing the ways in which they communicate with each other (Levy & Wall, 1996). There were also new demands placed on the family. In the short term, these included organizing the victim’s funeral, communicating with criminal justice personnel, and making decisions about legal issues. In the longer term, these demands included making new child care arrangements and meeting employment challenges (Malone, 2007). In addition, numerous families incurred financial burdens such as funeral fees, lawyers’ and investigation expenses, and travel and hotel expenses while attending criminal justice proceedings. Families consistently worried about their ability to cope financially with a decreased budget, especially if the deceased was the primary breadwinner. Furthermore, survivors sometimes encountered further financial frustrations when they tried to obtain loans to cover the costs of filing criminal injuries compensation claims or benefits

348

Download more at Learnclax.com

claims (Malone, 2007). Persons (1990) summarized these findings by stating that the tragic loss caused by the homicide of a family member and its familial consequences were all-encompassing and touched every aspect of the family’s life.

Theme #2: Grief Experienced by Family Member Survivors

Within the theme of grief experienced by family member survivors, the following three subthemes were identified: processes of grieving, the impact of the CJS on the way family member survivors grieve, and the coping strategies co-victims used to deal with grief.

Subtheme: Processes of Grieving

Two articles have reported adverse effects of homicide on survivors’ grieving processes. In his study of co- victims, Malone (2007) stated that the grief processes survivors experienced after homicide did not always conform to the stages of mourning, the duration, or the intensity typically seen following a nonviolent death. This was due to the tragic nature of the death, further complicated by survivors’ concerns that they must conceal their grief so they could take care of monetary and legal issues after the homicide (Malone, 2007). For example, unlike those mourning a nonviolent death, the majority of homicide survivors had difficulty resolving their grief because their mourning processes were restricted or obstructed by homicide-related events such as criminal justice proceedings. As a consequence, postponement of grief occurred such that the survivors’ ability to mourn was delayed until the criminal investigation of the homicide was completed (Dawson & Riches, 1998).

Subtheme: Effects of the CJS on Family Survivor Grief

Five studies outlined common experiences with the CJS that negatively impacted the way families grieved after the murder of a loved one. These included difficulty accessing information about their case, insensitive treatment, unfairness of the CJS, and negative media reporting of the case.

First, numerous family member co-victims reported that they were not provided with adequate information about criminal court processes and so they were frequently unable to retrieve the details of their loved one’s case and its progress. For example, in a study of child homicide victims, the majority of parents stated that they were kept waiting for a long period of time before they were informed of the details of their child’s case. This exacerbated their grief since their ability to mourn was delayed until the circumstances surrounding their child’s death were made clear to them (Dawson & Riches, 1998). Homicide survivors also complained that police frequently gave untruthful answers and insufficient information about the deceased’s case and that their phone calls were not always returned by the police (King, 2004). In addition, families were sometimes not told about parole hearings (Rinear, 1998) or were not notified when the accused’s charges were reduced. According to Dannemiller (2002), financial resources affected the amount of information provided to families, such that financially unstable families were least able to obtain information about their loved one’s case.

Two studies indicated that family homicide survivors often felt that criminal justice personnel treated them insensitively (Norris, Ruback, & Thompson, 1996). For example, a large number of parent survivors stated

349

Download more at Learnclax.com

that criminal justice authorities were not supportive when they were identifying their child’s body (Beard & Kashka, 1999). In other cases, police would not allow parents to come into physical contact with their child’s body since they needed to preserve the crime scene, which led to parents suffering grief postponement (Dawson & Riches, 1998). Finally, the majority of criminal proceedings took a long period of time, so the return of the deceased’s belongings to family survivors was frequently excessively delayed, a factor that increased the complications of grieving (Rinear, 1988).

Family members were generally dissatisfied with the CJS and, in particular, with the manner in which the perpetrator was punished. The perception among family survivors was frequently that the perpetrator was not given a fair sentence but rather a lighter sentence than deserved (Clements & Vigil, 2003). As reported in one study, numerous surviving family members felt that the CJS is designed to assist the criminal and not the survivors (Adkins, 2003). They also felt that the CJS is structured to preserve the accused’s rights, while families felt as though they had none (Klass & Peach, 1987). Families voiced that they felt powerless when the accused did not receive what they viewed as a just sentence and this increased feelings of depression and anxiety (Englebrecht, 2011). Norris et al. (1996) found that 79% of family survivors thought the sentence given to the perpetrator was not as harsh as it should have been. Family members felt “revictimized” when plea bargaining allowed the accused to receive a charge less severe than that of first-degree murder (Beard & Kashka, 1999) or when successful appeals resulted in a second trial (Klass & Peach, 1987).

Finally, two studies indicated that highly graphic media coverage of the victim’s death and trial negatively affected the family’s ability to grieve. Insensitive media coverage could hinder survivors’ ability to grieve normally (Dawson & Riches, 1998), because sensational reporting may make the details of the homicide seem worse than they really were or, alternatively, give a negative portrait of the deceased family member (Adkins, 2003). For example, the media might have depicted a murder victim as having played a role in his or her own death or might have questioned the victim’s moral fiber (Dawson & Riches, 1998). The media might have publicized the case without first notifying family members of their intention to do so. Adding to the family’s distress, sometimes the media continued to provide footage of the crime site or of the deceased’s cadaver and focused more heavily on the “sensational” aspects of the homicide (Rinear, 1988). All these media tactics served to further sensationalize the victim’s case, so survivors were less able to shift their focus from the events surrounding the murder to more pleasant recollections of the loved one’s life (Dawson & Riches, 1998).

Subtheme: Family Survivors’ Coping Strategies for Dealing With Grief

Six studies indicated that family homicide survivors coped with their grief in myriad ways. The articles broadly delineated three strategies, namely, personal problem solving, accessing social support, and accessing religion. Numerous family survivors reported that they developed personally focused strategies to cope with their loss. These strategies were attempts to modify their emotions such as trying to forgive the accused, recognizing that suffering and emotional pain are an acceptable response to the homicide, and striving to find personal significance in their loss. They also used more action-based strategies such as participating in advocacy initiatives, refraining from alcohol or other substances, and preserving familial and marital relationships (Buzzi & DeYoung, 2003). The actions that homicide survivors reported to be most helpful included being

350

Download more at Learnclax.com

tolerant of others, listening to family members, and providing emotional support to those around them. Utilizing available support systems also helped survivors cope with their grief. A survey study conducted by Sharpe (2008) found that family survivors’ primary support systems were informal ones such as close family or extended kin and friends. To a lesser extent, family member survivors made use of the more formal supports supplied by mental health agencies or community service organizations (Boyas & Sharpe, 2011; Sharpe, 2008). Burke, McDevitt-Murphy, and Neimeyer (2010) found that homicide family survivors who had larger and more varied social support networks received higher quality support than survivors with limited support networks.

Three of the six coping strategy studies outline that the majority of family member homicide survivors reported the positive impact of religious and spiritual beliefs. Thompson and Vardaman (1997) found that tapping into spiritual beliefs and rituals was widespread among family homicide survivors. The family members in their sample of homicide survivors typically increased their participation in spiritual activities and accessed multiple forms of religious support. Spiritual engagement allowed survivors to focus on a higher being and this helped them deal with their loss. Faith-based organizations also provided social support from both church members and clergy (Thompson & Vardaman, 1997). Family survivors reported that they used religion to help them better understand their loss (Moss & Raz, 2001). Nzewi, Parappully, Rosenbaum, and Van den Daele (2002) found that parent survivors stated that religion helped them understand their child’s murder and helped them overcome their loss through a belief in a “life after death,” in which they might be reunited with the victim.

Theme #3: Treatment Interventions

The eight articles containing findings about interventions found that the two following modes of treatment are commonly offered to family homicide survivors: survivor support groups and survivor family therapy. There was variability within each of these intervention approaches, as described in the following sections.

Survivor Support Groups

Three studies indicate that family homicide survivors used psychoeducation support groups, which are led by a counselor with prior experience working with bereaved families and the group members have all experienced the loss of a family member to murder. The groups are focused on educating family homicide survivors about the CJS, the impact of violent crime on mourning, and ways of coping with the tragedy (Lexius, Lyon, & Moore, 1992). Psychoeducation groups also teach survivors about the importance of self-care while they are mourning their loss (Blakley & Mehr, 2008). In addition to education, homicide survivors are encouraged to share with group members how their loss has affected them, what support systems they have, and what their needs and future goals are (Lexius et al., 1992). Support workers believe that this sharing of personal narratives helps survivors move forward with their lives (Blakley & Mehr, 2008). Discussing the homicide with others who have endured a similar tragedy allows survivors to communicate their experiences to persons who can appreciate the significance of their loss (Levy & Wall, 1996). In general, the aim of a structured time-limited group is to reduce the marginalization family homicide survivors feel and to assist them in gaining a sense of control over their day-to-day lives (Lexius et al., 1992).

351

Download more at Learnclax.com

Psychoeducation groups are time limited and are structured to convey information and support within a relatively short time frame between 6 and 12 weeks. As a follow-up, self-help support groups are frequently offered to family homicide survivors after they have participated in a time-limited group. Self-help support groups provide continued informal support and education as well as opportunities for engaging in advocacy work that may focus on creating changes in legislation (Lexius et al., 1992). Survivors are also encouraged to advocate for themselves and their families in the CJS (Blakley & Mehr, 2008). Self-help groups, being informal and member managed, may continue for indefinite periods of time. They are beneficial for homicide survivors as they give them opportunities to continually connect with other homicide survivors, and they aid in building supportive networks of concerned individuals.

Survivor Family Therapy

Five studies indicated that family therapy is frequently used by family homicide survivors. Hatton (2003) suggests that family therapy is the treatment of choice for family homicide survivors. As discussed above, the murder of a family member has deep and wide-reaching effects on all surviving members. Therapy directed at the family unit is essential for rebuilding its relationships and strengthening its capacity to carry on after the tragedy (MacVane et al., 2003). Two types of family therapies are discussed in the articles reviewed.

Contextual therapy (CT)

This approach to family therapy concentrates on recognizing the injustices that family homicide survivors have endured and the loyalties that exist among family members as they attempt to honor the memory of the deceased. After a murder, families must deal with the sense of betrayal inherent in the act of moving on to live their lives without the deceased victim. Families are encouraged to develop new ways of expressing their loyalty to the victim and to embrace new loyalties for the living members of their family. They are also encouraged to create plans for the future while also preserving the victim’s memory (Temple, 1997). CT promotes reparation in families by encouraging family members to seek out legal or medical services (Temple, 1997) and by reorganizing their roles in the family (Miller, 2009b). CT is beneficial for family homicide survivors since it helps them gain a balance between the past, by remembering the victim; the present, by reorganizing how their families should function; and the future, by creating long-term plans (Temple, 1997).

Existential empowerment family therapy

This mode of family intervention encourages family homicide survivors to engage in activities, which help them find new meaning in their lives (Armour, 2003). For example, survivors are encouraged to create narratives about the homicide that they view as true regardless of the CJS proceedings taking place. They are permitted to hold people accountable for treating them poorly and they are encouraged to think of ways to rectify societal wrongs they have experienced. Survivors are also led to a new understanding of how to live with purpose and to assist other homicide co-victims (Miller, 2009b). This therapy is beneficial for family co- victims because it validates the fact that every survivor mourns differently and helps them convert their anger into feelings that encourage growth (MacVane et al., 2003). Timing of treatment is important and this form of family therapy is considered to be especially helpful after the initial crisis period has passed (Horne, 2003).

352

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion

The goal of this systematic review was to summarize the published evidence on the impact of the homicide of a family member on those family members who survive. Overall, three domains have received research attention: psychological, academic, social, occupational, and familial effects; grieving processes, including impact of CJS on survivors’ grieving and coping strategies; and treatment options. Despite certain limitations, the current research findings can provide direction for public policy and clinical practice.

Major Findings

Most consistent across all studies was the wide-reaching and negative effects of homicide on surviving family members. These effects touched most dimensions of individuals’ lives including psychological, academic, social, vocational, and familial adjustment. Indeed, there was the potential for every aspect of a survivor’s life to be negatively affected, both in the short term and in the long term, by the homicide of a family member.

Second, homicide altered the normal pattern of grief for family survivors. Both postponed grief and a lack of grief resolution commonly occurred, very frequently as the result of involvement with the CJS which restricts or delays survivors’ mourning. A lack of sensitivity to the grieving family at the time of the murder, a lack of sufficient information about the case being provided, as well as the prolonged nature of criminal investigations were implicated.

Third, family survivors drew on a variety of coping strategies to deal with their grief and frequently became resilient in the face of such tragedy. Of particular importance were strategies that increased personal coping by building support networks and connecting to spiritual beliefs or religious institutions. The use of spirituality as a coping response was widespread among family homicide survivors and a large number of survivors used religion to help them come to terms with their loss.

Finally, treatment interventions have been developed to meet the needs of family homicide survivors. Psychoeducation survivor support groups, both formal and informal, were offered to family survivors. Providing information and support to group members, psychoeducation survivor support groups helped family members cope with the stress and turmoil of the tragedy. Survivor family therapy was also available and considered the treatment of choice for families who had lost a loved one to homicide. CT and existential empowerment family therapy were described in the literature as modes of treatment that encourage homicide survivors to find in their loss a sense of meaning and to build a new future for themselves without the victim.

Implications for Research

A national survey should be conducted to determine the number of family members nationally who are affected annually by the homicide of a family member. Such information would assist in establishing baseline information and calling attention to the concerns of co-victims. Second, future research on the effects of homicide on family survivors should begin to differentiate individuals on the basis of culture, race, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, and country of origin. Third, the majority of the samples used in the studies are from the United States, so there is a need to understand how family members from outside the United States

353

Download more at Learnclax.com

experience homicide survivorship. In addition, longitudinal studies need to be conducted to determine the long-term effects of homicide on family member survivors. These studies can help determine what factors affect survivors’ healing processes and the impact that homicide has on survivors, years after the murder has occurred. Fourth, future research should focus on examining the effects of homicide on individuals in same- sex families as well as those individuals who do not fall under the traditional definition of “family,” such as children’s schoolmates, close friends, and neighbors. These studies can help determine whether there is a distinction between the effects of the homicide on these different groups of individuals. Finally, understanding the effects of homicide on family survivors would be enhanced by in-depth studies on how relationships between family members and within marriages change after a relative is murdered. Survivors’

work performance and their relationships with colleagues and managers also need to be explored.

Implications for Policy

Based on this systematic review of the literature, the development of a number of policies would prove beneficial. School policies should be implemented that place an emphasis on training teachers, guidance counselors, and principals on how to sensitively support students who are mourning the homicide of a family member. Workplace policies should be implemented that focus on training employers how to effectively support employees who are in mourning. In addition, survivors should be provided with information on survivor support resources, court-based victim services, and homicide-survivor organizations.

Implications for Practice

Examining the literature leads to the following practical recommendations. First, after-school programs should be implemented to ensure that child and adolescent survivors’ academic progress is monitored and that they are provided with extra academic assistance if needed. Second, police colleges and the CJS should consider implementing programs that train police, law enforcement officers, and criminal justice personnel on how to appropriately deal with homicide cases and interact with families connected to the case. For example, police should be trained to contact the victim’s family if there is any progress with the case and provide accurate case information. In turn, this may decrease the likelihood of homicide survivors experiencing grief- resolution problems. This proposal highlights the need for change in criminal justice procedures related to homicide cases and the ways in which criminal justice employees interact with family homicide survivors. Lastly, interventions need to be created that are culturally, socially, and religiously sensitive, so that the needs of homicide survivors from diverse backgrounds are adequately addressed.

Conclusion

Although specific numbers are not available, we know that there are numerous surviving family members of homicide whose plight is not always acknowledged. Research provides the evidence for developing sound policy and effective treatment interventions. It can also bring to public attention the needs of family homicide survivors and the support that can assist them in recovering from the horrific loss they have experienced. It is our hope that this literature review will form the basis for future research and encourage researchers to continue investigating the traumatic effects of homicide on surviving family members.

354

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. What psychological effects are commonly found among co-victims of homicide? 2. What behavioral effects or changes are commonly found among co-victims of homicide? 3. What cognitive-emotional effects occur to people whose loved ones are murdered? 4. How does the criminal justice system impact coping? 5. What are the common treatment or intervention strategies available for co-victims of homicide? Are

these strategies effective?

Note

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Canadian Crime Victims Foundation.

355

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Adkins, E. (2003). The first day of the rest of their lives. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health

Services, 41, 28–32. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorkn.ca/docview/225544212/fulltext/1335BFDA67E68976E04/13? accountid=15182

Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D. G., Smith, S., & Veronen, L. J. (1989). Family survivors of homicide victims: Theoretical perspectives and an exploratory study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2, 21–35. doi:10.1002/jts.2490020104

Armour, M. (2003). Meaning making in the aftermath of homicide. Death Studies, 27, 519–540. doi:10.1080/07481180302884

Asaro, M. R., Clements, P. T., Henry, T., & McDonald, G. (2005). Assessment and intervention with youth exposed to sexual homicide of a family member. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5, 300–309. doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhi022

Beard, M. T., & Kashka, M. S. (1999). The grief of parents of murdered children: A suggested model for intervention. Holistic Nursing Practice, 14, 22–36. Retrieved from http://web.ebsco- host.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=11&sid=43c35d53-ec72-40f3- 885f-088b540fbcd9%40sessionmgr11

Blakley, T. L., & Mehr, N. (2008). Common ground: The development of a support group for survivors of homicide loss in a rural community. Social Work with Groups, 31, 239–254. doi:10.1080/01609510801980971

Boyas, J., & Sharpe, T. L. (2011). We fall down: The African American experience of coping with the homicide of a loved one. Journal of Black Studies, 42, 855–873. doi:10.1177/0021934710377613

Burgess, A. W., & Clements, P. T. (2002). Children’s responses to family member homicide. Family & Community Health, 25, 32–42. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=3&hid=11&sid=19169445-b4ba-4d3c-b8f7-07460c50e795%40sessionmgrl0

Burke, L. A., McDevitt-Murphy, M. E., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2010). African American homicide bereavement: Aspects of social support that predict complicated grief, PTSD, and depression. Journal of

356

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorkn.ca/docview/225544212/fulltext/1335BFDA67E68976E04/13?accountid=15182

http://web.ebsco-host.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=11&sid=43c35d53-ec72-40f3-885f-088b540fbcd9%40sessionmgr11

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=11&sid=19169445-b4ba-4d3c-b8f7-07460c50e795%40sessionmgrl0

Death and Dying, 61, 1–24. doi:10.2190/OM.61.1.a

Buzzi, B., & DeYoung, R. (2003). Ultimate coping strategies: The differences among parents of murdered or abducted, long-term missing children. Journal of Death and Dying, 47, 343–360. doi:10.2190/qytt-gc1x- mnlx-6wlu

Charmaine, P. C., & Mahoney, A. M. (2004). Understanding the psychosocial sequelae of the murder of a grandparent/caregiver: Cases of Jamaican school-age children. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 9, 299–313. doi:10.1080/15325020490471890

Chery, C., Feldman Hertz, M., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (2005). Homicide survivors: Research and practice implications. [Supplemental material 2] American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29, 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.08.027

Clements, P. T., & Vigil, G. J. (2003). Child and adolescent homicide survivors: Complicated grief and altered worldviews. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services, 41, 30–39. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/pqdweb? index=3&did=278641951&SrchMode=3&sid=4&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1311619990&clientld=5220&aid=5

Dannemiller, C. H. (2002). The parents’ response to a child’s murder. Journal of Death and Dying, 45, 1–21. doi:10.2190/rea6-7181-Y939-3hjx

Dawson, P., & Riches, G. (1998). Spoiled memories: Problems of grief resolution in families bereaved through murder. Mortality, 3, 143–159. doi:10.1080/713685897

Englebrecht, C. M. (2011). The struggle for ownership of conflict: An exploration of victim participation and voice in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 129–151. doi:10.1177/0734016811399419

Evans, C., Hobdell, K., & Mezey, G. (2002). Families of homicide victims: Psychiatric responses and help- seeking. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Therapy, Research and Practice, 75, 65–75. doi:10.1348/147608302169553

Friedman, L. N., Getzel, G., & Masters, R. (1988). Helping families of homicide victims: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 1, 109–125. doi:10.1007/BF00974908

357

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/pqdweb?index=3&did=278641951&SrchMode=3&sid=4&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1311619990&clientld=5220&aid=5

Gross, B. (2007). Life sentence: Co-victims of homicide. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 10, 39–43. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library,yorku.ca/ps/i.do? &id=GALE%7CA169227156&v=2.1&u=yorku_main&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w

Hatton, R. (2003). Homicide bereavement counseling: A survey of providers. Death Studies, 27, 427–448. doi:10.1080/07481180302878

Horne, C. (2003). Families of homicide victims: Service utilization patterns of extra- and intrafamilial homicide survivors. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 75–82. doi:10.1023/A:1022831530134

Kilpatrick, D. G., & Acierno, R. (2003). Mental health needs of crime victims: Epidemiology and outcomes. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 119–132. doi:10.1023/A:1022891005388

King, K. (2004). It hurts so bad: Comparing grieving patterns of the families of murder victims with those of families of death row inmates. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15, 193–211. doi:10.1177/0887403404263625

Klass, D., & Peach, M. R. (1987). Special issues in the grief of parents of murdered children. Death Studies, 11, 81–88. doi:10.1080/07481188708252179

Levy, A. J., & Wall, J. C. (1996). Communities under fire: Empowering families and children in the aftermath of homicide. Clinical Social Work Journal, 24, 403–414. doi:10.1007/BF02190746

Lexius, C., Lyon, E., & Moore, N. (1992). Group work with families of homicide victims. Social Work with Groups, 15, 19–33. doi:10.1300/J009v15n01_03

MacVane, S. L., Miranda, A. O., & Molina, B. (2003). Coping with the murder of a loved one: Counseling survivors of murder victims in groups. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 28, 48–63. doi:10.1177/0193392202250078

Malone, L. (2007). In the aftermath: Listening to people bereaved by homicide. Probation Journal, 54, 383–393. doi:10.1177/0264550507083537

Mayan, M. J. (2001). An introduction to qualitative methods: A training module for students and professionals. Alberta, Canada: Qual Institute Press.

358

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library,yorku.ca/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CA169227156&v=2.1&u=yorku_main&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w

McCreery, J. M., & Rynearson, E. K. (1993). Bereavement after homicide: A synergism of trauma and loss. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 258–261. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/pqdweb? index=6&did=5029899&SrchMode=3&sid=l&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1311627435&clientld=5220&aid=1

Miller, L. (2009a). Family survivors of homicide: I. Symptoms, syndromes, and reaction patterns. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 67–79. doi:10.1080/01926180801960625

Miller, L. (2009b). Family survivors of homicide: II. Practical therapeutic strategies. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 85–98. doi:10.1080/01926180801960633

Moss, E., & Raz, A. (2001). The ones left behind: A siblings’ bereavement group. Group Analysis, 34, 395–407. doi:10.1177/05333160122077956

Norris, F. H., Ruback, R. B., & Thompson, M. P. (1996). System influences on posthomicide beliefs and distress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 785–809. doi:10.1007/BF02511035

Norris, F. H., Ruback, R. B., & Thompson, M. P. (1998). Comparative distress levels of inner-city family members of homicide victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 223–242. doi:10.1023/A:1024494918952

Nzewi, E., Parappully, J., Rosenbaum, R., & Van Den Daele, L. (2002). Thriving after trauma: The experience of parents of murdered children. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42, 33–70. doi:10.1177/0022167802421003

Persons, R. (1990). Psychotherapist and widower. The Psychotherapy Patient, 6, 71–80. doi:10.1300/J358v06n03_05

Rinear, E. E. (1988). Psychosocial aspects of parental response patterns to the death of a child by homicide. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 1, 305–322. doi:10.1007/BF00974767

Sharpe, T. L. (2008). Sources of support for African-American family members of homicide victims. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 17, 197–216. doi:10.1080/15313200801947231

Temple, S. (1997). Treating inner-city families of homicide victims: A contextually oriented approach. Family Process, 36, 133–149. doi:10.1111/j.1545–5300.1997.00133.x

359

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/pqdweb?index=6&did=5029899&SrchMode=3&sid=l&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1311627435&clientld=5220&aid=1

Thompson, M. P., & Vardaman, P. J. (1997). The role of religion in coping with the loss of a family member to homicide. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 44–51. doi:10.2307/1387881

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Uniform crime reports, crime in the United States by volume and rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1991–2010. (Table 1). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

360

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Section VII Sexual Victimization

On March 5, 2010, a woman reported to the police,

We went downtown to Velvet Elvis, where we first saw our friends. We then saw Ben [Roethlisberger] and his friends/bodyguards. We went to take pictures (group) with him and then we left him alone. We went to The Brick where they happened to be, and we continued to have casual conversation, he even made crude, sexual remarks. They ended up leaving, and we went to Capital, where they also were. Ben asked us to go to his “VIP” area (back of Capital). We all went with him. He said there were shots for us, numerous shots were on the bar, and he told us to take them. His bodyguard came and took my arm and said come with me, he escorted me into a side door/hallway, and sat me on a stool. He left and Ben came back with his penis out of his pants. I told him it wasn’t OK, no, we don’t need to do this and I proceeded to get up and try to leave. I went to the first door I saw, which happened to be a bathroom. He followed me into the bathroom and shut the door behind him. I still said no, this is not OK, and he then had sex with me. He said it was OK. He then left without saying anything. I went out of the hallway/door to the side where I saw my friends. We left Capital and went to the first police car we saw.

The complaint of rape against Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was investigated, but not less than 2 weeks later, a lawyer for the woman asked the prosecutor to drop the investigation into the events of March 5. He said,

What is obvious in looking forward is that a criminal trial would be a very intrusive personal experience for a complainant in this situation, given the extraordinary media attention that would be inevitable. The media coverage to date, and the efforts of the media to access our client, have been unnerving, to say the least. (“Ben Roethlisberger’s Bad Play,” 2010)

Subsequently, Ben Roethlisberger was not criminally charged in this case. But what really happened that night? Was the woman raped? Did she willingly engage in sex? This case is a common example of the inherent problems with knowing, defining, and proving when a rape or other type of sexual victimization occurs. The ways in which law enforcement and the media reacted to the victim are also telling of the challenges that victims face when coming forward. This section covers these issues—it defines what sexual victimization is, describes the extent and effects of sexual victimization, and details how the criminal justice system deals with victims.

361

Download more at Learnclax.com

What Is Sexual Victimization?

A unique form of victimization that has been widely studied because of its pervasiveness and negative effects is sexual victimization. Sexual victimization encompasses any type of victimization involving unwanted sexual behavior perpetrated against an individual. These behaviors can range from forced penetration to surreptitiously videotaping an individual undressing. Sexual victimization can take a toll on victims, with effects ranging from physical injury to psychological trauma to risk of additional sexual victimizations.

Rape

Originally defined in common law as unlawful carnal knowledge (i.e., vaginal penetration) of a woman by a man who is not the perpetrator’s wife by force and against her will, more contemporary definitions of rape have been developed. Rape can now be perpetrated by and against both females and males, and it includes other types of penetration such as oral, digital, and anal. Most states’ laws no longer exclude husbands.

Each state has its own legal definition of what behavior constitutes rape, but most states share some commonalities. First, rape occurs when there is nonconsensual contact between the penis and the vulva or anus, or when there is penetration of the vulva or anus. Rape also occurs when there is contact between the mouth and penis, vulva, or anus, or penetration of another person’s genital or anal opening with a finger, hand, or object. Second, in order to be considered rape, force or threat of force must be used. Third, contact or penetration must occur without the consent of the victim or when the victim is unable to give consent— such as when asleep or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

There are different types of rape, including forcible rape, drug- or alcohol-facilitated rape, incapacitated rape, and statutory rape—all of which involve unique circumstances. A forcible rape is one in which the offender uses or threatens to use force to achieve penetration (Fisher, Daigle, & Cullen, 2010a). Another type of rape is drug- or alcohol-facilitated rape, which occurs when a person is raped while under the influence of drugs or alcohol after being deliberately given alcohol, a drug, or other intoxicant without his or her knowledge or consent (Fisher et al., 2010a). A third type of rape is incapacitated rape. This type of rape occurs when a victim cannot consent because of self-induced consumption of alcohol, a drug, or other intoxicant. Incapacitated rape also occurs when a person is unable to consent due to being unconscious or asleep (Fisher et al., 2010a).

Another type of rape, statutory rape, is unique in that it does not involve force. Rather, statutory rape occurs when a person who is under the proscribed age of consent engages in sex. Because the person is legally unable to give consent to have sex, such activity is illegal. The minimum age that most states set is from 14 to 18 years old.

Some states also consider the difference in age between the offender and the victim in determining whether it is statutory rape (Daigle & Fisher, 2010). In this way, some statutory rape laws are age graded; that is, offenders have to be a certain number of years older than victims to activate the laws. For example, in Alabama, statutory rape occurs if the offender is at least 16 years old, the victim is less than 16 but more than

362

Download more at Learnclax.com

12, and the offender is at least 2 years older than the victim (Sexual Assault Laws of Alabama, n.d.). Statutory rape laws that allow offenders who are close in age—such as two students enrolled in high school—to be convicted of sex offenses have recently come under fire in some states as not targeting sexual predators. For example, in Box 7.1, the case of Genarlow Wilson is discussed. Georgia has since revamped its laws so that a case like Wilson’s will not be handled in the same way. These new laws are commonly referred to as “Romeo and Juliet” laws.

Table 7.1

Sexual Victimization Other Than Rape

Although rape is a sexual offense that garners widespread media attention, there are other types of sexual victimization. Perhaps surprisingly, these other forms are much more common than rape. They include sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact sexual abuse. Each of these has unique elements, but all have been shown to cause negative outcomes for victims. See Table 7.1 for a description of the major types of sexual victimization discussed in this section.

Box 7.1 The Case of Genarlow Wilson

Genarlow Wilson was a 17-year-old star athlete and honors student in 2003 when he attended a New Year’s Eve party in Douglasville, Georgia, and had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl. He was found guilty of felony child molestation and sentenced to 10 years in prison. This case sparked public outrage, and as a result, Georgia lawmakers changed the law, which now makes consensual sex between teens a misdemeanor. The change, however, was not retroactive, so Wilson remained behind bars.

A judge overturned Wilson’s case and he was going to be set free, but Georgia attorney general Thurbert Baker announced he would appeal that decision, which effectively kept Wilson incarcerated. Baker said he filed the appeal to resolve “clearly erroneous legal issues,” saying that the judge did not have the authority “to reduce or modify the judgment of the trial court.”

363

Download more at Learnclax.com

On July 20, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court heard the appeal. It wasn’t until October 27 that the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that the new law “represents a seismic shift in the legislature’s view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants.” The justices talked about a “sea change” in attitudes on sex, and they concluded the 10-year sentence was “grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” This led to Genarlow Wilson’s release after 2 years in prison for child molestation.

Source: Hall (2007); Munson (2007).

Sexual Coercion

Similar to rape, sexual coercion involves intercourse or penetration with the offender’s penis, mouth, tongue, digit, or object. The key difference between rape and sexual coercion has to do with the means the offender uses. Instead of using force or threats of force, the offender coerces the victim into having sexual intercourse. Coercion entails emotional or psychological tactics, such as promising reward, threat of nonphysical punishment, or pressuring/pestering for sex (Fisher & Cullen, 2000). For example, if the offender threatens to end the relationship unless the victim engages in sex, the offender is sexually coercing the victim. If a professor threatens to lower a student’s grade if the student does not engage in sex, the student is being sexually coerced. If a person uses continued “sweet talk” and sexual advances, sufficiently pressuring the victim into compliance, the victim is being sexually coerced. In each of these scenarios, if the offender was unsuccessful, the behavior would be classified as an attempted sexual coercion.

Unwanted Sexual Contact

Not all sexual victimizations involve force or penetration. Unwanted sexual contact occurs when a person is touched in an erogenous zone, but it does not involve attempted or completed penetration. It may or may not involve force. What kinds of actions may be classified as unwanted sexual contact? Unwanted contact such as touching, groping, rubbing, petting, licking, or sucking of the breasts, buttocks, lips, or genitals constitutes unwanted sexual contact (Fisher & Cullen, 2000). This contact can be above or under clothing. If the offender uses psychological or emotional coercion, then the unwanted sexual contact is coerced sexual contact. If the offender uses force or threatens to use force, the behavior is classified as unwanted sexual contact with force.

Noncontact Sexual Abuse

Not all actions that people may consider victimizing involve touching or penetration. Other forms of sexual victimization, categorized as noncontact sexual abuse, are visual or verbal. Visual abuse occurs when a perpetrator uses unwanted visual means. The perpetrator may send pornographic images or videos via text messaging or e-mail or may post images to social networking sites on the Internet (Fisher & Cullen, 2000). Verbal abuse occurs when a perpetrator says something or makes sounds that are intentionally condescending, sexual, or abusive (Fisher & Cullen, 2000). For example, a perpetrator may make sexist remarks, may make catcalls or whistles in response to a victim’s appearance, or may make noises with sexual overtones. A person asking inappropriate questions about another person’s sex or romantic life is also considered verbal abuse.

364

Download more at Learnclax.com

Measurement and Extent of Sexual Victimization

Uniform Crime Reports

As previously discussed, one of the most widely used sources of data on crime and victimization is the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which show the amount of crime known to law enforcement in a given year. To be included in the UCR, a victim must report his or her victimization or the police must somehow become aware that a crime has occurred. As we discuss shortly, rape and other forms of sexual victimization are often not reported to the police.

In addition, the UCR historically used a fairly restrictive definition of rape. Rape in the UCR used to be limited to forcible rape, which is defined as the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2009). Attempts and assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force were not included until 2013. Note that only females can be victims of forcible rape and that sexual assaults other than rape (e.g., forced touching) were not included. Beginning in January 2013, data collected through the UCR were done so with a new definition of rape. The new definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” This new definition includes both males and females as victims and includes forms of penetration other than vaginal penetration (FBI, 2011). There were 124,047 rapes using the revised definition in 2015, corresponding to a rate of 38.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants (FBI, 2015o).

National Crime Victimization Survey

Because many persons do not report being raped or sexually victimized to the police, a more accurate portrayal of the extent of rape and other sexual victimizations can be found from the National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS). This survey of households is used to find out about individuals’ victimization experiences, including rape and sexual assault. The NCVS is different from the UCR in regard to rape and sexual victimization in several ways. First, the NCVS includes estimates of the extent of sexual assault as well as rape. Second, the NCVS is a self-report survey; its estimates include incidents that have been reported to the police and also those that were not. Third, both male and female victims of rape and sexual assault are included. According to the NCVS, in 2016, there were 431,840 rapes and sexual assaults, with about half of all incidents being attempted or completed rapes. This equates to a rape/sexual assault rate of 1.6 per 1,000 persons 12 years old and older (Truman & Morgan, 2016).

The NCVS can also be used to estimate the extent to which college students are sexually victimized. According to data from 1995 to 2013, females ages 18 to 24 who were not enrolled in college had higher rates of rape and sexual assault than females of the same age who were attending college. Regardless of college attendance, females ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of rape and sexual assault compared to other age groups. Nonstudent females of this age group were more likely to experience a rape or sexual assault at their home than college students, whereas college females were more likely to be sexually victimized at a home of someone else. Noncollege females and college females were similar in terms of those whose sexual assaults or

365

Download more at Learnclax.com

rape victimizations involved weapons (about 20%), injury (about 60%), or a stranger perpetrator (about 20%) (Sinozich & Langton, 2014).

National Violence Against Women Survey

Another source of information on the extent of rape is the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000a). Conducted between November 1995 and May 1996, 8,000 men and 8,000 women were surveyed via telephone about abuse they experienced in the previous 12 months and during their lifetimes. The NVAWS included questions about rape, and both men and women were asked about their rape experiences. For the survey, rape was defined as “an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or objects, or the victim’s mouth by penis” (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, p. 13). Results from the NVAWS revealed that 18% of women had been raped (completed or attempted) during their lifetime and 0.3% had experienced a rape (completed or attempted) during the previous 12 months. Men were less likely to report being raped—3% of men reported a rape (completed or attempted) during their lifetime and 0.1% had been raped (completed or attempted) in the previous 12 months (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000a).

Sexual Experiences Survey

Other research has examined college females and their experiences of sexual victimization and rape. The first national-level study of college women’s sexual victimization was conducted by Mary Koss and her colleagues (Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). To measure the extent to which females were sexually victimized, Koss developed the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), a 10-item survey designed to measure rape, sexual coercion, and sexual contact. The survey items used to measure these sexual victimizations were behaviorally specific. Behaviorally specific questions are those that include descriptive language and examples of the behaviors that constitute rape or sexual victimization. The survey did not rely on the victim to know whether she had been raped; instead, she was asked whether certain behaviors occurred. Koss found that more than half the women in the study had experienced some form of sexual victimization since the age of 14. More than 27% of the women had been raped (attempted or completed), almost 15% had experienced a sexual contact, and almost 12% had been sexually coerced. She also found that 16.6% had been raped (attempted or completed) during the previous 12 months, showing that college women faced a real risk of being raped. The SES underwent a redesign in 2007 (Koss et al., 2007).

National College Women Sexual Victimization Study

Conducted in the spring of 1997 by Bonnie Fisher, Francis Cullen, and Michael Turner (1998), the National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV) is a nationally representative study of college women. In this study, 4,446 college females were asked about their experiences of rape and sexual victimization since school began in fall 1996. The types of sexual victimization asked about included completed and attempted rape, attempted and completed sexual coercion, attempted and completed unwanted sexual contact with and without force, threats, and stalking. Two important methodological aspects of the NCWSV should be discussed. First, the study used a two-step measurement strategy, similar to the one employed by the NCVS.

366

Download more at Learnclax.com

In the first stage, individuals were asked a set of behaviorally specific screening questions designed to capture the experience of rape and sexual victimization. For example, women were asked, “Since school began in fall 1996, has anyone made you have sexual intercourse by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by intercourse, I mean putting a penis in your vagina” (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000, p. 6). If a woman affirmatively responded to any of the screening questions, she then continued to the second stage to fill out an incident report. Incident reports were filled out for each incident of rape or sexual victimization that she indicated had occurred. The incident report, similar to the NCVS, included detailed information about the incident, such as the relationship of the offender to the victim, whether alcohol or drugs were used by the victim or offender, the location of the incident, and victim responses such as reporting and using self-protective action, among other things.

In total, 15.5% of the women had experienced at least one sexual victimization during the academic year. Rape was the least likely to occur, although 2.5% experienced either a completed or an attempted rape. Unwanted sexual contact was most common—10.9% reported experiencing at least one incident. College women also reported experiencing noncontact sexual abuse. More than half the women in the study reported having general sexist remarks made in front of them, and slightly more than 1 in 5 reported receiving obscene telephone calls or messages. Just more than 6% were exposed to pornographic pictures or materials when they did not consent to see them.

National Study of Drug or Alcohol Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape

Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, and McCauley (2007) recently conducted a national-level study of three types of rape, the National Study of Drug or Alcohol Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape. Forcible rapes involve unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. Drug- or alcohol-facilitated rapes also involve unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, but the victim must also have stated that she thought the offender purposefully gave her alcohol or drugs without her permission or attempted to get her drunk. This type of rape also could occur if the victim was too drunk to control her behavior or if she was unconscious (Kilpatrick et al., 2007). Incapacitated rapes also involve unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, but the victim must have voluntarily used drugs or alcohol or have been passed out or too drunk or high to control her behavior.

The study included almost 5,000 adult women ages 18 to 86, with two subsamples—one national sample of 3,001 U.S. women (1,000 of whom were 35+ years and 2,000 of whom were 18 to 34 years) and another national sample of 2,000 women ages 18 to 34 attending colleges and universities in the United States. Asking about incidents that occurred in the past year and during their lifetime, the study found that 18% of women had been raped during their lifetime. Most of the rapes, 14.5%, were forcible rapes, and 5% were drug- or alcohol-facilitated or incapacitated rapes. Twelve-month estimates were 0.52% for forcible rape and 0.42% for drug- or alcohol-facilitated or incapacitated rape.

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

367

Download more at Learnclax.com

Conducted by the Centers for Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in 2010, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing nationally representative survey of adult men and women living in the United States. Survey data were collected from 9,086 women and 7,421 men via random digit dial telephone surveys to measure the prevalence and characteristics of intimate partner violence, stalking, and sexual violence. The types of sexual violence measured in the NISVS were rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. Individuals were asked about these experiences during the past 12 months and also across their lifetimes.

According to the NISVS, almost 1 in 5 women had been raped during their lifetime, and 1% had been raped during the previous 12 months. Males also experienced rape, but at lower levels. One in 71 men, which equates to 1.4% of men, had been raped during their lifetime. The number of men reporting rape during the previous 12 months was too low to produce a reliable estimate. Other types of sexual violence were also experienced by respondents of the survey. About one-third of women indicated experiencing noncontact unwanted sexual experiences, 27% experienced unwanted sexual contact, and 13% experienced sexual coercion during their lifetime. For the previous 12 months, 3% reported noncontact unwanted sexual experiences, 2.2% experienced unwanted sexual contact, and 2% experienced sexual coercion. Males in the NISVS also reported experiencing noncontact unwanted sexual experiences at higher levels than the other types of sexual violence: 12.8% indicated this type of sexual violence over their lifetime, and 2.7% experienced it during the previous 12 months. Unwanted sexual contact was experienced by 11.7% of men over their lifetime and 2.3% during the previous 12 months. Finally, 6% of men experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime, with 1.5% of men saying this occurred during the previous 12 months. Notice that the 12-month prevalence estimates for noncontact unwanted sexual experiences, unwanted sexual contact, and sexual coercion are fairly similar for males and females. Also of note is that 4.8% of males said that they had been made to penetrate someone else over the course of their lifetime, and 1.1% had been forced to do this action in the past 12 months.

AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct

To better understand the extent to which college students experience a range of sexually victimizing behaviors on their college campuses, the Association of American Universities (AAU) contracted with a research firm (Westat) to work with a team of researchers and administrators to develop and implement a survey that could be delivered across member universities. The survey was delivered to 27 institutions of higher learning, 26 of which are members of the AAU, with 150,072 students participating in the survey during late spring 2015. In total, 11.7% of the students reported experiencing nonconsensual penetration (either a penis, finger, or object inside vagina or anus; or mouth or tongue making contact with genitals) or sexual touching by force or incapacitation since enrolling at the institution of higher learning. Slightly less than 5% of students experienced acts involving penetration using one of four tactics (physical or threat of physical force, incapacitation, coercion, or absence of affirmative consent), with 6.9% of females and 9.0% of those identifying as transgendered, gay, genderqueer, nonconforming, questioning, or not identified reporting this type of experience during the past year (Cantor et al., 2015).

368

Download more at Learnclax.com

369

Download more at Learnclax.com

Risk Factors for and Characteristics of Sexual Victimization

Although anyone can be sexually victimized, some people are at greater risk than others. As you probably surmise, females are more likely than males to be sexually victimized, at all stages of life. Males are relatively unlikely to be sexually victimized, but when they are, they are likely to be under the age of 12 (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Females face the greatest risk of being sexually victimized during their late teens and early 20s—often spanning the years women are enrolled in college. For both genders, risk of being sexually victimized wanes over time. Besides gender and age, socioeconomic status and location of residence are also related to risk of sexual victimization. Persons of lower socioeconomic status and persons who are unemployed face a greater risk of being sexually victimized than others (Rennison, 1999). From 2005 to 2010, data from the NCVS revealed that persons living in rural areas faced greater risks of rape and sexual victimizations than those residing in urban or suburban areas. Black persons have higher rates of sexual victimization than others (Planty, Langton, Krebs, Berzofsky, & Smiley-McDonald, 2013).

Beyond these demographic characteristics, other factors differentially place persons at risk of being sexually victimized. As discussed in Section II, one of the prevailing theories of victimization is lifestyles/routine activities theory. According to this theory, victimization is ripe to occur when motivated offenders, lack of capable guardianship, and suitable targets coalesce in time and space. This theory applies to sexual victimization as well as other predatory victimizations. Remember that motivated offenders are thought to be omnipresent—but a person has to be in proximity to these motivated offenders to be victimized. For sexual victimization, this can be achieved through dating (being alone with a potential offender), going to parties (particularly those with a high concentration of males, such as fraternity parties), or frequenting bars. Lack of capable guardianship also places people at risk for sexual victimization. Capable guardianship can come in the form of social guardianship and physical guardianship. Social guardianship is created when persons are present who can protect a person from being sexually victimized. Having a roommate or going out at night with others can provide social guardianship. Possessing mace, pepper spray, or an alarm system can provide physical guardianship. When people lack social guardianship and physical guardianship, they are more likely to be victimized. Finally, victims who are deemed suitable by offenders are more likely than others to be sexually victimized. What factors do you think would make a person “suitable”? Factors such as being female, visibly intoxicated, and alone may increase risk of sexual victimization.

A risky lifestyle also has been linked to sexual victimization risk. What constitutes a risky lifestyle is up for debate, but participating in particular activities certainly increases risk for sexual victimization. For example, alcohol use has been intimately linked to sexual victimization. According to data from the NVAWS, almost 20% of women who were raped as adults had used alcohol and/or drugs at the time of the victimization. Offenders are also likely to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs when perpetrating sexual victimizations (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). For college women, alcohol also plays an important role. College females who have a greater propensity for substance use are more likely to be sexually victimized than others (Fisher et al., 2010a). Binge drinking has also been linked to alcohol-related sexual assault among college students (Howard, Griffin, & Boekeloo, 2008). Alcohol places women at risk for victimization because it makes them suitable

370

Download more at Learnclax.com

targets to would-be offenders (Abbey, 2002). These offenders may see intoxicated women and specifically select them for victimization, thinking that they will be easy to victimize. In addition, alcohol reduces a person’s ability to recognize risk cues in the environment; thus a person who is drinking may be less diligent and aware of risk present. Alcohol also reduces inhibition (Abbey, 2002). A college woman who is drinking may engage in behaviors that she would not otherwise, which then may increase her risk for victimization. For example, she may go home with a man from a party or engage in levels of consensual sexual activity that then place her at risk for sexual victimization. To learn more about how alcohol and sexual victimization are related and about alcohol expectancies and their relationship to sexual victimization, see Reading 11 by Kimberly A. Tyler, Rachel M. Schmitz, and Scott A. Adams (2015) included in this section.

Although research has linked risky lifestyles to sexual victimization risk, the factors that lead people to engage in these risky lifestyles are just beginning to be explored. In their research of 913 mothers and their college- bound daughters, Testa, Hoffman, and Livingston (2011) found that mothers who had experienced sexual victimization after the age of 14 were perceived by their daughters to have lower perceived monitoring of their behavior and to have greater perceived approval of sex, and that these factors increased the risk of sexual victimization among the adolescent girls. They also found that the mother’s communication effectiveness, mother’s monitoring, and mother’s experiencing childhood sexual assault were related to the daughter’s risk of sexual victimization. These findings suggest that mothers may play a key role in the risk of sexual victimization.

It may not be risky lifestyles that shape sexual victimization risk. Instead, there may be other enduring individual-level factors that impart risk that go beyond demographic characteristics. Remember in Section II, where you read about the role that low self-control may play in victimization generally? Recently, scholars have explored its utility in explaining other forms of victimization, including sexual victimization. In one study, low self-control was found to be related to alcohol-induced sexual assault among college women, even when other factors such as risky lifestyles were accounted for in the model (Franklin, 2011). Other work has confirmed the relationship between low self-control and sexual victimization risk (Franklin, Franklin, Nobles, & Kercher, 2012).

Beyond demographic characteristics, risky lifestyles, and low self-control, it may be that some people are less able to identify, recognize, and respond to risk. The body of research that has investigated risk perception has done so in several ways, but most of it has centered on having women (1) listen to audiotaped vignettes “in which a man and a woman act out a hypothetical scenario in which the man’s behavior becomes increasingly coercive, and the woman’s verbal resistance becomes increasingly forceful until the scenario ends in date rape” (Rinehart & Yeater, 2013, p. 2); (2) read written vignettes with different levels of risks and outcomes that were ambiguous—not leading to sexual assault or rape; and (3) watch videotaped vignettes in which the outcome was ambiguous as to whether it would lead to sexual assault. For the audiotaped vignette studies, women are generally asked to identify the point at which the man should stop making additional sexual advances. For the written vignettes, women are asked to identify when they feel uncomfortable, how likely it is the man would engage in a variety of sexually coercive behaviors, or to identify how they would react in various scenarios (e.g., on guard, seriously at risk). For the video vignettes, women are asked to identify

371

Download more at Learnclax.com

different scenarios on their levels of risk or to identify what made them uncomfortable in the video.

This body of research has uncovered several interesting findings regarding risk perception, mainly as they relate to women who have experienced a victimization. Some of this research has found that women who have been victimized take longer to indicate that a man has gone too far in the vignette than women who have not been victimized (Soler-Baillo, Marx, & Sloan, 2005). The time it takes to indicate this is called response latency. Other research has found that women who had been previously victimized needed greater levels of ambiguous risk factors to feel on guard than women without victimization histories (Norris, Nurius, & Graham, 1999). Not all of this research has found a link between victimization and response latency or risk recognition, but it is interesting that at least some studies have found this link. Does it make sense that someone who has experienced a victimization would take longer to or not identify a risky situation as such?

Characteristics of Sexual Victimization

In addition to knowing what factors place an individual at risk of being sexually victimized, it is also instructive to know what the “typical” sexual victimization and rape looks like. This is not to discount the seriousness of such victimizations but to understand the commonalities that many of them share.

Offenders

There is not one template for rape and sexual victimization offenders—they can be anyone. Data from the UCR indicate that those arrested for committing forcible rape are most commonly White males ages 18 to 24 years old (FBI, 2015p, q, r). Females compose less than 3% of all those arrested for forcible rape (FBI, 2015p).

Even more studied is the victim–offender relationship. Researchers have wanted to know whether people are more likely to be raped or sexually victimized by strangers or by people who are known to them. In doing so, researchers found that rape and sexual victimization were relatively unlikely to be perpetrated by a stranger. Indeed, they found that rape rarely begins with an offender jumping out of the dark in a secluded place in a blitz-style attack, identified as “real rape” (Estrich, 1988). Instead, most rape and sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Data from the NCVS from 2005 to 2010 show that about 1 in 3 rapes and sexual assaults were perpetrated by an intimate partner and another third were perpetrated by a well-known or casual acquaintance (Planty et al., 2013).

Injury

Although being raped or sexually victimized can be traumatizing, fortunately, most victims do not suffer serious physical injury. Slightly more than one-third of rape victims in the NVAWS reported that they experienced some type of physical assault in addition to the rape, such as being slapped or hit (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Even when such injuries are incurred, only about one-third of those victims who report injury seek medical treatment for their injuries (Rand, 2008).

Weapon Use

Offenders are also relatively unlikely to have or use a weapon during the perpetration of a rape or sexual

372

Download more at Learnclax.com

assault. From 2005 to 2010, in only about 11% of rapes or sexual assaults did the offender have a weapon

(Planty et al., 2013). When a weapon is used, it is most likely to be a firearm (Rand, 2009).

373

Download more at Learnclax.com

Responses to Sexual Victimization

Acknowledgment

After experiencing a rape, a victim may go through various emotions—anger, fear, and sadness, just to name a few. As a victim copes with the rape, one of the things he or she may do is think about the event itself and attempt to define it. A victim may feel immediately that he or she was raped (referred to as acknowledgment); on the other hand, a victim may see the incident as a horrible misunderstanding. It may not make sense that a person who is raped may not define it as such, but research shows that, in fact, many victims do not label their experience as rape. In fact, less than half the women (47.4% of completed rape victims) who participated in the NCWSV discussed earlier and who met a legal definition of rape labeled the incident a rape (Fisher et al., 1998).

Labeling an incident as rape may be important for several reasons. A victim may not get help from family, friends, or professionals if she or he does not think what happened was rape. The police are also unlikely to be notified of the incident if the victim does not think what happened was a crime. So why, then, do some victims not label or define their rape as such? It may be that victims are unsure how to label the incident (Littleton, Axson, Breitkopf, & Berenson, 2006), see it as a miscommunication (Layman, Gidycz, & Lynn, 1996), or think it was a crime other than rape (Layman et al., 1996). Women may also be less likely to label their experiences as rape when the perpetrator is someone they know, such as their date or boyfriend (Koss, 1985). In Koss’s (1988) study, only 10.6% of college women who were raped believed that they were not victimized. In other words, almost all rape victims felt that what had happened to them was “wrong” or victimizing, even if they did not label it as rape.

Reporting to the Police and Others

Acknowledgment of rape is likely closely tied to reporting rape or sexual victimization to the police. As previously noted in the discussion about the extent of rape and sexual victimization, rape is one of the most underreported crimes. In fact, results from the NCVS suggest that less than half of persons who are raped or sexually assaulted report their experiences to the police (Rennison, 2002). Rapes and sexual assaults of college women are also unlikely to come to the attention of the police. In the NCWSV, less than 5% of rapes were reported to the police (Fisher et al., 1998). In the study by Kilpatrick et al. (2007), it was found that 10% of college women who experienced a drug- or alcohol-facilitated or incapacitated rape reported their incident to police. Slightly more (18%) victims of forcible rape told the police about what happened.

Why would a person who has experienced such a serious crime not report the incident to the police? One reason may be tied to acknowledgment: Victims who are not sure the incident was a crime are unlikely to report (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003). Similarly, victims may be unsure that harm was intended on the part of the offender. Another reason victims do not report may be that they want to keep the event private. Other victims have noted fear of the offender seeking reprisal. Suspiciousness of the police and fear that they may be biased also drive victims’ decisions not to report to the police (Rennison, 2002).

374

Download more at Learnclax.com

Even though a large portion of victims choose to not tell law enforcement or other officials about being victimized, a large portion of those who are sexually victimized do tell someone about what happened to them. This disclosure may be to a friend, a family member, a teacher, or even a casual acquaintance. Research shows that college women, for instance, almost always do in fact tell someone about their sexual victimization experience, even though they do not tell the police (Fisher et al., 2003; Pitts & Schwartz, 1993). Evidence exists that women often receive a negative response when they tell someone about having been sexually victimized—some 75% of women reported receiving a negative response (Ahrens, Cabral, & Abeling, 2009). This response can be particularly important in that it can have an impact on recovery and the decision to report or seek help. Those who receive blaming social reactions have lower self-esteem and less engagement in problem-solving coping strategies (Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013). Negative reactions to disclosure by sexual assault survivors has also been linked to PTSD symptoms (Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2016).

Resistance or Self-Protective Action

Not all victim responses happen after the incident has been completed. Instead, many victims of rape and other sexual attacks report that they tried to do something during the course of the incident either to stop it from occurring or being completed or to protect themselves. When this occurs, it is said that the victim used a resistance strategy or some type of self-protective action. Self-protective actions generally are classified into one of four types: forceful physical, nonforceful physical, forceful verbal, or nonforceful verbal. Forceful physical strategies include actions such as shoving, punching, or biting the offender. Nonforceful physical strategies are passive actions, such as fleeing or pulling away. Self-protective actions may also be verbal. Forceful verbal strategies, such as yelling, are active and used either to scare the offender or to attract the attention of others. Pleading with, talking to, and begging the offender are examples of nonaggressive, nonforceful verbal strategies (Ullman, 2007).

You may wonder whether it is wise to fight an attacker who is trying to rape or sexually victimize you. Although it is not effective in every situation, research shows that most women do use some type of self- protective action. In about two-thirds of all rape and sexual assault victimizations recorded in the NCVS in 2007, the victim used some type of self-protective action (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). Rape and sexual assault victims were most likely to say that they resisted their offender, scared or warned their offender, or ran away or hid from their offender. Generally, nonforceful verbal strategies have been shown to be ineffective in reducing the chances of a rape being completed (Clay-Warner, 2002; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Santana, 2007). The type of self-protective action used is important. Research shows that if a victim is trying to stop the incident from occurring (i.e., keep it from being completed) and prevent injury, then the level of self- protective action should match the offender’s efforts (Fisher, Daigle, et al., 2007). This concept, known as the parity hypothesis, states that a victim’s use of self-protective action should be on par with the offender’s attack. In other words, if the offender is using physical force, the victim’s most effective defense will be forceful physical self-protective action.

It is important to consider that the experience of rape and sexual victimization may be so traumatizing that victims are physically incapable of responding during the event. If this occurs, a person may be experiencing

375

Download more at Learnclax.com

tonic immobility, which includes motor inhibition, motor tremors, analgesia, suppressed vocal ability, fixed and unfocused stare, and periods of eye closures (Bovin, Jager-Hyman, Gold, Marx, & Sloan, 2008). Often studied among animals, and thought to occur in response to events that involve inescapable and imminent danger, it is thought that humans may also evince tonic immobility during events that involve intense fear and prolonged physical restraint. As such, some scholars have linked the inability of rape victims to “fight back” as an indication that they may be experiencing tonic immobility. Early work in this area identified 40% of rape victims as displaying characteristics of immobility during their assault (Galliano, Noble, Travis, & Puechl, 1993). Others have found that experiencing tonic immobility is linked to negative outcomes for victims of sexual assault, such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms (Heidt, Marx, & Forsyth, 2005).

376

Download more at Learnclax.com

Consequences of Sexual Victimization

One reason that rape and sexual victimization have received so much attention in research and in the media is because of their often pernicious effects. Victims frequently experience serious consequences, some temporary and others long lasting. How a victim responds to being sexually victimized varies according to numerous factors, such as age and maturity of the victim, social support for the victim, the relationship of the offender to the victim, how the victim defines the incident, whether the victim reports to the police and how the system responds, whether the victim discloses to others and how they respond, the severity of the victimization, the level of injury, and the overall view of the community regarding sexual victimization.

Physical, Emotional, and Psychological Effects

As previously noted, most people who are sexually victimized do not suffer serious physical injury; however, possible physical effects include pain, bruises, cuts, scratches, genital/anal tears, nausea, vomiting, and headaches (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2008c). Victims may experience these effects immediately following the event or as long-term consequences.

In addition to physical effects, victims may experience emotional and psychological effects related to their sexual victimization. Some victims experience depression, which may lead to suicidal ideation (Stepakoff, 1998). They may experience anger, irritability, feelings of guilt, and helplessness. Post-traumatic stress disorder also has been linked to sexual victimization—victims may have nightmares, flashbacks, exaggerated startle responses, and difficulty concentrating. Victims also may experience reductions in self-esteem or become more negatively self-focused (McMullin, Wirth, & White, 2007). Research on women who have experienced forced or coerced sex shows that they are at greater odds than women who have not experienced these events to have pain that interferes with their normal work and to have physical health or emotional problems interfere with social activities (Jozkowski & Sanders, 2012).

Behavioral and Relationship Effects

Sexual victimization may also impact a person’s behavior. Sexual victimization has been linked to delinquency and criminal behavior (Widom, 1989b), compulsive behavior, and substance use and abuse (Knauer, 2002). Some victims change their lifestyles by becoming more isolated and spending more time alone. Victims may also exhibit self-mutilating behavior or attempt suicide (Minnesota Department of Health, 1998).

Persons who are sexually victimized may also find that they have a difficult time navigating their personal relationships and have problems in their sexual functioning. Victims may find it difficult to enter into or maintain intimate relationships and to engage in parenting and other nurturing behaviors. Finally, victims may also evince changes in their sexuality—they may avoid sex, have difficulty becoming aroused, experience intrusive thoughts, and have difficulty reaching orgasm (Maltz, 2001). Conversely, some victims may increase their levels of sexual activity.

377

Download more at Learnclax.com

Costs

A detailed account of the costs that victims of crime may incur is presented in Section III, so all the costs associated with sexual victimization are not reviewed here. It should be noted, however, that sexual victimization carries with it many costs. As a consequence of the problems—physical, emotional, psychological, behavioral, and relationship—that victims experience, many seek assistance from mental health professionals. About one-third of the female victims and one-fourth of the male victims who reported rape in the NVAWS sought mental health counseling (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). About 12% of victims of rape and sexual assault in the NCVS missed time from work as a result of their victimization (Maston, 2010). Data from the NCVS (Klaus & Maston, 2008) show that 18% of rape and sexual assault victims missed more than 10 days of work following the incident. Between one-quarter and one-half of all rape and child sexual abuse victims receive mental health care. As a result, sexual victimizations of both adults and children result in some of the largest mental health care costs for victims. The average mental health care loss per rape or sexual assault is $2,200, and the average for child abuse is $5,800. All told, the estimate of total economic loss a rape victim experiences is $87,000 on average when impact on quality of life is considered (T. R. Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996).

Recurring Sexual Victimization

As noted in Section IV, persons who are victimized once are at increased risk of experiencing subsequent victimizations. This relationship holds true for victims of sexual victimization. Research shows that individuals who experience childhood sexual abuse are at risk of being sexually victimized in adolescence and adulthood (Breitenbecher, 2001). Subsequent victimization may also occur relatively quickly. Research on college women shows that they are at risk of being repeatedly sexually victimized even during the course of a single academic year. In fact, data from the NCWSV show that more than 7% of the college women surveyed experienced more than one sexual victimization incident over the approximate 7-month recall period (Daigle, Fisher, & Cullen, 2008). These women experienced more than 72% of all sexual victimizations reported by the sample. Especially alarming is that when a subsequent sexual victimization did occur, it was likely to occur within the same month or in the month immediately following the initial incident.

378

Download more at Learnclax.com

Special Case: Sexual Victimization of Males

Although most rape victims are female, males can also be the victims of rape. This realization only occurred recently, indicated by changes in the law to include males as potential victims of rape and by attention given to male rape by researchers. Estimates of the extent of male rape vary, but as noted, the NVAWS study indicates that approximately 3% of males are raped during some point in their lifetime (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006), whereas the NCVS shows that 8% of rape or sexual assault victims were male in 2010 (Truman, 2011). The experience, however, of rape for males is often somewhat similar to that of females.

Men often experience psychological trauma following a rape. They too may experience depression, self-blame, sexual dysfunctions, PTSD, and anger. Problematic, though, is that male victims often do not receive helpful support when they disclose their experience to friends and family. Instead, male victims often are not believed and fault is often attributed to them rather than the offender (Brochman, 1991). As a result, male victims are particularly unlikely to report their rape to the police (National Center for Victims of Crime, n.d.-c). Male victims may also be afraid of being labeled homosexual because of being raped.

Particularly problematic for males is the confusion they may experience if they had a physiological response during the rape (RAINN, 2009). Men may become sexually aroused during rape, not because of pleasure, but because of an uncontrollable physiological response. As a result, males may feel shame and confusion if their body responded in a way that is contrary to how they internally experienced the event (National Center for Victims of Crime, n.d.-c). Feeling this way reduces the likelihood that a male victim would seek assistance from the police. Also problematic is that rape crisis centers, which are designed to provide emergency assistance to victims of rape, were designed around a feminist philosophy and meant to address the needs of female rape victims, although this identity has changed over time as centers have collaborated with more mainstream organizations (Maier, 2008). Male victims may still be reluctant to seek help from such centers and, if they do, may find that the atmosphere is less open to males.

379

Download more at Learnclax.com

Legal and Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Victimization

Legal Aspects of Sexual Victimization

Up until the mid-1960s and 1970s, traditional legal definitions of rape limited the offense to forceful unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent. What, then, did such definitions exclude? These definitions limited rape to incidents perpetrated against women and involving vaginal penetration. Under common law, husbands could not be charged with raping their wives. Calls for rape law reform resulted in changes to these laws: Now, both males and females can be victims and perpetrators of rape; other forms of penetration, such as digital and anal penetration, are included; and the marital exemption has been removed in all 50 states. This movement to change laws also applied to other criminal sexual victimizations: Such victimizations can be perpetrated by both genders, and married persons can be held liable for offending against their partners.

Before rape law reform, victims were often required to produce corroborating evidence for the incident to be prosecuted in court. Because rape is often a crime that occurs in private without additional witnesses, it can be difficult for victims to prove that they did not consent to have sex. For this reason, victims were often asked to provide corroborating evidence—such as injury, presence of a weapon, presence of semen, timely reporting to the police, and proof that the victim provided at least some degree of physical resistance. Remember, however, that a relatively small portion of victims are seriously physically injured, few incidents involve a weapon, and the most common perpetrator of such an offense is an acquaintance or someone known to the victim. These types of rape are the most difficult to prove, and the victim is likely to have difficulty proving, beyond her or his word, that a rape took place. Corroboration is no longer a requirement.

To further reduce the stress the victim may feel in the criminal justice process, rape shield laws also have been enacted. Rape shield laws prohibit the defense from using a victim’s previous sexual conduct in court. In some circumstances, a victim’s past may be used, but this is determined in a closed hearing, not in front of a jury. Generally, such information can be used only if doing so is necessary to establish the facts of the case. Another recent change involves prohibiting the use of polygraph examinations of victims. Some police departments and prosecutors have required that rape and sexual assault victims submit to a polygraph examination before they will investigate their claims or initiate prosecution. A few states have passed legislation to prohibit law enforcement officers and prosecutors from requiring these tests.

Violence Against Women Act (1994)

As part of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), designed to provide women protection from systematic violence, including sexual violence. The act provided $1.6 billion in funding for education, research, treatment of victims, and improvement of state criminal justice system responses to female victims of violence. It also provided funding to improve victim services and to create more shelters for female victims of domestic violence, among other services. Through VAWA, the collection of crime statistics on violence against women was stressed, as well as the protection of college

380

Download more at Learnclax.com

women and immigrant women and children. Interstate domestic violence and sexual assault crimes were identified as prosecutable federal offenses, and guarantees of interstate enforcement of protection orders were included.

The VAWA legislation was renewed in 2000. This renewal identified dating violence and stalking as additional crimes against women deserving of legal protections, created a legal assistance program for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, promoted supervised visitation programs for families affected by violence, and granted additional protections to immigrants experiencing intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking. The VAWA legislation was further reauthorized in 2005, with several key additions. It continued to focus on serving underserved populations, such as immigrant women and women with disabilities, and created cultural and language-specific services in communities to this end. It broadened services to include children and teenagers instead of just adults, created the first federal funding stream for rape crisis centers, protected victims from being evicted based on their victimization status, and emphasized prevention of violence. Related to policing and prosecution, it included a provision that polygraph examinations not be required of sexual assault victims as a condition of charging or prosecution. In 2013, VAWA was again reauthorized. It strengthened many of the provisions that were provided in the original bill, along with those that were added in the 2005 reauthorization. In addition, it expanded the housing protections provided for victims of domestic violence and sexual violence so that all persons residing in federally subsidized housing programs would be protected. In addition, it added additional protections for college students related to dating violence on campus and expanded protections for LGBTQ victims of violence so that they can be free from discrimination in receiving services. Although elements of the VAWA legislation have been met with some resistance from the courts, its impact on the way in which the criminal justice system responds to violence against women is evident.

HIV and STD Testing

A common fear among victims of rape is that they may contract HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases from their attackers. This fear is particularly elevated when a person is raped by a stranger (Resnick, Monnier, & Seals, 2002). To assuage this fear, most states have implemented policies that allow for or require convicted sex offenders to submit to HIV testing. Some states, such as Wisconsin and Georgia, allow for testing if the victim requests it and if probable cause for the victim’s exposure is established (RAINN, 2011; Ritsche, 2006). See Table 7.2 for a detailed description of Georgia’s policy on HIV testing for criminal offenders. Other states allow for pretrial testing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated the likelihood of contracting HIV from an HIV-positive person. When consensual vaginal sexual intercourse occurs, there is a 0.1% to 0.2% chance of contracting HIV. Estimates are higher for consensual rectal sexual intercourse—from 0.5% to 3.0% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006). Risk of exposure is likely higher for nonconsensual activity; however, those people who are most likely to be infected with HIV (men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users) are not the most likely rape offenders.

Table 7.2

381

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Reprinted by permission of RAINN, Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

Sex Offender Registration and Notification

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed Megan’s Law, which requires that sex offenders convicted in federal court register a current address with criminal justice agencies. Following this enactment at the federal level, all states now have laws that require at least some types of sex offenders to register with state agencies in order for these agencies to keep track of where sex offenders live. With this registration also come restrictions on where sex offenders can live. Registered sex offenders often cannot live within a certain distance—such as 1,000 feet—of a school or other place where children congregate (Chon, 2010). Notification also allows for potential employers, community residents, organizations, and people who work with potential victims to be notified that a person living in the community is a sex offender. Notification does not always have to be overt; it can be achieved by making registries readily available and accessible, such as through the Internet or through a law enforcement agency. Notification can also occur through the distribution of fliers, door-to-door visits, and letters. Information such as the offender’s name, address, description, and the charged offense is typically provided (Chon, 2010). Legislation was passed in 2016 that provides notification internationally when sex offenders travel outside of the United States (called International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders) (42 USC 16901).

Police Response

The way in which police respond to victims of sexual assault and rape is critical to how the victims interact— or not—with the criminal justice system. As previously noted, victims of rape and sexual assault are unlikely to report their victimizations to the police. One common reason victims do not report is a lack of trust in the

382

Download more at Learnclax.com

police or a belief that the police will not take the incident seriously. Unfortunately, events shown in the media suggest that this fear is not completely unfounded. For example, as reported by Barton and Vevea (2010), Gregory Below was arrested and charged in 2010 with 32 counts relating to sexual assault, stalking, kidnapping, and assault involving seven different women. One of the women reported to the police that Below met her at a club and directed her to take him to find crack cocaine and then to a vacant apartment. She told the police that, while in the apartment, he beat her with a closet rod and sexually assaulted her. She said he threatened to kill her and throw her body in the river if she did not comply with his orders. One of the officers ran a background check on her that showed a recent drug charge, and that officer admitted that he did not believe her claims, despite her visible injuries. It would be 2 years and several more victims later before Below was finally arrested. Those victims may have been spared had the police responded differently to the earlier victim’s claims.

The Below case speaks to a larger issue with which police and victims must deal—suspicion of victims making false allegations. For a report to be considered false, sufficient evidence must establish that a sexual assault did not happen. An allegation is not considered false if the investigation fails to prove that a sexual assault occurred or if there is a lack of evidence to prove it occurred. Such cases would be deemed baseless—not false (Lonsway, Archambault, & Berkowitz, 2007). Unfortunately, statistics of false allegations often erroneously use baseless cases as evidence. In the UCR program, police departments label baseless and false allegations using one term—unfounded. To know what percentage of rape and sexual assault complaints are actually false, researchers need to determine if a claim is merely baseless or actually false. In using this standard, a study of complaints of sexual assault in Portland, Oregon, showed that 1.6% were false. This percentage was less than that for stolen vehicles, 2.6% (Raphael, 2008). Estimates provided by the San Diego, California, police show that 4% of their reports for sexual assault were false, whereas a study of British police showed that only 2% of reported sexual assault cases were false (Lonsway et al., 2007). It seems, then, that false reports of rape and sexual assault are not typical.

Quite likely a larger problem than false allegations is the lack of action police may take in cases or their not responding to victims in a sensitive manner. To deal with victim concerns and encourage positive police response, many police departments have implemented new policies and practices. Many police departments now have special investigatory sex crime units. These units staff officers who are specially trained in how to respond to victims of sex crimes, including training in crisis counseling and in investigatory techniques germane to such cases. Police departments sometimes have victim/witness assistance programs that provide guidance to victims during the investigation and criminal justice process. People working in these programs may go with the victim to the hospital for an exam, accompany her or him to court, provide transportation to court, assist with filing compensation claims, and assist her or him in receiving counseling. Another important function they may serve is providing notification when the offender is released from police custody. The way in which police respond to victims is particularly important given that research has shown that when victims are treated with empathy and receive support, they are more likely to cooperate with criminal justice personnel, to remember more details about the incident, and to receive psychological benefit (Meyers, 2002).

383

Download more at Learnclax.com

Medical-Legal Response

Victims of rape and sexual assault may find themselves at the hospital either to seek medical treatment for their injuries or to receive a forensic examination. This process can be quite daunting. In the past, rape victims would often find that they were not given priority in emergency rooms and were forced to wait for long periods of time in crowded waiting rooms, unable to eat, drink, or urinate until after they were examined. Staff at the hospital often were not trained in how to conduct forensic evidence collection and were sometimes insensitive regarding the special needs of sexual assault victims (Littel, 2001). To combat these problems, the sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program was developed in the mid- to late 1970s (R. Campbell, Patterson, & Lichty, 2005). SANEs are forensic, registered nurses. They perform forensic examinations of sexual assault victims that include collecting information about the crime, performing a physical examination to evaluate and inspect the victim’s body, collecting and preserving all evidence, collecting urine and blood samples, providing the victim with prophylactic medications for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and providing the victim with referrals. Evidence is collected through swabbing, debris collection, and photo documentation. For example, at least two photos of external injuries should be taken and swabs should be collected if body fluids are present on the victim (Buschur, 2010). The release of evidence to the police is done at the consent of the victim in cases that already have been reported to the police or if the victim agrees to report (with the exception of cases in which medical personnel must mandatorily report, such as child abuse cases). SANEs may also conduct evidentiary exams of suspects in sexual assault and rape cases. Rebecca Campbell, Debra Patterson, and Lauren Lichty (2005), in Reading 12 included in this section, further discuss the role of SANEs in sexual assaults. They pay particular attention to research examining the effectiveness of SANEs.

In addition to SANEs, many communities have a sexual assault response team (SART) that works to coordinate responses to sexual assault and rape victims. Started in the early to mid-1970s, these teams often consist of individuals who work together to ensure that victims of sexual assault receive assistance in navigating the medical and criminal justice systems. Most SARTs include individuals from the prosecutor’s office, local law enforcement agency, advocacy groups, and forensic examiners as core members (Howton, 2010). When a victim seeks medical treatment or reports his or her incident to a law enforcement agency, the SART in that jurisdiction (if one exists) is notified and activated. Individuals then work to ensure that the victim receives appropriate medical care, including a forensic medical exam, and is treated with dignity and respect by individuals in the criminal justice system. They further assist the victim in receiving additional services such as counseling.

Photo 7.1 The contents of a rape kit, what investigators and medical personnel use to collect evidence in cases of rape and sexual assault, is pictured here.

384

Download more at Learnclax.com

Miles Moffett and Thomas McKay, “The ‘black box’ of sex-crime investigations,” July 24, 2007, The Denver Post.

385

Download more at Learnclax.com

Prosecuting Rape and Sexual Assault

The prosecutor is the key actor in charging and trying any criminal case. The prosecutor has discretion in deciding what cases to charge and in which cases to offer plea bargains to the defendant. Historically, prosecutors tend to move forward with prosecuting those cases that are easiest to prove legally—those that have a clear victim and strong evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt. It may not be surprising, then, to learn that prosecutors have been reluctant to try rape and sexual assault cases because they often involve a lack of evidence and are “he said, she said”–type cases. Although the decision to charge or not is most commonly impacted by legal factors, characteristics of the victim also play a role. This may be the case even more so in rape and sexual assault cases, in which eyewitnesses and physical evidence are uncommon. As such, prosecutors may evaluate how a jury or judge will perceive the victim in terms of his or her background, character, and behavior.

In a study on charging decisions of prosecutors on sexual assaults, Spohn and Holleran (2001) found that in cases in which the perpetrator was a nonstranger, prosecutors were less likely to charge when the victim had engaged in risk-taking behavior at the time of the incident. Similarly, prosecutors were unlikely to charge if the victim’s character or reputation was questioned and if the victim and offender had been or were intimate partners. For incidents involving strangers, on the other hand, victim characteristics and behaviors did not predict charging decisions. Rather, stranger-perpetrated sexual assaults were charged based on legal factors, such as the presence of physical evidence and whether the perpetrator used a gun or knife. Prosecutors are not the only ones who make tough decisions in rape cases. As noted by Shepherd (2002) wherein she discusses her own experience of being a juror for a rape trial in Alaska, jurors’ beliefs in rape myths impact the way in which they evaluate information presented at trial and make decisions regarding guilt. Rape myths are stereotypes or false beliefs that people hold about rape offenders, victims, and rape in general that serve to justify male sexual aggression against females (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). An example of a rape myth is that women lie about consensual sex afterward and call it rape.

386

Download more at Learnclax.com

Prevention and Intervention

Most programs designed to reduce the occurrence of rape and sexual victimization target college students. One reason for this is an amendment to the Clery Act (discussed in detail in Section X) that requires colleges and universities to develop sexual assault prevention policies. Another reason is the attention that has been given to sexual victimization among college students and the ability to target this at-risk population easily.

Some of the most effective programs include teaching women how to assess situations as risky, how to acknowledge situations as potentially leading to rape, and how to act with resistance. These programs often include self-defense training. Self-defense training has been shown to reduce the likelihood that college women will be raped. It also increases their use of self-protective behaviors, use of assertive sexual communication, and belief in their ability to resist offenders (for a review, see Daigle, Fisher, & Stewart, 2009). Increasing college women’s ability to recognize risk also appears to be effective in reducing rape (Marx, Calhoun, Wilson, & Meyerson, 2001). Bystander programs are another type of prevention program that looks promising. These programs focus on training men and women to be agents of change. People are taught to intervene when they hear sexist comments or see high-risk behavior and are instructed on how to react after a rape occurs (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2007). Early research on bystander intervention programs does show their promise. College students who have completed Green Dot, a bystander intervention program, had lower rape myth acceptance scores than students without training (Coker et al., 2011). Similarly, persons going through bystander intervention have shown improvement in attitudes, knowledge, and behavior related to sexual violence (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007). Bystander intervention has also been shown to reduce males’ sexual aggression and positive reinforcement for engaging in sexually aggressive behaviors (Gidycz, Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011). With the development of prevention programs, reducing the occurrence of sexual victimization may be possible, but targeting the reasons why offenders engage in this type of behavior also will be necessary. Until the individual and societal causes can be addressed, it is imperative that the extent, characteristics, and causes of sexual victimization be understood so that victims can be responded to in helpful ways and potential victims can minimize their risk of being victimized.

Photo 7.2 A self-defense class is pictured here. Some prevention programs incorporate self-defense, building on the knowledge that using resistance has been shown to thwart the completion of sexual victimization.

387

Download more at Learnclax.com

Ripped From the Headlines

One particular concern among college students is the use of date rape drugs, particularly that someone puts a drug into a beverage without them knowing. Four male students at North Carolina State University have developed a product that may reduce the likelihood that females would drink such a beverage. The students have developed a new type of nail polish, called Undercover Colors, that changes color when it comes into contact with date rape drugs, such as Rohypnol, gamma hydroxybutyric (GHB), and ketamine. The men hope that knowing that this type of nail polish can be worn by women will prevent would-be perpetrators from attempting to spike a person’s drink and that a woman can protect herself by dipping her finger into her drink to make sure it does not contain a drug. The product is currently under development. Do you think this is an effective strategy at reducing the incidence of rape? Why or why not?

Source: ;“Students Invent Nail Polish” (2014).

388

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

Sexual victimization is any type of victimization that involves sexual behavior perpetrated against an individual. There are many types of sexual victimization, such as forcible rape, drug- or alcohol- facilitated rape, incapacitated rape, statutory rape, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, coerced sexual contact, unwanted sexual contact with force, visual abuse, and verbal abuse. Rape is measured using both Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) and the National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS). The UCR is dependent on people reporting rape as a crime, and the definition of rape according to the UCR is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will. This means that male victims of sexual assault and rape are not documented in the UCR. The UCR also does not measure other types of sexual victimization, such as unwanted sexual contact or sexual coercion. About 124,047 rapes were reported to law enforcement in 2015. The NCVS looks at both male and female victims and both rape and sexual assault. The NCVS does not rely on victims to report the crime. According to the NCVS, in 2016, there were 431,840 rapes and sexual assaults. Another source of information on the extent of rape is the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS). It was conducted via telephone, with 8,000 males and 8,000 females interviewed. The Sexual Experiences Survey is a 10-item survey designed to measure rape, sexual coercion, and sexual contact. The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study is a nationally representative study of college women. About 16% of college women reported experiencing some type of sexual victimization during the academic year. The National Study of Drug or Alcohol Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape is a national-level study of those three types of rape. Certain risk factors may place a person at higher risk of victimization. Females are more likely to be sexually victimized than males. Age can also determine when a person is at the highest risk of victimization. A person’s socioeconomic status and where he or she lives are also related to risk of sexual victimization. Persons who are Black have higher rates of sexual victimization than others. Lifestyles/routine activities theory relates to sexual victimization. According to this theory, victimization is ripe to occur when motivated offenders, lack of capable guardianship, and suitable targets coalesce in time and space. For sexual victimization, this can be achieved through dating (being alone with a potential offender), going to parties (particularly those where many males are present, such as fraternity parties), or frequenting bars. Victims may also be less likely to identify situations as risky than nonvictims. White, young males are the most common perpetrators of sexual victimization according to the UCR and NCVS. Sexual victimization is traumatic, but most victims do not suffer physical injury and few of those who do suffer injuries seek medical help. Rapes that involve a stranger are more likely to result in injury. Offenders are also unlikely to use or have a weapon during the perpetration of a rape or sexual assault.

389

Download more at Learnclax.com

It is hard sometimes for a victim to feel and acknowledge that he or she is the victim of rape. However, it is an important first step to label the incident as rape so the victim can receive necessary help from family, friends, and professionals. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes. Rapes and sexual assaults of college women are the most unlikely to come to the attention of the police. There are several reasons that reporting of rape is so low, including fear of reprisal or belief that the police will be biased. Victims also cite wanting to keep the matter private as a reason not to report. A resistance strategy or self-protective action is something victims of rape or other sexual attacks do during the course of the incident either to stop it from occurring or being completed or to protect themselves. There are four types of self-protective action: forceful physical strategies, nonforceful physical strategies, forceful verbal strategies, and nonforceful verbal strategies. There are many physical, emotional, psychological, behavioral, and relationship effects caused by rape and sexual victimization. There are also significant financial costs associated with rape. Repeat sexual victimization occurs when people who have been victimized once experience a subsequent victimization. Males may also be sexually victimized. When they are, they may experience similar negative consequences. Some of what they may experience may, however, be unique to being male and how males often experience sexual victimization. Several legal reforms have been enacted to help rape victims. Rape shield laws, the Violence Against Women Act (1994), sex offender registration, and required HIV testing of offenders are all laws that help victims of sexual crimes navigate the criminal justice system. Certain units such as sexual assault nurse examiners and sexual assault response teams work to assist victims as they deal with the medical and legal system.

390

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. What are some issues with requiring HIV testing of offenders? Do you agree with this reform? 2. Investigate your state’s laws for rape and sexual assault. How are rape and sexual assault defined? Who

can be a victim? Who can be an offender? What are the proscribed punishments for committing these acts?

3. Why is measurement so important in determining accurate estimates of the extent of rape and other types of sexual victimization?

4. With the widespread use of the Internet and technology, how might the nature of sexual victimization change?

5. Given what you know about reporting, use of self-protective actions, and recurring sexual victimization, how can we prevent sexual victimization?

391

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key terms

baseless allegations 235 coerced sexual contact 221 drug- or alcohol-facilitated rape 220 false allegations 235 forceful physical strategies 229 forceful verbal strategies 229 forcible rape 220 incapacitated rape 220 National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV) 224 National Study of Drug or Alcohol Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape 224 noncontact sexual abuse 222 nonforceful physical strategies 229 nonforceful verbal strategies 229 parity hypothesis 229 rape 220 rape shield laws 232 resistance strategy 229 response latency 227 self-protective action 229 sex crime units 235 sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) 235 sexual assault response team (SART) 236 sexual coercion 221 Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) 224 sexual victimization 220 statutory rape 220 tonic immobility 230 unfounded 235 unwanted sexual contact 221 unwanted sexual contact with force 221 verbal abuse 222 visual abuse 222

392

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

The Date Safe Project: http://www.datesafeproject.org

This website provides information for parents and students on how to be safe while dating. There is also information about curricula and classroom exercises on dating, hooking up, and parties. There are also sexual assault survivor stories. The Date Safe Project provides parents, educators, educational institutions, students, military installations, community organizations, state agencies, and federal government with resources, educational materials, and programming addressing consent, healthy intimacy, sexual education, sexual assault awareness, bystander intervention, and support for sexual assault survivors.

Male Survivor: Overcoming Sexual Victimization of Boys & Men: http://www.malesurvivor.org/default.html

Whereas sexual victimization is widely studied as a problem women face, this website examines and provides resources and support for men who were sexually victimized as children, adolescents, or adults. It examines common myths of sexual victimization, such as the belief that males cannot be victims and that sexual crimes committed against males are always perpetrated by homosexual males. The website also includes survivor stories and publications from researchers examining the topic of male sexual victims.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center: http://www.nsvrc.org

This is a comprehensive collection and distribution center for information, statistics, and resources related to sexual violence. It serves as a resource for coalitions, rape crisis centers, allied organizations, and others working to eliminate sexual assault. The center does not provide direct services to sexual assault victims but, rather, supports those who do.

RAINN: Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network: http://www.rainn.org

RAINN is the nation’s largest anti–sexual assault organization. Its website provides information about local counseling centers and how to help a loved one who may be the victim of sexual abuse. The website also lists statistics, reporting, and tips on how to reduce the risk of becoming a victim of sexual assault or rape. You can also learn about volunteering for RAINN, donating money, and becoming a student activist.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

One of the most at-risk groups for sexual victimization is college women, and this report—put together by Bonnie Fisher, Francis Cullen, and Michael Turner—discusses findings from the NCWSV. The authors also discuss stalking, because that crime is seen frequently on college campuses. This is a comprehensive report on the sexual victimization of college women and provides a wide range of information on the topic.

University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown: Sexual Victimization: http://www.upj.pitt.edu/en/campus- life/campus-police/sexual-assault-services

This website is part of the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown’s counseling center and provides information

393

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.datesafeproject.org

http://www.malesurvivor.org/default.html

http://www.nsvrc.org

http://www.rainn.org

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

http://www.upj.pitt.edu/en/campus-life/campus-police/sexual-assault-services

about the types of rape, the definition of rape, and how consent is defined. It also discusses the steps a person should take if he or she is raped and some of the side effects of rape, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The website also links to other articles by the college’s center: two on date rape drugs, including the use of alcohol as a drug that leads to incapacitated rapes, and another on sexual assault prevention.

394

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 11

Alcohol expectancies and their role in sexual victimization for both males and females are explored in this article by Kimberly Tyler, Rachel Schmitz, and Scott Adams (2015). In it, they use path analysis to examine how risk factors often explored in sexual victimization research (e.g., hooking up, peer drinking, living in fraternity or sorority house) may influence drinking behavior and alcohol expectancies and sexual victimization. They find some similarities but also some differences in the pathways to sexual victimization.

Alcohol Expectancy, Drinking Behavior, and Sexual Victimization Among Female and Male College Students

Kimberly A. Tyler, Rachel M. Schmitz, and Scott A. Adams

Drinking among college students represents a daunting societal issue: 32% of college females and 43% of college males reported binge drinking in the past 30 days (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011). In general, college women experience higher rates of sexual victimization compared with college men in the course of an academic year (7% vs. 3%; Hines, Armstrong, Reed, & Cameron, 2012). Moreover, approximately 25% to 30% of college women have experienced some form of sexual victimization that is related to problem drinking behaviors (Brahms, Ahl, Reed, & Amaro, 2011; Lawyer, Resnick, Bakanic, Burkett, & Kilpatrick, 2010; Lindgren, Neighbors, Blayney, Mullins, & Kaysen, 2012). Although the majority of research emphasizes the dichotomy of men as perpetrators (Abbey & McAuslan, 2004; Wells et al., 2014) and women as victims (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000), as many as 14% of college men have experienced some form of sexual assault as an adult (Aosved, Long, & Voller, 2011). Experiences of sexual assault among college students can range from sexually coercive tactics (e.g., threatening to disclose negative information about the person; Tyler, Hoyt, & Whitbeck, 1998) to attempted and completed rape (Fisher et al., 2000). Sexual victimization has also been linked to numerous adverse consequences, such as depression for college women (Messman-Moore, Long, & Siegfried, 2000) and increased problematic drinking for college men (Turchik, 2012).

Risk factors for sexual assault include heavy alcohol use (Abbey, 2002; Mouilso, Fischer, & Calhoun, 2012; Neal & Fromme, 2007; Testa & Hoffman, 2012), as well as a history of childhood victimization (Aosved et al., 2011; Smith, White, & Holland, 2003). Positive alcohol expectancies (Marx, Nichols-Anderson, Messman-Moore, Miranda, & Porter, 2000), perceptions of peers’ drinking behavior (Small & Kerns, 1993; Young, Morales, McCabe, Boyd, & d’Arcy, 2005), hooking up (Flack et al., 2007; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000), and place of residence (e.g., Greek housing; Minow & Einolf, 2009) have also been found to be risk factors for sexual assault. Although research exists on the potential risks, few studies have examined the various pathways through which alcohol and other factors may affect sexual assault and even less common are those studies that have simultaneously examined pathways to sexual assault among both females and males (Abbey, 2011). To address these gaps, the current study uses path analyses to examine whether alcohol expectancies mediate the relationship between social factors (e.g., hooking up, amount friends drink) and drinking behavior and experiencing sexual victimization. In addition, we assess whether drinking behavior mediates the relationship between alcohol expectancies and sexual victimization among a sample of female

395

Download more at Learnclax.com

and male college students.

Source: Tyler, K. A., Schmitz, R. M., & Adams, S. A. (2015). Alcohol expectancy, drinking behavior, and sexual victimization among female and male college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–25.

Associations Between Drinking Behavior, Alcohol Expectancy, and Sexual Assault

The use of alcohol among college students has been consistently linked to experiences of sexual assault (Abbey, 2002; Mouilso et al., 2012; Perkins, 2002), and gender continues to play an integral role in this association (Abbey & McAuslan, 2004; Fisher et al., 2000). Abbey, Ross, McDuffie, and McAuslan (1996) found that alcohol consumption on the part of either the perpetrator or the victim was involved in 46% of the reported cases of sexual assault. Among college men, drinking during sexual activity has been found to significantly increase their likelihood of perpetrating sexual assault (Abbey & McAuslan, 2004) and there is a positive relationship between the quantity of alcohol consumed by men and the increased risk of men’s perpetration (Abbey, Clinton-Sherrod, McAuslan, Zawacki, & Buck, 2003). Victims’ alcohol consumption is also related to elevated experiences of sexual assault, where increased use of alcohol makes individuals more vulnerable to victimization (Palmer, McMahon, Rounsaville, & Ball, 2010). For example, one study found that 72% of rape victims were intoxicated with alcohol at the time of the assault (Mohler-Kuo, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler, 2004). In general, college males (6%) report engaging in more drinking on a daily basis in relation to their female counterparts (2%; Johnston et al., 2011). In addition, 43% of college males reported binge drinking in the past 30 days compared with 32% of college females (Johnston et al., 2011).

In addition to alcohol use, research has unanimously found that a stronger endorsement of alcohol expectancies is related to higher levels of alcohol consumption (Gilles, Turk, & Fresco, 2006; Zamboanga, 2006) and higher risk of sexual assault (Marx et al., 2000). Moreover, some research finds that alcohol expectancies moderate the relationship between social deficits, such as anxiety and shyness, and problem drinking by interacting with people’s individual social issues (Gilles et al., 2006; B. A. Lewis & O’Neill, 2000). In addition, other researchers have found that alcohol expectancies mediate the association between social factors (e.g., being offered drinks, social modeling, number of friends that drink) and alcohol consumption (Lau-Barraco, Braitman, Leonard, & Padilla, 2012; Wood, Read, Palfai, & Stevenson, 2001). Gender also plays an important role in shaping the association between alcohol expectancies and experiences of sexual assault, though the findings are mixed in terms of whether men (Greenbaum, Del Boca, Darkes, Wang, & Goldman, 2005; Park & Levenson, 2002) or women (Read, Wood, Lejuez, Palfai, & Slack, 2004) endorse greater alcohol expectancies. Specifically, college women with a history of sexual victimization tend to more strongly endorse alcohol expectancies related to their greater vulnerability to sexual assault when drinking (Benson, Gohm, & Gross, 2007). Victims of substance-fueled sexual assault are also much more likely to consume alcohol, as well as subscribe to alcohol expectancies related to social and physical benefits (Corbin, Bernat, Calhoun, McNair, & Seals, 2001; Marx et al., 2000).

Other Risk Factors for Sexual Assault

396

Download more at Learnclax.com

In addition to the consumption of alcohol, a number of other risk factors have been identified as shaping the likelihood of sexual assault among college students. Early life experiences can pave the way toward future victimization, such that individuals with a history of childhood sexual abuse are at much greater risk of enduring revictimization as an adult (Aosved et al., 2011; Elliott, Mok, & Briere, 2004; Gidycz, Coble, Latham, & Layman, 1993). For example, one study found that approximately 30% of child sexual abuse victims experienced subsequent rape as an adolescent or adult (Messman-Moore, Walsh, & DiLillo, 2010). Moreover, though 9% of children have experienced sexual abuse, the likelihood of being a victim is much greater among girls compared with boys (Synder, 2000). Risk factors for sexual victimization can originate in childhood and extend into later life as young adults establish their own intimate relationships.

“Hooking up” in college, or engaging in spontaneous sexual encounters occurring without the expectation of further involvement, is associated with sexual victimization. For example, one study found that 78% of reported sexual assaults occurred within the context of hook ups at parties where alcohol was being served (Flack et al., 2007). In addition, Testa, Hoffman, and Livingston (2010) reported that both hook up behaviors and heavy alcohol use significantly increased the risk of sexual victimization following these behaviors among college women. Although some studies highlight similar rates of hooking up among male and female college students (Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fincham, 2010), it is more closely associated with alcohol use for college women than college men (Owen, Fincham, & Moore, 2011), which could place women who hook up at greater risk for sexual victimization compared with men.

Other social factors are also important to understanding the relationship between alcohol expectancies and drinking behavior and risk for sexual assault. Research finds, for example, that the presence of friends’ drinking is predictive of one’s own alcohol consumption (Wood et al., 2001) and can strongly influence individual alcohol consumption patterns in populations of traditional college students (Borsari & Carey, 2001). Similarly, social modeling (i.e., peer drinking behavior, peer pressure) is significantly related to higher alcohol expectancies (Wood et al., 2001). Furthermore, undergraduate students consistently overestimate the amount of alcohol consumed and the frequency of drinking among their peers, and same-sex norms related to drinking more strongly predict increased alcohol use among women compared with men (M. A. Lewis & Neighbors, 2004). Similarly, perceptions of peer pressure that promote drinking are significantly related to increased levels of alcohol use within college samples (Knee & Neighbors, 2002). Moreover, gender differences show that college men emphasize peer pressure and the risk of embarrassment if they refrain from drinking, whereas college women are more concerned with the negative consequences associated with heavy alcohol use (Suls & Green, 2003). Students exposed to environments where alcohol is widely consumed and where increased salience of positive expectations of alcohol outcomes exists (LaBrie, Grant, & Hummer, 2011) are at greater risk for binge drinking (Weitzman, Nelson, & Wechsler, 2003), and heavy drinking is associated with sexual assault (Abbey, 2002; Mouilso et al., 2012; Neal & Fromme, 2007; Testa & Hoffman, 2012).

Finally, place of residence, such as membership in Greek housing, has been found to be associated with higher drinking levels (McCabe et al., 2004), more frequent alcohol consumption (Larimer, Anderson, Baer, & Marlatt, 2000), as well as greater risk for sexual victimization (Minow & Einolf, 2009). Similarly, compared

397

Download more at Learnclax.com

with students living in residence halls, fraternity members experience more negative alcohol-related consequences, such as succumbing to blackouts and involvement in physical fights while drinking (Larimer et al., 2000). Moreover, research finds that both fraternity and sorority members engage in more drinking while partying compared with students living in residence halls or apartments (Page & O’Hegarty, 2006). In an examination of other living arrangements, some research has found that compared with students who lived off campus with their parents, those living on campus in a residence hall reported higher levels of heavy drinking (Wall, BaileyShea, & McIntosh, 2012). In contrast, Velazquez and colleagues (2011) examined several living arrangements including parent’s home, residence hall, Greek housing, living with a roommate, and so forth but found that living situation was not significantly associated with drinking behaviors among college students.

Hypotheses

Based on the above literature, we hypothesized that experiencing child sexual abuse, hooking up more often, living in Greek housing, and having friends who drink higher quantities of alcohol would all be positively associated with alcohol expectancies. Next, we hypothesized that alcohol expectancies would be directly and positively associated with drinking behavior and sexual victimization as well as indirectly associated with sexual victimization through drinking behavior. Third, we expected that drinking behavior would be positively correlated with sexual victimization. Fourth, we expected that alcohol expectancies would mediate the relationship between social factors and sexual victimization, and fifth, that drinking behavior would mediate the relationship between alcohol expectancies and sexual victimization. Finally, we hypothesized that the various pathways leading to sexual victimization would operate differently for males and females. Specifically, we hypothesized that the effects of friends’ drinking, being in Greek housing, and drinking behavior on sexual victimization would be stronger for males whereas the effects of child sexual abuse, hooking up, and alcohol expectancies on sexual victimization would be greater for females based on previous research.

Method

Participants

Participants for this study were 704 college students, including 282 men and 419 women (3 participants did not respond to the gender question), enrolled in undergraduate courses at a large Midwestern university. The majority of respondents were White (81%), followed by Black/African American (6.5%), Hispanic/Latino (4.6%), Asian (5%), and 3% identified their race as “Other.” In terms of living situation, 48% of respondents lived in a residence hall/dorm/student housing, 10% lived in a fraternity or sorority, and 42% lived off campus either alone or with a nonromantic roommate (28%), with a romantic partner (4.4%), or at home with parents (10%). Fifty-five percent of females and 39% of males had experienced at least one form of sexual victimization at least one time in the previous 12 months.

Procedures

In the fall of 2013 and spring of 2014, undergraduates enrolled in introductory sociology and psychology

398

Download more at Learnclax.com

courses at a large Midwestern university were asked to complete a survey of attitudes and experiences about

dating, sexuality, substance use and outcomes, and sexual victimization. There were no screener questions; thus, every student was eligible to participate. Students were informed that their participation was voluntary, and their responses were anonymous.

Measures

Dependent variable

Sexual victimization was assessed using a modified version of the Revised Sexual Experiences Survey (Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, Livingston, & Koss, 2004). Both women and men were asked the following 12 questions: How often has anyone (a) “overwhelmed you with arguments about sex or continual pressure for sex to …, ” (b) “threatened to physically harm you or used physical force (such as holding you down) to …, ” and (c) “When you were incapacitated (e.g., by drugs or alcohol) and unable to object or consent how often has anyone ever … ” within the past 12 months? Within each of these three sections, the following 4 questions were asked: (a) fondle, kiss, or touch you sexually; (b) try to have sexual intercourse with you (but it did not happen); (c) succeed in making you have sexual intercourse; and (d) make you have oral or anal sex or penetrate you with a finger or objects when you indicated you didn’t want to? Response categories ranged from 0 = never to 4 = more than 4 times. The language was gender neutral and thus applicable to both males and females. Because many of the individual items were skewed, they were first dichotomized (i.e., 0 = never happened and 1 = happened at least once) and then summed. Because the measure was still skewed, we did a log transformation, and this transformed variable was used in all analyses.

Table 1 presents sexual victimization by type of coercion for females and males. The numbers in the table indicate that the sexual victimization occurred at least once. For example, 37% of females (n = 155) were continually pressured for sex, at least one time, to be fondled, kissed, or touched sexually when they indicated they didn’t want to. Overall, 28% of the sample had been sexually victimized.

Independent variables

Drinking behavior included two items (adapted from Testa, Livingston, & Leonard, 2003) which asked respondents, “During the past 12 months, how many times have you gotten drunk on alcohol?” and “During the past 12 months, how many times have you consumed five or more (if you’re a man)/four or more (if you’re a woman) drinks in a single sitting?” (0 = never to 5 = 5 or more days per week). The two items were averaged (Testa et al., 2003), so a higher score indicated more frequent heavy drinking. The correlation between these two items was .85.

Alcohol expectancy included six items from the Social/Physical Pleasure scale of the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (Brown, Goldman, Inn, & Anderson, 1980). For example, “Alcohol makes me happy” and “Drinking adds a certain warmth to social occasions.” Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2005), the Social/Physical Pleasure scale was used because it has been shown to consistently predict drinking among college samples (Darkes, Greenbaum, & Goldman, 2004). In the current study, an index was created such that the higher the score, the higher the alcohol expectancy. Alpha reliability for this scale in the current

399

Download more at Learnclax.com

study was .72.

Child sexual abuse was measured by asking respondents, “Before you were age 18, did any adult or someone at least 5 years older than you ever touch you sexually or have you touch them sexually?” (0 = no, 1 = yes). Eleven percent of the sample had been sexually abused as a child.

Table 1

Note: All of the items above ended with the phrase, “when you indicated that you didn’t want to.”

Hooking up was a single item measure, which asked respondents, “How many times in the past 12 months have you hooked up?” (0 = never to 4 = 10 or more times).

Place of residence was measured by asking students where they were living in the current semester. Five dummy coded variables were created for the different housing options whereby respondents were assigned a value of 1 if they were in the housing group and a value of 0 if they were not in that group. The categories included (a) residence hall/dorm/student housing, (b) fraternity/sorority house, (c) off campus alone or with a friend/non- romantic roommate, (d) off campus with a romantic partner/spouse, and (e) at home with parents. Slightly less than 10% of the sample lived in a sorority/fraternity house.

Amount friends drink was a single item which asked respondents “How much do your close friends typically consume when drinking?” Response categories included 0 = they do not drink; 1 = one or two drinks; 2 = three to five drinks; and 3 = six or more drinks.

Analytical Procedure

To be able to compare males and females simultaneously on the association between social factors, alcohol expectancy, drinking behavior, and sexual victimization, a fully recursive (i.e., all possible paths are hypothesized with the exception of reciprocal paths) multiple groups path model was estimated using the maximum likelihood estimator in Mplus 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2007). For interpretation purposes, the standardized path coefficients (β) reported represent the effect of a given predictor variable on the dependent variable after accounting for the remaining relationships in the model. Although ordinary least

400

Download more at Learnclax.com

squares regression would also give us the standardized effect (i.e., β), multiple groups models allow us to compare two groups and estimate all of the paths simultaneously. This model takes into account both the direct effects as well as the indirect effects through alcohol expectancy and drinking behavior.

Results

Direct Effects

Results for the path analysis for females (only significant paths given) are shown in Figure 1. The numbers in this figure are standardized beta coefficients. Among females, higher alcohol expectancy was positively associated with hooking up more times and having close friends who generally consume higher amounts of alcohol. In terms of place of residence, living on campus in residence halls/dorms, off campus alone or with a roommate or romantic partner, or at home with parents were all significantly and negatively associated with alcohol expectancy meaning that female students living in any of these four types of housing arrangements had significantly lower alcohol expectancies compared with those living in a sorority. Drinking behavior was positively associated with hooking up more often, higher alcohol expectancy, and having close friends who consume more alcohol. Compared with women living in a sorority house, those living at home with parents had significantly lower scores on drinking behavior. Furthermore, females who hooked up more often, and who had higher alcohol expectancies and more heavy drinking, were significantly more likely to experience more sexual victimization. Sexual victimization was also positively associated with experiencing child sexual abuse. Finally, females who lived off campus with a romantic partner were more likely to experience greater sexual victimization compared with women living in a sorority. Overall, the model explained 25% of the variance in sexual victimization for females.

Figure 1 Path Model for Correlates of Sexual Victimization for Females (only significant paths shown)

401

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: Greek residence is the omitted housing category. OC = off campus.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Results for the path analysis for males (only significant paths given) are shown in Figure 2. Among males, higher alcohol expectancy was associated with having close friends who consume higher amounts of alcohol. In terms of place of residence, males who lived off campus alone or with a roommate had significantly lower alcohol expectancy compared with those living in a fraternity house. Drinking behavior was positively linked to hooking up more often, higher alcohol expectancy, and having close friends who consume more alcohol. Males who lived in a resident hall/dorm, off campus alone or with a roommate, off campus with romantic partner, or at home with parents had significantly lower rates of heavy drinking compared with males living in a fraternity house. Finally, sexual victimization was positively associated with experiencing child sexual abuse, hooking up more often, and heavier drinking. None of the housing types were significantly associated with sexual victimization for males. Overall, the model explained 18% of the variance in sexual victimization for males.

Figure 2 Path Model for Correlates of Sexual Victimization for Males (only significant paths shown)

402

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: Greek residence is the omitted housing category. OC = off campus.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

All of the coefficients for direct paths are statistically similar for females and males at the .05 level with the exception of the direct effect of living in a residence hall/dorm on drinking behavior. Here, the negative association between living in a residence hall/dorm (relative to living in a sorority/fraternity) and drinking behavior is stronger for males than females. It is also worth noting that we observe marginally significant (p <.10) gender differences in the direct effects of living off campus alone or with a roommate on drinking behavior and alcohol expectancy on sexual victimization (results not shown).

Indirect Effects

The full indirect effect results for females (see top half of Table 2) revealed that while five variables had significant direct effects on sexual victimization (i.e., child sexual abuse, hooking up, living off campus with romantic partner, alcohol expectancy, and drinking behavior), seven variables also had significant indirect effects. That is, hooking up and amount friends drink had a significant indirect effect on sexual victimization through (a) alcohol expectancy, (b) drinking behavior, and (c) alcohol expectancy then drinking behavior. Specifically, females who hook up more often and those who report having close friends who consume larger amounts of alcohol have higher alcohol expectancy, which is related to greater sexual victimization. In addition, young women who hook up more and have friends who drink more are at greater risk for heavy

403

Download more at Learnclax.com

drinking, which, in turn, relates to more sexual victimization. Furthermore, hooking up more often and friends who drink more also relate to greater alcohol expectancy, which then corresponds to heavier drinking, which in turn is associated with greater sexual victimization. Alcohol expectancy not only had a direct effect on sexual victimization, but it also had a significant indirect effect through drinking behavior. With the exception of living off campus with a romantic partner, housing type was not directly associated with sexual victimization but rather was indirectly associated via alcohol expectancy, and in each case, more sexual victimization was associated with living in a sorority house.

The results for males (bottom half of Table 2) revealed that while three variables had a significant direct effect on sexual victimization (i.e., child sexual abuse, hooking up, and drinking behavior), five variables also had significant indirect effects. That is, both hooking up and amount friends drink had a significant indirect effect on sexual victimization through drinking behavior. Specifically, males who hook up more often and those who report having close friends who consume larger amounts of alcohol are at greater risk for heavy drinking, which, in turn, leads to more sexual victimization. Alcohol expectancy had a significant indirect effect on sexual victimization through drinking behavior. Although none of the housing types were directly associated with sexual victimization, there was an indirect effect for those living in a residence hall/dorm and at home with parents such that these two groups reported less drinking (compared with fraternity men) which, in turn, resulted in less sexual victimization compared with those living in a fraternity house.

Statistically significant (p <.05) indirect effect results for sexual victimization for females and males are presented in Table 3. Here, a significant indirect effect coefficient indicates that the corresponding indirect pathway is statistically significant. For example, the coefficient for “Hooking up → Alcohol expectancy” in the female subsample is significant at the .05 level, meaning the effect of hooking up on sexual victimization is mediated, in part, through alcohol expectancy for females. The indirect effect coefficient is given by multiplying the coefficient for the direct effect of the independent variable on the mediating variable by the coefficient for the direct effect of the mediating variable on the dependent variable. Thus, in the example provided above, the standardized indirect effect coefficient of .030 is given by taking the product of “Hooking up → Alcohol expectancy” and “Alcohol expectancy → Sexual victimization.”

In the final step of the analyses, we tested the equality of the indirect effect coefficients by calculating the difference in each unstandardized indirect effect coefficient between females and males. We then tested whether the difference in each indirect effect coefficient was significantly different from zero. A total of 11 indirect effects were tested (see Table 3). Of these, five were found to be significantly different between females and males. First, the path from hooking up to sexual victimization via alcohol expectancy was significantly different by gender, suggesting that alcohol expectancy acts as a mediator in the relationship between hooking up and sexual victimization for females but not for males. Second, the pathway from amount friends drink to sexual victimization via alcohol expectancy was significant for females but not for males indicating that the effect of alcohol expectancy on sexual victimization operates differently by gender. Type of housing also tended to matter more for females compared with males. That is, living in a residence hall/dorm, living off campus with a romantic partner, and living at home with parents were all indirectly associated with sexual victimization via alcohol expectancy, and these findings were significant for females but not for males.

404

Download more at Learnclax.com

All of the other indirect path coefficients in the model were statistically similar for females and males.

Table 2

Note: Standardized coefficients shown. OC = off campus.

a. Greek residence is the omitted category.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3

405

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: Indirect effect is presented if the indirect effect coefficient is statistically significant (p < .05) for females and/or males. “b” indicates unstandardized coefficient, and ß indicates standardized coefficient. OC = off campus.

a. Difference between unstandardized coefficients for females and males.

b. Greek residence is the omitted category.

*p < .05. **p < .O1.

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to examine whether alcohol expectancies mediate the relationship between social factors (e.g., hooking up, amount friends drink) and drinking behavior and experiencing sexual victimization. In addition, this study aimed to explore the mediational role of drinking behavior in the relationship between alcohol expectancies and sexual victimization and whether the paths vary by gender. Overall, the rates of sexual victimization for both men and women found in this study far exceed those reported elsewhere (Hines et al., 2012), which could be related to our more expansive definition of sexual victimization and the wide range of coercive strategies, as well as the broader time frame of occurrence of sexual victimization in the past 12 months. Although some of the pathways to sexual victimization were similar for males and females (e.g., child sexual abuse and hooking up, described below), other pathways were unique to females. Current study findings highlight the fact that even though male and female college students have high rates of drinking, have friends who consume alcohol at high levels, and have certain expectations related to drinking, the dynamics of these factors and how they affect sexual victimization are uniquely different for females compared with males.

Regarding gender differences, the path from hooking up to sexual victimization via alcohol expectancy and the path from amount friends drink to sexual victimization via alcohol expectancy were both significant for females but not for males. In addition, housing type mattered more for females compared with males. That is,

406

Download more at Learnclax.com

women living in a residence hall/dorm, living off campus with a romantic partner, and living at home with parents experienced significantly less sexual victimization via alcohol expectancy compared with sorority women, which is consistent with prior research (Minow & Einolf, 2009). These gendered differences add nuanced understandings to previous studies showing that women endorse greater alcohol expectancies (Read et al., 2004), and higher endorsement of alcohol expectancies predicts victimization status with regard to risk for sexual assault (Benson et al., 2007).

For both males and females, a history of child sexual abuse is predictive of revictimization, which has been consistently found in prior research (Aosved et al., 2011; Gidycz et al., 1993). Hooking up among both males and females also significantly increases one’s chances of being a victim of sexual assault, a finding corroborated by the work of others (Flack et al., 2007; Paul et al., 2000). This behavior is particularly risk-laden as it affects sexual victimization through various avenues. That is, hooking up not only directly increases one’s chances for sexual victimization but it also does so indirectly through alcohol expectancy (for females) and through heavy drinking (both males and females). Based on these findings, the risks associated with hooking up are exacerbated in multiple ways through its association with both victimization and drinking beliefs and behaviors.

The perception of how much one’s peers drink is also highly indicative of the influence of the social context surrounding drinking patterns. Specifically, if one thinks their peers consume large quantities of alcohol, college males and females have higher alcohol expectancies and thus tend to drink more themselves. This pathway is revealed in the current study whereby having friends who consume more alcohol was directly and positively linked to both alcohol expectancy and the respondent’s own drinking behavior for both males and females. Although campus culture in general contributes to widespread drinking behavior regardless of residence type, the social context of Greek housing adds an additional element of risk for sexual victimization, especially for females, as Greek housing is highly conducive to excessive drinking (Page & O’Hegarty, 2006). Regardless of gender, the current study finds that higher alcohol expectancy leads to heavy drinking which, in turn, leads to more sexual victimization.

It is possible that college students have certain social expectations when they drink alcohol (e.g., “alcohol makes me feel happy” and “when I am drinking it is easier to open up and express my feelings”; Brown et al., 1980) and may drink to achieve these desired outcomes. Specifically, when individuals drink alcohol, they believe that certain outcomes are associated with this behavior and if they drink, this behavior will result in the expected effects. Whether or not the outcome expectations are logical is irrelevant; what is important is only that individuals believe that drinking will produce the outcomes they anticipate (Jones, Corbin, & Fromme, 2001). The concept of alcohol-related expectancies, or beliefs regarding the potential outcomes resulting from alcohol consumption, has been found to be a primary predictor of consuming and abusing alcohol (Brown, Christiansen, & Goldman, 1987; Jones et al., 2001; Wells et al., 2014).

However, other expectations of alcohol include “when they drink, women become more sexually relaxed” and “I feel powerful when I drink, as if I can really influence others to do as I want.” If college students believe they can achieve these outcomes by drinking, not only will this increase their alcohol consumption, but it also

407

Download more at Learnclax.com

increases the risk that they will become a victim or perpetrator of sexual assault as prior research has unanimously found that a stronger endorsement of alcohol expectancies is related to higher levels of alcohol consumption (Gilles et al., 2006; Zamboanga, 2006) and higher risk of sexual assault (Marx et al., 2000). The current study findings contribute to this larger body of research and further refine understandings of alcohol- related beliefs as our results reveal gender differences in this process whereby sorority women who endorse higher alcohol expectancies are at greater risk for sexual victimization compared with women who live in residence halls/dorms, off campus with a romantic partner, or at home with parents. For all respondents, alcohol expectancies act as a double-edged sword by not only increasing a student’s risk of drinking more if they hope to achieve desirable outcomes from alcohol, but greater consumption of alcohol also heightens one’s susceptibility to sexual victimization.

Limitations

Some limitations of the current study should be noted. First, all data are based on self-reports. Despite this, participants were informed that their answers would be anonymous so it is less likely that the respondents would be motivated to bias their responses. Another limitation is the retrospective nature of some of the measures (i.e., past 12 months), which may have resulted in some over- or underreporting if respondents misremembered their behavior. Third, this study was cross-sectional; therefore, inferences about causality cannot be made. For example, while we modeled hooking up as an independent variable leading to drinking behavior, the reverse relationship is also plausible. In addition, this study cannot be generalized to the whole college population given that the sample was not randomly selected. The potential existed for students to fill out the survey more than one time if they happened to be in another course we were sampling, despite the fact that we specifically announced to each class that if they had already filled out the survey in another class to please choose the other extra credit assignment. Finally, this study did not ask about the gender of the perpetrator. Characteristics of the perpetrator could distinctively shape experiences of sexual assault, as the perpetrator’s gender is more variable among male victims (Breiding et al., 2014; Peterson, Voller, Polusny, & Murdoch, 2011) but it is predominantly men who sexually assault women (Breiding et al., 2014). For example, men’s sexual victimization contradicts normative gendered relationship scripts, and men may experience greater adverse effects if the perpetrator is another man (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman- Johnson, 1994), as this could challenge men’s sense of heterosexuality (Mezey & King, 1989).

Conclusion

Our results offer some unique insights into the various pathways through which social factors, alcohol expectancy, and drinking affect sexual victimization. Specifically, our results indicate that hooking up and the amount that close friends drink are tied to higher alcohol expectancies for both men and women, and these expectancies lead to higher levels of drinking, which, in turn, increases one’s risk for sexual assault. Our findings also reveal that place of residence uniquely affects sexual victimization with sorority women being at the greatest risk, especially when they endorse higher alcohol expectancies. These findings suggest the need for future research to further examine the multiple pathways through which social factors, alcohol expectancy, and individual drinking behavior can potentially lead to sexual victimization.

408

Download more at Learnclax.com

Because the current study found unique gender effects for the role of alcohol expectancy as a mediator in this process, this suggests the need for further exploration of this important variable among both male and female college students. Future research on college populations are needed to see whether these gendered findings in the role of alcohol expectancy can be replicated. Gender should be taken into consideration for campus-based interventions that highlight the unique risks that female and male undergraduates face when engaging in drinking in social contexts (Kelly-Weeder, 2008). It is also important to develop alcohol-focused reduction interventions for both male and female heavy drinkers that can be implemented even when they do not seek traditional alcohol treatment. In addition, widespread dissemination of alcohol-focused reduction efforts would also benefit the college student population more broadly because it may reduce the risk for future revictimization even among light drinkers as well as among one’s peers. Because the impact of peer drinking is so influential, an intervention effort aimed at the broadest level may have the most impact overall in reducing harmful drinking and, subsequently, sexual victimization among college females and males.

Discussion Questions

1. What are alcohol expectancies? How could they lead to sexual victimization? 2. What is “hooking up”? How could hooking up lead to sexual victimization? 3. The authors find that residence location matters more for females’ sexual victimization risk through its

influence on alcohol expectancies. Why do you think they found this? 4. Hooking up seems to matter more for females’ sexual victimization risk. Why is this? 5. What are the policy implications from the findings of this article?

Note

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

409

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of

Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 118–128.

Abbey, A. (2011). Alcohol’s role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence and future directions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 481–489.

Abbey, A., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., McAuslan, P., Zawacki, T., & Buck, P. O. (2003). The relationship between the quantity of alcohol consumed and the severity of sexual assaults committed by college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 813–833.

Abbey, A., & McAuslan, P. (2004). A longitudinal examination of male college students’ perpetration of sexual assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 747–756.

Abbey, A., Ross, L. T., McDuffie, D., & McAuslan, P. (1996). Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 147–169.

Aosved, A. C., Long, P. J., & Voller, E. K. (2011). Sexual revictimization and adjustment in college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12, 285–296.

Benson, B. J., Gohm, C. L., & Gross, A. M. (2007). College women and sexual assault: The role of sex- related alcohol expectancies. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 341–351.

Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391–424.

Brahms, E., Ahl, M., Reed, E., & Amaro, H. (2011). Effects of an alcohol intervention on drinking among female college students with and without a recent history of sexual violence. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 1325–1328.

Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Merrick, M. T. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surveillance Summaries, 63, 1–18.

410

Download more at Learnclax.com

Brown, S. A., Christiansen, B. A., & Goldman, M. S. (1987). The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of adolescent and adult alcohol expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 48, 483–491.

Brown, S. A., Goldman, M. S., Inn, A., & Anderson, L. R. (1980). Expectations of reinforcement from alcohol: Their domain and relation to drinking patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 419–426.

Corbin, W. R., Bernat, J. A., Calhoun, K. S., McNair, L. D., & Seals, K. L. (2001). The role of alcohol expectancies and alcohol consumption among sexually victimized and nonvictimized college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 297–311.

Darkes, J., Greenbaum, P. E., & Goldman, M. S. (2004). Alcohol expectancy mediation of biopsychosocial risk: Complex patterns of mediation. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12, 27–38.

Elliott, D. M., Mok, D. S., & Briere, J. (2004). Adult sexual assault: Prevalence, symptomatology, and sex differences in the general population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 203–211.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women (Series: Research Report, NCJ182369). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Flack, W. F., Daubman, K. A., Caron, M. L., Asadorian, J. A., D’Aureli, N. R., Gigliotti, S. N., … Stine, E. R. (2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 139–157.

Gidycz, C. A., Coble, C. N., Latham, L., & Layman, M. J. (1993). Sexual assault experience in adulthood and prior victimization experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 151–168.

Gilles, D. M., Turk, C. L., & Fresco, D. M. (2006). Social anxiety, alcohol expectancies, and self-efficacy as predictors of heavy drinking in college students. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 388–398.

Greenbaum, P. E., Del Boca, F. K., Darkes, J., Wang, C. P., & Goldman, M. S. (2005). Variation in the drinking trajectories of freshmen college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 229–238.

411

Download more at Learnclax.com

Hines, D. A., Armstrong, J. L., Reed, K. P., & Cameron, A. Y. (2012). Gender differences in sexual assault victimization among college students. Violence and Victims, 27, 922–940.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2010. Volume II: College students and adults ages 19–50. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.

Jones, B. T., Corbin, W., & Fromme, K. (2001). A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction, 96, 57–72.

Kelly-Weeder, S. (2008). Binge drinking in college-aged women: Framing a gender-specific prevention strategy. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 20, 577–584.

Knee, C. R., & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination, perception of peer pressure, and drinking among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 522–543.

LaBrie, J. W., Grant, S., & Hummer, J. F. (2011). “This would be better drunk”: Alcohol expectancies become more positive while drinking in the college social environment. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 890–893.

Larimer, M. E., Anderson, B. K., Baer, J. S., & Marlatt, G. A. (2000). An individual in context: Predictors of alcohol use and drinking problems among Greek and residence hall students. Journal of Substance Abuse, 11, 53–68.

Lau-Barraco, C., Braitman, A. L., Leonard, K. E., & Padilla, M. (2012). Drinking buddies and their prospective influence on alcohol outcomes: Alcohol expectancies as a mediator. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 747–758.

Lawyer, S., Resnick, H., Bakanic, V., Burkett, T., & Kilpatrick, D. (2010). Forcible, drug-facilitated, and incapacitated rape and sexual assault among undergraduate women. Journal of American College Health, 58, 453–460.

Lewis, B. A., & O’Neill, H. K. (2000). Alcohol expectancies and social deficits relating to problem drinking among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 25, 295–299.

Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2004). Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 334–339.

412

Download more at Learnclax.com

Lindgren, K. P., Neighbors, C., Blayney, J. A., Mullins, P. M., & Kaysen, D. (2012). Do drinking motives mediate the association between sexual assault and problem drinking? Addictive Behaviors, 37, 323–326.

Marx, B. P., Nichols-Anderson, C., Messman-Moore, T., Miranda, R., & Porter, C. (2000). Alcohol consumption, outcome expectancies, and victimization status among female college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1056–1070.

McCabe, S. E., Schulenberg, J. E., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Kloska, D. D. (2004). Selection and socialization effects of fraternities and sororities on US college student substance use: A multi-cohort national longitudinal study. Addiction, 100, 512–524.

Messman-Moore, T. L., Long, P. J., & Siegfried, N. J. (2000). The revictimization of child sexual abuse survivors: An examination of the adjustment of college women with child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and adult physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 5, 18–27.

Messman-Moore, T. L., Walsh, K. L., & DiLillo, D. (2010). Emotion dysregulation and risky sexual behavior in revictimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 967–976.

Mezey, G., & King, M. (1989). The effects of sexual assault on men: A survey of 22 victims. Psychological Medicine, 19, 205–209.

Minow, J. C., & Einolf, C. J. (2009). Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Violence Against Women, 15, 835–851.

Mohler-Kuo, M., Dowdall, G. W., Koss, M. P., & Wechsler, H. (2004). Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national sample of college women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 65, 37–45.

Mouilso, E. R., Fischer, S., & Calhoun, K. S. (2012). A prospective study of sexual assault and alcohol use among first-year college women. Violence and Victims, 27, 78–94.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Author.

Neal, D. J., & Fromme, K. (2007). Event-level covariation of alcohol intoxication and behavioral risks during the first year of college. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 294–306.

Owen, J. J., Fincham, F. D., & Moore, J. (2011). Short-term prospective study of hooking up among college

413

Download more at Learnclax.com

students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 331–341.

Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653–663.

Page, R. M., & O’Hegarty, M. (2006). Type of student residence as a factor in college students’ alcohol consumption and social nonnative perceptions regarding alcohol use. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 15, 15–31.

Palmer, R. S., McMahon, T. J., Rounsaville, B. J., & Ball, S. A. (2010). Coercive sexual experiences, protective behavioral strategies, alcohol expectancies and consumption among male and female college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1563–1578.

Park, C. L., & Levenson, M. R. (2002). Drinking to cope among college students: Prevalence, problems and coping processes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 63, 486–497.

Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.

Perkins, H. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on consequences of alcohol misuse in college populations. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 91–100.

Peterson, Z. D., Voller, E. K., Polusny, M. A., & Murdoch, M. (2011). Prevalence and consequences of adult sexual assault of men: Review of empirical findings and state of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1–24.

Read, J. P., Wood, M. D., Lejuez, C. W., Palfai, T. P., & Slack, M. (2004). Gender, alcohol consumption, and differing alcohol expectancy dimensions in college drinkers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12, 298–308.

Small, S. A., & Kerns, D. (1993). Unwanted sexual activity among peers during early and middle adolescence: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 941–952.

Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1104–1109.

414

Download more at Learnclax.com

Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1994). Men pressured and forced into sexual experience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 93–114.

Suls, J., & Green, P. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and college student perceptions of gender-specific alcohol norms. Health Psychology, 22, 479–486.

Synder, H. N. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim, incident and offender characteristics: A NIBRS statistical report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Testa, M., & Hoffman, J. H. (2012). Naturally occurring changes in women’s drinking from high school to college and implications for sexual victimization. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 26–33.

Testa, M., Hoffman, J. H., & Livingston, J. A. (2010). Alcohol and sexual risk behaviors as mediators of the sexual victimization-revictimization relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 249–259.

Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & Leonard, K. E. (2003). Women’s substance use and experiences of intimate partner violence: A longitudinal investigation among a community sample. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1649–1664.

Testa, M., VanZile-Tamsen, C., Livingston, J. A., & Koss, M. P. (2004). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual aggression using the Sexual Experiences Survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 256–265.

Turchik, J. A. (2012). Sexual victimization among male college students: Assault severity, sexual functioning, and health risk behaviors. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 243–255.

Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1998). Coercive sexual strategies. Violence and Victims, 13, 47–61.

Velazquez, C. E., Pasch, K. E., Laska, M. N., Lust, K., Story, M., & Ehlinger, E. P. (2011). Differential prevalence of alcohol use among 2-year and 4-year college students. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 1353–1356.

Wall, A. F., BaileyShea, C., & McIntosh, S. (2012). Community college student alcohol use developing context-specific evidence and prevention approaches. Community College Review, 40, 25–45.

415

Download more at Learnclax.com

Weitzman, E. R., Nelson, T. F., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Taking up binge drinking in college: The influences of person, social group, and environment. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 26–35.

Wells, S., Flynn, A., Tremblay, P. F., Dumas, T., Miller, P., & Graham, K. (2014). Linking masculinity to negative drinking consequences: The mediating roles of heavy episodic drinking and alcohol expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 510–519.

Wood, M. D., Read, J. P., Palfai, T. P., & Stevenson, J. F. (2001). Social influence processes and college student drinking: The mediational role of alcohol outcome expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 62, 32–43.

Young, A. M., Morales, M., McCabe, S. E., Boyd, C. J., & d’Arcy, H. (2005). Drinking like a guy: Frequent binge drinking among undergraduate women. Substance Use & Misuse, 40, 241–267.

Zamboanga, B. L. (2006). From the eyes of the beholder: Alcohol expectancies and valuations as predictors of hazardous drinking behaviors among female college students. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32, 599–605.

416

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 12

To address the specific medical needs that victims of sexual assault face and to assist in evidence collection, many jurisdictions now have sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs). Campbell, Patterson, and Lichty (2005) provide an overview of the historical development of SANE programs and a thorough discussion of their effectiveness. They specifically tailor their discussion to the goals SANE programs are trying to attain, such as creating settings that can address both physical and medical needs of victims, providing comprehensive and consistent medical services, improving the quality of forensic evidence collection, increasing prosecution rates, and creating community change. Gaps in the literature and ways in which SANE programs can better achieve positive outcomes are also addressed.

The Effectiveness of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs

A Review of Psychological, Medical, Legal, and Community Outcomes

Rebecca Campbell, Debra Patterson, and Lauren F. Lichty

In sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs, specially trained forensic nurses provide 24-hour-a-day, first-response medical care and crisis intervention to rape survivors in either hospitals or clinic settings. This article reviews the empirical literature regarding the effectiveness of SANE programs in five domains: (a) promoting the psychological recovery of survivors, (b) providing comprehensive and consistent postrape medical care (e.g., emergency contraception, sexually transmitted disease [STD] prophylaxis), (c) documenting the forensic evidence of the crime completely and accurately, (d) improving the prosecution of sexual assault cases by providing better forensics and expert testimony, and (e) creating community change by bringing multiple service providers together to provide comprehensive care to rape survivors. Preliminary evidence suggests that SANE programs are effective in all domains, but such conclusions are tentative because most published studies have not included adequate methodology controls to rigorously test the effectiveness of SANE programs. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Rape survivors encounter significant difficulties seeking help from their communities after an assault.1 Fewer than half of rape victims treated in hospital emergency departments (EDs) receive basic services, such as information about the risk of pregnancy, emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy, and information on the risk of STDs/HIV. Furthermore, most rape cases are not prosecuted by the criminal justice system. During the past three decades, victim advocates have developed local, state, and national reforms to try to address these problems (see Martin, 2005, for a review). For example, many hospitals will now allow advocates to be present with survivors during their ED treatment to provide emotional support and advocate on their behalf for needed medical services. Rape crisis centers have been instrumental in creating new policies to standardize forensic evidence collection. Often referred to as “rape kits,” these protocols were developed so that all survivors who seek postassault medical care can have the evidence of the crime thoroughly documented. In addition, many states have dramatically reformed their criminal sexual assault laws, dropping antiquated requirements that made prosecution nearly impossible. These reforms have undoubtedly had a profound impact on the lives of countless rape victims, and yet most survivors still do not receive adequate medical care and most rape cases are not prosecuted.

417

Download more at Learnclax.com

Also, within the past 30 years, another reform effort emerged—this one led by the nursing profession with support and collaboration from rape crisis centers. Concerned about the quality of care that survivors were receiving in hospital EDs, nurses across the country became trained in forensic evidence collection so that they, rather than doctors, could provide postassault medical care. Consistent with the basic tenets of nursing practice, these alternative programs sought to provide health care while also attending to the emotional needs of rape survivors. Sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs were created in communities throughout the United States whereby specially trained forensic nurses would provide 24-hour-a-day, first-response

medical care and crisis intervention to rape survivors in either hospitals or clinic settings.2 With increased attention to collecting forensic evidence with state-of-the-art techniques, many SANEs hoped that the prosecution of rape would increase as well. The first SANE programs emerged in the 1970s, and they expanded rapidly throughout the 1990s. Now numbering nearly 450 programs nationwide (International Association of Forensic Nurses [IAFN], 2005), SANEs offer survivors and their communities an alternative model of care, one that emphasizes comprehensive, multisystem service delivery. Although there are still far more communities without SANE programs and an unknown number of survivors who are still struggling for medical care and legal justice, it is important to examine whether SANE programs have made a positive difference in rape survivors’ postassault help-seeking experiences.

The purpose of this article is to review the literature regarding the effectiveness of SANE programs as a reform effort. The literature on SANE programs is largely descriptive, with numerous articles detailing how SANE programs have been created, what kinds of problems they have encountered, and how they have resolved those issues (e.g., Ahrens et al., 2000; Aiken & Speck, 1995; Antognoli-Toland, 1985; Arndt, 1988; Cornell, 1998; Fulginiti et al., 1996; Hatmaker, Pinholster, & Saye, 2002; Ledray, 1992, 1995, 1996; Lenehan, 1991; O’Brien, 1996; Rossman & Dunnuck, 1999). Similarly, there is a substantial body of work on the technical aspects of forensic evidence collection and the administration of SANE programs (e.g., Hohenhaus, 1998; Ledray, 1997a, 1997b, 2000; Ledray & Barry, 1998; Ledray & Netzel, 1997; O’Brien, 1998; Sievers & Stinson, 2002). Other authors have already written syntheses regarding these aspects of SANE programs (Hutson, 2002; Lang, 1999; Ledray, 1999; Littel, 2001). Therefore, the goal of this article is to advance the literature by focusing on the growing empirical literature regarding the effectiveness of SANE programs in multiple domains. What do we know about the success of these programs?

To set the stage for examining the effectiveness of SANE programs, we will begin by briefly reviewing the research on rape survivors’ experiences with hospital EDs to uncover what is problematic about this “old” approach to postassault care and what SANE programs sought to change. Then, we will provide an overview of SANE programs, examining how their current structure, function, and operations attempt to provide a more comprehensive and survivor-centered model of care. With this background, we will then review the

empirical literature on the effectiveness of SANE programs in five domains.3 First, SANE programs strive to create settings that address survivors’ emotional needs as well as their health concerns. As such, this article will review the evidence on how SANE programs may help survivors’ psychological recovery from the rape. Second, we will examine whether SANE programs provide more consistent and comprehensive medical services than what survivors receive in traditional hospital ED care. Third, another founding goal for many

418

Download more at Learnclax.com

SANE programs was to improve the quality of forensic evidence collection, so the empirical literature on nurses as forensic evidence collection specialists will be reviewed. Fourth, by documenting the physical evidence of sexual assault so carefully, it is possible that SANE programs may increase prosecution rates in their communities, and the few studies that have explicitly tested this hypothesis will be examined. Finally, the creation and maintenance of SANE programs often requires a coordinated community effort between multiple social systems and agencies. As such, the evidence regarding how SANE programs function as catalysts for community change will be examined. This article will conclude by exploring the implications of these findings for practitioners and policymakers as well as outlining recommendations for future research on the effectiveness of SANE programs.

Source: Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Lichty, L. F. (2005). The effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) Programs: A review of psychological, medical, legal, and community outcomes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 313–329. Reprinted with permission.

Why Are SANE Programs Needed?

When rape survivors seek help after an assault, they are most likely to be directed to the medical system— specifically, hospital EDs (Resnick et al., 2000). Although most victims are not physically injured (Ledray, 1996), survivors are sent to the hospital anyway, primarily for forensic evidence collection (Martin, 2005). The survivor’s body is a crime scene and because of the invasive nature of sexual assault, a medical professional, rather than a crime scene technician, is needed to collect the evidence. The “rape exam” or “rape kit” usually involves plucking head and pubic hairs; collecting loose hairs by combing the head and pubis; swabbing the vagina, rectum, and/or mouth to collect semen, blood, or saliva; and obtaining fingernail clippings and scrapings in the event the victim scratched the assailant. Blood samples may also be collected for DNA, toxicology, and ethanol testing. Throughout this process, medical professionals must take extreme care so as not to taint or destroy the evidence (Ledray, 1999).

Martin (2005) noted that many ED physicians are reluctant to do these exams largely because they do not feel that this is a medical procedure that requires their expertise. Instead, they believe that they should be treating other patients with emergent health threats. This reluctance on the part of ED physicians to do rape forensic evidence collection manifests as long wait times for survivors as most spend 4 to 10 hours in the ED before they are examined (Littel, 2001). During this wait, victims are not allowed to eat, drink, or urinate so as not to destroy physical evidence of the assault (Littel, 2001; Taylor, 2002). ED physicians also do not like doing evidence collection because if subpoenaed to testify in court, they would be challenged on their qualifications, training, experience, and ability to conduct the exam (Ledray, 1999; Littel, 2001). Indeed, most ED personnel lack training specifically in forensic evidence collection, and as a result, many rape kits collected by ED doctors are done incorrectly and/or incompletely. Even ED physicians with forensic training usually do not perform forensic exams frequently enough to maintain their proficiency (Littel, 2001).

Forensic evidence collection is often the focus of hospital ED care, but rape survivors have other medical needs such as injury detection and treatment, information about the risk of pregnancy and emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy, and information on the risk of STDs and prophylaxis. However,

419

Download more at Learnclax.com

numerous studies have found that fewer than half of rape victims treated in hospital EDs receive these basic services. For example, most rape survivors receive a medical exam and forensic evidence collection kit (70% to 81%; Campbell, 2005; Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Self, & Barnes, 2001). Yet only 40% of the survivors in the National Victim Survey (National Victim Center, 1992) and 49% of the women in Campbell et al.’s (2001) sample of urban rape survivors received information about the risk of pregnancy. With respect to emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy, accounts from victims indicate that 28% to 38% of women receive this service (Campbell, 2005; Campbell et al., 2001), but analyses of hospital records have found lower rates of 20% to 28% (Amey & Bishai, 2002; Rovi & Shimoni, 2002; Uttley & Petraitis, 2000; see also Smugar, Spina, & Merz, 2000). Approximately one third of rape survivors receive information about the risk of STDs/HIV from the assault, and between 34% and 57% obtain medication to treat STDs (Amey & Bishai, 2002; Campbell, 2005; Campbell et al., 2001; National Victim Center, 1992; Rovi & Shimoni, 2002).

In addition to gaps in service delivery, it appears that rape survivors are often treated insensitively by hospital ED staff. These negative experiences with social system personnel have been termed “the second rape” (Madigan & Gamble, 1991), “the second assault” (Martin & Powell, 1994), or “secondary victimization” (Campbell & Raja, 1999; Williams, 1984). For example, it is not uncommon for hospital ED staff to question victims about their prior sexual histories, what they were wearing at the time of the assault, what they did to “cause” the assault, why they were with the assailant in the first place (if they knew the rapist), and why they trusted the assailant (if they knew the rapist). Medical professionals may view these questions as necessary and appropriate, but rape survivors report that they are very upset and distressed by such questioning. Campbell (2005) found that as a result of their contact with ED doctors and nurses, most rape survivors stated that they felt bad about themselves (81%), guilty (74%), depressed (88%), nervous/anxious (91%), violated (94%), distrustful of others (74%), and reluctant to seek further help (80%) (see also Campbell & Raja, 2005, for replicated rates). Similarly, Campbell et al. (1999) found that victims of non-stranger rape who received minimal medical services but encountered high secondary victimization had significantly elevated levels of posttraumatic stress symptomatology. These rape survivors were doing worse than the victims who did not seek medical services at all. These findings suggest that when victims place their trust in the medical system for help after a rape, they risk the possibility of additional distress.

The History and Current Operations of SANE Programs

To address these health care gaps for rape victims, the nursing profession created Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs. These alternative service programs were designed to circumvent many of the problems of traditional hospital ED care by having specially trained nurses, rather than doctors, provide 24- hour-a-day, first-response care to sexual assault victims in either hospital or non-hospital settings. Nurses were also interested in learning the intricacies of forensic evidence collection and expert witness court testimony (Ledray & Arndt, 1994; Littel, 2001). The first SANE programs emerged in the 1970s in Memphis, Tennessee (1976), Minneapolis, Minnesota (1977), and Amarillo, Texas (1978) (Ledray & Arndt, 1994). In 1992, the first international meeting of SANEs was held with representatives from programs across the United States and Canada, and the International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN) was formed (Littel, 2001). Forensic nursing was identified as a specialty by the American Nurses Association (ANA) in

420

Download more at Learnclax.com

1995. Rapid development of SANE programs occurred in the mid-1990s as knowledge about SANE programs spread (Littel, 2001).

Currently there are nearly 450 SANE programs throughout the United States and its territories (IAFN,

2005).4 Most SANE programs (75% to 90%) are hospital-based (e.g., housed within EDs or clinic settings), but some are located in community settings (10% to 25%; e.g., rape crisis centers or medical office buildings; Campbell et al., 2005; Ledray, 1997a). Nearly all programs serve adolescents and adults, and approximately half serve pediatric victims as well (IAFN, 2005). SANE programs are staffed by clinicians (usually registered nurses or nurse practitioners) who have typically completed 40 hours of classroom training, which includes instruction in evidence collection techniques and the use of specialized equipment, chain-of-evidence requirements, expert testimony, injury detection and treatment, pregnancy and STDs screening and treatment, rape trauma syndrome, and crisis intervention. An additional 40 to 96 hours of clinical training is also needed (e.g., performing pelvic exams on non-rape survivors, observing SANEs complete exams, courtroom observation), and specialized continuing education is often required by local programs (IAFN, 2005; Ledray, 1997b, 1999).

This extensive training formed the foundation for an alternative model of postassault care. In outlining a national protocol for forensic and medical evaluation of sexual assault victims, Young, Bracken, Goddard, and Matheson (1992) stated, “The broad goals of the national model protocol are to minimize the physical and psychological trauma to the victim and maximize the probability of collection and preserving physical evidence for potential use in the legal system” (p. 878). To address survivors’ psychological needs, SANEs strive to preserve victims’ dignity, ensure that they are not retraumatized by the exam, and assist them in regaining control by letting them make decisions throughout the evidence-collection process. Many SANE programs work with their local rape crisis centers so that rape victim advocates can also be present for the exam to provide emotional support (Hatmaker et al., 2002; Lang, 1999; Littel, 2001; Rossman & Dunnuck, 1999; Seneski, 1992; Smith, Homseth, Macgregor, & Letourneau, 1998; Taylor, 2002). To attend to survivors’ physical health needs, most SANE programs offer emergency contraception for sexual assault victims who are at risk of becoming pregnant and prophylactic antibiotics to treat STDs that may have been contracted in the assault (Lang, 1999; Taylor, 2002). Although the risk of contracting HIV from a rape is typically low (Ledray, 1999), it is a primary concern for most victims. As such, most SANE programs provide victims with information about degree or risk and testing options (Lang, 1999; Ledray, 1999).

With respect to the forensic evidence collection itself, most SANE programs use specialized forensic equipment that is not often used in traditional hospital ED care, such as a colposcope, which allows for the detection of micro, lacerations, bruises, and other injuries in sexual assault victims (Voelker, 1996). A camera can be attached to the colposcope to photo document genital injuries (Lang, 1999). Toludine blue is also used by some SANEs in the detection of genital trauma by enhancing the visualization of microlacerations (Ledray, 1999). The forensic evidence collected by the SANEs is typically sent to the state crime lab for analysis, and the results are forwarded to the prosecutor’s office. If a case is prosecuted, the SANE may provide factual or expert witness testimony at the trial (Ledray, 1998; Ledray & Barry, 1998). In factual witness testimony, a SANE provides information as to what exactly occurred in her or his interactions with the victim (e.g., what

421

Download more at Learnclax.com

evidence was collected, what injuries were sustained, etc.). If a SANE is reviewed by the court and deemed to be an expert, she or he can testify not only about evidence collected and the facts of the case but also about opinions and conclusions that can be drawn from evidence.

Yet when a SANE provides testimony, either factual or expert, “[she] is not an advocate, she is a witness” (Ledray, 1998, p. 287). This raises a potential role conflict for SANEs as they need to care for the psychological well-being of their patients which may involve advocacy, and yet, from a legal perspective, they need to be unbiased. Although it is possible to provide empathic care and emotional support without “biasing” the forensic or legal components of the case, in the event a case does go to trial, it is preferable that the SANE not be viewed as a victim advocate (Ledray, 1998, 1999; Ledray & Barry, 1998; Littel, 2001). Consequently, as SANEs have become more involved in court testimony, many programs have revised their policies and procedures to ensure adequate attention to survivors’ emotional needs without compromising SANEs’ credibility as witnesses. For instance, Smith et al. (1998) resolved this role conflict by involving rape crisis center advocates to provide emotional support while the nurses complete the medical-legal examination and maintain the chain of evidence. This “division of labor” was deemed necessary so that the SANEs could be effective, unbiased expert witnesses in court. In addition, rape victim advocates can offer survivors confidentiality, whereas SANEs may have to testify about their communications with victims (Littel, 2001).

SANEs provide extensive psychological, medical, and legal services for rape survivors, but truly comprehensive care involves the efforts of many service providers, including law enforcement personnel, crime lab staff, prosecutors, and rape crisis center staff. As such, many SANE programs today operate as part of multidisciplinary response teams (e.g., Sexual Assault Response Teams [SARTs]) or coordinated community response initiatives (Hutson, 2002; Littel, 2001). Historically, many SANE programs were created by the sole or primary initiative of individual nurses seeking to make change in their communities, but now it is becoming more common that multidisciplinary coordinating committees work together to create SANE programs (Campbell et al., 2005; Hutson, 2002). These steering groups are often charged with creating initial policies and procedures and ensuring cooperation, rather than competition, between agencies (Hutson, 2002). Recognizing the importance of collaboration, three states currently require all SANE programs who apply for state funding to have a multidisciplinary team to oversee the implementation of their SANE program (Littel, 2001). Many SANE programs continue to work closely with the members of the multidisciplinary committee to review cases and verify that survivors received comprehensive care (Littel, 2001).

The Effectiveness of SANE Programs

Because the work of SANE programs is multifaceted, addressing psychological, medical, and legal concerns, defining and measuring “success” or “effectiveness” is complex. For example, some SANE programs have made it a goal to improve prosecution of sexual assault cases in their communities, whereas others have noted that the rape prosecution is influenced by many factors, only one of which is the presence and quality of forensic evidence. Consequently, some programs have not defined success by prosecution rates. Therefore, the evaluation of individual SANE programs must reflect the specific goals and missions of that program, but it may be useful to consider multiple indices of success when evaluating the collective work of SANE programs

422

Download more at Learnclax.com

as a reform effort. In this section of the article, the empirical literature on SANE programs will be examined to evaluate the success of SANE programs in five domains: (a) promoting the psychological recovery of survivors, (b) providing comprehensive and consistent medical care, (c) documenting the forensic evidence of the crime completely and accurately, (d) improving the prosecution of sexual assault cases by providing better forensics and expert testimony, and (e) creating community change by bringing multiple service providers together to provide comprehensive care to rape survivors (see Table 1).

Psychological Effectiveness

Although the forensic aspect of SANEs’ work typically receives the most attention by the legal and medical communities, it is the commitment to victims’ psychological well-being that defines how SANEs work with their patients throughout all aspects of care. Putting this point in perspective, Ledray, Faugno, and Speck (2001) noted that a SANE is a compassionate and supportive RN who is also a skilled forensic technician. Although emotional care is a primary goal of SANE programs, there have been few studies that have systematically evaluated the psychological impact of SANE programs. In a study of the Memphis SANE program, Solola, Scott, Severs, and Howell (1983) found that 50% of victims in their study were able to return to their usual vocation within 1 month, and in 3 to 6 months, 85% felt secure alone in public areas. After 12 months, more than 90% of the survivors were entirely free of their initial assault-related anxieties and emotional discomposure. Unfortunately, this publication did not provide sufficient details regarding the methodology of this study to assess whether the recovery gains were attributable to the SANE program or to “normal” recovery processes. Other research suggests that, at the very least, rape survivors perceive SANEs as helpful and supportive. In an evaluation of the Minneapolis SANE program, Malloy (1991) surveyed 70 patients in crisis and found that 85% of the survivors identified the nurses listening to them as one thing that helped them the most during their crisis period.

In the most in-depth study on this topic, Ericksen et al. (2002) conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with eight survivors who were treated in a Canadian “specialized sexual assault service,” which included both specially trained physicians and SANEs. The primary goal of this study was to understand what it meant to survivors to receive this kind of care. Using latent content analysis, the authors identified nine major themes in the participants, narratives: (a) They felt they were met and they were treated with dignity and respect, (b) they felt the presence of the nursing staff—they provided information about what to expect and listened to the survivors, (c) they felt safe—the caregivers were women and were sensitive in their care, (d) they appreciated how they were physically touched—the nurses held their hands during the exam, (e) they felt in control—they were given options and were not pushed toward certain choices, (f) they felt reassured—they felt believed and supported by the staff, (g) they felt they were cared for by people with expertise—their care providers knew what they were doing, (h) they felt informed—they were given information and the staff were careful not to overwhelm them with too much information, and (i) they felt cared for beyond the hospital— they received follow-up care or the option for follow-up care. These descriptive data provide insight into how and why SANE programs may be psychologically beneficial to rape survivors, but as the authors of this study also noted, there is a need for larger-scale studies on the short-term and long-term psychological impact of SANE programs on survivors’ recoveries.

423

Download more at Learnclax.com

Medical/Health Care Effectiveness

Many rape survivors treated in hospital EDs do not receive needed medical services, which was another problem that SANE programs sought to address. As with the literature on psychological outcomes, there are few published reports documenting rates of medical service delivery in SANE programs, but available data suggest that victims treated in SANE programs receive consistent and broad-based medical care. In a national survey of SANE program staff, Ciancone, Wilson, Collette, and Gerson (2000) found that 97% of programs reported that they offer pregnancy testing, 97% provide emergency contraception, and 90% give STD prophylaxis. The SANE program staff indicated that services such as conducting STD cultures, HIV testing,

toxicology, and ethanol screening are not routinely performed but are selectively offered to survivors.5 These rates of service delivery are substantially higher than what has been found in studies of traditional ED care (e.g., Amey & Bishai, 2002; Campbell, 2005; Campbell et al., 2001; Rovi & Shimoni, 2002). However, Ciancone et al.’s data were collected from SANE program staff about what they say they provide in their programs rather than from individual survivors regarding the actual services they received. Coming closer to a direct assessment of service delivery, Derhammer, Lucente, Reed, and Young (2000) examined chart records before and after a SANE program was implemented in a hospital ED and discovered that in only 11% of the pre-SANE cases were survivors given a complete physical exam (both external exam and internal vaginal exam). This percentage jumped significantly to 95% after the SANE program was implemented. Unfortunately, this study did not document rate changes for other medical services, such as emergency contraception and STD prophylaxis, pre-SANE to post-SANE.

Table 1

424

Download more at Learnclax.com

In the most comprehensive and methodologically rigorous study to date on medical service delivery in SANE programs, Crandall and Helitzer (2003) compared the services received for sexual assault cases seen at the University of New Mexico’s Health Sciences Center for the 2 years prior to the inception of a SANE program (1994 to 1996) (n = 242) and 4 years afterward (1996 to 1999) (n = 715). Statistically significant changes in medical services delivery rates were found from pre-SANE to post-SANE. For example, the rate of pre- SANE pregnancy testing in this hospital was 79% and increased to 88% post-SANE. Providing emergency contraception was also more common after the SANE program was created (66% to 87%). STD prophylaxis was also more routinely provided in the SANE program as compared to the traditional hospital ED care (89% to 97%). Given the quasi-experimental design of this study, these increases are likely attributable to the implementation of the SANE program, but it is worth noting that the pre-SANE rates of service provision found at this hospital were already substantially higher than what has been found in prior studies of medical service delivery. For instance, service delivery rates for emergency contraception in hospital EDs are typically 20% to 38%, and at the University of New Mexico’s Health Sciences Center, they were 66% before the SANE program even started. Even though this hospital may have already been providing reasonably comprehensive care to rape survivors, their rates of service delivery still significantly increased post-SANE. However, it is not clear whether a SANE program could make such headway in hospitals with lower starting rates of service

425

Download more at Learnclax.com

delivery.

Forensic Effectiveness

SANE programs emerged not only because traditional ED care did not pay adequate attention to survivors’ emotional and medical health needs but also because the forensic evidence collection itself needed to be improved. ED physicians receive either no training or only minimal training in forensics, which has raised concern among victim advocates that the evidence of sexual assault is not being adequately documented (Ledray, 1999; Littel, 2001). SANEs sought to address this issue through extensive training and practice in forensic techniques. However, since taking on this new role, SANEs throughout the country have been challenged by both the medical and legal communities as to whether they were qualified and skilled enough to perform this task (DiNitto, Martin, Norton, & Maxwell, 1986; Littel, 2001). The clinical case study literature suggests that SANEs are not only competent in forensic evidence collection, but they are actually better at it because of their extensive training and experience. For example, Cornell (1998) noted that “with the [SANE] program, physicians are removed from the role of witness. Now evidence is collected more consistently and adequately” (p. 46). Similarly, Littel (2001) noted that SANE programs have “greatly improved the quality and consistency of collected evidence” (p. 7). Yet clinical case reports, though remarkably consistent in their conclusions, do not provide definitive evidence of the effectiveness of SANEs in forensic evidence collection. Empirical studies that directly compare the evidence collected by SANEs and physicians on objective criteria would better inform the debate about whether nurses are competent forensic examiners.

To date, there have been only two such comparative studies conducted in the United States. First, Ledray and Simmelink (1997) reported the finding from an audit study of rape kits sent to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Twenty-seven kits conducted by SANEs were compared to 73 kits collected by physicians or non-SANEs with respect to completeness of specimens collected, documentation, and maintenance of chain of custody. Overall, the SANE-collected kits were more thorough and had fewer errors than the non-SANE kits. For example, with respect to completeness of evidence, 96% of the SANE kits versus 85% of non-SANE kits collected the swabs to match the recorded orifice of penetration, 92% of the SANE kits versus 15% of non-SANE kits contained an extra tube of blood for alcohol and/or drug analysis, and in 100% of the SANE kits versus 81% of non-SANE kits the blood stain card was properly prepared. In addition, the chain of evidence was broken in some non-SANE kits but was always maintained in SANE kits. Although these descriptive data suggest that the SANEs’ evidence collection was more thorough and accurate, inferential statistics were not reported so it was not known whether these differences were statistically significant.

A larger-scale study by Sievers, Murphy, and Miller (2003) explicitly tested differences between SANE and non-SANE kits and also found support for better evidence collection by SANEs. Specifically, this study compared 279 kits collected by SANEs and 236 by doctors/non-SANEs on 10 quality-control criteria and found that in 9 of 10 categories, the SANE-collected kits were significantly better. The kits collected by SANEs were significantly more likely than kits collected by physicians to include the proper sealing and labeling of specimen envelopes, the correct number of swabs and other evidence (pubic hairs and head hairs),

426

Download more at Learnclax.com

the correct kind of blood tubes, a vaginal motility slide, and a completed crime lab form. The Sievers et al. study provides the strongest evidence to date that SANEs collect forensic evidence correctly and, in fact, do so better than physicians. However, it is important to note that training and experience, not job title or professional degree, are the likely reasons behind these findings. Further underscoring the link between experience and evidence quality, DiNitto et al. (1986) reported that prosecutors in Florida were “satisfied with evidence collected by nurse examiners, crediting the training of the nurse examiners … prosecutors tended to be more pleased with the quality of a physician’s evidence when the examiner had conducted many exams and thus had perfected the techniques” (p. 539, emphasis added). Because SANEs have made it a professional priority to obtain extensive forensic training and practice, it is not surprising that both case study and empirical data suggest that they are better forensic examiners than physicians and nurses who have not completed such training.

Legal Effectiveness

SANEs provide law enforcement personnel and prosecutors with detailed forensic evidence documenting crimes of sexual assault, which raises the question: Do SANE programs have an impact on prosecution rates in their communities? As with the literature on the quality of forensic exams, case studies suggest that SANE programs increase prosecution (Aiken & Speck, 1995; Cornell, 1998; Hutson, 2002; Littel, 2001; Seneski, 1992). For example, there are reports that SANE programs specifically increase the rate of plea bargains because when confronted with detailed forensic evidence collected by the SANEs, assailants will decide to plead guilty (often to a lesser charge) rather than face trial (Aiken & Speck, 1995; Ledray, 1992; Littel, 2001; Seneski, 1992). Other reports indicate that when cases do go to trial, the expert witness testimony provided by SANEs is instrumental in obtaining convictions (O’Brien, 1996; Smith, 1996, as cited in Ledray, 1999).

Yet there have been few studies that have empirically tested the hypothesis that SANE programs increase prosecution. Studies that report the prosecution rates for SANE programs rarely include a comparison group (e.g., rates before and after the SANE program was implemented or comparisons to another community without a SANE program). However there is already an extensive literature on “typical” rates of prosecution in communities without SANE programs. For example, arrest rates in rape cases have been found to vary

between 25% (Frazier & Haney, 1996) to 49% (Spohn & Horney, 1992).6 Prosecution rates are quite variable, with published findings ranging from 14% (LaFree, 1980) to 35% (Spohn & Horney, 1992) to 56% (Spohn, Beichner, & Davis-Frenzel, 2001). Drawing from these published reports, it can be informative (though not conclusive) to compare arrest and prosecution rates in communities with SANE programs to these figures from communities without SANE programs.

For example, Solola et al. (1983) examined the legal outcomes for 621 victims who were treated in the Memphis SANE program in 1980. Police reports were filed in 573 of these cases (92%), and 124 resulted in an arrest and successful prosecution (22% of reported cases). However, 135 cases were still pending at the time this study was conducted, and if the rates of arrest and prosecution are examined only in closed cases, the prosecution rate was 28%. In either analysis, the prosecution rates of 22% or 28% are still higher than what has been found for non-SANE cases (typically 14% to 18%; some as high as 35% to 56% on average).

427

Download more at Learnclax.com

Similarly, in her case study of the Santa Cruz County SANE program, Arndt (1988) noted that 42% of sexual assaults involving victims 14 years and older resulted in arrests of the perpetrators and 58% of child molestation cases resulted in arrest, which again is higher than what is found for cases that do not involve SANE programs (typically 25% to 44%; some as high as 49% on average). Ledray (1992) reported that of 417 rape cases in Minneapolis in 1990, 193 were presented by police to the county attorney (46%). Of those 193 cases, 60 were not charged by the prosecutor (31%), 65 defendants pleaded guilty (34%), 14 went to trial (7%) (6 found guilty, 8 found not guilty), and the outcomes in the remaining 54 cases were not reported.

As noted previously, a stronger methodological design would include a direct comparison of legal outcomes for SANE cases versus non-SANE cases, and to date, there has been only one such study. Crandall and Helitzer’s (2003) comparison of legal outcomes in a New Mexico jurisdiction before and after the implementation of a SANE program found that significantly more victims treated in the SANE program reported to the police than did before the SANE program was launched in this community (72% versus 50%) and significantly more survivors had evidence collection kits taken (88% versus 30%). Police filed more charges of sexual assault post-SANE as compared to pre-SANE (7.0 charges/perpetrator versus 5.4). The conviction rate for charged SANE cases was also significantly higher (69% versus 57%), resulting in longer average sentences (5.1 versus 1.2 years). These data provide the strongest evidence yet that SANE programs can have a beneficial impact on the prosecution of sexual assault cases. However, as was noted previously, this New Mexico community may be somewhat atypical in its pre-SANE responses to sexual assault survivors. The pre-SANE conviction rates were substantially higher than published reports and post-SANE numbers were higher still, which raises the question whether such effects are possible in communities with lower starting conviction rates.

Community Change Effectiveness

The effectiveness of SANE programs in multiple domains—psychological, medical, forensic, and legal— suggests that something profoundly different happens when survivors are treated in these alternative programs. SANE programs’ successes may be attributable not only to the work of the individual nurses but also to the kind of community-level change that comes about in forming and sustaining a SANE program (Ahrens et al., 2000). As discussed previously, rape survivors need help from multiple service providers, and SANE programs provide a structure for comprehensive, integrated care. Some programs may deliberately identify community change as a founding goal and purpose, but others may find that such change happens along the way as part of the process of implementing a SANE program. Indeed, case reports from local SANE programs suggest that these programs increase interagency collaboration and cooperation, which improves care for survivors (Hatmaker et al., 2002; Selig, 2000; Smith et al., 1998).

In the only empirical study of the effectiveness of SANE programs in creating community change, Crandall and Helitzer (2003) interviewed 28 key informants from health care, victim services, law enforcement, and prosecution who had been involved in the care of sexual assault survivors both before and after a SANE program was implemented in their community. The informants stated that before the SANE program, community services were disjointed and fractionalized, but afterward care for survivors was centralized because

428

Download more at Learnclax.com

there was a point of convergence where multiple service providers could come together to help victims. Informants also noted that the SANE program increased the efficiency of law enforcement officers by reducing the amount of time they spent waiting at the medical facility. As a result, officers could spend more time investigating the case. Moreover, the informants believed that police officers were better able to establish positive rapport with survivors, which increased the quality of victim witness statements.

In addition to improving the services provided to survivors, the informants indicated that since the SANE program was implemented, working relationships and communication between medical and legal professionals had improved substantially. For instance, prior to SANE, law enforcement had difficulty communicating with health care providers because their working relationship lacked consistency. The SANE program created standardized response protocols and hosted regular interagency meetings to review cases and engage in ongoing quality improvement. One important benefit of this direct communication was that officers were able to identify more quickly and accurately trends in similar assaults and perpetrator types, which was instrumental in discovering a pattern rapist in their community.

Whereas the collaborative relationship between the medical and legal communities greatly benefited from the emergence of a SANE program in this community, the results were not so clear-cut for the relationship between the SANE program and the local rape crisis center. The advocates interviewed in Crandall and Helitzer’s (2003) study had “mixed emotions” about their work with the SANE program. Advocates believed that the SANEs felt that they could do the advocates’ job and that services of the advocates were duplicative and unnecessary. Ironically, the advocates felt that before the creation of the SANE program, hospital ED personnel had valued their role, but now the SANEs sometimes acted as though the advocates were in their way. It is interesting to note that the health care informants had a different perspective. The medical providers stated that before the SANE program, they felt that advocates were in their way while they were trying to treat victims, but post-SANE they perceived the advocates as helpful and supportive to victims. It is possible that the process of creating the SANE program highlighted the need for multiple service providers to work together to provide care for survivors. Hospital personnel may not have fully appreciated the need for specific attention to survivors’ emotional well-being, but with the emergence of the SANE program, this issue was highlighted. However, in this community it appears that the emergence of the SANE program called into question whether rape victim advocates or SANEs should have the primary responsibility for the emotional care of rape survivors. As noted previously, because SANEs may testify in court, their communication with victims is not confidential, but advocates can provide confidential services. This suggests that there is a need for advocates, and they can work together with SANEs to provide an emotionally supportive setting for care. The issue of confidentiality was not examined in Crandall and Helitzer’s study, but it is an important factor to consider in future work on the relationship between SANE programs and rape crisis centers.

The Future of SANE Programs: Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

The current literature on SANE programs consists primarily of case study reports, with few empirical studies that have tested the effectiveness of SANE programs in multiple domains. Yet from the information that is available, it appears that SANE programs promote the psychological recovery of rape survivors, provide

429

Download more at Learnclax.com

comprehensive medical care, obtain forensic evidence correctly and accurately, and facilitate the prosecution of rape cases. Through this work, SANE programs can be instrumental in creating interagency collaborative relationships that improve the overall community response to rape. However, such conclusions are tentative because most published studies have not included adequate methodological controls or comparisons to rigorously test the effectiveness of SANE programs. Nevertheless, these preliminary findings can be helpful to SANE practitioners and policymakers because they indicate that this approach to treating sexual assault survivors has merit and should continue for further evaluation and analysis.

Specifically, this information may help practitioners with two primary issues: launching new programs and developing “benchmarks” of effectiveness for established programs. First, knowing that SANE programs have the potential to be effective in multiple domains may be instrumental in starting new SANE programs. It is often difficult to obtain broad-based community support for new initiatives because it is not yet known if the effort will be successful. Although the full impact of creating a SANE program in an individual community cannot be known prior to implementation, the literature suggests that many SANE programs have been able to address the psychological, medical, and legal needs of rape survivors. Although policy analysts have noted that empirical research is not always convincing in policy decisions (Weiss, 1983), the fact that there is independent evidence demonstrating promising effects is probably more persuasive than individuals’ beliefs that such an effort is worthwhile. Why should a local community launch a new SANE program? Because there is ample evidence that the “old” model of traditional hospital ED care is not only incomplete but also potentially revictimizing, and there is emerging evidence that the “new” model created by SANE programs addresses major gaps in service delivery for sexual assault survivors. However, communities should also consider cost-benefit issues as some hospitals serve very few sexual assault victims, and as such, a designated SANE may not be cost effective for that community.

Second, the literature on SANE programs can also serve as a reference for expected or desired outcomes in established programs. Once a program is launched and the challenges of implementation have been resolved, many community stakeholders will want to know whether the program is effective. As this review illustrated, effectiveness can be defined in multiple ways, and the research findings suggest many possible positive outcomes or benchmarks. If a program discovers, for example, that prosecution rates are not improving in their community, it is helpful to know that the literature suggests other SANE programs have been instrumental in increasing prosecution. This creates an opportunity for professional dialogue to identify what worked in one program and consider how those elements could be successfully transplanted to another program.

Although the current literature on SANE programs can provide practitioners and policymakers with useful information, this review suggests that there is a pressing need for more methodologically rigorous research on the effectiveness of SANE programs. Because most studies are small in scale and have not been replicated, it is important that neither researchers nor practitioners overstate what SANE programs can accomplish. From a methodological perspective, future research on the effectiveness of SANE programs needs to attend to three primary issues. First, larger-scale studies are needed whereby the experiences of more survivors in more programs are analyzed. The case study literature on SANE programs contains multiple studies from a small

430

Download more at Learnclax.com

number of programs (e.g., Minneapolis, Memphis). To evaluate the effectiveness of SANE programs as a reform effort, it is necessary to review data from many more programs. Second, most studies in the literature do not include comparison groups, which must be addressed in future research. Comparisons are needed over time (e.g., before and after SANE programs are implemented) as well as between comparable communities with and without SANE programs. Moreover, SANE programs are remarkably diverse (e.g., hospital versus community based), and although there are common elements that define them, unique elements of individual programs need to be compared. Third, longitudinal evaluations are needed that follow survivors through the process of receiving care in a SANE program and then link those experiences to short-term and long-term outcomes.

From a substantive perspective, future research is needed on the underlying processes that contribute to the effectiveness of SANE programs. If future studies can replicate the positive findings in the current literature, it is important to explore the mechanisms leading to those effects. With respect to psychological recovery, it is not yet known how SANE programs contribute to survivors’ emotional well-being. Is it that SANE programs do not “re-rape” victims, causing secondary victimization, and hence survivors have less distress? Is it that SANE programs provide coordinated care and referrals to counseling services for survivors? Furthermore, what is the unique positive contribution of the SANE vis-à-vis the rape victim advocate who is also present and attending to the survivors’ well-being? These issues of process are equally important when examining prosecution outcomes. For example, if prosecution rates are higher in communities with SANE programs, why is that? Is it because the quality of the evidence is stronger (as is suggested by Sievers et al., 2003) or because the expert testimony of the SANE is compelling (as is suggested by Ledray & Barry, 1998), or because SANE programs provide survivors with emotional support and resources that are needed to withstand the lengthy process of prosecution (as is suggested by Seneski, 1992)? Or did the SANE program create collaborative networks that finally enabled disparate social systems to work together toward a common outcome? Understanding the mechanisms by which SANE programs are having positive psychological and legal effects is an important next step for the field.

Finally, future research would benefit from stronger collaborations between sexual assault researchers and SANE program practitioners. The work of SANE programs is remarkably complex, and research and evaluation projects would benefit tremendously from the diversity of perspectives that come from collaborative partnerships. In studying the effectiveness of SANE programs, a research protocol must be sensitive to the safety and confidentiality needs of survivors (see Sullivan & Cain, 2004). Moreover, it is particularly important, for both ethical and methodological reasons, that evaluations of SANE programs do not interfere with the actual provision of services. Researchers and SANE program staff need to work together to address these practical issues. Indeed, Mouradian, Mechanic, and Williams (2001) went further to recommend that researchers and practitioners should work together on all aspects of a research project, from design to dissemination. Collaborative research can be very time-consuming but ultimately can produce methodologically rigorous research that answers important policy questions (Riger, 1999). Not so coincidentally, that is exactly what is needed in future research on the effectiveness of SANE programs.

431

Download more at Learnclax.com

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

The literature on SANE programs may help practitioners advocate for the development of new SANE programs because there is preliminary “proof” that this alternative model of care reflects a substantial improvement over traditional hospital ED services. The literature on SANE programs provides practitioners with benchmarks for effectiveness and desired outcomes. There is a pressing need for more methodologically rigorous research on the effectiveness of SANE programs to make more concrete statements regarding the functioning and impact of SANE programs. Future studies need to include comparisons between communities with and without SANE programs and between SANE programs with different structures, functions, and operations. Longitudinal evaluations are needed that follow survivors through the process of receiving care in a SANE program to assess both short- and long-term outcomes. Future research is needed to understand the underlying processes and mechanisms that contribute to SANE programs having positive psychological and legal effects. Collaboration between sexual assault researchers and SANE program practitioners would improve research and evaluation projects by increasing the awareness of and sensitivity to the complexities of SANE programs.

Discussion Questions

1. Prior to SANE programs, how were sexually assaulted women handled by hospitals’ emergency departments, by nurses, and by doctors? Why were SANE programs developed?

2. What are the key responsibilities of a SANE? How could SANE programs influence rape victims’ outcomes? How can they influence the community?

3. Do you think SANE programs are effective for women who have been the victims of rape? In what ways have they been shown to be effective?

4. How have SANE programs aided the criminal justice system? 5. If SANE programs continue to expand, what else could be suggested to improve them?

Notes

1. Throughout this review, the terms “victim” and “survivor” will be used interchangeably. Some researchers and advocates have called for using the term “survivor” rather than “victim” to emphasize the strength required to recover from rape; others recommend the term “victim” to refer to those who have been recently assaulted and the term “survivor” to refer to those further along in recovery. In this article, the terms are used interchangeably to reflect both the violent nature of this crime (hence “victim”) and the long-term work of recovering from such violence (hence “survivor”). In addition, this review focuses on female survivors of sexual assault. Although epidemiological data suggest that both females and males are raped, females are at substantially higher risk for assault. As a result, most research to date has focused on female rape survivors, so it is not known if the research findings summarized in this article apply to populations of male victims.

2. Some programs use the term “forensic nurse examiner” (FNE) rather than “sexual assault nurse examiners”

432

Download more at Learnclax.com

(SANE). Because most programs use the term “SANE,” we will use this terminology throughout this review.

3. The studies included in this review were limited to those that focused exclusively on SANE programs (as opposed to other coordinated care initiatives, such as Sexual Assault Response Teams [SARTs]) and were specific to work of SANEs (as opposed to counselors, advocates, or other staff who worked in or with the SANE program).

4. Although there are nearly 450 SANE programs nationwide, which is a substantial number, it is important to note that there are still far more hospitals that perform rape exams without SANEs.

5. These services are not routinely provided because they raise complicated legal issues for survivors that must be examined and resolved on a case-by-case basis. For example, if a survivor was tested for HIV at the time of the exam and the results were positive, it is possible that she may be required to notify the rapist of her HIV- positive status and may be at risk for being sued by the rapist. Many SANE programs have decided to discuss the implication of these kinds of services with survivors and allow victims to decide if and how they wish to proceed.

6. Spohn and Horney (1992) examined rape arrest and prosecution rates in six jurisdictions and found widely varying figures. The rate of 49% reflects the average arrest rate across the six cities.

References Ahrens, C. E., Campbell, R., Wasco, S. M., Aponte, G., Grubstein, L., & Davidson, W. S. (2000). Sexual

assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs: An alternative approach to medical service delivery for rape victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 921–943.

Aiken, M. M., & Speck, P. M. (1995). Sexual assault and multiple trauma: A sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) challenge. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 2, 466–468.

Amey, A. L., & Bishai, D. (2002). Measuring the quality of medical care for women who experience sexual assault with data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 39, 631–638.

Antognoli-Toland, P. (1985). Comprehensive program for examination of sexual assault victims by nurse: A hospital-based project in Texas. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 11, 132–135.

Arndt, S. (1988). Nurses help Santa Cruz sexual assault survivors. California Nurse, 84(5), 4–5.

Campbell, R. (2005). What really happened? A validation study of rape survivors’ help-seeking experiences with the legal and medical system. Violence & Victims, 20, 55–68.

433

Download more at Learnclax.com

Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (1999). The secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence & Victims, 14, 261–275.

Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (2005). The sexual assault and secondary victimization of female veterans: Help- seeking experience with military and civilian social systems. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 97–106.

Campbell, R., Self, T., Barnes, H. E., Ahrens, C. E., Wasco, S. M., & Zaragoza-Diesfeld, Y. (1999). Community services for rape survivors: Enhancing psychological well-being or increasing trauma? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 847–858.

Campbell, R., Townsend, S. M., Long, S. M., Kinnison, K. E., Pulley, E. M., Adames, S. B., et al. (2005). Organizational characteristics of sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs: Results from the national survey. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 1, 57–64.

Campbell, R., Wasco, S. M., Ahrens, C. E., Self, T., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1239–1259.

Ciancone, A., Wilson, C., Collette, R., & Gerson, L. W. (2000). Sexual assault nurse examiner programs in the United States. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 35, 353–357.

Cornell, D. (1998). Helping victims of rape: A program called SANE. New Jersey Medicine, 2, 45–46.

Crandall, C., & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation of a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program (NIJ Document No. 203276). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Derhammer, F., Lucente, V., Reed, J., & Young, M. (2000). Using a SANE interdisciplinary approach to care for sexual assault victims. Journal on Quality Improvement, 26, 488–495.

DiNitto, D., Martin, P. Y., Norton, D. B., & Maxwell, M. S. (1986). After rape: Who should examine rape survivors? American Journal of Nursing, 86(5), 538–540.

Ericksen, J., Dudley, C., McIntosh, G., Ritch, L., Shumay, S., & Simpson, M. (2002). Clients’ experiences with a specialized sexual assault service. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 28, 86–90.

Frazier, P. A., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim

434

Download more at Learnclax.com

perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607–628.

Fulginiti, T. P., Seibert, E., Firth, V., Quartertone, J., Harner, L., Webb, J., et al. (1996). A SANE experience in a community hospital: Doylestown’s first six months. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 22, 422–425.

Hatmaker, D., Pinholster, L., & Saye, J. (2002). A community-based approach to sexual assault. Public Health Nursing, 19, 124–127.

Hohenhaus, S. (1998). Sexual assault: Clinical issues, SANE legislation and lessons learned. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 24, 463–464.

Hutson, L. A. (2002). Development of sexual assault nurse examiner programs. Emergency Nursing, 37, 79–88.

International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN). (2005). Database of the International Association of Forensic Nurses. Retrieved on April 8, 2005, from http://www.forensicnurse.org

LaFree, G. (1980). Variables affecting guilty pleas and convictions in rape cases: Toward a social theory of rape processing. Social Forces, 58, 833–850.

Lang, K. (1999). Sexual assault nurse examiner resource guide for Michigan communities. Okemos: Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Ledray, L. E. (1992). The sexual assault nurse clinician: A fifteen- year experience in Minneapolis. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 18, 217–222.

Ledray, L. E. (1995). Sexual assault evidentiary exam and treatment protocol. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 21, 355–359.

Ledray, L. E. (1996). The sexual assault resource service: A new model of care. Minnesota Medicine, 79, 43–45.

Ledray, L. E. (1997a). SANE program locations: Pros and cons. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 23, 182–186.

435

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.forensicnurse.org

Ledray, L. E. (1997b). SANE programs staff: Selection, training and salaries. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 23, 491–495.

Ledray, L. E. (1998). Sexual assault: Clinical issues, SANE expert and factual testimony. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 24, 284–287.

Ledray, L. E. (1999). Sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) development and operations guide. Washington, DC: Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice.

Ledray, L. E. (2000). Is the SANE role within the scope of nursing practice? On “pelvics,” “colposcopy,” and “dispensing of medications.” Journal of Emergency Nursing, 26, 79–81.

Ledray, L. E., & Arndt, S. (1994). Examining the sexual assault victim: A new model for nursing care. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, 32, 7–12.

Ledray, L. E., & Barry, L. (1998). SANE expert and factual testimony. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 24, 3.

Ledray, L. E., Faugno, D., & Speck, P. (2001). SANE: Advocate, forensic technician, nurse? Journal of Emergency Nursing, 27, 91–93.

Ledray, L. E., & Netzel, L. (1997). DNA evidence collection. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 23, 156–158.

Ledray, L. E., & Simmelink, K. (1997). Efficacy of SANE evidence collection: A Minnesota study. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 23, 75–77.

Lenehan, G. (1991). Sexual assault nurse examiners: A SANE way to care for rape victims. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 17, 1–2.

Littel, K. (2001). Sexual assault nurse examiner programs: Improving the community response to sexual assault victims. Office for Victims of Crime Bulletin, 4, 1–19.

Madigan, L., & Gamble, N. (1991). The second rape: Society’s continued betrayal of the victim. New York: Macmillan.

Malloy, M. (1991). Relationship of nurse identified therapeutic techniques to client satisfaction reports in a

436

Download more at Learnclax.com

crisis program. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Martin, P. Y. (2005). Rape work: Victims, gender, and emotions in organization and community context. New York: Routledge.

Martin, P. Y., & Powell, R. M. (1994). Accounting for the second assault: Legal organizations framing of rape victims. Law and Social Inquiry, 19, 853–890.

Mouradian, V. E., Mechanic, M. B., & Williams, L. M. (2001). Recommendations for establishing and maintaining successful researcher-practitioner collaborations. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center.

National Victim Center. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Arlington, VA: Author.

O’Brien, C. (1996). Sexual assault nurse examiner program coordinator. Emergency Nurses Association, 22, 532–533.

O’Brien, C. (1998). Light staining microscope: Clinical experience in a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 24, 95–97.

Resnick, H. S., Holmes, M. M., Kilpatrick, D. G., Clump, G., Acheron, R., Best, C. L., et al. (2000). Predictors of post-rape medical care in a national sample of women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 214–219.

Riger, S. (1999). Working together: Challenges in collaborative research on violence against women. Violence Against Women, 5, 1099–1117.

Rossman, L., & Dunnuck, C. (1999). A community sexual assault program based in an urban YWCA: The Grand Rapids experience. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 25, 424–427.

Rovi, S., & Shimoni, N. (2002). Prophylaxis provided to sexual assault victims seen at U.S. emergency departments. Journal of American Medical Women’s Association, 57, 204–207.

Selig, C. (2000). Sexual assault nurse examiner and sexual assault response team (SANE/SART) programs. Nursing Clinics of North America, 35, 311–319.

437

Download more at Learnclax.com

Seneski, P. (1992). Multi-disciplinary program helps sexual assault victims. The American College of Physician Executives, pp. 417–418.

Sievers, V., Murphy, S., & Miller, J. (2003). Sexual assault evidence collection more accurate when completed by sexual assault nurse examiners: Colorado’s experience. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 29, 511–514.

Sievers, V., & Stinson, S. (2002). Excellence in forensic practice: A clinical ladder more for recruiting and retaining sexual assault nurse examiners. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 28, 172–174.

Smith, K., Homseth, J., Macgregor, M., & Letourneau, M. (1998). Sexual assault response team: Overcoming obstacles to program development. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 24, 365–367.

Smugar, S. S., Spina, B. J., & Merz, J. F. (2000). Informed consent for emergency contraception: Variability in hospital care of rape victims. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1372–1376.

Solola, A., Scott, C., Severs, H., & Howell, J. (1983). Rape: Management in non-institutional settings. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 61, 373–378.

Spohn, C., Beichner, D., & Davis-Frenzel, E. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.” Social Problems, 48(2), 206–235.

Spohn, C., & Horney, J. (1992). Rape law reform: A grassroots revolution and its impact. New York: Plenum.

Sullivan, C. M., & Cain, D. (2004). Ethical and safety considerations when obtaining information from or about battered women for research purposes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 603–618.

Taylor, W. K. (2002). Collecting evidence for sexual assault: The role of the sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE). International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 78, S19–S94.

Uttley, L., & Petraitis, C. (2000). Rape survivors and emergency contraception: Substandard care at hospital emergency rooms. Prochoice Ideas, pp. 3–4.

Voelker, R. (1996). Experts hope team approach will improve the quality of rape exams. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 973–974.

438

Download more at Learnclax.com

Weiss, C. H. (1983). Ideology, interest, and information: The basis of policy decisions. In D. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis (pp. 213–245). New York: Plenum.

Williams, J. E. (1984). Secondary victimization: Confronting public attitudes about rape. Victimology: An International Journal, 9, 66–81.

Young, W., Bracken, A., Goddard, M., & Matheson, S. (1992). Sexual assault: Review of a national model protocol for forensic and medical evaluation. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 80, 878–883.

439

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section VIII Intimate Partner Violence

For most of us, what goes on behind closed doors in our intimate relationships remains private. Except for the details we choose to share with others, the give-and-take, the ups and downs, and the good and bad times are largely shared by only us and our partners. For others, these details are sometimes made public and, in some circumstances, are widely broadcast for the world to know. Unfortunately, it is usually those times involving fighting that become public fodder. For Mel Gibson, an Oscar-winning actor and director, his “rants” at then live-in girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva were exposed. Several phone conversations between him and Oksana were taped and then posted to the Internet, where anyone with an Internet connection could listen to what was said by both parties. The following is a transcript from one of their conversations. It was edited lightly to censor profanity, and some lines were omitted.

M: I’m sick of your bull****! Has any relationship ever worked with you? Nooo!

O: Listen to me. You don’t love me, because somebody who loves does not behave this way.

M: Shut the f*** up. I know … (cross-talking) because I know absolutely that you do not love me and you treat me with no consideration.

O: One second. One second. Can I please speak? …

O: You just enjoy insulting me, that’s all.

M: F*** you, I so f***** do, because you hurt me so bad.

O: I didn’t do … I don’t …

M: You insult me with every look, (garbled) every f***** heartbeat, you selfish harpy.

O: I did not do anything, and I apologized for nothing …

O: I wanted to peace. I wanted to have peace.

M: Keep peace.

O: Because you are unbalanced!

O: You need medication! …

M: I need a woman! … I need a f***** woman. (panting) I don’t need medication. You need a f***** bat in the side of the head. All right? How ’bout that? You need a f***** doctor. You need a f***** brain transplant. You need a f*****, you need a f***** soul. I need medication. I need someone who treats me like a man, like a human being. With kindness, who understands what gratitude is, because I f***** bend over backwards with my balls in a knot to do it all for her and she gives me sh**, like a f***** sour look or says I’m mean. Mean? What the f*** is that? This is mean! Get it? You get it now? What mean is? Get it? (panting) You f***** don’t care about me. I’m having a hard time, and you f***** yank the rug, you b****, you f***** selfish b****. (panting) Don’t you dare hang up on me.

O: I can’t listen to this anymore.

M: You hang up, I’m coming over there.

O: I’ll call the police.

M: What?

O: I’ll call the police.

M: You f***** c***. I’m coming to my house. You’re in my house, honey.

O: Yes, but you, honey, don’t call me honey. You just …

M: (screaming) You’re in my house! So I’ll call the police and tell them there’s someone in my house. How ’bout that?

Now that you have read this transcript, think about how you would characterize their conversation to others. Is this just a typical, everyday

440

Download more at Learnclax.com

fight that any couple might have? Is it abusive? Are both parties contributing equally? What kind of effect might this kind of conversation have on Oksana? On Mel? On their young child? This section discusses the variations of intimate partner violence, its causes and effects, and how the criminal justice system and other agencies respond to victims.

441

Download more at Learnclax.com

Defining Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

In order to understand intimate partner violence (IPV), we must first define what it entails. First, we must identify what an intimate partner is. An intimate partner can be a husband or wife, an ex-husband or ex-wife, a boyfriend or girlfriend, or a dating partner. Violence—the intentional physical harm of another person— that occurs between these people includes overt physical violence such as hitting, slapping, kicking, punching, and choking. Throwing objects at another person is also physical violence. In short, any intentional physical harm that results in pain is physical violence. When it comes to intimate partners, however, physical violence may not encompass all the harm done. For example, yelling at and verbally degrading a partner may also be seen as violent—or at least as emotional abuse (Payne & Gainey, 2009). The transcript from Mel Gibson’s phone conversation is, quite likely, indicative of emotional abuse. This emotional form of violence also includes threats of harm, restraint of normal activities or freedom, and denial of access to resources (National Research Council, 1996). Violence within intimate relationships can also be sexual in nature. Sexual violence includes unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, and rape. As discussed in Section VII, sexual violence often involves someone known to the victim, including current or former intimate partners. Given these varied forms of IPV and abuse, examples of this type of victimization are plenty. Is it abusive when a man does not provide his wife any mode of transportation and insists that she stay at home during the day, calling throughout the day to ensure that she is home and alone? Many would consider this isolating and controlling behavior abusive, although not violent. What about when a couple is fighting and the woman shoves her boyfriend? Even though the shoving may not have created serious injury or even really hurt her boyfriend, the woman did, in fact, use physical violence.

These are not the only ways in which IPV has been defined and described. Michael Johnson (2006), for instance, put forth that there are two major types of IPV. The first type, called intimate terrorism, is rooted in the need for power and control, of which the abuse is but one element. Intimate terrorism involves severe, persistent, and frequent abuse that tends to escalate over time. This type of IPV is likely to result in serious injury and to be seen by criminal justice professionals and social service agencies. It is the type of IPV that has been viewed as most problematic and deserving of money and research attention to reduce its occurrence and pernicious effects. The second type of IPV is called situational couple violence, or common couple violence. Instead of resulting from a desire for power and control, situational couple violence occurs when conflict gets out of hand and results in violence. It could start with a “run-of-the-mill” disagreement and then turn violent. This type of IPV tends not to result in serious injury or to be a part of a larger pattern of persistent and frequent abuse; it also is unlikely to come to the attention of criminal justice and social service agencies. Two additional types of IPV also have been identified: violent resistance and mutual violent control. Violent resistance occurs when a person is violent but not controlling; instead, the person’s partner is the violent and controlling one in the relationship. In mutual violent control, both people are violent and controlling.

These descriptions and definitions show how IPV is currently viewed. Historically, however, IPV was not viewed in these terms. Originally, IPV was defined only as physical violence perpetrated by husbands against their wives, but this definition has evolved over the past 40 years to include emotional and sexual violence. We

442

Download more at Learnclax.com

also now recognize that IPV is not exclusive to married couples and that both men and women can be perpetrators and victims. But let’s discuss how we got to this point. There is a bit of controversy regarding just how tolerant or intolerant society has been toward men’s violence against their wives. Some have argued that such violence was essentially tolerated, if not condoned, given that males were considered dominant (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). The man was the head of the family and was able to use power and control, even violence, to control his wife and children. Presumably, minor forms of violence were permitted as long as they were used by men to maintain their positions of dominance. It is not apparent, however, just how pervasive IPV was during this time. As you may imagine, there were no national-level studies conducted in which people reported victimization and perpetration. Instead, we can look to laws and their usage during this time as a guide. Importantly, there have been laws in place since the 1600s that specifically prohibited violence against wives in America. By the 1870s, most states had adopted such laws. Punishment of wife abusers was generally informal, with vigilante groups often taking the matter into their own hands. In addition, punishments such as public shaming were often used. For example, a man who assaulted his wife in Portland during the early 20th century could face flogging (as cited in R. B. Felson, 2002).

Despite these laws, it does appear that some trial and appellate courts tolerated minor forms of violence by husbands against their wives (Pleck, 1987), but most courts did not tolerate physical violence in any form (R. B. Felson, 2002). When courts failed to convict or uphold convictions of men who had abused their wives, it was mainly done not with the view that violence against women by their husbands was acceptable and the courts should not intervene based on the principle of privacy (R. B. Felson, 2002). In the same vein, females were rarely arrested or brought to court for abusing their husbands. As a whole, then, courts have routinely rejected the notion that men have the right to physically assault their wives.

As with many other forms of victimization, IPV really took center stage in policy and research in the 1970s. The women’s rights movement was central in focusing attention on women as victims of IPV. During this time, feminists argued that IPV was a reflection of the subjugation of women and that the male-dominated criminal justice system did little to protect women. In response to these claims, an outgrowth of the women’s rights movement was to open domestic violence shelters for battered women and to provide women with the assistance they needed to get out of abusive relationships. Since then, efforts to identify, describe, prevent, and respond to IPV have expanded dramatically. Specific responses by the criminal justice system and other social service agencies are discussed later in this section.

443

Download more at Learnclax.com

Measurement and Extent

Now that you know what IPV is, you are probably wondering how common it is for partners, who supposedly care about each other, to engage in violence against each other. As you might imagine, it can be difficult to know exactly how frequently such behavior occurs given that it often occurs in private. In addition, people may be reluctant to call the police when the perpetrator is someone close to them; thus, official data sources may underestimate the extent to which violence between intimate partners occurs. Much like for other types of victimization, one of the most widely used research methodologies is to employ surveys that ask people to self-report their victimizations and perpetrations. The findings from such studies are addressed in this section.

National Crime Victimization Survey

Remember from our discussion in Section II that the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a survey of U.S. households in which individuals are asked about their victimization experiences during the previous 6 months. Individuals who report experiencing a victimization event complete an incident report for each event. Within this detailed incident report, individuals are asked to identify their relationship with the perpetrator. Violent incidents perpetrated by spouses or ex-spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends, and former boyfriends or girlfriends are considered in the NCVS to be IPV. Data from the NCVS indicate that the rate of IPV declined from 1994 to 2012 (Truman & Morgan, 2014). Nonetheless, during this period, IPV accounted for 15% of all violent victimizations. Females indicated experiencing a greater level of IPV than males. Over one-quarter of violent victimizations perpetrated against females were done so by intimate partners, compared to 6% of violent victimizations against males. When IPV does occur, it is most commonly simple assault. Despite this, almost half (48%) of all IPV incidents resulted in injury. A large majority (77%) of IPV episodes do not involve a weapon. Slightly more than half (54%) of IPV incidents resulted in the police being notified (Truman & Morgan, 2016).

Conflict Tactics Scale

Developed in the 1970s, the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) is designed to measure levels and use of various conflict tactics. Created by Murray Straus, this scale was constructed to examine conflict in intimate relationships. The CTS since has been updated to the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2) (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Conflict was seen by Straus (1979) as being inevitable in close interpersonal interactions; however, it is not conflict itself that matters but the ways in which couples resolve it. The ways in which couples resolve conflict are known as conflict tactics, and the CTS-2 examines the use of conflict tactics in three domains: physical assault, psychological aggression, and negotiation. It also includes items to measure injury and sexual coercion of and by an intimate partner.

The CTS-2 comprises 78 questions that measure these domains. Respondents are asked about the frequency of occurrence of each item during the past year and are given eight response options, ranging from never to more than 20 times in the past year. Items are presented in pairs so that individuals are asked about victimization and perpetration of the same item together. An example of a question from the CTS-2 is shown in Box 8.1.

444

Download more at Learnclax.com

Respondents are asked about how often their partners push or shove them. Although this item is designed to measure physical assault, other items ask about the other domains. Since its development, the CTS (and now the CTS-2) has become the most widely used survey instrument to measure the occurrence of IPV.

Straus and Gelles used the CTS in the National Family Violence Surveys in 1978 and 1985, both national samples. They found that in about 1 in 8 couples, the husband perpetrated at least one violent act in the previous 12 months. Females were also found to perpetrate violence—with females perpetrating IPV in 12% of couples in the study (Straus & Gelles, 1990). This finding that males and females were essentially equally likely to use violence in their relationships is one of the major contributions of Straus and Gelles’s work. This finding goes against conventional wisdom that males are violent and females are passive in their relationships. You are probably not surprised, then, to learn that the CTS has been criticized. It does not include spousal homicide, which does not reflect sexual symmetry (Payne & Gainey, 2009). In addition, critics point out that checklists such as the CTS do not consider the motives, meanings, and consequences of violence. Females may be using violence in relationships in response to initial violent acts by males. Moreover, even when women hit or strike their partners, they are less likely to cause serious injury compared with a man hitting or striking a female. Even without considering the context, the CTS can be used to uncover the extent to which partners use various conflict tactics, even if the underlying processes that create the conflict and response are not captured (Straus, 2007). Other concerns surround the underreporting of male violence and the overreporting of female violence by survey participants, which could contribute to the gender symmetry found (Dragiewicz, 2010), although a meta-analysis of studies using the CTS found that males are more likely to underreport (Archer, 1999). Despite these concerns, the CTS has made major contributions to the field.

Box 8.1 Sample CTS-2 Questions

Please circle how many times you did each of these things in the past year, and how many times your partner did them in the past year. If you or your partner did not do one of these things in the past year, but it happened before that, circle “7.”

How often did this happen? 1 = Once in the past year 2 = Twice in the past year 3 = 3–5 times in the past year 4 = 6–10 times in the past year 5 = 11–20 times in the past year 6 = More than 20 times in the past year 7 = Not in the past year, but it did happen before 0 = This has never happened My partner pushed or shoved me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 My partner punched or hit me with something that could hurt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

Source: Straus et al. (1996).

National Violence Against Women Survey

Recall from Section VII that the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) was a telephone

445

Download more at Learnclax.com

survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men aged 18 and older (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000b). In the study, participants were asked about violence they had experienced. Specifically, they were asked about psychological and emotional abuse perpetrated by current or former spouses and cohabitating partners, and rape, physical assault, and stalking they had experienced during their lifetime. The survey was conducted, in part, to focus on violence against women and on the victim–offender relationship. Of those surveyed, 22% of women and 7% of men said they had been physically assaulted by their current or former intimate partner during their lifetime. Respondents were also asked about IPV occurring in the 12 months prior to the survey. More women (1.3%) than men (0.09%) experienced IPV during that period. Other gender differences emerged in the NVAWS: Women were more likely than men to report being injured and to report their victimizations to the police. Moreover, women reported experiencing a greater number of physical assaults by the same partner (recurring victimization) than did men. Women who were victimized averaged 6.9 physical assaults by the same partner compared with an average of 4.4 assaults for male victims.

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey

In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control launched the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) (Black et al., 2011). This nationally representative telephone survey is conducted through random digit dial. In 2010, interviews were completed with 16,507 individuals aged 18 and over (9,086 women and 7,421 men). The survey is designed to collect information about intimate partner violence, stalking, and sexual violence. According to findings from the 2010 survey, 35.6% of women and 28.5% of men in the United States have experienced physical violence, rape, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Severe physical intimate partner violence is experienced by 24.3% of women and 13.8% of men during their lifetime.

446

Download more at Learnclax.com

Who Is Victimized?

IPV is experienced by people in all walks of life; however, certain people are at greater risk than others. For example, age is a factor in IPV risk. Younger adults are more likely to experience IPV than are older adults, although IPV perpetrated against older women has received particular attention recently. Race is also a characteristic that has been studied. Findings from the NCVS indicate that Black persons and females are at a greater risk of experiencing IPV than are White persons and males. The data show that the rate of IPV against non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic persons of two or more races is greater than the rate against other persons. When examining age in the NCVS, people ages 18 to 24 are most at risk of experiencing IPV (Truman & Morgan, 2014).

Gender and Intimate Partner Violence

Who is more likely to perpetrate and who is more likely to be victimized by IPV—males or females? A close reading of the previous sections on the extent of IPV indicates mixed findings. The NCVS, police records, emergency room data, and the NVAWS all show that females are more likely than males to be victims of IPV and that males are the dominant perpetrators. Results from other studies using the CTS suggest that this gender gap in IPV perpetration and victimization is not so evident. In a meta-analysis examining gender differences in IPV, women were found to be slightly more likely than men to engage in IPV and to do so more frequently (Archer, 2000). So, which is correct? Let’s examine the findings a little more closely.

Criminal victimization survey data, police records, and emergency room data all measure more severe forms of IPV, whereas the CTS includes measures of slapping and pushing, which are relatively unlikely to cause injury. Serious, injurious IPV, which males are more likely to engage in than females, is rare and unlikely to be revealed through surveys. Reliance on surveys, particularly those using the CTS to measure IPV, may underestimate serious physical violence. In addition, men are less likely to seek medical attention and are less likely to report their victimization to police. Men are also less likely to define their victimization as criminal— which hinders reporting. Insofar as studies depend on males defining their experiences as criminal or on reporting to the police or seeking medical assistance, the extent of IPV victimization for males is likely to be underestimated.

Photo 8.1 Janay Rice attends a press conference with her husband, Ray Rice, then a running back for the Baltimore Ravens. Ray Rice faced felony assault charges for assaulting Janay at a casino in Atlantic City.

447

Download more at Learnclax.com

Rob Carr/Getty Images Sport/Getty Images

So, where else are gender differences evident? First, when women are violently victimized it is more likely to be by someone they know and by intimate partners. Males are more likely to experience violence at the hands of strangers and nonintimates (Truman & Morgan, 2014). Keep in mind that males are more likely to be violently victimized—but males are generally “safe” from violence in the home or with their dating partners. Females, on the other hand, are “safe” in general—females are simply less likely to experience any type of violent victimization. When they do, however, it is more likely to be IPV than it is for males. Second, it seems that committing severe IPV is more a male enterprise. Males are more likely to cause serious injury in IPV incidents (Catalano, 2013). This may be because men are generally bigger and stronger than women and can more easily physically harm their partners when engaging in violence. Third, males also may use tactics in IPV incidents that are more likely to result in violence. Women are likely to throw objects at their partners, push, and shove—all behaviors that may, indeed, cause injury. Keep in mind, however, that these behaviors are less likely to cause serious damage than punching and using weapons. Although data from the 2002–2011 NCVS show that a larger percentage of IPV victimizations involving males compared with females involved a weapon (Catalano, 2013), other research shows that in these IPV incidents that involve weapons, women are more likely to cause injury to their partner than are men (R. B. Felson, 2006). Richard Felson (2006) interpreted this finding to indicate that the reason females are injured more often in IPV victimizations is largely due to the relative differences between males and females in size and power, and when these differences are neutralized with weapons, males are more likely to be injured. Fourth, males are more likely to engage in intimate terrorism—the kind of violence that is rooted in power and control and that often results in serious physical injury. As a particular case, females are more likely to be victims of homicide at the hands of their

448

Download more at Learnclax.com

intimate partners than are males (Catalano, 2013). Women are more likely to be participators in situational or common couple violence. Indeed, gender differences are greatest for physical aggression and less so for verbal aggression (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). These distinctions between male and female IPV as well as a discussion of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence and two other types of IPV are explored by Michael Johnson (2006) in Reading 13 included in this section.

Special Case: Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence

So far, we have discussed IPV within heterosexual relationships, but people in homosexual relationships are also at risk of experiencing IPV. The kinds of behavior classified as IPV are largely the same for homosexual and heterosexual people. One act, however, is unique to homosexual persons: “outing an individual.” If a person is not out to family, friends, coworkers, or in the community, an abuser may threaten to reveal this secret.

Although there is now an awareness of same-sex IPV, it is difficult to measure and hard to know exactly to what extent it occurs. Most of the research relies on small convenience samples rather than large-scale representative samples. Renzetti and Miley (1996) estimate that between 22% and 46% of lesbians have been in an abusive relationship, although this could mean that lesbians experienced IPV in a heterosexual relationship. Data from the NVAWS show that about half of lesbians experienced physical violence in their current intimate relationships (Neeves, 2008). Homosexual men are also at risk of being the victims of IPV, and some estimate that homosexual men are more likely than homosexual women and heterosexual men to experience IPV (Tjaden, Thoennes, & Allison, 1999) and that homosexual men experience IPV at rates similar to those of heterosexual women (R. Baum & Moore, 2002).

Even with the awareness of same-sex IPV, victims may still be treated differently than victims of opposite-sex IPV. There is a real fear among homosexual victims of not being believed or being demeaned or insulted by law enforcement (Jaquier, 2010). For these reasons, victims of same-sex IPV may be more reluctant to report than others. In addition, resources that are now widely available to victims, especially female victims, of IPV are not necessarily available for same-sex IPV victims. In some states, laws are written such that the partners must be opposite-sex, married, or civilly united; thus, same-sex couples who live together or are dating may find they are not protected under the same domestic violence laws (M. Allen, 2007). Same-sex IPV victims may be able to secure an order of protection, but doing so requires that a police report is filed—something victims may be particularly unwilling to do—and some states do not grant lesbians and gay men this remedy. Gay male victims of IPV may also have difficulty seeking shelter, because most domestic violence shelters admit only females. Finally, most domestic violence programs do not offer programming specifically designed to address same-sex IPV (M. Allen, 2007).

Special Case: Stalking

In recent years, a special type of victimization often tied to discussions of IPV is stalking. Although definitions of stalking vary across jurisdictions, a working definition for this term is a course of conduct that is unwanted and harassing and would cause a reasonable person to be fearful (National Center for Victims of

449

Download more at Learnclax.com

Crime, n.d.-d). Not recognized as a crime until the 1980s in the United States, stalking is now recognized in all 50 states and by the federal government as a criminal act. State stalking laws differ, but generally, a victim must show that the behavior constitutes a course of conduct; in other words, the offending behavior must have occurred more than once. Also, the behavior must be unwanted and harassing and must cause some level of emotional distress without a legitimate purpose. Finally, the offender must be a credible threat to the victim, the victim’s family, or the victim’s friends (Mustaine, 2010). To this end, stalkers may show up at the victim’s home or work; follow or track the victim; send unwanted letters, cards, or e-mails; damage the victim’s property or home; monitor Internet, computer, and phone use; post information on the Internet or spread rumors; or threaten to hurt the victim, the victim’s family, or the victim’s pet (National Center for Victims of Crime, n.d.-d).

Estimates from the CDC’s NISVS indicate that 1 in 6 women and 1 in 19 men have been the victim of stalking during their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). Each year, 3.4 million adults are stalked, with more than three-fourths of these victims being stalked by someone they know. Young adults aged 18 and 19 are the most common victims of stalking, with individuals ages 20 to 24 also experiencing high rates (K. Baum, Catalano, Rand, & Rose, 2009). Persons who are divorced or separated are at the highest risk for being stalked, as are persons who are poor. Almost 30% of stalkers are current or former intimate partners (K. Baum et al., 2009). Females are more likely to be stalked by current or former intimate partners than are males, with two-thirds of female victims having this perpetrated by their current or former intimate partners compared to 41% of males (Black et al., 2011). Stalking can be long-term and involve frequent contact—almost half of all stalking victims experience at least one unwanted contact per week, and 11% of stalking victims have been stalked for 5 years or more, although victims most commonly report being stalked for 6 months or less (K. Baum et al., 2009).

The types of behaviors that stalkers engage in vary. Almost two-thirds of victims received unwanted phone calls, voice mails, or text messages. About one-third of victims had rumors spread about them, received unwanted letters or e-mails, were followed or spied on, had the offender show up at various places, or had the offender wait for them. About one-fourth of stalking victims reported being stalked through some type of technology, such as e-mail or instant messaging. Global positioning systems (GPS) can be used to monitor victims (10% of victims report), and video and digital cameras or listening devices are also used in a small percentage of stalking cases (8% of victims report) (K. Baum et al., 2009).

Given the unique circumstances of stalking, it often carries significant consequences for victims. Many victims fear the uncertainty that comes with being stalked, not knowing what will happen from one moment to the next. They also report fearing that the stalking will not stop (K. Baum et al., 2009). In addition to fear, stalking victims experience higher levels of anxiety, insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression than do members of the general population (Blaauw, Winkel, Arensman, Sheridan, & Freeve, 2002). As with other victims, stalking may result in loss of time at work and changes in behavior. For example, about 1 in 8 victims of stalking miss time from work, and 1 in 7 change their residence as a result of the stalking. About 21% of stalking victims reported changing their day-to-day activities, 13% changed their route to school or work, and 2.3% altered their appearance. Victims also took action to protect themselves. More than 17% changed their

450

Download more at Learnclax.com

phone number, and 8% installed caller ID or call block. More than 13% changed their locks or installed a security system. Stalking also can come with economic costs. About 3 in 10 stalking victims report expenses related to dealing with their stalking, with 13% spending more than $1,000 (K. Baum et al., 2009).

451

Download more at Learnclax.com

Risk Factors and Theories for Intimate Partner Violence

You may be wondering at this point why people are victimized by their intimate partners. Keep in mind that there is not a singular reason why IPV occurs, but researchers have identified many factors that produce IPV. The most common factors are discussed next.

Stress

Whereas the family and the home are seen as places of sanctuary, the family also can cause stress. Given the close physical interaction that families share, it is probably not hard to imagine scenarios that involve stress— money is tight, children are fussy, schedules are hectic. Although stress does not always result in IPV, it certainly can. How couples deal with stress and conflict can dictate the couples’ likelihood of experiencing IPV.

Cohabitation

Although IPV is commonly thought of as occurring within marital relationships, it most commonly occurs within cohabitation relationships. In fact, the rate of IPV is highest among couples living together, and these couples experience more severe forms of violence (Wallace, 2007). There are several reasons why cohabitating couples experience more incidents of and more severe IPV. One is that individuals in these relationships may be less committed and perceive less stability—two qualities that may increase the amount of conflict in the relationship (Buzawa, 2007). Another explanation may be that these couples feel more social isolation, and abuse may be more likely to occur and continue without the support of family and friends (Stets & Straus, 1990).

Power and Patriarchy

Power can be defined as a person’s ability to impose his or her will on another. For couples, this likely involves everyday life decisions. Both men and women usually have power in relationships—for example, a man may make more money and a woman may make more decisions about the household. It is when power is abused that it may result in IPV. Power can be used to isolate and scare and take advantage, which is abusive. Patriarchy is defined as a form of social organization in which men are dominant and are allowed to control women and children. Patriarchy may allow IPV by men and even encourage it by giving men a “green light” to exercise their dominance. The research on power and patriarchy and how it relates to IPV is mixed (Coleman & Straus, 1986). There is some evidence that patriarchal norms and structural inequality are positively related to IPV rates (Yllo & Straus, 1990). Men who hold patriarchal values have been shown in other research to be more violent against women (Sugarman & Frankel, 1996). Some research shows that when couples share power and are egalitarian, there is less IPV. Conversely, other research shows that men who believe in traditional sex roles are less likely to be abusive toward their intimate partners (Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992; Rosenbaum, 1986). In fact, Richard Felson (2002) contends that patriarchy has little applicability to the dyadic relationships between intimate partners.

452

Download more at Learnclax.com

Social Learning

According to the traditions of social learning theorists, criminal behavior is learned behavior. People can learn by observing others engaging in crime and by having their own criminal behavior reinforced. Social learning theory can help understand why IPV occurs. People who grow up in homes where IPV occurs are more likely than others to be both perpetrators and victims of IPV (Foshee, Bauman, & Linder, 1999; Riggs, Caulfield, & Street, 2000). It is not just witnessing IPV that can have negative effects on later behavior; individuals who are abused or neglected as children have been shown to be more likely to engage in IPV later in life (Heyman & Smith, 2002; Widom, 1989a; Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2014) and to be victimized (Riggs et al., 2000; Widom et al., 2014). Widom et al. (2014) found that child abuse and neglect among children up to age 11 was related to an increase in the odds of suffering an injury via intimate partner violence victimization in adulthood. Beyond exposure to and experiencing violence, social learning theory also addresses how definitions, values, and norms favorable to IPV play a role in IPV. Individuals who have positive expectations about the use of violence are more likely to perpetrate IPV (Foshee et al., 1999).

Disability Status

As you will read about in Section XII, having a disability places individuals at an increased risk for victimization. Recent research has found that this increase in risk for victimization holds true for IPV victimization as well. In a study using data from two waves of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, it was found that adults having physical or mental health impairments had increased risks of IPV victimization (Hahn, McCormick, Silverman, Robinson, & Koenen, 2014). Other research conducted by the CDC has confirmed that women with disabilities are more likely than those without disabilities to be the victims of IPV (Barrett, O’Day, Roche, & Carlson, 2009; D. L. Smith, 2008).

Neighborhood Context

Where you live may influence your risk of experiencing intimate partner violence. Remember from Section II where you learned about how neighborhood context may influence violence in that persons who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods were more at risk of victimization than others. Disadvantaged neighborhoods are likely to have less collective efficacy and thus are less able to mobilize effective informal social control sources. Researchers have applied these concepts of disadvantage and collective efficacy to the study of IPV. It has been shown that neighborhood disadvantage is positively related to IPV, and collective efficacy is negatively related to IPV (E. M. Wright & Benson, 2011).

Risky Lifestyle

According to lifestyles theory, those individuals who engage in risky lifestyles expose themselves to people and situations that are likely to increase their victimization risk (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978). Although this theory has been used to explain risk of victimization, it has been less widely adopted by researchers studying IPV. Two ways in which risky lifestyles have been linked to IPV are through associating with known criminals and using alcohol and drugs.

453

Download more at Learnclax.com

Associating With Known Criminals

According to lifestyles theory, the more time people spend in the company of offenders, the more likely they are to become victims themselves. Although females are generally less likely to be victimized than males, when they spend time with criminal others, their risk of victimization increases—similar to how it increases for males. As noted by Carbone-Lopez and Kruttschnitt (2010), females who have criminal mates are more likely to be the victims of IPV than are females with prosocial intimate partners.

Alcohol and Drugs

In Section II, we discussed the role that alcohol plays in victimization. It should come as no surprise, then, to learn that alcohol also has been studied in connection with IPV. A wealth of research shows that IPV offenders use illegal drugs and/or drink excessively more than others (Scott, Schafer, & Greenfield, 1999). Findings from the NVAWS show that binge drinkers (people who have five or more drinks in a setting) are 3 to 5 times more likely to engage in IPV against a female than those who abstain from drinking (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000b). Some researchers argue that the relationship between alcohol use and IPV perpetration is mediated by attitudes that support the use of IPV (Buzawa, 2007).

Alcohol use by the victim is also important to examine. Alcohol use is related to IPV victimization in several ways. First, women who have histories of IPV have higher rates of substance abuse than women without such histories (Coker, Smith, Bethea, King, & McKeown, 2000). Second, many victims report having used alcohol or drugs prior to being victimized (Greenfeld & Henneberg, 2000). Using drugs or alcohol may make them more vulnerable or may affect them cognitively and behaviorally such that they initiate or respond to conflict differently than they would when not under the influence. Third, alcohol and drug use may be likely after an IPV victimization. In this way, alcohol or drug use may be a consequence of IPV rather than a cause (Devries et al., 2014). Taking multiple risk factors into account, Marie Skubak Tillyer and Emily M. Wright (2014) explore multiple risk factors for IPV in Reading 14 included in this section. What is even more interesting is that they identify whether risk factors differ for victims, perpetrators, and victim-perpetrators.

454

Download more at Learnclax.com

Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence

Negative Health Outcomes

One of the most obvious physical effects of IPV is, of course, injury. IPV is one of the most common reasons why women present in the emergency room (ER). More than one-third of women who seek care in the ER for violence-related injuries do so because they were victimized by a current or former spouse, a boyfriend, or a girlfriend (Rand, 1997). Often, these injuries that bring women to ERs are quite serious; in one study of women who sought care in a metropolitan ER, almost 3 in 10 required hospital admission and more than 1 in 10 required major medical treatment (Berios & Grady, 1991). In addition to injury, female victims of IPV are more likely to experience frequent headaches and to suffer from gastrointestinal problems (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2010). IPV may also result in back pain, gynecological disorders, pregnancy difficulties, sexually transmitted diseases, central nervous system disorders, and heart or circulatory conditions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010b).

Death

Although it may seem surprising, in 2007, intimate partners committed 14% of all homicides (Catalano et al., 2009). The risk of being murdered by an intimate partner is greater for females than for males—70% of victims killed by an intimate partner are female. A sizeable portion of fatalities of women are caused by IPV. In recent years, between one-third and four-tenths of female murder victims were killed by an intimate partner. In contrast, of those men who were murdered, only 3% were killed by their current or former spouse or boyfriend (Catalano, 2013). Fatal outcomes of IPV are also found for abused women who are pregnant. IPV is the leading cause of homicide and injury-related deaths among pregnant women (Frye, 2001). Also of note is that Black females are more likely than White females to be murdered by a spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend (Catalano et al., 2009).

Psychological and Emotional Outcomes

IPV also commonly carries significant psychological and emotional consequences. Remember that IPV can come in the form of emotional or psychological abuse—by definition, it creates emotional and psychological harm. Being physically abused can also cause such harm. Victims of IPV are likely to experience depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010b). Some of the psychological consequences are quite severe—battered women have higher rates of suicide than do nonbattered women (Stark, 1984). Attempting suicide and considering suicide are also more common among women experiencing IPV than among other women (Coker et al., 2002). Suicide ideation and attempt was about 6 to 9 times more likely for adolescent girls who had been sexually or physically hurt by a dating partner than for girls who did not report such harm (Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001).

Revictimization

455

Download more at Learnclax.com

One of the consequences of being a victim of IPV is that additional IPV events commonly occur, called revictimization. As noted in the discussion of the NVAWS, the typical victim of IPV experiences more than one victimization. Women in the study reported experiencing, on average, 6.9 physical assaults by the same partner. Males also experienced revictimization—averaging 4.4 assaults by the same partner. Research using official records of rearrest, victim interviews, offender interviews, court records, probation records, and shelter records have supported this finding that many victims are abused again and that many offenders reoffend (see Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005). For example, in a study that examined victims of arrested batterers, 28% experienced physical abuse, threats, or unwanted contact during the 3-month follow-up period (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2003). In a study of men convicted of domestic violence, 16% were rearrested or had a complaint made against them by the same victim (B. G. Taylor, Davis, & Maxwell, 2001).

This pattern of revictimization is not a new revelation. The cycle of violence was first described by Lenore Walker in 1979. Through interviews with battered women, she identified a common pattern of abuse that involves different phases. In the first phase, the tension-building phase, the abuser and victim interact in a close relationship that likely involves positive and charming behavior on the part of the abuser. This period of tranquility does not last as day-to-day pressures and more serious events generate tension. These periods of tension and stress precede what may at first be minor violence. The woman is likely to attempt to appease the abuser, “tiptoeing” around and trying not to incite the abuser’s violence. This tension, though, continues until the abuser explodes into a fit of rage. When this occurs, the second phase begins. The acute battering phase involves the abuser engaging in major and often serious physically assaultive behavior. This phase is followed by the honeymoon phase. The abuser is calm and loving and most probably begging his partner for forgiveness. He likely is making promises not to engage in violence again. If the relationship continues, Walker (1979) proposes that the cycle of violence is likely to start over. Remember, though, not all abuse is repetitive and most abuse is not the explosive type of violence that Walker’s cycle of violence concerns.

456

Download more at Learnclax.com

Why Abusive Relationships Continue

The cycle of violence is but one reason why people stay in abusive relationships. The ups and downs of these relationships, which often include some positive “high” points, can be confusing emotionally. Remember that often the person who is abused sees positive traits in the abuser—she probably loved and maybe still loves him. Even when women do make a decision to leave, many return to their abusers. In fact, women leave an average of six times before permanently severing their relationships (Okun, 1986). But many women do, in fact, eventually leave.

But why is leaving so difficult? As mentioned, people in relationships often feel a love for and commitment to the other person that they define as important. This commitment may be even more important if the two are married, and marriage and relationships may be defined as more important than personal safety, especially for women (Barnett & LaViolette, 1993). They may also share children; thus, leaving may mean splitting the family and taking children away from the other parent.

Some women may not be financially capable of leaving their abusers. Women may be economically dependent on their abusers and feel that they are unable to leave for financial reasons. They may not be employed and may lack the resources necessary to establish independence. In addition, abused women may be isolated from their friends and family and lack a support system that could help them as they try to leave. Abusers often purposefully isolate their partners from social networks, thus making it difficult for them to leave (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2008a). Finally, women may be embarrassed, ashamed, and scared. Feeling scared may be warranted. Abused women often have been living a life characterized by a pattern of abuse. Even if they want to leave, research shows that women are more likely to be killed after leaving their husbands than while living with them (M. Wilson & Daly, 1993). To better understand the complex nature of abusive relationships and why women may stay and why they make the decision to leave, see Reading 15 in this section by Jacquelyn Campbell, Linda Rose, Joan Kub, and Daphne Nedd (1998). In it, they discuss their findings from a longitudinal study of 31 women who were in abusive relationships.

457

Download more at Learnclax.com

Criminal Justice System Responses to Intimate Partner Violence

As noted, the major developments in recognizing and responding to IPV first occurred in the 1970s. From 1975 to 1980, 44 states passed laws concerning IPV, mainly focusing on the prevention of and protection from IPV and providing victims needed resources (Escobar, 2010). Today, every state has some type of IPV law. These laws and how they impact criminal justice and social service agency responses are discussed in the following subsections.

Police Response

Traditionally, police were reluctant to become involved in IPV cases. They often did not make arrests in these types of cases, instead allowing privacy to trump police involvement. The reasons for this lack of formal response are varied. Police may not want to intervene in IPV cases because of their perception that such a case will not result in a conviction (Buzawa & Buzawa, 1993). They also may view what happens behind closed doors and within families as beyond the purview of the criminal justice system. Police also may not want to respond to or make arrests in these cases because they are thought to be quite dangerous for the police (Kanno & Newhill, 2009), although others have disputed this claim (J. Hirschel, Dean, & Lumb, 1994; Pagelow, 1997). Also, victims may request that officers not make an arrest or may tell officers that they will not follow through with charges; hence, police have been reluctant to arrest (Wallace, 2007).

The ability of police to make arrests, even when they are willing to do so, may also be limited. Historically, police have been unable to make an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant. A misdemeanor is a crime that usually is less serious than a felony and carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail. Police could make an arrest for a misdemeanor only if they had a warrant or if they had witnessed the event. As you might imagine, police often do not arrive on the scene of a crime until after the violence occurs and, thus, would not be able to make an arrest without first getting an arrest warrant. This inability of police to make arrests changed during the 1980s, when research was conducted on the utility of arrests in IPV cases.

In 1984, Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk conducted the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment to examine the deterrent effect of arrest on domestic violence perpetrators. To make it a true experiment, the researchers set up the study so that the police randomly responded to calls for domestic violence in one of three ways: The police could make an arrest that would result in one night of incarceration, separate the parties for a period of 8 hours, or advise the couple using the officer’s judgment. For eligible calls, the officer would take a color-coded card indicating which of the three response options he or she was to use for the call. The study ran from March 17, 1982, to August 1, 1982, and covered 314 eligible domestic violence calls. For each call, biweekly follow-up interviews were conducted with the victims for 6 months, although only 62% of the victims participated in the initial follow-up interview and slightly less than half participated in all 12 interviews. The researchers also collected police reports during the 6-month follow-up to check for additional domestic violence incidents.

What did the researchers find? From both the victim interviews and police records, the researchers concluded

458

Download more at Learnclax.com

that those who were arrested were less likely than others to commit additional domestic violence offenses. Only 10% of those who were arrested committed a subsequent offense, according to police records, as compared with 24% of those who were separated and 19% of those who were advised. Interview data also indicated that arrest was most effective, with only 19% of those arrested committing additional domestic violence. One-third of those who were separated and 37% of those advised by officers committed additional offenses, according to victim interviews.

Photo 8.2 Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the location of the famous Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment that effectively changed the way domestic violence cases were policed throughout the country.

Based on these findings and lawsuits against the police for negligence and unequal treatment of female victims, advocates for mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases were given ample evidence for their position. Not long after, many states began revamping their domestic violence laws to allow police to make arrests in misdemeanor domestic violence cases without a warrant. Other states enacted mandatory arrest policies. Mandatory arrest policies are those that proscribe arrest by police officers when there is probable cause that a crime was committed and enough evidence exists for an arrest. Note that mandatory arrest policies may create a situation in which a victim does not want the offender to be arrested and the police make an arrest regardless. By 1992, seven states had adopted mandatory arrest policies (Dobash & Dobash, 1992). Today, more than 20 states have mandatory arrest policies (Iyengar, 2007).

It is interesting that mandatory arrest policies began to be adopted so quickly following the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment because replication studies conducted in five jurisdictions—Charlotte, Dade County, Colorado Springs, Milwaukee, and Omaha—provided different results. In only one location, Dade County, did police records show that arrest had a deterrent effect. In Omaha, Charlotte, and Milwaukee, arrest deterred offenders initially but caused an escalation of domestic violence over time. One of the most important findings from the replication studies was that arrest differentially impacted offenders. Specifically, it

459

Download more at Learnclax.com

was found that arrest of employed offenders did produce a deterrent effect, likely because these offenders had a lot to lose. Conversely, unemployed offenders were more likely to engage in violence (Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2001). From the replication studies, it was concluded that mandatory arrest policies may not be a “one- size-fits-all” solution. Instead, they may be beneficial for some offenders and actually detrimental for others in terms of recidivism.

As states look to adopt policies for their law enforcement officers’ responses to IPV, they have other options in addition to requiring arrest. Some states have pro-arrest or presumptive arrest policies. These policies require arrest but limit this requirement to specific situations in which certain criteria are met. That is, there is a presumption of arrest. These policies are similar to mandatory arrest policies in that the decision to arrest may be independent from the desires of the victim. Consent on the victim’s part is not required. When deciding not to make an arrest, an officer may be required to provide a written justification for doing so (Payne & Gainey, 2009).

Less strict policies on policing IPV are permissive arrest policies. These policies do not mandate or presume that an arrest will be made by law enforcement when warranted. Rather, they allow police to use their discretion to best determine how they should respond in IPV situations.

In addition to these policies used by police departments, another outgrowth of the movement to handle IPV incidents differently has been for officers to make dual arrests. In a dual arrest, both the offender and the victim are arrested. This practice of arresting both the victim and the offender is tied to the belief that many offenders are also victims and that IPV is part of mutual, common-couple violence. When officers arrive on the scene and there is evidence that both parties engaged in violence, they can make a dual arrest. Many states have guidelines as to how and when dual arrests can be made so that victims are not erroneously arrested. Some states have policies that require the officer to arrest only the aggressor; others require that police officers provide written justification for making a dual arrest (D. Hirschel, Buzawa, Pattavina, Faggiani, & Reuland, 2007). Although dual arrest does not always occur, a large-scale study of dual arrest using National Incident- Based Reporting System data found that it does appear to be more common in homosexual intimate partner incidents and when the offender is female (D. Hirschel, 2008). As you might imagine, arresting a victim may create a situation in which the victim is afraid to call for assistance if needed in the future for fear of being arrested again. Moreover, victims may not want to participate in the prosecution of the offender if they were also arrested (Bui, 2001).

Court Response

Law enforcement officers are not the only ones who have an important job in responding to and dealing with incidents of IPV. After an incident has been reported to and investigated by the police, the prosecutor is then given the police file to determine whether formal charges will be brought against the offender. Early criticisms of the prosecutor’s job as it relates to IPV centered on the belief and research showing that prosecutors rarely brought formal charges against IPV offenders, even after arrest (Chalk & King, 1998; Hartman & Belknap, 2003). Some have concluded that there is a “widespread underprosecution of domestic violence cases” (Sherman, 1992, p. 244). The current rate of prosecution for these types of cases is in dispute, but a recent

460

Download more at Learnclax.com

review of more than 135 studies in more than 170 jurisdictions found that on average about one-third of reported offenses and more than 60% of arrests resulted in the filing of charges by the prosecutor. In addition, about one-third of the arrests and more than half the prosecutions resulted in the defendant being found guilty (Garner & Maxwell, 2009). The authors noted that there was a large amount of variation across jurisdictions in terms of prosecution and conviction rates, which implies that making blanket statements regarding prosecution and conviction of all IPV cases is troublesome. Additional research is also clearly needed in this area to help resolve the conflicting viewpoints about prosecution and conviction rates.

What factors do prosecutors consider when deciding whether to prosecute a person for IPV? Research shows that prosecutors are most likely to move forward with prosecution when the victim has been visibly physically injured (Jordan, 2004). Other research has shown that prosecutors consider whether the victim or the defendant had been drinking or under the influence of drugs at the time of the incident (Jordan, 2004; Rauma, 1984; J. Schmidt & Steury, 1989) and the history between the victim and the offender (J. Schmidt & Steury, 1989). Finally, victim willingness to participate in the process has been shown to be related to prosecutorial decision making in IPV cases (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001).

Let’s discuss victim participation and how it impacts prosecution. As it may seem, one reason that prosecution and subsequent conviction may be difficult to achieve is lack of participation on the part of the victim. The victim may not want to testify against the offender. He or she may still be involved with the offender. They may share children. The victim may be fearful of what will happen if he or she testifies in court. The victim may have calculated that he or she cannot “afford” to move forward in the criminal justice process. Whatever the reason, some jurisdictions have no-drop prosecution policies—the victim is not able to drop the charges against the offender, and the prosecutor’s discretion in deciding to charge is curtailed. After adoption of such policies, rates of dismissal have dropped (Davis, Smith, & Davies, 2001). Despite this seemingly positive result of no-drop prosecution policies, there is concern that they may be harmful to victims in that the offender may retaliate against the victim and forced participation may be victimizing. Also concerning is that victims may be reluctant to call the police if they are aware of the no-drop policy. In some states, victims may not have to testify against their abusers if they are legally married to them. The laws that provide this exception are known as spousal or marital privilege laws. In states that have these laws, the number of times the option not to testify against the abuser can be used varies—in Maryland, it can be used only once (Bune, 2007).

More recently, the court system has responded to IPV by adopting special courts that handle domestic violence cases. Designed to increase coordination among criminal justice and social service agencies, these courts hold criminals accountable and consider the needs of victims. These courts often have a therapeutic focus, which allows for the offender to get help identifying the causes of his or her abusive behavior and controlling this behavior in the future (Gover, MacDonald, & Alpert, 2003). Although evaluations of domestic violence courts are not widespread, evidence suggests that participating in the court and its associated programs generally reduced recidivism against the same victim (Goldkamp, Weiland, Collins, & White, 1996) and rearrests (Gover et al., 2003).

461

Download more at Learnclax.com

To ensure that the court system and judicial process is fair and consistent, and that victims’ needs, safety, and rights are being protected, court watch programs have recently been implemented in various jurisdictions throughout the country. Trained court monitors sit in the courtroom to collect data on adherence to best practices in cases involving protective orders. After observation of cases, a report can then be generated and distributed to the judicial system to increase consistency in policies and practices in these types of cases (Network for Public Health Law, 2014).

462

Download more at Learnclax.com

Legal and Community Responses

The criminal justice system is not the only entity that addresses the needs of victims of IPV. Legal and community services also have been developed to assist victims.

Protective Orders

One way victims can seek protection from their abusers is by obtaining a protective order or a restraining order. Both types of order are designed so that victims will be protected from their offenders. Victims of IPV may get an order in hopes of ensuring their protection. These orders may include stay-away orders, no-contact orders, or peaceful contact orders. Some states differentiate between protective and restraining orders, with the criminal court issuing protective orders and the civil court issuing restraining orders. This is not the arena to attempt to differentiate how every state operates in this area, but commonalities are discussed.

Once an offender is arrested, the judge in a criminal court may issue a no-contact order at the offender’s arraignment or first court appearance. Some states require the issuance of a no-contact order in IPV cases. The order stays in effect for a specified amount of time (typically 2 weeks) or until it is amended by the court, sometimes at the request of the victim and agreement of the prosecutor (Hartman & Alligood, 2010). If a victim would like to acquire a restraining order against the offender, the victim is generally required to go before the court and ask for a temporary order in an emergency hearing. The judge determines whether an order should be issued. If the victim would like to extend the order, then a second, more comprehensive hearing is conducted (Hartman & Alligood, 2010). Even though a defendant (the offender) may be unaware of a hearing for a temporary order, the offender is notified if the victim requests a more permanent order. Depending on the state, if the order is granted, it stays in place for the length of time set by statute. For example, in the California Superior Court, a civil restraining order in IPV situations can stay in place for up to 5 years.

Similar to the disparate procedures and orders states have in place, enforcement of protective orders and restraining orders varies from state to state. Despite this, states are mandated under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act to receive full faith and credit from courts for orders granted in other states. Most states have also passed their own full faith and credit laws that require enforcement of other states’ protective orders as though they were enacted in that state. So what do states do when a person violates a protective order? Most states have criminal sanctions that can be implemented when an offender violates an order. A person who violates an order may be charged with a felony, a misdemeanor, or contempt of court. Some states have laws that make a violation a new offense, and some require that anyone found guilty of violating a protective order serve time in confinement. In other states, a violator may face bail forfeiture or revocation of bail, pretrial release, or probation (Office of Justice Programs, 2002).

Although protective orders are available in all states for the protection of IPV victims, most eligible victims do not secure protective orders. Research from the NVAWS shows that 17.1% of female victims of assault perpetrated by intimate partners received protective orders and 36.6% of female victims of intimate partner–

463

Download more at Learnclax.com

perpetrated stalking received protective orders (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000b). Women who get orders of protection may be different from those who do not—they are more likely to be employed full-time, to have been injured by the abuse, to have experienced sexual coercion by the offender, and to be severely depressed, with more serious symptoms of mental health problems (Wolf, Holt, Kernic, & Rivara, 2000). Research shows that women tend to seek orders of protection after long periods of abuse that they view as escalating. Women tend to make the decision to get an order of protection when they have had “enough” (Fischer & Rose, 1995).

Also important to consider is the effectiveness of protective orders. A body of research shows that protective orders reduce recidivism. Even so, these studies show that orders are violated between 20% and 40% of the time (Jordan, 2004). Victims also report a variety of feelings regarding protective orders, with some feeling satisfied and having a sense of security after receiving a protective order (Keilitz, Hannaford, & Efkeman, 1997). Others report being frustrated with the timely and confusing process they had to go through in order to secure a protective order (Ptacek, 1999). These feelings may be tied to the fact that victims often have to be the ones to notify the police if a protective order is violated—meaning that decision making and enforcement is largely up to victims. This, quite understandably, may be a role that few victims relish.

Domestic Violence Shelters

Another resource available to victims of IPV is domestic violence shelters. First opened for women in 1974 in Minnesota, domestic violence shelters offer a place of refuge for victims. They provide a range of services, including short-term room and board, emergency clothing and transportation, counseling, assistance with the legal process, 24-hour crisis lines, programs for children, and help with seeking employment. Most domestic violence shelters allow residents to stay more than 30 days in residence, and about one-third allow stays of 60 days or more (Lyon & Lane, 2009). It appears that domestic violence shelters are indeed meeting the needs of victims. In a recent study, it was found that almost three-fourths of domestic violence victims reported that the assistance they received from shelters was very helpful (Lyon, Lane, & Menard, 2008).

The services shelters offer may be lacking when it comes to some victims. Lesbian women are more likely to believe that shelters are for heterosexual women and to have negative experiences with shelters than are other women (Lyon et al., 2008). Men also are unlikely to seek assistance from domestic violence shelters as compared with women; shelters were traditionally designed to service only female victims, although recent efforts to assist male victims have been made. The first domestic violence shelter exclusively for men opened in Minnesota in 1993. This shelter housed 50 men within the first 6 months of opening (Cose, 1994). Minority women may also be reluctant to use domestic violence shelters. They may perceive that their particular needs are not met, especially if the staff is largely White (Lyon et al., 2008). More generally, victims may experience problems with other residents, and the lack of privacy may be difficult (Lyon & Lane, 2009).

Ripped From the Headlines

Current federal law prohibits persons who have been convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. There is proposed federal legislation, however, that would expand this law to cover dating partners and persons who are similarly situated as a spouse, if that person is protected by the domestic or family violence laws of the state or tribal jurisdiction in which the incident occurred or

464

Download more at Learnclax.com

where the victim lives. The legislation would prohibit the sale of a firearm or ammunition to a person convicted of misdemeanor stalking. It also expands the definition of misdemeanor domestic violence to include the use or attempted use of physical force or a deadly weapon. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has sent a letter to at least two senators’ offices opposing the legislation. In the letter, the NRA argued that the legislation would turn “disputes between family members and social acquaintances into lifelong firearm prohibitions” (Bassett, 2014) and that the bill would simply cast too wide a net for federal gun restrictions. What do you think about this proposed legislation? Should it be passed?

Source: Bassett (2014), S. 1290 (2013–2014).

Health Care

Protective orders and domestic violence shelters are common resources for victims of IPV, but health care professionals are also in a unique position to help. Recall that IPV is one of the major reasons that women seek medical assistance from ERs and is a key reason why women become the victims of homicide. Because of the injuries caused by IPV and the fact that health care professionals see women on a regular basis, they are in a position to help women who are victimized, even if the violence is not the reason the woman is seeking medical treatment. As such, many health care organizations recommend that patients be screened for IPV (Waalen, Goodwin, Spitz, Petersen, & Saltzman, 2000). Screening can allow for victims to be identified and then subsequently referred to services. Screening typically involves the medical professional asking questions either from a screening instrument or other instrument designed to assess whether a patient is a victim of IPV. Despite this innovative approach, screening rates remain low. One study found that only 13% of victims of acute IPV were asked by a doctor or nurse about violence, even though they had presented at the emergency department (Krasnoff & Moscati, 2002).

Can you think of ways in which improved screening by health care professionals may be achieved? This holistic approach to IPV intervention appears to be a critical link, so improving health care screening is needed, particularly for women. It may be a way for victimizations that often remain hidden to be revealed in a safe, controlled environment. It may be the step victims need to get assistance or referrals to resources that can help them stop the cycle of violence.

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act

Passed in 1984 and reauthorized seven times since (most recently in 2015), the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) provides three main services to domestic violence victims. First, it created a national domestic violence hotline. When calling the hotline, persons can receive referrals to services for family violence throughout the United States and its territories. Second, it provides direct services to victims and their families, mainly through grant funding to states, territories, and tribes that then distribute funds to domestic violence service providers and organizations. Third, it funds domestic violence prevention through the Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Allies program (DELTA). During fiscal year 2014, the FVPSA was funded at $143.2 million (Fernandes-Alcantara, 2014).

465

Download more at Learnclax.com

466

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

There are two major types of intimate partner violence (IPV)—intimate terrorism and situational or common couple violence. Within these types, IPV can be physical, emotional/psychological, or sexual. Because IPV often occurs in private, it is somewhat difficult to measure. That being the case, it is hard to know the true extent to which people are victimized by intimate partners. Three commonly used resources on IPV statistics are the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), and the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS). Depending on the resource, estimates of IPV vary. Both the NCVS and NVAWS indicate that more females than males are victimized. Research using the CTS shows that gender symmetry may exist. Young people, Black women, and those with lower socioeconomic status are the most likely to be victimized. IPV can also occur in same-sex relationships. By some estimates, homosexual men experience higher rates of IPV victimization than do homosexual women or heterosexual men. Stalking is a special type of victimization. Stalking is a course of conduct that is unwanted and harassing and that would cause a reasonable person to be fearful. The three most common types of stalking are unwanted phone calls or messages, unwanted letters or e-mails, or stalking using newer technology such as texts or instant messaging. The main fear with stalking is the uncertainty of what will come next. Female victims of IPV tend to experience more severe and more frequent violence than do male victims. Stress, cohabitation, power and patriarchy, social learning, risky lifestyles, and alcohol use and/or drug use are all risk factors for IPV victimization. In addition to injury and death, victims of IPV may also experience psychological and emotional consequences. Post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, suicide ideation, suicide attempts, suicide completion, anxiety, and sleep disorders all have been linked to IPV victimization. Revictimization can also occur. Court reports, victim surveys, and official records all demonstrate that victims of IPV are at risk of experiencing additional IPV incidents. Police historically have been reluctant to deal with IPV cases. The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment changed how police respond to IPV cases. Results from the study showed that arresting offenders reduced recidivism, although replication studies did not find this clear result. Instead, the replication studies showed that arrest impacted offenders differentially, with those who were employed being deterred but others not. Courts have responded to the problem of IPV by instituting no-drop prosecution policies and adopting domestic violence courts. Processes of obtaining a protective order vary from state to state, but in all states, protective orders against offenders can be obtained by victims of IPV. Domestic violence shelters also serve victims of IPV by providing safe and secure living arrangements. These shelters also link victims with other social services to help them transition out of abusive relationships.

467

Download more at Learnclax.com

Health care professionals also may be able to help victims of IPV. Screening instruments have been developed to help health care officials identify and refer patients who have been victimized.

468

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. On what side of the gender symmetry debate do you fall? When females are offenders, do you think it is largely in response to male aggression? When female victims do not apply for protective orders, do you think it encourages recurring IPV? Why or why not?

2. What measures should the criminal justice system, social service agencies, and the health care community take to reduce IPV victimization?

3. Given the fact that females traditionally have been considered the “true” victims of IPV, how do you think this affects the criminal justice system’s response when males report crime, especially in instances where there are few or no visible physical injuries?

4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory arrest policies for IPV?

469

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key Terms

acute battering phase 283 cohabitation 280 Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) 275 court watch program 287 cycle of violence 283 dual arrest 285 emotional abuse 273 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) 289 honeymoon phase 283 injury 282 intimate partner 273 intimate terrorism 273 mandatory arrest policies 285 Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment 284 misdemeanor 284 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 276 National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) 276 no-drop prosecution 286 patriarchy 280 permissive arrest policies 285 physical violence 273 power 280 presumptive arrest policies 285 pro-arrest policies 285 protective order 287 risky lifestyles 281 screening 289 sexual violence 273 situational couple violence 273 social learning 280 spousal or marital privilege laws 286 tension-building phase 283 violence 273

470

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

Menweb: http://www.menweb.org/battered

Men can also be the victims of intimate partner violence. One Internet resource for men is Menweb, which provides information for men who have experienced intimate partner violence. It also includes links to news items and research that highlight intimate partner violence perpetrated by women against men. Men’s stories of victimization are also presented.

Office on Violence Against Women: https://www.justice.gov/ovw

Housed in the U.S. Department of Justice, the Office on Violence Against Women administers both financial and technical assistance to help communities develop programs, policies, and practices with the goal of ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. On its website, you can find information on these types of violence against women, information about grant opportunities and funded projects, and help for persons who have been victimized. It also provides up-to-date information about federal legislation and policies directed at violence against women.

Teen Dating Violence: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/teen_dating_violence.html

Recently, research on intimate partner violence has uncovered that teens are at risk of experiencing violence within their dating relationships. For information on teen dating violence, including what it is, facts about teen dating violence, why it occurs, and its consequences, visit the Centers for Disease Control webpage on teen dating violence. Also included are links to various resources for more information on and assistance with teen dating violence.

WomensLaw.org: http://www.womenslaw.org

This website is a resource for persons who are experiencing or who have experienced intimate partner violence. It includes links and information about state and federal laws addressing intimate partner violence as well as how victims can better navigate the criminal justice system. People can find information on how to apply for protective orders, how to prepare for court, and how to find assistance safely in their communities.

471

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.menweb.org/battered

https://www.justice.gov/ovw

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/teen_dating_violence.html

http://www.womenslaw.org

Reading /// 13

Before Johnson’s (2006) article, most attention given to intimate partner violence focused on severe battering of women. Johnson proposes that there are essentially four different types of intimate partner violence—intimate terrorism, violent resistance, situational couple violence, and mutual violent control. In this provocative piece, he discusses gender symmetry and asymmetry in the perpetration of intimate partner violence and notes how the different types of intimate partner violence are based on the dyadic control context of the violence—who is controlling and who is violent. He finds that intimate terrorism is perpetrated largely by males within the context of a desire of control and that violent resistance is largely the domain of females. He further notes how sampling differences contribute to the extent and nature of estimates of intimate partner violence found in the literature.

Conflict and Control: Gender Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence

Michael P. Johnson

SOURCE: Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 14, 1003–1018.

The central argument of this article is that there are four major types of intimate partner violence and the failure to distinguish among them has left us with a domestic violence literature that, to a large extent, may be uninterpretable. The types of domestic violence (situational couple violence, intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and mutual violent control) are defined conceptually in terms of the control motives of the violent member(s) of the couple, motives that are identified operationally by patterns of controlling behavior that indicate an attempt to exercise general control over one’s partner. With respect to implications for the question of gender symmetry, these types of domestic violence differ dramatically. In heterosexual relationships, intimate terrorism is perpetrated almost exclusively by men, whereas violent resistance is found almost exclusively among women. The other two types are gender symmetric. With respect to the general importance of distinguishing among types of violence, I believe that they have different causes, different patterns of development, different consequences, and that they require different forms of intervention.

Resolving the Gender Symmetry Debate

The long-standing argument in the family literature regarding the gender symmetry of intimate partner violence takes the form of a disagreement about the nature of heterosexual intimate partner violence, as if heterosexual partner violence were a single phenomenon. One side of the debate, generally referred to as the feminist perspective (Kurz, 1989), presents compelling empirical evidence that heterosexual intimate partner violence is largely a problem of men assaulting female partners (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992). The other side, generally taken in the family violence perspective, presents equally compelling empirical evidence that women are at least as violent as men in such relationships (Straus, 1999). How can they both be right?

In 1995, I published an article that argued that the answer to this question is that: (a) partner violence is not a unitary phenomenon, (b) the two groups of researchers generally use different sampling strategies, (c) the different sampling strategies tap different types of partner violence, and (d) these types differ in their

472

Download more at Learnclax.com

relationship to gender (Johnson, 1995). I argued further that the types probably also differ with respect to their causes, the nature of the violence itself, the development of the violence during the course of a relationship, its consequences, and the type of intervention required. If these arguments are correct, then it follows that we cannot draw any conclusions about the nature of partner violence from studies that do not distinguish among types of partner violence (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Nevertheless, studies continue to be published regularly that treat partner violence as a unitary phenomenon, many of them claiming to provide further evidence on the gender symmetry issue. For example, Archer’s (2000) influential meta-analysis of the evidence regarding gender symmetry, in spite of citing my 1995 article, essentially ignored the proposed distinctions among types of violence and concluded that women are slightly more violent than men in heterosexual partnerships.

Here is the basic argument of the 1995 article. With regard to sampling, I argued that general differences in sampling strategies were the major source of the ostensible inconsistencies between the feminist and family violence data. In general, the studies that demonstrated the predominance of male violence used agency data (courts, police agencies, hospitals, and shelters), whereas the studies that showed gender symmetry involved so-called representative samples. I argued that both of these sampling strategies are heavily biased: the former through its use of biased sampling frames (agencies), the latter through refusals. Although the biases of agency sampling frames have generally been taken to be obvious (Straus, 1990b), representative sample surveys have mistakenly been assumed to be unbiased. The final samples of so-called random sample surveys are, of course, not random, due to refusals. I estimated, for example, that the refusal rate in the National Family Violence Surveys was approximately 40% rather than the 18% usually reported (Johnson, 1995). Could there be two qualitatively different forms of partner violence, one gender symmetric and overselected in general surveys, the other committed primarily by men and overselected in agency samples?

To address this question, I identified a number of agency-based studies that used the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Johnson, 1995) to assess the nature of partner violence in agency samples and compared them with

general surveys that used the same instrument.1 My conclusion from this comparison was that the two sampling strategies identified partner violence that differed not only in gender symmetry but also in frequency of per-couple incidents, escalation, severity of injuries, and mutuality. Agency samples identified partner violence that was more frequent, more likely to escalate, more severe, less likely to be mutual, and perpetrated almost entirely by men. This gender-asymmetric pattern resonated for me with feminist analyses of partner violence as one tactic in a general pattern of controlling behaviors used by some men to exercise general control over “their” women (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Pence & Paymar, 1993; Stark & Flitcraft, 1996).

The asymmetry of such control contrasted dramatically, it seemed to me, with the family violence perspective’s predominantly symmetric image of partner violence as a matter of conflict. I hypothesized that there were two qualitatively different forms and/or patterns of intimate partner violence—one that was part of a general strategy of power and control (intimate terrorism), the other involving violence that was not part of a general pattern of control, probably a product of the escalation of couple conflict into violence (situational couple

violence).2 Furthermore, I argued that, on one hand, couples involved in situational couple violence would be unlikely to become agency clients because such situationally provoked violence would not in most cases call for

473

Download more at Learnclax.com

police intervention, emergency room visits, protection from abuse orders, or divorce. On the other hand, couples involved in intimate terrorism would be unlikely to agree to participate in general surveys because victims fear reprisals from the batterer, and batterers fear exposing themselves to intervention by the police or other agencies. Although these arguments seemed reasonable enough, my 1995 literature review provided no direct evidence of their validity because none of the studies reviewed made such distinctions among types of violence.

Distinguishing Among Types of Heterosexual Intimate Partner Violence

First, I want to discuss one approach to assessing differences in the extent to which an individual’s violence toward his or her partner is embedded in a general context of control, then I will move on to the implications of taking into account the behavior of the partner. The basic idea is to look at a variety of nonviolent, controlling behaviors to identify individuals who behave in a manner that indicates a general motive to control. Note that (a) this moves the focus from the nature of any one encounter between the partners to a search for patterns of behavior in the relationship as a whole, and (b) it most certainly is not based in the nature of the violent acts themselves. Some critics have argued that I am simply making the old distinction between more serious and less serious violence. I disagree; the distinction lies in the degree of control present. I assume that there is considerable variability in the nature of the violent acts involved in controlling and noncontrolling violence, a variability that would lead to considerable overlap between them in terms of the “seriousness” of the violence. Although I do have some hypotheses about average differences among types of violence in terms of the nature of the violent acts involved, the types themselves are defined by the degree of control, not by characteristics of the violence. Thus, if we want to make these distinctions, surveys need to ask questions not just about violence but also about the use of a variety of other control tactics in the relationship.

Before I proceed to illustrate this general measurement strategy with data from Frieze’s 1970s Pittsburgh study, however, I need to move the 1995 discussion from the individual to the dyadic level. This initial distinction between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence was focused too narrowly on the behavior of one violent partner. If one considers the behavior of both people in the relationship, one can identify four basic types of individual violence. First, an individual can be violent and noncontrolling and in a relationship with a partner who is either nonviolent or who is also violent and noncontrolling. This is what I called situational couple violence. Second, one can be violent and noncontrolling but in a relationship with a violent and controlling partner. Given that the behavior of the partner suggests an attempt to exert general control, I labeled this type of violence violent resistance. Third, one can be violent and controlling and in a relationship with a partner who is either nonviolent or violent and noncontrolling. This is the pattern I have called intimate terrorism. Finally, a violent and controlling individual may be paired up with another violent and controlling partner. I have labeled this mutual violent control. To make these distinctions, one would have to ask questions regarding a variety of control tactics in addition to violence, ask them with regard to both partners, and do so in a data set that was likely to include representatives of each of the four types.

I was able to find one such data set, Irene Frieze’s data from interviews with 274 married and formerly- married women living in southwestern Pennsylvania in the late 1970s (Frieze, 1983; Frieze & Browne, 1989;

474

Download more at Learnclax.com

Frieze & McHugh, 1992). Her mixed sampling design seemed likely to represent the major types of violence —it included women selected from shelters and courts (an agency sample) and a matched sample of women who lived in the same neighborhoods (a general survey sample).

It might be useful to know some of the general characteristics of the sample, keeping in mind that these will be determined to a large extent by the biases of the initial court and shelter populations because the “general” sample was matched by neighborhood and is, therefore, likely to be similar in general demographics. The sample was predominantly White (86% White, 14% Black) and working class (56% had a high school education or less; only 21% had finished college). About one third of the women worked full-time and about one half were full-time homemakers. Median age at the time of the interview was 32 years; however, ages ranged from 18 to 83 years. Median age at marriage was 21 years but ranged from 15 to 59 years. As this is clearly not a representative sample, it would not be useful to make any general statements about the prevalence of violence; of course, all of the women in the court and shelter samples had experienced violence from their partners, as had 34% of the general sample. Only one third of the women in the court and shelter samples were still with their husbands, compared with about three fourths of those in the general sample.

From the lengthy interview protocols, I identified a number of items tapping control tactics that did not involve violence toward one’s partner. Seven measures were created to tap control tactics analogous to those identified by Pence and Paymar (1993): threats, economic control, use of privilege and punishment, using children, isolation, emotional abuse, and sexual control.

Threats

Each measure of threats (one for husbands, the other for wives) is the mean of two items with 5-point response formats ranging from no, never (1) to often (5). The first item is: “Has your husband (Have you) ever gotten angry and threatened [emphasis in survey instrument] to use physical force with you (him)?” The second item was: “Is he (Are you) ever violent in other ways (such as throwing objects)?” For wives’ reports of their husband’s behavior, the mean of this variable is 2.72 (between “once” and “two or three times”), the standard deviation 1.51, and the range from 1.00 to 5.00. Cronbach’s alpha for the two-item scale is .74. For wives’ reports of their own behavior, the mean is 1.99 (“once”), the standard deviation 1.05, the range is from 1.00 to 5.00, and alpha is .46.

Economic Control

Economic control is the average of two dichotomized items. The first asks, “Who decides how the family money will be spent in terms of major expenses?” It was dichotomized with a high score indication that either “husband (wife) makes entire decision” or “husband (wife) has deciding vote.” The second item asked for an open ended response to, “How much money do you (does your husband) have to spend during an average week without accounting to anyone?” The dichotomization cut point was chosen to make this second item more an indicator of control than of disposable income: A response of US$10 or less indicated high control, one of more than $10 indicated low control. For husbands’ economic control, the two-item scale has a mean of 1.36, a standard deviation of .39, ranges from 1.00 to 2.00, and has an alpha of .46. For wives, the mean is

475

Download more at Learnclax.com

1.20, the standard deviation .27, the range from 1.00 to 2.00, and alpha is .12.

Use of Privilege and Punishment

This scale is the mean of six items, each of which indicates that the target person uses one of the following

tactics to get his or her spouse to do what he or she wants.3 The six items were: (a) “suggests that you should do something because he knows best or because he feels he is an expert at a particular thing,” (b) “stops having sex with you,” (c) “threatens to leave you,”(d) “emotionally withdraws,” (e) “suggest[s] that you should do something because other people do,” and (f) “restricts your freedom.” The response format for all items addresses frequency, ranging from never (1) to rarely (3) to always (5). For husbands, the scale has a mean of 2.03 (“rarely”), a standard deviation of .81, ranges from 1.00 to 4.83, and has an alpha of .76. For wives, the mean is 1.92 (“rarely”), the standard deviation .62, the range is from 1.00 to 4.19, and alpha is .65.

Using Children

There are three items in this data set that get at a spouse’s use of the children to get his or her way with his or her partner. Two of them involve responses to the question, “When your husband is angry with you, how does he show it?” The two relevant response options were “Directs his anger to the children or pets” and “Uses physical violence with the children.” The third item is, “Does he ever try to get what he wants by doing any of the following to you? How often?” One of the actions listed is, “uses physical force against the kids to get what he wants from you,” with the five response options ranging from never to always. This item was dichotomized between never and rarely, and the three items were averages. For wives’ reports of their husbands’ behavior, the mean was 1.19, the standard deviation .30, the range from 1.00 to 2.00, and alpha equal to .68. For wives’ reports of their own behavior, the mean was 1.12, the standard deviation .21, the range from 1.00 to 2.00, and alpha equal to .41.

Isolation

The measure of isolation is the mean of two items with 5-point response formats ranging from never to always. The items are: “Does your husband know where you are when you are not together?” and “Are there places you might like to go but don’t because you feel your husband wouldn’t want you to—How often does this happen?” For wives’ reports of their husbands’ behavior, the mean of this measure is 3.32 (between sometimes and usually), the standard deviation is .77, the observed range is from 1.00 to 5.00, and alpha is equal to .09. For wives’ reports of their own behavior, the mean is 2.64 (between rarely and sometimes), the standard deviation is .84, the range from 1.00 to 5.00, and alpha equals .06.

Emotional Abuse

The three-item emotional abuse scale includes one item that gets at active abuse (sex is sometimes unpleasant because “He compares you unfavorably to other women”), and two “passive abuse” items that indicate that he never or rarely praises, and never or rarely is “nice to you in other ways (smiling, concerned with how you are feeling, calling you affectionate names, etc.).” All three items are dichotomies. For husbands, the mean is 1.25, the standard deviation is .33, the scale ranges from 1.00 to 2.00, and alpha is .57. For wives, the mean is 1.08, the standard deviation is .21, the range is from 1.00 to 2.00, and alpha is .48.

476

Download more at Learnclax.com

Sexual Control

There are two items in the sexual control scale, tapping whether sex is ever unpleasant because “he forces me to have sex when I don’t want to,” or “he makes you do things you don’t want to do.” Both items are dichotomies. For husbands, the mean is 1.22, the standard deviation .36, the range is 1.00 to 2.00, and alpha is .70. For wives, the mean is 1.02, the standard deviation .01, the range is 1.00 to 2.00, and alpha is .35.

Types of Intimate Partner Violence

Each of these measures was standardized and entered into a cluster analysis. The clustering algorithm was Ward’s method, an agglomerative approach that selects each new case to add to a cluster based on its effect on the overall homogeneity of the cluster, and which therefore tends to produce tightly defined clusters, rather than strings (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984, pp. 43–45). Euclidean distance was the measure of dissimilarity. The index of dissimilarity for one-cluster through 15-cluster solutions was examined.

The results indicated a two-cluster solution as optimal, and the pattern was quite simple, with one cluster exhibiting a high average on all seven of the control tactics, the other being relatively low on all seven. The results of the cluster analysis were then used to distinguish controlling from noncontrolling violence at the individual level, that is, for each husband and wife. Finally, data regarding both partners were used to distinguish among types of individual violence, as defined above.

Table 1 presents data only on violent individuals, that is, those who had been violent in their relationship at least once (67% of the husbands and 54% of the wives). The question tapping violence was: “Has he (Have you) ever actually slapped or pushed you (him) or used other physical force with you (him)?” The table places individual violence within its dyadic control context, distinguishing among four types of individual violent

behavior.4 The first row, “intimate terrorism,” refers to relationships in which only one of the spouses is violent and controlling. The other spouse is either nonviolent or has used violence but is not controlling. In this data set, that violent and controlling spouse is the husband in 94 of the 97 cases. The second row refers to cases in which the focal spouse is violent but not controlling, and his or her partner is violent and controlling. I call it violent resistance, and it is almost entirely a woman’s type of violence in this sample of heterosexual relationships. Of course, that is because in these marriages almost all of the intimate terrorism is perpetrated by men, and in some cases the wives do respond with violence, although rarely are they also controlling (see mutual violent control below). In the third row, we have “situational couple violence,” individual noncontrolling violence in a dyadic context in which neither of the spouses is violent and controlling. It is close to gender symmetric, at least by the crude criterion of prevalence. (Data on the frequency and consequences of men’s and women’s situational couple violence, not shown, indicate that by other criteria men are more violent than women even within situational couple violence.) The last row, “mutual violent control,” refers to controlling violence in a relationship in which both spouses are violent and controlling. There were only five such couples (10 individuals) in this data set, and among heterosexual couples such violence is by definition gender symmetric.

Table 1

477

Download more at Learnclax.com

Now, let’s take a quick look at the characteristics of the violent acts involved in men’s intimate terrorism and situational couple violence, to see if they fall in line with what I found in my 1995 literature review. The violence in men’s intimate terrorism was quite frequent; the median number of incidents in these marriages is

18.5 Violence was much less frequent in men’s situational couple violence with a median of three violent events. Intimate terrorism was reported to escalate in 76% of the cases, situational couple violence in only

28%.6 In terms of injuries, the violence of intimate terrorism was sometimes severe in 76% of the cases,

compared with 28% of the cases of situational couple violence.7 In men’s intimate terrorism, wives rarely respond with violence; the median of the ratio of the number of times the wife had been violent to the number of times the husband had been violent is .17. In men’s situational couple violence, the median ratio was .40. These data do not leave much doubt that intimate terrorism and situational couple violence are not the same

phenomenon.8

Finally, let me nail down my sampling argument, that general survey samples tap primarily situational couple violence, whereas agency samples give access primarily to intimate terrorism. Again, looking only at male violence, Table 2 shows that the general sample typical of family violence research includes almost nothing but situational couple violence, with only 11% of the violence being intimate terrorism. In stark contrast, the court and shelter samples that are typical of feminist research get at violence that is predominantly intimate terrorism.

Table 2

478

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: For simplicity, Table 2 presents data only on husbands. For wives, the general survey sample is dominated by situational couple violence, and the court and shelter samples are dominated by violent resistance.

What kind of mistakes can this generate? The article on the “battered husband syndrome” that initiated the gender symmetry debate (Steinmetz, 1977) is an excellent example of the danger of thinking that a general sample provides information about what we conventionally mean by “domestic violence,” that is, intimate terrorism. Steinmetz told anecdotes about true husband battering, involving violent women who are intimate terrorists in the sense described above. However, she then cited general survey data, which we now know represent primarily situational couple violence, to make her case that such battering is as frequent a problem as is wife battering. The data she presented, in fact, have nothing to do with husband battering. Serious as husband battering may be in each particular case, as a general phenomenon it is dramatically less frequent than wife battering.

Similarly, one can err by assuming that the patterns observed in agency samples describe all partner violence. It is common for shelter workers to argue in educational programs that violence always escalates, that if he hit you once he’ll do it again, and that it will get worse. Such a pattern is, as shown above, much more true of intimate terrorism than of situational couple violence, and of course intimate terrorism is what we generally see in our shelter work. However, most couples who experience violence, including those in our audiences, are

involved in situational couple violence.9 For those audience members, we are providing an inaccurate picture of the likely course of their relationships.

Dramatic as these sampling biases are, Table 2 also shows that neither type of male violence is found exclusively in one type of sample, implying that it is possible to study the differences between these two types of violence in a variety of research settings. First, the 11% of men’s violence that is intimate terrorism in the general sample indicates that with large enough samples, it may be possible to study situational couple violence and intimate terrorism with survey data. To do that, of course, we need to include questions that will

479

Download more at Learnclax.com

allow us to distinguish one from the other. Second, because women do bring cases of situational couple violence to the courts (29%) and to shelters (19%), researchers in those contexts would be able to study the effects of various intervention strategies on the two types of violence. Again, however, it won’t happen unless we gather information that will allow us to make these distinctions.

Implications for Measurement

The evidence I have just presented regarding the dramatic differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence (in terms of gender, per-couple frequency of incidents, escalation, severity of injury, and reciprocity) should serve as a warning that until further notice we have to assume that the answers to all of our important questions about domestic violence may be different for the different forms of violence. How do we collect and analyze data to allow us to make the necessary distinctions?

The general strategy for making such distinctions involves two steps. First, and most critically, we must gather information on a variety of control tactics for both members of the couple. Not all surveys do this. It was fortunate that Irene Frieze had the foresight to collect such data in the 1970s. I have been using a number of other data sets to try to operationalize these distinctions and have had to dance around major shortcomings. The recent National Violence Against Women Survey (Johnson & Leone, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) asks a number of control tactics questions about the attacker but gathers no information about the behavior of the respondent. Susan Lloyd’s (Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2001; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999) data from a poor neighborhood in Chicago have the same shortcoming. The National Family Violence surveys (Straus & Gelles, 1990) ask about the behavior of both partners but do not assess a variety of control tactics. We need to insist that every study of partner violence asks questions about the control tactics and the violence used by both partners.

However, what questions to ask? Whatever the drawbacks of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) may be (Dobash et al., 1992), they have made the considerable contribution of having provided a standard approach to assessing violence. As yet, there appears to be no standard approach to the assessment of control, although a number of scholars have developed scales that are reasonable candidates, including Marshall (1996) on psychological abuse, Stets (1993) on control, Tolman (1989) on psychological maltreatment, Pence and Paymar (1993) on power and control, Straus and his colleagues’ (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1999; Straus & Mouradian, 1999) revised Conflict Tactics Scales and Personal and Relationships Profile, and most recently, Cook and Goodman (this issue [2006]) in their Coercion and Conflict in Abuse Experience Scale. It would be very helpful if some consensus could be developed on a standard set of control measures.

When we have the data, we face the task of using it to create a typology of controlling and noncontrolling violence. In my early work, I approached this problem through the use of cluster analysis; one could similarly use latent class analysis for dichotomous items. Cluster analysis and class analysis identify clusters of individuals who have similar profiles of responses to a set of items, and they provide statistical criteria for choosing the optimal number of groups (clusters or classes) for describing a particular data set. The problem is that they do not provide clear-cut criteria for distinguishing the members of one group from those in others,

480

Download more at Learnclax.com

and there is therefore no straightforward way of comparing the results of cluster analyses from different samples. Thus, in more recent work, I have simply created a control scale and dichotomized it to identify high- and low-control individuals. I have found that in the three secondary data sets with which I have been working there are fairly strong relationships between the cluster solutions and a simple scale score created out of the same control items. This approach has the advantage of providing clear criteria for placement into the four types of violence so that comparisons can be made across studies. In a series of analyses of available data sets, my colleagues and I have shown that the violence types are related as expected to characteristics of the actual violence (frequency, escalation, severity, and mutuality) and to various physical and psychological effects on the victim (posttraumatic stress symptoms, general health, injury, interference with work) and on the relationship (Johnson, 1999; Johnson, Conklin, & Menon, 2002; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Leone, Johnson, & Cohan, 2003; Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004).

Whatever specific approach we choose, I believe it is critical that we reassess conclusions that have been drawn from a literature that has failed to make these critical distinctions. We have to be wary of findings that treat situational couple violence, intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and mutual violent control as a single phenomenon. Situational couple violence, intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and mutual violent control simply cannot have the same causes, developmental trajectory, consequences, or prognosis for effective intervention. If we want to understand partner violence, to intervene effectively in individual cases, or to make useful policy recommendations, we must make these distinctions in our research.

Postscript

Since the original version of this article was presented in 2000 (Johnson, 2000) at a National Institute of Justice workshop, considerable progress has been made in research on different types of intimate partner violence. Janel Leone and I, using the National Violence Against Women data, have shown that victims of intimate terrorism are attacked more frequently and experience violence that is less likely to stop. They are more likely to be injured, to exhibit more of the symptoms of posttraumatic stress syndrome, to use painkillers (perhaps also tranquilizers), and to miss work.

They have left their husbands more often and, when they do leave, are more likely to acquire their own residence (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Using data from a study of a poor neighborhood in Chicago, my colleagues and I found that victims of intimate terrorism reported poorer general health, a greater likelihood of visiting a doctor, more psychological distress, and a greater likelihood of receiving government assistance (Leone et al., 2004). Leone’s dissertation (Leone et al., 2003), using data from the Chicago Women’s Health Risk Study, demonstrated that victims of intimate terrorism were more likely than victims of situational couple violence to seek formal help (e.g., police, medical, counseling), and that this association was mediated by other factors, including violence severity, injuries, and perceived social support. They were not more likely to seek help from family or friends. Alison Cares and I (Johnson & Cares, 2004), using Frieze’s Pittsburgh data, have shown that childhood experiences of family violence are strongly related to adult perpetration of intimate terrorism, but not to situational couple violence.

Amy Holtzworth-Munroe and her colleagues (Holtzworth-Munroe, 2000, 2002; Holtzworth-Munroe,

481

Download more at Learnclax.com

Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe, Rehman, & Herron, 2000) have continued their line of research that uses cluster analysis to distinguish among types of perpetrators. They generally found three clusters, one corresponding to situational couple violence (which they label family only), and two others that appear to correspond to two types of intimate terrorists (borderline/dysphoric and generally violent/antisocial). The clusters differ, among other things, in terms of the personality of the perpetrators, the pattern of violence, the perpetrators’ attitudes toward women, and the general level of control exercised in their relationships (with the high control scores of borderline/dysphoric and generally violent/antisocial perpetrations supporting my assumption that these men are involved in intimate terrorism, whereas the family-only perpetrators are more likely involved in situational couple violence).

Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003a, 2003b) collected data on violence and control from British samples of women residing at Woman’s Aid refuges and their partners, male and female students, men attending male treatment programs for domestic violence and their partners, and male prisoners and their partners. Their cluster analyses confirm the distinction between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence and show support for my finding regarding differences in the frequency and severity of violence.

In spite of this progress, the gender symmetry debate continues, ignoring these demonstrations that there are different types of intimate partner violence and that data that do not distinguish among them are problematic at best. Papers continue to be published using general survey data to demonstrate that men and women are equally violent, and implying through their generalizations about violence or domestic violence or intimate partner violence that men and women are equally likely to be involved in intimate terrorism (e.g., Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Moffitt, Robins, & Caspi, 2001; Straus & Ramirez, 2002). Even recent reviews of the literature that debunk the myth of gender symmetry continue to focus on measurement issues as the major source of contradictory findings (Kimmel, 2002; Saunders, 2002). Frustrating as this is to me, all I can do is assume that we are in the midst of a gradual recognition that domestic violence is not a unitary phenomenon, and that we are close to a tipping point at which we will see a dramatic decline in the number of published studies that simply compare violent with nonviolent relationships without making distinctions among types of violence. The evidence is accumulating that I was right when I argued in the early 1990s that “If we want to understand partner violence, to intervene effectively in individual cases, or to make useful police recommendations, we must make these distinctions in our research” (Johnson, 1993, n.p.).

Discussion Questions

1. What evidence is there that surveys may represent a different picture of intimate partner violence than data collected from agencies?

2. As society develops and women gain more equality, do you think that intimate terrorism rates should decline? Why or why not?

3. What are the policy implications for intervention and prevention if there are four types of intimate partner violence?

4. What can you conclude about gender symmetry and asymmetry in intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization after reading this article?

482

Download more at Learnclax.com

Notes

1. Much of the gender debate in the literature has centered on the inadequacies of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) as a means to measure intimate partner violence (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Straus, 1990a). Comparing studies that all used the CTS eliminated this potential source of bias.

2. The terminology I have used has changed somewhat over the years, although the definitions have remained the same. The 1995 article referred to patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence. I soon abandoned the former term because it begged the question of men’s and women’s relative involvement in this form of controlling violence. It also implied that all such intimate terrorism was somehow rooted in patriarchal structures, traditions, or attitudes. I still believe that most intimate terrorism is perpetrated by men in heterosexual relationships and that there are women intimate terrorists in heterosexual and same-sex relationships (for descriptions of intimate terrorism in lesbian relationships, see Renzetti, 1992). Furthermore, it is not clear that all intimate terrorism, even men’s, is rooted in patriarchal ideas or structures. I later abandoned common couple violence in favor of situational couple violence because the former terminology implied to some readers that I felt that such violence was acceptable. I also prefer the new terminology because it more clearly identifies the roots of this violence in the situated escalation of conflict.

3. At this point, I will stop reporting alternative forms of the question, unless it seems necessary for clarity.

4. There has been some confusion regarding the role of frequency or severity of violence in the construction of this typology. Because this is a typology of violent behavior, all members of the four types have been violent toward their partner. However, the distinctions among the types are based entirely on control context, not frequency or severity of violence.

5. The interview question was, “Can you estimate how many times, in total, he was violent with you?”

6. The question was, “Did he become more violent over time?”

7. Severity of violence was assessed in a section of the interview dealing with “the time your husband was the most violent with you (him).” The question was, “How badly were you hurt?” It was an open-ended question with probes, coded into the following categories: (a) force, not hurt; (b) no physical injury; (c) simply injury; (d) severe, no trauma; (e) severe, some trauma; and (f) permanent injury.

8. Once again, I want to be clear that there is no tautology involved here. The types are defined in terms of control context, not the frequency or nature of the violence. The hypothesized differences in characteristics of the violence are derived from theory. It is assumed that attempts by husbands to exert general control over their wives will be met by considerable resistance in the United States, a cultural context in which marriage is seen by most women as an egalitarian partnership. Thus, the intimate terrorist will in some cases turn to violence repeatedly and escalate its severity to gain control. Furthermore, given the size and strength differences between men and women, a woman faced with a partner who is determined to gain the upper hand by whatever means will not in the long run be likely to continue to resist physically but will turn to other tactics to gain control of her life (Campbell, Rose, Kub, & Nedd, 1998).

483

Download more at Learnclax.com

9. If my arguments regarding the biases of various types of sampling strategies are correct, it is almost impossible to develop precise estimates of the incidence of the various types of violence. I come to the conclusion that most partner violence is situational couple violence in the following way, based on figures in my 1995 article. First, accepting my evidence that almost all of the partner violence in general surveys is situational couple violence, we can use the figures from the National Family Violence Surveys to estimate the incidence of situational couple violence. Second, extrapolating from agency data in two states that keep excellent shelter statistics, we can develop an estimate of the incidence of intimate terrorism. Those figures, which may be found in the 1995 article, suggest that there is probably 3 times as much situational couple violence as intimate terrorism, which would mean that 75% of women experiencing violence from their male partners are experiencing situational couple violence.

References Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

Campbell, J. C., Rose, L., Kub, J., & Nedd, D. (1998). Voices of strength and resistance: A contextual and longitudinal analysis of women’s responses to battering. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 743–762.

Capaldi, D. M., & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couple: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 425–440.

Cook, S. L., & Goodman, L. A. (2006). Beyond frequency and severity: Development and validation of the Brief Coercion and Conflict Scales. Violence Against Women, 12, 1050–1072.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against patriarchy. New York: Free Press.

Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.

Frieze, I. H. (1983). Investigating the causes and consequences of marital rape. Signs, 8, 532–533.

Frieze, I. H., & Browne, A. (1989). Violence in marriage. In L. Ohline & M. Tonry (Eds.), Family violence (pp. 163–218). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

484

Download more at Learnclax.com

Frieze, I. H., & McHugh, M. C. (1992). Power and influence strategies in violent and nonviolent marriages. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 449–465.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003a). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1247–1270.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003b). Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence and Victims, 18, 181–196.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2000). A typology of men who are violent toward their female partners: Making sense of the heterogeneity in husband violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(4), 140–143.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2002). Standards for batterer treatment programs: How can research inform our decisions? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5, 165–180.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2003). Do subtypes of martially violent men continue to differ over time? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 728–740.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Rehman, U., & Herron, K. (2000). General and spouse-specific anger and hostility in subtypes of martially violent men and nonviolent men. Behavior Therapy, 31, 603–630.

Johnson, M. P. (1993, November). Violence against women in the American family: Are there two forms? Paper presented at the Pre-Conference Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Baltimore, MD.

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.

Johnson, M. P. (1999, November). Two types of violence against women in the American family: Identifying patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Irvine, CA.

Johnson, M. P. (2000, November). Conflict and control: Symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice Gender Symmetry Workshop, Arlington, VA.

485

Download more at Learnclax.com

Johnson, M. P., & Cares, A. (2004, November). Effects and noneffects of childhood experiences of family violence on adult partner violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Orlando, FL.

Johnson, M. P., Conklin, V., & Menon, N. (2002, November). The effect of different types of domestic violence on women: Intimate terrorism vs. situational couple violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Houston, TX.

Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948–963.

Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2000, July). The differential effects of patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Personal Relationships, Brisbane, Australia.

Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322–349.

Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363.

Kurz, D. (1989). Social perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender & Society, 3, 489–505.

Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., & Cohan, C. L. (2003, November). Help-seeking among women in violent relationships: Factors associated with formal and informal help utilization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver, Canada.

Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., Cohan, C. M., & Lloyd, S. (2001, June). Consequences of different types of domestic violence of low-income, ethnic women: A control-based typology of male-partner violence. Paper presented at the International Network on Personal Relationships, Prescott, AZ.

Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., Cohan, C. M., & Lloyd, S. (2004). Consequences of male partner violence for low-income, ethnic women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 471–489.

486

Download more at Learnclax.com

Lloyd, S., & Taluc, N. (1999). The effects of male violence on female employment. Violence Against Women, 5, 370–392.

Marshall, L. L. (1996). Psychological abuse of women: Six distinct clusters. Journal of Family Violence, 11(4), 379–409.

Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse with implications for abuse-prevention policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 5–26.

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.

Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saunders, D. G. (2002). Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social problem? A review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 8, 1424–1448.

Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1996). Women at risk: Domestic violence and women’s health. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2, 499–509.

Stets, J. E. (1993). Control in dating relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(3), 673–685.

Straus, M. A. (1990a). The Conflict Tactics Scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 49–73). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Straus, M. A. (1990b). Injury and frequency of assault and the “representative sample fallacy” in measuring wife beating and child abuse. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 75–91). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

487

Download more at Learnclax.com

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). The personal and relationships profile (PRP). Durham: University of New Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory.

Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1999, November). Preliminary psychometric data for the Personal and Relationship Profile (PRP): A multi-scale tool for clinical screening and research on partner violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada.

Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2002, July). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and the USA. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression, Montreal, Canada.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142–161.

Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4(3), 159–177.

488

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 14

The victim–offender overlap has been demonstrated in a variety of crime types. As such, we know that victims are often offenders and that offending is related to victimization. The victim–offender overlap has been less studied for intimate partner violence; thus the differences in the characteristics of victims, offenders, and victim/offenders are not known. To fill this gap in the literature, Marie Skubak Tillyer and Emily M. Wright (2013) identify the victim–offender overlap for both males and females. Further, they find differences for offenders, victims, and victim/offenders in key characteristics.

Intimate Partner Violence and the Victim-Offender Overlap

Marie Skubak Tillyer and Emily M. Wright

SOURCE: Tillyer, M. S. & Wright, E. M. (2013). Intimate partner violence and the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51(1), 29–55.

Strangers do not always present the greatest threat of criminal perpetration—in fact, we are more likely to be victimized in our own homes by our loved ones rather than attacked by strangers on the street (Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 2006). Estimates from the National Violence Against Women and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence surveys report that up to 36 percent of females and 29 percent of males have experienced some form of violence by their intimate partner during their lifetime (Black et al. 2011; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Further, recent data show that while the majority of cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) processed by state courts involve a male defendant and a female victim, approximately 12 percent involve a female offender and a male victim (Smith and Farole 2009). These figures challenge traditional stereotypes about the gender of IPV victims and offenders (e.g., Straus 2011) and raise the question of whether those involved in IPV can be neatly categorized as “victims” and “offenders.”

Research on criminal victimization and offending more generally demonstrates that victims and perpetrators of crime are not necessarily distinct groups. Rather, there is considerable overlap in these populations (Jennings, Piquero, and Reingle 2012; Lauritsen and Laub 2007). Several explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, including the notion that victims and offenders share common routine activities and similar traits that create opportunities for both criminal victimization and offending. There has been little empirical attention paid, however, to whether the victim-offender overlap exists among those involved in IPV. This omission in the research may be due in part to long-held beliefs that IPV is an expression of male domination over women (see the feminist perspective on domestic violence, e.g., Dobash and Dobash 1979; Dobash et al. 1992; Lawson 2012); individuals, therefore, are assumed to be victims or perpetrators of IPV.

Yet, if we consider that at least some instances of IPV might be better understood as conflicts that are not necessarily used for domination and control purposes but which nonetheless occur within intimate settings, an investigation of the victim-offender overlap with respect to IPV becomes more tenable. The family violence perspective, for instance, sees “conflict between family members as universal and inevitable, and violence between any family members (including violence between spouses) is viewed as one method utilized by those members to resolve this predictable conflict” (Lawson 2012:575). Though a family violence perspective hints

489

Download more at Learnclax.com

that there might be considerable victim-offender overlap with respect to IPV, this issue has received little empirical attention by criminologists.

Given that a substantial body of research has established the victim-offender overlap in general (Berg et al. 2012; Jennings et al. 2010; Jennings, Piquero, and Reingle 2012; Lauritsen and Laub 2007; Lauritsen, Sampson, and Laub 1991), violence by loved ones is a somewhat common occurrence (Black et al. 2011; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 2006), and some violence between partners has been characterized as “mutual” (Johnson 1995; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 2006), the existence of the victim-offender overlap within IPV seems plausible and warrants investigation. Further, the very nature of intimate partners—that is, individuals who have self-selected into relationships that routinely bring them into contact with one another (Carbone- Lopez and Kruttschnitt 2010)—suggests that an initial act of violence may be followed by subsequent violence: The conditions that led to the initial violence may remain unresolved and/or the violence itself might produce opportunities and motivations for additional fights. Because much empirical research on IPV focuses on female victimization or male offending exclusively, it is also unclear whether the established correlates of IPV apply to all types of involvement in IPV, or if there are important differences that distinguish those who are both victims and offenders of IPV from those who are involved in IPV solely as victims or offenders.

We aim to fill these voids by exploring the prevalence of IPV victimization and perpetration in adulthood, as well as the overlap of these experiences, in a nationally representative sample of adults ages 25 to 33. To this end, we draw on the existing research in the areas of IPV and the victim-offender overlap to examine the extent to which the correlates for IPV vary across victims, perpetrators, and victim-perpetrators using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Our findings suggest a number of implications for theory, policy, and future research.

IPV

The existing research on IPV suggests that victims and offenders have many common characteristics. Like other forms of violence, IPV is inversely related to age (Rennison and Welchans 2000). Young couples are less likely to be married or to have been in a relationship for a long period of time, and it has been suggested that they may lack the skills and experience needed to successfully resolve arguments and reach compromise in conflicts and may not yet understand each other’s boundaries for acceptable behavior (DeMaris et al. 2003). Younger people are also generally more violent and aggressive than older people (Hirschi and Gottfredson 1983), perhaps explaining why younger couples are more volatile in their relationships.

Minorities also appear to engage in or report IPV more often than non-minorities (Rennison and Welchans 2000). This may be due to cultural differences in the meaning of partner violence and/or stress and frustration that arise when they are faced with limited opportunities for upward mobility due to their position in society (Cloward 1959; Gelles and Straus 1988). Likewise, couples in the lower socioeconomic strata, as indicated by low educational or occupational attainment or low income, may experience more stressors arising from financial difficulties, or may experience more frustration due to limited opportunities—all of which might increase the likelihood of IPV occurring (Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, and Bates 1997). Individuals with low education or occupational attainment may also be more prone to resort to violence when verbal discussion

490

Download more at Learnclax.com

fails them (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990), or may lack effective negotiation skills (Feldman and Ridley 2000; Ridley and Feldman 2003).

Violence within relationships has also been linked to other problems, particularly alcohol and drug use, as well as anger and hostile attitudes. IPV is approximately three times more likely to occur when drug use is involved (Moore et al. 2008). It has been suggested that substance use releases inhibitions regarding the use of violence against one’s partner or that it is used as an excuse to justify behaviors (such as IPV) that are normally considered unacceptable (Kaufman Kantor and Straus 1987). Furthermore, substance use may be used as a coping mechanism for stress and frustration, poor relationship quality, or may be used among victims as a result of partner violence (Kilpatrick et al. 1997). Attitudes condoning violence in general, and against partners specifically, are positively associated with IPV, as are feelings of anger, hostility, and negative emotionality (Moffitt et al. 2000; Norlander and Eckhardt 2005; Stith et al. 2004). It may be that persons willing to use violence in general are more apt to use violence within their relationships as well or that persons unable to regulate their emotions are more likely to lash out at others, even intimate others (Norlander and Eckhardt 2005; Sugarman and Frankel 1996).

Couples who are cohabiting but who are not married are more likely to experience IPV (DeMaris et al. 2003; Stets 1991); scholars have suggested that this relationship may reflect lower commitment levels between the partners (Stets 1991) or that unmarried cohabitating couples are more likely to be younger and therefore more violent (Magdol et al. 1998). Violence between partners occurs most often inside of the couple’s (or victim’s) house (Rennison and Welchans 2000; Thomas, Dichter, and Matejkowski 2011), with few or no witnesses of the violence, with the exception of young children living in the household (Holt, Buckley, and Whelan 2008). Theoretically, however, the presence of adult third parties may deter violence or lessen the severity of abuse through shaming, other control mechanisms (Stets 1991; Van Wyk et al. 2003; Wilkinson and Hamerschlag 2005), or by increasing the likelihood that victims reach out to others for help (Browning 2002; Coker et al. 2002). When the third parties are minor children, however, it is possible that their presence may add to relationship stress and actually increase violence (Wilkinson and Hamerschlag 2005).

Finally, social support, and its antithesis, social isolation, have been suggested as important factors that may inhibit or increase IPV. Social support may be related to a reduced risk of victimization because supportive relationships can provide the opportunities, financial means, or physical alternatives needed to escape a violent relationship. For instance, support may increase the likelihood that the victim seeks and receives help from others (e.g., Browning 2002; Cullen 1994), since they have people to turn to for emotional, physical, or financial assistance (Van Wyk et al. 2003). Social isolation, on the other hand, is related to increased risk of violence within partnerships. It has been suggested that social isolation may lead to less support and control within relationships, which in turn may lead to more aggression (Stets 1991), or that social isolation keeps violence within relationships private, while also increasing dependence between the partners (Van Wyk et al. 2003). Further, social isolation may leave victims with few resources with which to leave their violent partners (MacMillian and Gartner 1999; Van Wyk et al. 2003).

In sum, many consistencies exist between the predictors of IPV perpetration and victimization. As noted

491

Download more at Learnclax.com

above, studies indicate that 29 percent of men and 36 percent of women report having experienced some form of violence by their intimate partner during their lifetime (Black et al. 2011; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000), which suggests that IPV is not limited to male perpetration and female victimization. The vast majority of the IPV research, however, examines the predictors of IPV perpetration and victimization separately, often relying on gendered analyses (e.g., male-only perpetrators or female-only victims, see Bachman and Saltzman 1995; Tjaden and Thoennes 1998) that may not fully capture differences across victims, perpetrators, and victim- perpetrators. We now turn to the literature on the victim-offender overlap to examine possible explanations for the phenomenon and how it might apply to IPV.

Intimate Partners as Offenders and Victims

Despite the considerable attention that has been devoted to the victim-offender overlap, few studies have examined this phenomenon among couples in intimate relationships. To be sure, the “cycle of violence,” or the idea that victimization within family relationships might beget offending later in life, has been discussed and empirically examined (e.g., Lussier, Farringon, and Moffitt 2009; Widom 1989). There are, however, few empirical investigations of the overlap of victimization and offending within an intimate relationship. As suggested above, this may be due in part to the influence of the feminist perspective on the study of IPV. If IPV is assumed to be the result of male domination over women, it makes little sense to expect a victim- offender overlap.

It is also possible that this criminological phenomenon has rarely been explored within IPV because IPV and IPV offenders are viewed differently than typical “street” offenders and the crimes they commit. Though some research suggests IPV offenders are similar to non-IPV offenders (Felson and Lane 2010), there is also evidence that the two groups differ on important characteristics (Moffitt et al. 2000). For example, violence within relationships involves intimate knowledge of the victim/offender and emotions that may not typically be present in stranger crime (Dugan and Apel 2005), shared characteristics (e.g., routines, violent proclivities, behavioral preferences) resulting from self-selection of partners (Carbone-Lopez and Kruttschnitt 2010; Wright et al. 1999), and potentially different motivations for violence against one’s partner as opposed to violence against strangers (e.g., control, see Felson and Messner 2000; rage, see Thomas, Dichter, and Matejkowski 2011).

Interestingly, however, it is the very nature of IPV—that is, violence between two individuals who are in a relationship and interact on a routine basis—that makes it particularly well suited for an investigation of the victim-offender overlap. Most explanations of the victim-offender overlap rely on common traits and routine activities that contribute to opportunities for crime (Jennings, Piquero, and Reingle 2012; Lauritsen and Laub 2007; Mustaine and Tewksbury 2000). In the case of intimate partners, individuals have self-selected into the relationship, possibly because of their shared traits (Carbone-Lopez and Kruttschnitt 2010; Wright et al. 1999), and the relationship repeatedly brings potential victims and perpetrators in close proximity to one another. General discussions of the “victim-offender” overlap typically refer to an individual whose victim and perpetrator are not likely the same person (e.g., a drug dealer who is the victim of a robbery). When we consider the victim-offender overlap within the context of IPV, however, we are essentially investigating

492

Download more at Learnclax.com

mutual violence between only two individuals, where the possibility of becoming a victim and an offender exists within a single relationship.

There are a number of explanations for why we might expect to see an overlap of victims and offenders in intimate relationships. First, the initial circumstances that produced the violence, if left unresolved, can lead to additional fights. These circumstances might be external factors that put stress on the relationship or they could be common traits that the partners share that make conflict resolution difficult. This explanation for recurrent and mutual violence is consistent with the [principle] of homogamy, in that common traits between the offenders and victims increase the likelihood that offenders will be victimized. Such a possibility is supported by the many shared risk factors for IPV perpetration and victimization reviewed above.

Second, the violence itself can increase the likelihood of additional violence. The initial crime event—in this case, the violence used against one’s partner—has the potential to create motivation and opportunity for subsequent violence, either during the same incident or in future fights. Not only might the initial victim feel justified in using violence (e.g., as in the case of violent resistant partner violence, see Johnson 2008, or in self- defense efforts), but the initial perpetrator may be left with little recourse—in terms of turning to others for help—given his or her own perpetration. Thus, it is plausible that the victim-offender overlap applies to violence that occurs between intimate partners. The current study explores this possibility and examines whether the existing correlates of IPV apply to all types of IPV involvement.

The Present Study

The present study examines the prevalence of IPV victimization and perpetration in adulthood, as well as the overlap of these experiences. Given that the victim-offender overlap has been observed in numerous studies measuring general offending and victimization, and that most assaults occur between parties that are acquainted, we argue that such an overlap is plausible. Further, the very nature of IPV—that is, violence between two people who have self-selected into the relationship and are routinely in contact with another— presents ongoing opportunities and motivations for future violence once an initial act of violence has occurred. We draw upon the existing empirical research on IPV to explore whether the correlates for IPV vary across victimization, perpetration, and victimization-perpetration prevalence. Specifically, the present study aims to answer the following research questions:

1. What proportion of individuals involved in IPV are victims only, offenders only, and victim-offenders? 2. Do the established correlates of IPV apply to victims only, offenders only, and victim-offenders?

Data

The present study uses public-use data from the fourth wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to examine the prevalence and correlates of IPV victimization and perpetration. Wave 1 data were collected from a nationally representative sample of adolescents enrolled in American middle and high schools (Harris et al. 2009). Systematic and stratified sampling techniques were used to select a sample of 80 high schools and 52 middle schools. Students in grades 7 through 12 during the 1994–1995 school year completed the wave 1 in-school self-report survey. Wave 1 of the public-use Add

493

Download more at Learnclax.com

Health data includes 6,504 cases. Wave 4 (2008) of the Add Health was designed to examine the developmental and health trajectories of the Add Health respondents into young adulthood [when they were ages 24 to 33 (n = 5,114)].

Because the present study focuses on IPV in heterosexual romantic relationships, individuals who described themselves as “bi-sexual” or “homosexual” were removed from the sample, resulting in 4,926 cases. In addition, we removed those who reported being active duty military and those who were interviewed in prison during wave 4, given that these individuals may not have had the opportunity to experience IPV in the past year. This reduced the sample size to 4,795 cases. Listwise deletion of cases based on missing data for study variables resulted in 4,275 cases for analysis. The descriptive and inferential statistics presented below use normalized weights to account for the Add Health sampling design.

Measures

The dependent variable examined in this study measures the prevalence of IPV involvement, both as a victim and as a perpetrator. To create our four-category nominal outcome, we first created two dichotomous variables to measure IPV victimization and perpetration prevalence. IPV victim is a dichotomous variable that measures whether the respondent reported experiencing any of three events in the past year: (1) partner threatened you with violence, pushed or shoved you, or threw something at you that could hurt, (2) partner slapped, hit, or kicked you, and (3) you had an injury, such as a sprain, bruise, or cut because of a fight with your partner. If the respondent reported experiencing any of these events in the past year, IPV victim was coded as 1. IPV perpetrator is a dichotomous variable that measures whether the respondent reported engaging in any of three events in the past year: (1) threatened partner with violence, pushed or shoved partner, or threw something at partner that could hurt, (2) slapped, hit, or kicked partner, and (3) partner had an injury such as a sprain, bruise, or cut because of a fight with you. If the respondent reported experiencing any of these events in the past year, IPV perpetrator was coded as a 1. IPV involvement is a four-category nominal variable created from the IPV victim and IPV perpetrator variables. Respondents were coded as no involvement, victim only, perpetrator only, or victim and perpetrator.

We operationalized a series of variables that prior IPV studies have established as correlates of IPV victimization and/or offending. We created several variables to measure the age, race, and gender of the respondents. Age is the respondent’s age in years at the wave 4 interview. We created three dummy variables to measure race and ethnicity—Black, Hispanic, and Other, with White Non-Hispanic being the omitted reference category. Male (0 = No; 1 = Yes) measures the respondent’s gender.

We also created three variables to measure the socioeconomic status of the respondents. Education is an ordinal variable that measures the educational attainment of the respondent (1 = Less than high school diploma, 2 = High school graduate, 3 = Some college or vocational/technical training, 4 = College degree). Employed is a dichotomous variable that measures whether the respondent works for pay for a minimum of 10 hr per week (0 = No; 1 = Yes). Household income measures the respondent’s total household income before taxes and deductions, with values ranging from 1 = Less than $5,000 to 12 = $150,000 or more.

494

Download more at Learnclax.com

Substance use is a dichotomous variable that measures whether respondents report their drug or alcohol use has caused problems (i.e., problems with work, school, family, or friends; legal troubles; put them or others at risk; 0 = No; 1 = Yes). In addition, we created a factor to tap the degree to which the respondent reports feelings of stress, frustration, and irritability. Eight survey items that asked respondents the extent to which they agreed with various statements were used to create the negative temperament factor, with responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Specifically, respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed with statements that they have frequent mood swings, get angry easily, get upset easily, get stressed out easily, lose their temper, are not easily bothered by things, rarely get irritated, and keep their cool. Factor scores were created using principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. All items loaded on a single factor, with factor loadings ranging from 0.64 to 0.83 (Eigenvalue = 4.20, α = .87).

We also created a series of variables to measure the composition of people with whom the respondent resides. We measured lives with non-spouse partner (0 = No; 1 = Yes) and lives with spouse (0 = No; 1 = Yes).

Lives with adults indicates whether the respondent lives with one or more nonromantic partner adults (0 = No; 1 = Yes). Lives with children indicates whether the respondent lives with one or more individuals under the age of 18 (0 = No; 1 = Yes).

Beyond living arrangements, we also included variables to measure the respondent’s social relationships that might prevent IPV victimization and/or perpetration. Attachment to friends measures the number of people the respondent reports feeling at ease with, can talk to about private matters, and can call on for help. Responses ranged from 1 = none to 5 = 10 or more friends. Attachment to parents is the average response to two questions asking respondents how close they feel to their mother figure and how close they feel to their father figure (1 = Not at all close, 2 = Not very close, 3 = Somewhat close, 4 = Quite close, and 5 = Very close). Finally, isolated measures how often the respondent feels isolated from others (0 = Never, 1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often). Diagnostics indicate that multicollinearity is not a concern among the independent variables (variance inflation factors [VIFs] ≤ 2.06).

Analysis

We begin by examining the frequency of the IPV involvement dependent variable to assess the overlap in IPV victimization and perpetration. Recall that our measure of IPV prevalence includes a range of behaviors, including threats, pushing and shoving, and throwing things that could hurt. Though our multinomial regression analysis focuses on this more inclusive definition of IPV, we also examine—by gender—the distributions of the items used to create our measure of IPV involvement. This allows us to observe whether the overlap exists for both men and women across all levels of IPV prevalence severity. Next, we present the bivariate correlations among the independent variables and IPV perpetrator and IPV victim.

We use multinomial regression to examine the correlates of IPV involvement—either as a victim, perpetrator, or both—controlling for the other independent variables in the analysis. Multinomial regression was selected because it allows for categorical dependent variables, such as our four-category measure of IPV involvement. The analysis produces one set of coefficients for each category of the dependent variable, minus one for the

495

Download more at Learnclax.com

omitted reference category (Pampel 2000). For our purposes, “no involvement” in IPV as a victim or perpetrator is the omitted reference category. Each set of coefficients can be interpreted as the effect of one unit change in the independent variable on the logged odds of falling into each category of the dependent variable, relative to the “no involvement” in IPV (i.e., the omitted reference category of the dependent variable; Pampel 2000).

Findings

Table 1 presents the distribution of IPV among respondents. The frequency of the dependent variable, IPV involvement, reveals considerable overlap in terms of IPV victimization and offending. Nearly 80% of respondents reported no involvement in IPV in the past year, while 9.7% identified as an IPV victim only and 3.8% identified as a perpetrator only. The remainder—6.7%—reported experiencing IPV as both a victim and a perpetrator in the prior year. The remaining columns in Table 1 reveal that even when we adopt an increasingly narrow definition of IPV, the victim-offender overlap is still observed, and observed for both genders. These findings challenge the assertion that females are strictly victims of IPV and any violence against their partners is purely in self-defense. A higher percentage of women, relative to men, reported being “perpetrators only,” across all definitions of IPV. Conversely, a higher percentage of men, relative to women, reported being “victims only.”

Table 1

NOTE: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

a. The percentages are based on the weighted data.

Means and standard deviations for all independent variables are presented in Table 2, as well as the bivariate correlations among the independent variables and IPV perpetrator and IPV victim (recall that these latter two variables do not account for the victim-offender overlap and are not used in the multivariate analysis). As expected, there is a positive and statistically significant (p ≤ .01) bivariate correlation between IPV perpetration and victimization. Furthermore, each of these outcomes maintains statistically significant relationships at the bivariate level with many of the same independent variables. For example, Black, Hispanic, substance use, negative temperament, lives with non-spouse partner, lives with children, and isolated are all positively correlated with both IPV perpetration and victimization at the bivariate level. Conversely, education, household income, lives with spouse, attachment to friends, and attachment to parents are all negatively associated

496

Download more at Learnclax.com

with both IPV perpetration and victimization. In addition, IPV perpetration maintained a negative relationship with male and employed, and a positive relationship with other race; IPV victimization is positively associated with male at the bivariate level.

Table 3 displays the multinomial logistic regression results for IPV involvement in the past year. Recall that “no involvement” in IPV is the omitted reference category for the dependent variable. Respondents who live with children, are male, and are Black were more likely to identify as a “victim only” of IPV relative to “no involvement” in IPV. Conversely, older respondents, those with higher levels of education, and those who report higher household incomes were less likely to report being “victims only” of IPV relative to “no involvement” in IPV.

When we examine the predictors associated with being a “perpetrator only” of IPV relative to “no involvement,” several independent variables were significant in the expected direction. Respondents who are Black and Hispanic are more likely to be perpetrators only. In addition, substance use, negative temperament, living with nonspousal partner, and feeling isolated were all positively related to being a perpetrator only of IPV. Older respondents, males, and those with higher levels of education were less likely to fall into the perpetrator only category.

Finally, the third panel in Table 3 presents the coefficients for being a victim and a perpetrator of IPV in the past year, relative to “no involvement.” All racial and ethnic groups (relative to White non-Hispanics) were more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of IPV. Substance use, negative temperament, living with nonspousal partner, and feeling isolated were all positively related to being a victim and perpetrator of IPV. Finally, those reporting higher levels of education were less likely to be IPV victims and perpetrators. Below we discuss the results and the implications for theory, policy, and future research.

Discussion

Three broad conclusions summarize our findings. First, there is considerable overlap in IPV victimization and perpetration. Consistent with research on the victim-offender overlap in general (see Jennings, Piquero, and Reingle 2012), this overlap was observed for both genders across various measures of violence. Unlike previous research, however, we found less overlap for more serious forms of IPV, while the overlap was greatest when more “minor” forms of violence were examined. These findings suggest that female IPV perpetration cannot be fully explained as “defensive” actions. Though the purpose of our study was not to test a theoretical model of IPV, the observed victim-offender overlap is consistent with a “family conflict/violence” perspective that suggests that most IPV is “situational or common couple” (Johnson 1995, 2008) violence, characterized by violence perpetrated by both partners, with males and females engaging in roughly the same amount of violence (see also Straus 2011; Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 2006).

Second, though IPV victims and perpetrators appear to have similar characteristics when we examine the bivariate correlations, there are important differences once we distinguish between victims, offenders, and victim-offenders and control for other variables. It seems that the common bivariate correlates are due, in part, to the fact that victim-perpetrators are being counted as both “IPV perpetrators” and “IPV victims” in Table

497

Download more at Learnclax.com

2. The importance of considering the victim-offender overlap in IPV studies is highlighted by the fact that IPV “victims only” did not share many of the same correlates as “victim-perpetrators,” and individuals falling into the “victim-perpetrators” category appear to be more similar to perpetrators. Thus, it seems that common characteristics, routines, and/or behaviors shared between offenders and some victims (e.g., Carbone-Lopez and Kruttschnitt 2010; Lauritsen and Davis Quinet 1995; Lauritsen, Sampson, and Laub 1991) may help to account for the observed overlap in IPV. This is consistent with the principle of homogamy (Cohen, Kluegel, and Land 1981; Lauritsen, Sampson, and Laub 1991) discussed in the broader literature regarding the victim- offender overlap. Being a victim-only of IPV, however, is explained by correlates not shared with perpetrators and victim-perpetrators, suggesting that the nearly 10% of individuals who are “victims only” may require different theoretical explanations. For example, the negative influence of household income and the positive influence of living with children suggest that those who are “victims only” may have fewer options available to them, as they may have children to support and few financial resources. Such dependency issues have been suggested in the broader literature on partner violence (Yount 2005). Thus, our study does not invalidate previous research on correlates of IPV, but rather it clarifies the influence of various factors by highlighting the importance of considering the victim-offender overlap.

Table 2

IPV = intimate partner violence; HH = household.

a. The descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are based on the weighted data.

* p ≤ .05.

** p ≤ .01.

Table 3

498

Download more at Learnclax.com

a. “No involvement” in IPV is the omitted reference category of the dependent variable in the analysis.

b. The multinomial logistic regression results are based on the weighted data.

c. Odds ratios for negative coefficients are inverted for ease of interpretation.

* p ≤ .05.

** p ≤ .01.

Third, as interesting as our victim-offender overlap findings might be, of equal importance is the relatively large proportion of individuals who report being an IPV victim or perpetrator exclusively. Some of this violence likely goes beyond the “common couple” conflicts described by the family violence perspective, and in certain cases, may represent the frequent and severe violence often described by the feminist perspective. Though the focus of the present study was on IPV prevalence, we did explore frequency of IPV in preliminary descriptive analyses. Of note, among those who reported being “victims only” of IPV injury, six women reported being injured 20 or more times in the past year. There were no men in that category, and in the next category (11 to 20 injuries) there were no women or men. In short, there appears to be a very small proportion of the sample in which gendered, ongoing, and serious violence is occurring.

Given our findings, there are likely two (or more) phenomena captured by our measure of IPV involvement

499

Download more at Learnclax.com

that occur within varied relationship dynamics: common couple violence with considerable victim-offender overlap, and violence perpetrated by one partner against the other, which may be high in frequency and gendered. Our study, using an inclusive measure of IPV prevalence to explore the victim-offender overlap in a nationally representative sample, is more appropriate for examining the former. We acknowledge, however, that included within these data are perpetrators and victims of much more serious and repeated brutal attacks that are not the focus of the present study, but remain an important area of study for future research.

The victim-offender overlap in IPV presents challenges for those working to address violence between intimates. For instance, police officers who respond to IPV incidents may find it especially difficult to determine the “offender” and “victim” in any single incident, given that both parties may have a history of both perpetration and victimization. Actions preventing or responding to IPV perpetration may be relevant for those who are both offenders and victims, but “victims-only” will likely require distinctly different services. Treatment providers, police, courts, and other service providers should be aware of the factors that increase both victimization and perpetration of IPV, and when possible, reduce or respond to these risk factors. In particular, counselors and treatment providers should target to change substance use problems, isolation, and negative temperaments that were observed for IPV perpetrators and victim-perpetrators. They should attempt to increase education levels among both offenders and victims. Additionally, taking steps to reduce the opportunity for violence, such as enforcing (not just issuing) no-contact orders, may help curb further violence. Cultural differences should also be considered in the response to violence in relationships. African Americans and Hispanics were more likely to be involved in violent relationships as both perpetrators and victim-perpetrators; perhaps “fighting back” or mutual violence is more acceptable among these groups and service personnel who attempt to address such violence should be aware of this. Conversely, those who are victims, but not perpetrators, will require different responses. In particular, variables related loosely to dependence, such as living with children, education, and income, appear to be important to victims-only of IPV, and should therefore be targeted for intervention efforts.

Despite the contribution of the present study to our knowledge of IPV and the victim-offender overlap, there are data limitations that warrant further discussion and suggest directions for future research. First, we examined how respondent characteristics affect respondent offending and respondent victimization. We do not, however, have measures of the partner’s characteristics. Thus, we cannot examine how the combination of respondent and partner characteristics affect the outcomes. Future research should examine the IPV victim- offender overlap in partner samples.

Second, the present study relied on cross-sectional data. This is fairly common among studies that examine how proximal conditions influence victimization and offending. Using longitudinal data that measure independent variables one or more years prior to the outcomes presents its own limitations with respect to measurement error. However, it is important to acknowledge that we cannot establish temporal order with certainty, and in fact, we suspect that there are likely reciprocal relationships between some of the independent variables and IPV. Social isolation, for example, may be both a cause and a consequence of IPV.

Third, because we examine individuals as the unit of analysis, rather than incidents, we are not able to

500

Download more at Learnclax.com

determine the immediate context which facilitates or prevents IPV. It is likely that some of the respondents identified as victim-perpetrators were actually victims who engaged in violence as self-defense. Unfortunately, we cannot ascertain which respondents were engaging in retaliatory or defensive violence. This problem is not unique to IPV or our study; despite our interest in understanding crime incidents, most crime research uses individual-level data. Studies that use incidents as the units of analysis (i.e., National Incident Based Reporting System or the National Crime Victimization Survey) can tell us what crime incidents look like and the characteristics that predict outcomes of those incidents (e.g., victim injury, arrest of suspect), but we have no comparison for incidents that do not result in a crime. There is no system that records noncrime incidents (not to mention the challenges of defining what constitutes an “incident”).

Finally, we want to emphasize that our findings reflect the analysis of data collected from a general population sample. While this is not a limitation per se, it is important to acknowledge that samples drawn from high- risk populations, such as shelter samples, may have very different compositions with respect to the victim- offender overlap. Further, it is possible that examining the frequency and/or severity of violence, instead of prevalence, may have produced different results regarding the victim-offender overlap. Our precursory examination of the frequency of violent acts, discussed above, demonstrates that the nature of IPV is complex and varied. We suggest that future research consider this issue, as the victim-offender overlap may be less pronounced when the measure of IPV is limited to the most frequent and severe cases.

An additional avenue for future research is to examine the influence of neighborhood context on IPV and the victim-offender overlap. Recent research by Berg and colleagues (2012) demonstrates that the magnitude of the victim-offender overlap for violence in a sample of African American youth varied depending on neighborhood context. Prior research suggests that neighborhood context influences IPV in general (Miles- Doan 1998; Pinchevsky and Wright 2012; Wright and Benson 2011); whether these same factors influence the victim-offender overlap for these crimes is unknown.

In sum, the present study examined the victim-offender overlap with respect to IPV. Results suggest that there is considerable overlap, with approximately one-third of those involved in IPV in the past year reporting both perpetration and victimization. This overlap was observed across men and women, and varying levels of violence severity. Our multivariate analysis revealed that those who are both victims and perpetrators of IPV are more similar to those who report being IPV perpetrators only than IPV victims only. Future research is needed to determine whether these relationships are observed in other types of samples and across various contexts.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the victim–offender overlap? What theories from Section II may help understand the victim– offender overlap?

2. What factors predict offending? Victimization? Victimization and offending? 3. How can we explain the different features for victims, offenders, and victim/offenders? 4. Should the criminal justice system treat victims, offenders, and victim/offenders similarly? Different?

Explain.

501

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note

This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

502

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth

References Bachman, Ronet and Linda E.Saltzman. 1995. Violence against Women: Estimates from The Redesigned

Survey. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice.

Berg, Mark T., Stewart Eric A., Schreck Christopher J., and Simons Ronald L.. 2012. “The Victim-Offender Overlap in Context: Examining the Role of Neighborhood Street Culture.” Criminology 50:1–31.

Black, Michele C., Basile Kathleen C., Breiding Matthew, Smith Sharon G., Walters Mikel L., Merrick Melissa T., Chen Jieru, and Stevens Mark R.. 2011. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Browning, Christopher R. 2002. “The Span of Collective Efficacy: Extending Social Disorganization Theory to Partner Violence.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 64:833–50.

Carbone-Lopez, Kristin and Candace Kruttschnitt. 2010. “Risky Relationships? Assortive Mating and Women’s Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence.” Crime Delinquency 56:358–84.

Cloward, Richard A. 1959. “Illegitimate Means, Anomie, and Deviant Behavior.” American Sociological Review 24:164–76.

Cohen, Lawrence E., J. R. Kluegel, and Land Kenneth C.. 1981. “Social Inequality and Predatory Criminal Victimization: An Exposition and Test of a Formal Theory.” American Sociological Review 46:505–24.

Coker, Ann L., Smith Paige H., Thompson Martie P., McKeown Robert E., Bethea Lesa, and Davis Keith E.. 2002. “Social Support Protects against the Negative Effects of Partner Violence on Mental Health.” Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine 11:465–76.

Cullen, Francis T. 1994. “Social Support as an Organizing Concept for Criminology: Presidential Address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.” Justice Quarterly 11:527–59.

DeMaris, Alfred A., Benson Michael L., Greer Litton Fox, Hill Terrence, and Wyk Judy Van. 2003. “Distal and Proximal Factors in Domestic Violence: A Test of an Integrated Model.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 65:652–67.

503

Download more at Learnclax.com

Dobash, R. Emerson and Dobash Russell P.. 1979. Violence against Wives: A Case against the Patriarchy. New York: Free Press.

Dobash, Russell P., Emerson Dobash R., Wilson Margo, and Martin Daly. 1992. “The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence.” Social Problems 39:71–91.

Dugan, Laura and Robert Apel. 2005. “The Differential Risk of Retaliation by Relational Distance: A More General Model of Violent Victimization.” Criminology 43:697–730.

Feldman, Clyde M. and Carl A. Ridley. 2000. “The Role of Conflict-Based Communication Responses and Outcomes in Male Domestic Violence toward Female Partners.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17:552–73.

Felson, Richard B. and Lane Kelsea Jo. 2010. “Does Violence Involving Women and Intimate Partners Have a Special Etiology?” Criminology 48: 321–38.

Felson, Richard B. and Messner Steven F.. 2000. “The Control Motive in Intimate Partner Violence.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63:86–94.

Gelles, Richard J. and Murray A.Straus. 1988. Intimate Violence: The Definitive Study of the Causes and Consequences of Abuse in the American Family. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Harris, K. M., Halpem C. T., E. Whitsel, Hussey Jon M., J. Tabor, Entzel P., and J. R. Udry. 2009. “The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research Design.” Retrieved November 17, 2011 (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design).

Hirschi, Travis and Gottfredson Michael R.. 1983. “Age and the Explanation of Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 89:552–84.

Holt, Stephanie, Buckley Helen, and Whelan Sadhbh. 2008. “The Impact of Exposure to Domestic Violence on Children and Young People: A Review of the Literature.” Child Abuse and Neglect 32:797–810.

Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy, Natalie Smutzler, and Bates Leonard. 1997. “A Brief Review of the Research on

504

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

Husband Violence: Part III: Sociodemographic Factors, Relationship Factors, and Differing Consequences of Husband and Wife Violence.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 2:285–307.

Jennings, Wesley G., George F. Higgins, Richard Tewksbury, Gover Angela R., and Alex R. Piquero. 2010. “A Longitudinal Assessment of the Victim-Offender Overlap.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25:2147–74.

Jennings, Wesley G., Piquero Alex R., and Reingle Jennifer M.. 2012. “On the Overlap between Victimization and Offending: A Review of the Literature.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 17:16–26.

Johnson, Michael P. 1995. “Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:283–94.

Johnson, Michael P. 2008. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.

Kaufman Kantor, Glenda and Straus Murray A.. 1987. “The ‘Drunken Burn’ Theory of Wife Beating.” Social Problems 34:213–30.

Kilpatrick, Dean G., Acierno Ron, Resnick Heidi S., Saunders Benjamin E., and Best Connie L.. 1997. “A 2-year Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationships between Violent Assault and Substance Use in Women.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65:834–47.

Lauritsen, Janet L. and Quinet Kenna F. Davis. 1995. “Repeat Victimization among Adolescents and Young Adults.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11:143–66.

Lauritsen, Janet L. and John H. Laub. 2007. “Understanding the Link between Victimization and Offending: New Reflections on an Old Idea.” Crime Prevention Studies 22:55–75.

Lauritsen, Janet L., Sampson Robert J., and Laub John H.. 1991. “The Link between Offending and Victimization among Adolescents.” Criminology 29:265–92.

Lawson, Jennifer. 2012. “Sociological Theories of Intimate Partner Violence.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 22:572–90.

Lussier, Patrick, Farringon David P., and Moffitt Terrie E.. 2009. “Is the Antisocial Child Father of the

505

Download more at Learnclax.com

Abusive Man? A 40-year Prospective Longitudinal Study on the Developmental Antecedents of lntimate Partner Violence.” Criminology 47:741–80.

MacMillian, Ross and Gartner Rosemary. 1999. “When She Brings Home the Bacon: Labor-Force Participation and the Risk of Spousal Violence against Women.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61:947–58.

Magdol, Lynn, Moffitt Terrie E., Caspi Avshalom, and Silva Phil A.. 1998. “Developmental Antecedents of Partner Abuse: A Prospective-Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 107:375–89.

Miles-Doan, Rebecca. 1998. “Violence between Spouses and Intimates: Does Neighborhood Context Matter?” Social Forces 77:623–45.

Moffitt, Terrie E., Krueger Robert F., Caspi Avshalom, and Fagan Jeffrey. 2000. “Partner Abuse and General Crime: How Are They the Same? How Are They Different?” Criminology 38:199–232.

Moore, Todd M., Stuart Gregory L., Meehan Jeffrey C., Rhatigan Deborah L., Hellmuth Julianne C., and Keen Stefanie M.. 2008. “Drug Abuse and Aggression between Intimate Partners: A Meta-analytic Review.” Clinical Psychology Review 28:247–74.

Mustaine, Elizabeth E. and Tewksbury Richard. 2000. “Comparing the Lifestyles of Victims, Offenders, and Victim-Offenders: A Routine Activity Theory Assessment of Similarities and Differences for Criminal Participants.” Sociological Focus 33:339–62.

Norlander, Bradley and Eckhardt Christopher. 2005. “Anger, Hostility, and Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: A Meta-analytic Review.” Clinical Psychology Review 25:119–52.

Pampel, F. C. 2000. Logistic Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pinchevsky, Gillian and Wright Emily M.. 2012. “The Impact of Neighborhoods on Intimate Partner Violence and Victimization.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 13:112–32.

Rennison, Callie Marie and Welchans Sarah. 2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Intimate Partner Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Ridley, Carl A. and Feldman Clyde M.. 2003. “Female Domestic Violence toward Male Partners: Exploring

506

Download more at Learnclax.com

Conflict Responses and Outcomes.” Journal of Family Violence 18:157–70.

Smith, Erica L. and Donald Farole Jr. 2009. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: State Court Processing Statistics: Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC.

Stets, Jan E. 1991. “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:669–80.

Stith, Sandra M., Smith Douglas B., Penn Carrie E., Ward David B., and Tritt Dari. 2004. “Intimate Partner Physical Abuse Perpetration and Victimization Risk Factors: A Meta-analytic Review.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 10:65–98.

Straus, Murray A. 2011. “Gender Symmetry and Mutuality in Perpetration of Clinical-level Partner Violence: Empirical Evidence and Implications for Prevention and Treatment.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 16:279–88.

Straus, Murray A., Gelles Richard J., and Steinmetz Suzanne K.. 2006. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Sugarman, David B. and Frankel Susan L.. 1996. “Patriarchal Ideology and Wife-Assault: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Journal of Family Violence 11:13–40.

Thomas, Kristie A., Dichter Melissa E., and Matejkowski Jason. 2011. “Intimate versus Nonintimate Partner Murder: A Comparison of Offender and Situational Characteristics.” Homicide Studies 15:291–311.

Tjaden, Patricia and Thoennes Nancy. 1998. “Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence against Women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey” (No. NCJ-172837). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, Patricia and Thoennes Nancy. 2000. “Prevalence and Consequences of Male-to-Female and Female- to-Male Intimate Partner Violence as Measured by the National Violence against Women Survey.” Violence against Women 6:142–61.

Van Wyk, Judy, Benson Michael L., Fox Greer Litton, and DeMaris Alfred A.. 2003. “Detangling Individual-, Partner-, and Community-Level Correlates of Partner Violence.” Crime and Delinquency

507

Download more at Learnclax.com

49:412–38.

Widom, Cathy Spatz. 1989. “The Cycle of Violence.” Science 244:160–66.

Wilkinson, Deanna L. and Hamerschlag Susan J.. 2005. “Situational Determinants in Intimate Partner Violence.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 10:333–61.

Wright, Bradley R. Entner, Caspi Avshalom, Moffitt Terrie E., and Silva Phil A.. 1999. “Low Self-Control, Social Bonds, and Crime: Social Causation, Social Selection, or Both?” Criminology 37:479–514.

Wright, Emily M. and Benson Michael L.. 2011. “Clarifying the Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage and Collective Efficacy on Violence ‘behind Closed Doors.’” Justice Quarterly 28:775–98.

Yount, Kathryn. 2005. “Resources, Family Organization, and Domestic Violence against Married Women in Minya, Egypt.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 67:579–96.

508

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 15

Being in an abusive relationship can be a complex phenomenon, one to which women may not have finite responses. Instead, these choices may fluctuate over time and are influenced by relationship issues as well as other contextual and individual-level factors. Jacquelyn Campbell, Linda Rose, Joan Kub, and Daphne Nedd (1998) interview women over a span of two and a half years to understand the patterns of responses to intimate partner violence that women engage in.

Voices of Strength and Resistance: A Contextual and Longitudinal Analysis of Women’s Responses to Battering

Jacquelyn Campbell, Linda Rose, Joan Kub, and Daphne Nedd

SOURCE: Campbell, J., Rose, L., Kub, J., & Nedd, D. (1998). Voices of strength and resistance: A contextual and longitudinal analysis of women’s responses to battering. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13 (6), 743–762.

Arecent national probability study of women estimates that at least 4.4 million women are physically assaulted in the United States each year (Plichta, 1996). There is substantial evidence demonstrating that battered women are seriously at risk for homicide as well as a wide range of physical and mental health problems (Campbell, 1995; Eby, Campbell, Sullivan, & Davidson, 1995; McCauley et al., 1996; Plichta, 1996; Ratner, 1993). In spite of this knowledge, there is a paucity of information about women’s responses to battering over time that integrates physical, emotional, social, and behavioral reactions within complex familial and environmental contexts. A study was undertaken to examine women’s responses at three points in time over a 3½- to 4-year period, using both in-depth interviews and standardized instruments. This article reports the component of the study combining qualitative and quantitative data analysis to illustrate the complexity of women’s decision making in terms of the relationship status and continuing or cessation of abuse.

Literature Review

The traditional picture of battered women as passive victims has been counteracted at least partially in recent years by a variety of studies using both qualitative and quantitative data. Gondolf, Fisher, and McFerron (1988) and Okun (1986) both used large-record reviews from wife-abuse shelters to demonstrate survival strategies of battered women in the face of serious terrorism. Hoff (1990), in an ethnographic analysis, documented the importance of women’s social support systems—especially family, friends, and shelters—in helping them to survive and escape the abuse. Okun (1986) and Campbell, Miller, Cardwell, and Belknap (1994) found that the majority of battered women do leave an abusive relationship but generally leave several times before they leave permanently. In the recent Jacobson, Gottman, Gorner, Berns, and Wu Shortt (1996) study, 42% left or achieved nonviolence. It also has been demonstrated that women’s risk for abuse continues after they leave (Kurz, 1996; Wilson, Johnson, & Daly, 1995).

Several investigators have used qualitative approaches to examine these processes. Merritt-Gray and Wuest (1995) found women actively counteracted abuse from the first appearance of violence. Women first

509

Download more at Learnclax.com

relinquished parts of themselves, minimized the abuse, and fortified their defenses as the first part of their process of breaking free. Landenburger (1989) and Mills (1985) described abused women as losing a sense of self or identity, either early in the relationship or during what Landenburger calls an “entrapment” phase. Her study showed subsequent stages of disengaging and recovery. Lempert (1996) developed a central concept of agency to describe the strategies and processes women used to “halt, change or cope with their partner’s violence.” Her study redefined seemingly passive actions as active survival strategies and seemingly self- erasures as face-saving strategies to maintain invisibility. These studies have been instrumental in demonstrating the interactive and complex processes that characterize abusive relationships and women’s responses to them. All of these qualitative studies, however, were cross sectional accounts and included primarily well-educated White women, most of whom had left the abusive relationships and retrospectively were recounting the events and their responses. The current study addresses these gaps by interviewing primarily African American women over three points in time.

Method

The study was conducted over 3 years, with interviews conducted every 8 to 12 months. A total of 164 women were recruited at Time 1, and 96 women returned for the third interview. Although 38% of the overall sample was lost by Time 3 due to safety issues and transience, there were no significant differences in demographic or major predictor and outcome variables (abuse, stress, self-care agency, self-esteem, depression, health symptoms) between those who returned and those who did not. The data for this analysis are from a subset of 32 of the women randomly selected from the 96 battered women that were followed at all three points in time.

Women who “had serious problems in an intimate relationship with a man” were recruited with newspaper advertisements and bulletin board postings in places frequented by women, such as child care centers, community centers, laundromats, and university women’s restrooms in the metropolitan area of a large Midwestern city. Because prior research has shown that committed relationships are more likely to be characterized by violence (Fagan & Browne, 1994), only women who had been in a relationship for at least 1 year were included.

Women were screened for battering using the Conflict Tactics Scale, developed by Straus and Gelles (1990). The scale assessed conflict tactics directed toward the woman only and was modified by adding the question, “Has your partner ever forced you into sex that you did not wish to participate in?” This question originally was used by Russell (1982) in her study of marital rape and subsequently used by Campbell (1989) to successfully determine forced sex in battering relationships. Battering was defined in this study as repeated physical and/or sexual assault within a context of coercive control (Campbell & Humphreys, 1993). A woman was categorized as battered if there were more than one instance of minor violence or at least one major violence tactic or forced sex perpetrated by her partner against her during the past year. The coercive control aspects of the relationship were determined by responses on the Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA) (Hudson & McIntosh, 1981). Coercive control includes emotional abuse, threats, and intimidation, as well as financial control and social isolation (Pence & Paymer, 1993). Identifying self as battered was not used as an inclusion

510

Download more at Learnclax.com

criteria, as many women subjected to violence in intimate relationships do not put those labels on themselves (Schechter & Jones, 1992).

The methodology was enacted as feminist action research as described across disciplines by such scholars as Reinharz (1992), Small (1995), Lather (1991), and Henderson (1995). The term can be said to encompass a group of evolving methodologies that are striving to create change as the result of the research (action research) and/or have participants both be changed and create change as part of the research process (participatory research). The feminist specificity of this particular strand of action research adds that it is research for women, is reflexive, represents human diversity, strives to equalize power relationships both within research teams and between researchers and participants, critiques prior scholarship (especially for andocentric and ethnocentric bias), uses both qualitative and quantitative data, and portrays women’s strengths (Bunting & Campbell, 1994).

Data were collected with in-depth structured, semistructured, and open-ended interviews that used a dialogic approach (give-and-take discussion rather than traditional question and answer). Each interview lasted approximately 2 hours. Interview topics included relationship history, relationship problems and problem- solving strategies, attributions, and cultural norms about abuse. They also included safety planning and referrals as requested by the participants. Because of safety concerns, many women were only contacted through work or a family member or friends and were never called at home.

Instruments

Severity of physical and emotional abuse were assessed using the modified version of the ISA (Hudson & McIntosh, 1981) and interview questions about abuse experience by the women. The ISA (Hudson & McIntosh, 1981) is a 30-item scale designed to measure the severity or magnitude of physical and nonphysical abuse inflicted on a woman by her spouse or partner using a frequency and weighting of tactics. Two scores are computed for each respondent: severity of physical abuse (ISA-P) and severity of nonphysical abuse (ISA- NP). Scores on both scales range from 0 to 100.

Sample Description

Thirty-two women, ranging in age from 18 to 53 years (mean = 32.5 years), comprised the sample. They were relatively well educated, with a mean educational level of 13.5 years and a range between the fourth grade to an earned doctorate. The women had an average of 2 children, with 48% having children under 5 years of age. The majority of the women were single (58%) but had been in the relationship from 1 to 17 years (mean = 4.4 years). The majority (61%) were employed or were in school full-time, and the average family income was $18,800 per year, with 54% being below the official poverty level. The majority (74%) of the women were African American, with 23% European American (Eastern European ancestry was the most frequent ethnic group), and 1 woman was of Puerto Rican descent.

Data Analysis

All interviews were audio-taped and/or transcribed verbatim. Manifest and latent content analysis was used to

511

Download more at Learnclax.com

analyze the interview data. Thematic analysis consisted of a process of coding, clustering, “subsuming

particulars into the general,” and confirming (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Each interview was read by three of the investigators who met regularly to discuss coding of relevant passages. Two types of codes were used: descriptive codes that identified contextual aspects of the woman’s personal situation, such as relationship parameters (marital status, length of time in relationship, presence of children), and process codes that were reflective of the women’s responses to the abusive relationship over time. Process codes were not generated a priori, although some codes were suggested by the question that had been asked during the interview, for example, “Who have you talked to in the last 6 months about the relationship problems?” was initially coded as “social support.” As additional interviews were analyzed, the codes became increasingly interpretive as the investigators reflected on the context of the woman’s responses. A more conceptual level of codes thus emerged, such as a relationship status that we called “in-out,” to reflect the complexity of the attachment between the woman and her partner that changed over time.

Each participant’s interviews (Time 1, Time 2, Time 3) were read as a whole, and patterns over time were identified. In addition, the Time 1 interviews were considered together, Time 2 together, and Time 3 together. In this way, we considered the contextual aspects of each woman’s situation and their impact on her responses to the abusive relationship.

Trustworthiness of the findings was addressed in several ways. A computer program was used to assign codes to specific passages of interviews. As codes were identified, definitions were discussed until agreement was reached. In addition, researchers’ responses to the data were recorded in memos that were attached to the individual interviews. This documented the analysis process and the emerging conceptualizations of the women’s experiences. Finally, the interview segments that were coded in the same way were compiled together by the NUDIST program and reviewed in a separate phase of the analysis.

Results

In examining the women’s stories of their relationships with their partners, as well as their stories about and reflections on other aspects of their lives, the complexity of battering relationships was evident. The analysis of the verbatim responses identified two primary themes: the “fluidity of the relationship status” and “women engaged in a process of achieving nonviolence.”

Fluidity of Relationship Status

Although only 13% of the sample were married at Time 1, all were in a committed, sexually intimate, and for most a monogamous relationship that had lasted at least 1 year. Approximately two thirds of the unmarried women were living with their partner all the time, whereas the remainder were in relationships that involved him staying in her domicile or vice versa at least part of the time. Women and their male partners were intertwined in sexually intimate relationships in many nontraditional ways, including the usual marital status categories.

The status of the relationship between the woman and her partner also did not fit into a dichotomous variable of “in” and “out.” The women described their relationships and their attachment to the partners in much more

512

Download more at Learnclax.com

fluid terms. The notion of being in a state of flux, or what we have called an “in/out” relationship status, was an important component of women’s responses to the abuse.

Relationship status over time.

The in/out relationship status described women who still had some expectation of the relationship continuing or who were ambivalent about the relationship ending but had made attempts to leave or were in the process of leaving. Some women had physically left a shared residence or had thrown him out, but their ambivalence about the relationship was evident in their descriptions of goals for the relationship, continued feelings of love for him, or expressed doubts about what would happen in the future. They were seen as in/out because they were actively engaged in the process of leaving but had not yet made a final break. For example, some women took legal action to dissolve the relationship, others focused on getting custody or child support payments, and still others concentrated on making plans to leave as soon as a specific event occurred. For all of these women, there was a fundamental change in the status of the relationship that they were cognizant of, but on some level, there was still attachment or connection. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate these aspects of the process over time.

Table 1

Table 2N

513

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: ISA = Index of Spouse Abuse; ISA-P = ISA-severity of physical abuse; ISA-NP = ISA-severity of nonphysical abuse.

a. Four have totally ended relationship.

At the first interview, 2 women were out of the relationships while 5 were in the in/out status. At Time 3, more than half (53.1%) of the battered women were totally out of the relationship while almost a third (28.1%) were in/out (see Table 1). Although individual relationships took varying trajectories, including 1 woman who went from in/out to “out” (and a new nonviolent relationship) to “in” with the abusive partner who continued coercive control, the overall pattern of the sample clearly went from being committed to the violent relationship to an in/out status to an out status and/or a nonabused status.

Characteristics of in and in/out relationship.

The majority of women who were in the in or in/out categories at Time 2 and Time 3 seemed to adopt a stance that could be described as “making do in the relationship” (deciding to physically remain in the relationship while being emotionally removed), “watching and waiting” (being vigilant about his behavior while staying in), or “keeping it under control” (continuing the emotional connection but being aware that if the abuse continued or got worse, the relationship would have to end). Others communicated a moral sense of staying in the relationship because it was “the right thing to do” or they had to “learn to tolerate” the abuse. For many of these women, financial constraints was a major issue in keeping them in the relationship. In contrast, a small group were in/out because they had left physically but had a lingering emotional and/or sexual attachment to the partner.

Relationship status/abuse status.

An important contextual reality of the process of achieving nonviolence was that leaving the relationship and ending the violence were often independent. In fact, for many of the women, the violence escalated after the woman left, as is being increasingly documented in other studies (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Kurz, 1996;

514

Download more at Learnclax.com

Wilson et al., 1995). As Table 2 shows, slightly less than half (43.8%) of the women achieved a state of no violence (and no coercive control) for at least 1 year, as assessed by the ISA (physical and nonphysical) and by in-depth interview. Another third (34.4%) were emotionally abused but no longer physically abused according to the ISA. Several relationships had moved from severely abusive relationships (more than 20 on the ISA-P —above the 20th percentile from the overall sample and twice the cutoff score of 10) at Time 1, through emotional abuse (below the cutoff score of 10 on the ISA-P but above the cutoff score of 25 on the ISA-NP) at Time 2, to no abuse at the third interview. In addition, the mean on the ISA-P and ISA-NP were both significantly lower at Time 3 than at Time 1 in both this analysis and in the larger sample, and significantly fewer (chi-square) were in the severely abused category (Campbell & Soekin, in press).

Of the 6 women who were still in the relationship at Time 3, 3 had not been abused (either emotionally or physically) for at least 1 year. On the opposite end of the spectrum, of the 9 women who were still severely abused (according to ISA scores) at Time 3, 4 had totally ended the original relationship, but the same abuser was still hitting her. But for the majority of the women who were totally out of the relationship, there was no consistent pattern of abuse or harassment from their former partner at Time 3.

The Process of Achieving Nonviolence

In response to the violent relationship, most women initiated a process of achieving nonviolence rather than necessarily leaving the intimate relationship. This process of achieving nonviolence was not linear with easily identifiable stages. The women described going back and forth, both in external acts such as leaving and returning but also in their internal thinking and feeling processes. The process included a number of elements: (a) responding to turning points by thinking about, labeling, and conceptualizing what was happening to them; (b) negotiating internally with self and externally with the abuser; and (c) trying various strategies and combinations of strategies to improve the relationship and decrease the abuse.

Turning points.

A turning point was a specific incident or process that was seen as pivotal to how the relationship was viewed, how the woman viewed herself, or a major influence in her decision to leave the relationship. There were many types of turning points, most often more than one for each woman, and because of this variety we have presented types and examples in Table 3. The most significant and obvious identifiable event was an instance of escalation of his abuse, such as being threatened with death. “I really saw the light when he drew a gun on me,” said one woman. For others, it was property damage, serious injury, or a more serious type of physical abuse. For instance, one woman who at first was being emotionally abused, said, “When the physical abuse started, that was it.” For another woman, it was the second incident of hitting that caused her to think about the relationship and start seeing herself as abused. Being hit during and after pregnancy for some led to the decision to “get out of there.”

Table 3

515

Download more at Learnclax.com

For a few women, the turning point was becoming violent themselves. One women explained that although the emotional abuse made her see herself as abused, it was her own thoughts of hate toward him that was pivotal in her decision to leave: “It [seeing self as abused] made me hate him and plot to kill him. I knew it was time to leave when I started plotting to kill him—I burned him bad with grease.” At Time 2, this woman remained physically out of the relationship but described an emotional attachment: “I get lonesome for him sometimes. I make myself remember that the bad was worse than the good.” At Time 3, she was still out of the relationship.

Another frequent type of turning point was a psychological one that involved the woman’s own labeling of herself as abused or the relationship as abusive at Time 2 or Time 3. Initially, when asked if they saw themselves as battered or abused, the majority of the women responded “yes” but qualified their answer by saying it was limited to psychological or mental abuse, even though scores on the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) and ISA indicated that physical abuse was present. A few women resisted the abuse label altogether, either because they felt they had already done something to change the abusive situation or because they felt it would mean they were not a strong person. A change in thinking for some women by Time 2 or Time 3 was seen as pivotal because once it occurred, it either provided the impetus to leave or influence her decision to stay. Women were able to identify a specific event or time when the relationship had a turning point, and reactions about these events were evident: As one woman noted, “After the first really bad fight, I realized how upset he can be. I changed my thinking. It made me reevaluate my husband and my situation.” This woman did leave the relationship at Time 2 but came back, indicating that the change in thinking did not immediately translate to permanent change in behavior. At Time 3, she was able to identify another turning point that helped her to leave for good: “He started drinking, what I thought was excessive. It aggravated his mood swings and his bad temper.”

Turning points could also be small incremental changes that, taken together, resulted in a shift in thinking and a move toward leaving. For example, one woman described her reactions this way:

I decided to go because of the benefits to me and my kids. If I stayed with him, it would have just gone down further. I was so run down. The effects on the kids could be seen—my daughter talked about it in

516

Download more at Learnclax.com

school—the teachers asked her. The kids said we should leave. I started to think about ways to kill him.

Financial independence was also very important—“I decided to put my social security check in direct deposit because he would check when he knew the day it would come. I also set goals in support group, and I reached them all.”

Negotiating with self or partner.

Negotiating as a strategy for achieving nonviolence was also complex in that it involved the woman negotiating with herself first and then negotiating with the partner. Part of the negotiating with the self (sometimes with the help of family, friends, shelter advocates, support groups, or therapists at various stages) included convincing herself that either “it’s not that bad” or there was a serious relationship problem because of certain behaviors and/or their severity. For some, the negotiating process was an essential step that preceded coming to terms with the notion that the problem was abuse and/or control and deciding that some sort of action was necessary.

Negotiating with self continued as women negotiated with their partner. Negotiating involved setting up a scenario, “when this happens, I will leave,” or “if that happens, I will confront him.” There was an element of bargaining—waiting until a daughter goes off to college or until the woman was able to go back to school. Women decided that if they saw or continued to see certain behaviors in him that affected themselves or their children, they would need to do something else. Some plans were concrete, others more vague in terms of whether the outcome could be realized. Examples of the concrete negotiating were offering to do something he wanted or correcting something he identified as a major problem in exchange for him ending the abusive behavior and/or seeking help from a professional—most often for substance abuse or a mental health problem.

Selecting strategies to decrease abuse.

Most often, women used a combination of strategies designed to decrease the abuse in the relationship. The strategies were chosen through an active, conscious, evaluative process of decision making, revising, and choosing new strategies when old ones failed. The women monitored the effects on their partners, their children, and themselves. Although most of the women admitted they did things they had not intended to do, such as not carrying through with resolutions or decisions, they kept trying to make it better. Even those who were “making do in the relationship” monitored the situation and recognized their deliberate passivity.

A group of strategies that emerged in terms of women working to achieve nonviolence were categorized as active problem solving, in direct response to the abuse. Examples included (a) calling the police, (b) seeking advice or help from others, (c) fighting back or hitting first, (d) leaving, (e) financial actions, (f) self-talk, (g) acts of finality, and (h) avoiding or hiding. They were used with varying degrees of success. Finally, a strategy labeled “subordinating self” was identified as a critical component of the active problem-solving process.

More than half of the women had “called the police” at least once, and another small group had used the tactic of threatening to call the police. For close to half of those who called, the police were helpful, taking or precipitating actions such as taking the partner’s gun, taking the woman to a shelter, or getting an order of

517

Download more at Learnclax.com

protection. For another group, calling the police made no difference or was detrimental because “they told me nothing could be done,” or the police did not even show up. Some women resorted to subversive methods to deal with the nonresponsive system: “I told them there was a gun to get them to come, and they got mad at me.”

Close to half of the women in this sample had “sought advice and/or help from others.” Female friends were identified most often as a source of support. Other women spoke about isolation or decisions to not seek out others for support due to embarrassment, critical responses of others, or responses from others that seemed to minimize the problem or impeded the woman’s own help seeking.

Approximately half the women had tried “fighting back” (hitting back at least occasionally), some reported hitting him first most of the time, and two women usually hit first since the beginning of the relationship. However, whether they continued being the one to hit first depended on how well it worked for them in keeping them from getting hurt. One woman said, “I used to be the first one to hit, although it was usually minor, and I always ended up getting hurt.” The consequences of fighting back were often substantial, such as increasing the partner’s anger toward the woman. Another woman decided that her partner deliberately provoked her to initiate aggression so he could strike back at her. For a small minority, the fighting back was a very effective strategy because it decreased the violence. One woman said her fighting back “surprised him,” and another realized that it gave her a greater sense of control.

Close to half of the women had tried “leaving” at some point, some leaving for a few days to get his attention and then returning, whereas another had a clear intent of leaving forever and going as far away as possible. Leaving was used as a problem-solving strategy but was not an easy strategy to embrace. Women talked about “getting on with my life” and “having a job to do—raising my kids.” The process of leaving was not linear, and it was not always immediate. For some, a turning point, discussed earlier, changed the thinking, but it took additional time for the act of leaving to actually occur.

The women took “financial actions” before and/or after leaving. For example, one woman gave up child support because “it gave him control and occasions for contact and argument.” Because financial independence was seen as critical to leaving the relationship, the women focused on achieving it as much as possible and through whatever means available such as getting a job, going after his income tax, or simply not buying things jointly. Women who were in the process of leaving engaged in “self-talk” as a way to try to make objective decisions about the relationship. For example, one woman made lists of advantages and disadvantages of the relationship, while others who left reminded themselves how bad the relationship was. Other women said they took “acts of finality,” as if to symbolize to themselves and/or to their partners that the relationship was over. Such acts included filing divorce papers or destroying gifts that she had received from or given to him. “Avoiding and hiding actions” were necessary for some of the women who left a violent man. For example, one woman hid her car whenever she went out. Another woman stopped answering the phone and kept her lights on a timer.

“Subordinating the self” was an internal problem-solving strategy. Subordinating was a term used by one woman who described her decision to use it as a strategy “to avoid making a scene” in public. It was classified

518

Download more at Learnclax.com

as active because it resulted from a conscious choice, a proactive decision, to try a strategy to address a problem that had been recognized as abuse or controlling behavior. Subordinating thus was defined as a defensive strategy, designed to avoid physical harm or intense verbal altercations that might lead to harm. Approximately half of the women who were subordinating themselves at Time 1 were still subordinating themselves at Time 3.

Subordinating thus was characterized as a conscious decision to be as nonresponsive as possible to stop the escalation of his anger. It is important to note that the women made choices regarding when to resist and when to adopt a subordinating posture. One woman decided, “Keeping feelings in is keeping things under control.” This was not a consistent pattern of responding; rather, it was tied to particular events, times, and spheres of contention. This same woman explained about her job: “He might pressure, but I wouldn’t quit— it’s my livelihood.” Another woman was able to “stand her ground” in disagreeing with her partner about child issues but subordinated herself to avoid being hit in other arguments.

There were different types of subordinating. The first was doing what the partner wanted, illustrated by statements such as “I did things to please him that I would not have ordinarily done,” “I did try to change things that irritated him,” and “had to do everything alone for … an ill child not readily accepted by husband.” Another type was actively silencing themselves, such as “keeping feelings in” quoted above, and also “I clam up,” and “I avoid discussing it … don’t know what else to do.” A third mode was taking a stance of passivity, illustrated by phrases such as “act docile,” “tried not to provoke him,” and “back off.” Finally, ignoring his behavior was exemplified by phrases such as “ignore it,” “pretend it doesn’t exist,” and by the woman who said, “I loved him, so I let him do whatever made him happy so he would not leave me.”

In summary, the overall theme was women initiating and sustaining a process of achieving nonviolence through active problem solving. This is not to say that the women were uniformly strong; that they did not “make mistakes”; that they did not use violence themselves, sometimes to a frightening extent; or that they always made healthy choices for themselves or their children. Even so, the overall picture over time was one of strength, resistance, and resourcefulness in the face of frightening circumstances.

Discussion

A strength of this study was that it used a prospective rather than retrospective design, with the women describing the process as it occurred rather than after they had processed the events and their feelings. This resulted in stories that were sometimes contradictory rather than coherent. They were more difficult to categorize but were more likely closer to the actual presentation of battered women. Another strength of this study was that it included women who had not achieved nonviolence at the end of the time period, whereas most of the other qualitative studies were limited to women who were totally out of the violent relationship.

As has been noted in other studies, dealing with abuse is a complex process, and achieving nonviolence is neither strictly linear nor necessarily progressive in all instances. The majority of the women in this study had indeed either left the abusive relationship, almost a third were in the process of leaving the abusive relationship, and 3 women were still in the relationship after almost 4 years and were not being abused. To be

519

Download more at Learnclax.com

considered nonabused, women had to have been free of all forms of coercive control (physical, sexual, psychological, and emotional) for at least 1 year. The trajectory of achieving nonviolence for the women was also true of the entire sample according to quantitative analysis (Campbell & Soekin, in press) as well as in an earlier investigation of a different sample by the same investigator (Campbell et al., 1994) and others (Feld & Straus, 1989; Okun, 1986). However, this study has demonstrated that categories of relationship status should not be combined or confused with violence status categories. One of the most important implications for research is that dichotomous measures of being in or out of the relationship or being violence free or still abused do not adequately capture the complexity of relationship status and violence presence, absence, and severity demonstrated in this study.

It was striking that severity of abuse did not always influence women’s decisions about leaving until it reached an extreme level. At these times, a critical event was an important turning point and impetus to leave. There were also very different thresholds for abuse, different definitions of severity, different perceptions of what made the abuse intolerable, and what made the relationship intolerable. Abuse was clearly part of the picture but clearly not the only factor and often not the most important.

We need to continue our safety planning with women during and after the actual leaving and to be clear that leaving is not a static event. Relationships involve emotional commitment, sexual intimacy, legal processes, and financial arrangements that may be more important than, and independent from, actual living arrangements and legal marital status. Our safety planning may occur at one point in time, but women need to know that it is an ongoing process for them. It is also important to realize that it indeed is possible for relationships to become violence free (and noncontrolling) as well as for the violence to decrease to a point that women consider tolerable. This is not to say that women should remain in abusive relationships, but that we need to offer women creative interventions that help them to monitor their ongoing physical safety and emotional safety, as they negotiate their own individual process toward freedom from violence (e.g., Sullivan, Campbell, Angelique, Eby, & Davidson, 1994). We need to help them understand that there are no easy answers or pathways and that individual stories are unique. Relationships can become nonabusive, and the majority of women do find freedom from violence and control from intimate partners by leaving the relationship. However, it often takes time after the relationship is over for the violence to end and for the emotional connection to disseminate.

Theoretical implications.

This study explicates further the stage of the process of entrapment and recovery that Landenburger (1989) identified as “disengagement,” because all the women in this study recognized that there were “serious problems” in the relationship. It is also similar to Merritt-Gray and Wuest’s (1995) well-described first phase of the process of “breaking free.” Their description of women minimizing abuse and fortifying their defenses was echoed by the women in this study as they talked about being “only” psychologically abused (in spite of reporting physical violence against them) and “making do” in the relationship. However, this sample was not recruited on the basis of a self-ascribed label of abused or battered woman, and the majority of the women did not identify violence as the major problem of the relationship. Therefore, they may have been less severely

520

Download more at Learnclax.com

abused than women in the other samples.

We found clear support for “agency” in Lempert’s (1996) terminology, whereby women used conscious decision making to take action, not only active behaviors (e.g., calling the police) but other actions that would be defined as passive (e.g., subordinating the self) in most theoretical schemas. In the face of potential danger to both herself and her children, such decisions were clearly intelligent, courageous, and healthy, rather than passive. Our analysis was that the passive approaches were driven by an intricate interplay of external circumstances as well as an interior style of coping, attributional style, or mental status (explored during the interview). The most salient issues were related to how she labeled and conceptualized the violent behavior, an awareness of the possibility of death, her level of violence, her degree of commitment to and hope for the relationship, concerns about the children, financial issues, and mostly what seemed to be helping the most in improving the relationship and minimizing the abuse. This is important clinically and theoretically, especially for professionals who have not worked with battered women extensively or are accustomed to thinking of them as having unhealthy coping styles. At the same time, we theorize that the subordinating strategy, although entered into purposively, may over time result in the disappearance of the self, noted by Mills (1985), Landenburger (1989), and Jack (1991), and contribute to depression (Campbell, Kub, Belknap, and Templin, 1997).

Abuse or battering labeling.

The majority of these women labeled themselves as primarily psychologically or emotionally abused at the beginning of the study but not battered, in spite of the violence and controlling behavior. It may be that the majority of the women were in the disengagement phase according to Landenburger’s (1989, 1993) conceptualization because it is in the earlier “entrapment” stage that women generally do not think of themselves as abused. A few women actively resisted such labels, apparently finding them shameful or not conveying the resistance that they saw in themselves. This may reflect increased public awareness of domestic violence (Klein, Soler, & Campbell, 1997). The clinical implication seems to be that labels of “battered” or “abused” should not be applied unless the women come to this label themselves. However, helping women label the partner’s behavior as abusive can be important, as it may help women explore how to make decisions about what and who needs to change.

Summary

The generalizability of the findings are limited by the small sample size, the high rate of attrition, and the self-selected nature of the study. Nevertheless, when considered in conjunction with other studies, they show that women’s responses to abusive relationships are never static or unidimensional. Ending the relationship does not necessarily end the violence, nor does the relationship have to end for the abuse to stop. They were engaged in an ongoing process of considering options, making choices, and dealing with daily-life issues. They described active—and effective—strategies of dealing with problems in ways that might be viewed as passivity or denial of the severity of their situation. They were aware that the relationship had to change, but they also made decisions about when and to what extent those changes would occur. Self-talk, decisions to subordinate and negotiate, were essential to many women in staying safe as they moved through the process of

521

Download more at Learnclax.com

achieving nonviolence. Recognizing the importance of these responses in the process will provide women with support, advocacy, and partnership in realizing the goal.

Discussion Questions

1. What are some of the reasons that women stay in relationships that involve violence? 2. What are some of the reasons that motivate women to make a decision to end a violent relationship? 3. How do women achieve nonviolence in their relationships (e.g., what are some turning points)? 4. What is “subordinating the self,” and how does it relate to intimate partner violence? 5. How can the findings of this study be used by victim advocates or policymakers?

Note

Research reported in this article was supported by the National Institute for Nursing Research R29NR01678.

522

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L. E. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned survey.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bunting, S., & Campbell, J. C. (1994). Through a feminist lens: A model to guide nursing research. In P. Chinn (Ed.), Advances in methods of inquiry for nursing (pp. 75–87). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Campbell, J. C. (1989). Women’s responses to sexual abuse in intimate relationships. Women’s Health Care International, 8, 335–347.

Campbell, J. C. (1995). Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Campbell, J. C., & Humphreys, J. H. (1993). Nursing care of survivors of family violence. St. Louis: Mosby.

Campbell, J. C., Kub, J., Belknap, R. A., & Templin, T. (1997). Predictors of depression in battered women. Violence Against Women, 3(3), 271–293.

Campbell, J., Miller, P., Cardwell, M., & Belknap, R. A. (1994). Relationship status of battered women over time. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 99–111.

Campbell, J., & Soekin, K. (in press). Women’s responses to battering: A test of a model. Research in Nursing and Health.

Eby, K., Campbell, J. C., Sullivan, C., & Davidson, W. (1995). Health effects of experiences of sexual violence for women with abusive partners. Women’s Health Care International, 16, 563–576.

Fagan, J., & Browne, A. (1994). Violence between spouses and intimates: Physical aggression between women and men in intimate relationships. In Albert J. Reiss & Jeffrey A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence Vol. 3: Social influences (pp. 115–292). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Feld, S. L., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Escalation and desistance of wife assault in marriage. Criminology, 27(1), 141–161.

Gondolf, W., Fisher, E., & McFerron, R. (1988). Racial difference among shelter residents. Journal of Family

523

Download more at Learnclax.com

Violence, 3, 39–51.

Henderson, D. J. (1995). Consciousness raising in participatory research: Method and methodology for emancipatory nursing inquiry. Advances in Nursing Science, 17, 58–69.

Hoff, L. A. (1990). Battered women as survivors. London: Routledge.

Hudson, W. W., & McIntosh, S. R. (1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: Two quantifiable dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 873–885.

Jack, D. C. (1991). Silencing the self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Gorner, E., Berns, S., & Wu Shortt, J. (1996). Psychological factors in the longitudinal course of battering: When do the couples split up? When does the abuse decrease? Violence and Victims, 11, 371–392.

Klein, E., Soler, E., & Campbell, J. (1997). Ending domestic violence: Changing public perception about domestic violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kurz, D. (1996). Separation, divorce and woman abuse. Violence Against Women, 2(1), 63–81.

Landenburger, K. (1989). A process of entrapment in and recovery from an abusive relationship. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 3, 209–227.

Landenburger, K. (1993). Exploration of women’s identity: Clinical approaches with abused women. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Empowering survivors of abuse: Health care, battered women and their children. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the post modern. New York: Routledge.

Lempert, L. B. (1996). Women’s strategies for survival: Developing agency in abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 269–290.

McCauley, J., Kern, D., Kolodner, K., Dill, L., Schroeder, A., DeChant, H., Ryden, J., Bass, E., &

524

Download more at Learnclax.com

Derogotis, L. R. (1996). The “Battering Syndrome”: Prevalence and clinical symptoms of domestic violence in primary care internal medicine practices. Annals of Internal Medicine, 123, 737–746.

Merritt-Gray, M., & Wuest, J. (1995). Counteracting abuse and breaking free: The process of leaving revealed through women’s voices. Health Care for Women International, 16, 399–412.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, T. (1985). The assault on the self: Stages in coping with battering husbands. Qualitative Sociology, 8, 103–123.

Okun, L. E. (1986). Woman abuse: Facts replacing myths. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Pence, E., & Paymer, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter. New York: Springer.

Plichta, S. B. (1996). Violence and abuse: Implications for women’s health. In M. M. Falik & K. S. Collins (Eds.), Women’s health: The commonwealth fund survey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ratner, P. A. (1993). The incidence of wife abuse and mental health status in abused wives in Edmonton, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 84(A), 246–249.

Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Russell, D. (1982). Rape in marriage. New York: MacMillan.

Schechter, S., & Jones, A. (1992). When love goes wrong. New York: HarperCollins.

Small, S. (1995). Action-oriented research: Models and methods. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 941–955.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to family violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Sullivan, C., Campbell, R., Angelique, H., Eby, K., & Davidson, W. (1994). An advocacy intervention program with abusive partners: Six month follow-up. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22,

525

Download more at Learnclax.com

101–122.

Wilson, M., Johnson, H., & Daly, M. (1995). Lethal and non-lethal violence against wives. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 331–362.

526

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section IX Victimization at the Beginning and End of Life: Child and Elder Abuse

Rosienell Adams, a 27-year-old woman, was recently convicted of aggravated child abuse against her 22-month-old son. The son had scars, burns, and other injuries, but one burn was particularly gruesome: a third-degree burn on his hand in the exact shape of an iron. In court, a woman with the Children’s Hospital Intervention and Prevention Services Clinic testified that if the burn had been accidental, the scar would show evidence of a “glancing” burn rather than the outline of the iron, which is consistent with the iron being held on the child’s hand. After the burn occurred, the mother did not seek medical care for her son, even though the child’s father drove her to the hospital. She simply pretended to get medical attention (“Gadsden Mother Convicted,” 2011).

This case is an example of child abuse. Had it occurred to a person over the age of 60, it would qualify as elder abuse. This section is devoted to these special victims—those who are very young and those who are older. These two types of victimizations are discussed in the same section because they are defined by the victim’s position in the life course. Accordingly, the ways in which policy and actors respond to the victim and victimization are tied to the stage in the life course. Also, the causes and consequences of child abuse and elder abuse have a direct tie to the victim’s stage in the life course.

527

Download more at Learnclax.com

Child Maltreatment

If the case of physical child abuse perpetrated by Rosienell Adams had occurred prior to the late 19th century, it might have gone without intervention. In fact, child maltreatment was not much of a concern to the public or the justice system until an 1875 case involving a 9-year-old girl, Mary Ellen. She was abused and neglected by her caregivers, but a concerned neighbor intervened to get her help. This neighbor, Mrs. Wheeler, quickly found that no policies or laws were in place to address issues of child maltreatment. As such, she did not receive the assistance she had hoped for. She turned to Henry Bergh, the founder and president of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). He intervened on her behalf in court and was able to get Mary Ellen removed from the custody of her abusers and placed in a children’s home. After this case, Bergh formed the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Payne & Gainey, 2009; Pfohl, 1977). This development, coupled with the House of Refuge movement—which called for institutions to provide care for maltreated children—and the development of the first juvenile court in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois, served to create services that would address, at least in part, maltreated children.

It would take another 50 years, during the 1940s and 1950s, for child maltreatment to again receive meaningful attention. This time, the attention came from the medical community. Pediatric radiologists began to notice in X-rays broken bones that they believed were attributable to child abuse. These X-rays provided empirical evidence to support the occurrence of child abuse. In the 1960s, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a set of presentations on battered child syndrome, further contributing to the recognition of child abuse as a real issue and a medical condition (Payne & Gainey, 2009). During the 1970s, these developments spurred widespread concern about child maltreatment that led to the passage of the first federal legislation addressing child abuse.

What Is Child Maltreatment?

Child maltreatment can take two major forms: abuse and neglect. Abuse occurs when a person causes harm to a child (a person under the age of majority in a state, usually 18 years). It consists of actions done to a child rather than what a person fails to do for a child. Abuse can be physical, but it can also be emotional or sexual. What distinguishes these three types of abuse? Physical abuse may at first appear to be self-explanatory, but it merits some discussion to distinguish the differences between physical abuse and punishment. Physical abuse involves injury or physical harm of a child. Examples of physical abuse include hitting, punching, burning, slapping, and cutting. It may result from a person’s intention to hurt a child, but it also may result from a misuse of discipline, such as a person using a belt to punish a child. When physical discipline is used not to teach a child right from wrong but, instead, out of anger and to make a child live in fear, it crosses the line from discipline into abuse (Saisan, Smith, & Segal, 2011). Table 9.1 displays examples of physical abuse.

Table 9.1

528

Download more at Learnclax.com

Emotional abuse may not carry physical marks, but it also can be quite harmful for children. When you think of emotional abuse, what first comes to mind likely is name calling, yelling, threatening, or bullying. These are overt and aggressive acts of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse can take less aggressive forms. For example, belittling, shaming, and humiliating a child are forms of emotional abuse. In addition, ignoring, rejecting, or limiting physical contact with a child constitutes emotional abuse (Saisan et al., 2011). As you may imagine, these behaviors can cause psychological harm for a child and may be detrimental to the child’s social development. For a detailed description of emotional abuse, see Table 9.1.

The third type of abuse is sexual abuse of a child. Child sexual abuse can be active and involve physical touching but does not have to involve touching. Exposing children to sexual content or situations can be sexually abusive, as can involving children in pornography or prostitution. See Table 9.1 for a description of what child sexual abuse includes. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974) defines child sexual abuse as the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in, or assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct; or the rape, and in cases of caretaker or inter-familial relationships, statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children. (Sec. 111.42 U.S.C. 5106g)

529

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.Helpguide.org

Another way children can be maltreated is not abuse in that it is not active and does not result from the direct, intentional, and active harming of a child. Neglect results when a child’s basic needs are not met. Children are, by definition, reliant on their caregivers for almost everything—food, shelter, transportation, love, and care. Legally, caregivers are required to meet these basic needs and are bound by law to make sure that children are getting a certain level of care. When this does not happen, children are said to be neglected. As such, neglect can be physical, medical, educational, or emotional, depending on the required need not being met. For example, if food is not being provided to a child, that is physical neglect. If a child routinely misses school because of a parent, it is educational neglect. See Table 9.1 for a description of the types of neglect.

Measurement and Extent of Child Maltreatment

It is difficult to know the true extent of child maltreatment in the United States. Child maltreatment is hard to detect for several reasons. Children may be too young to verbalize what is happening to them, even if they are capable of understanding that they are being maltreated. This is one of the reasons why child abuse goes undetected—children are not likely to tell anyone that they are being harmed. Another is that parents, caregivers, and other family members are often the perpetrators. These people are unlikely to tell the police or other authorities that abuse or neglect is occurring if they are the perpetrators. Others who may be concerned about the child may not know that maltreatment is occurring, so they may not report either.

Nonetheless, what we do know about the extent of child maltreatment mainly comes from official data sources. Because, as you will read later in this section, all states require that certain people report suspected child maltreatment to authorities, official statistics reflect these reports. The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) provides an analysis of annual data on child abuse and neglect reports made to state child protective service agencies, including those in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Once a referral is made to the child protective service agency, the agency determines whether the case will be screened in to determine if maltreatment has occurred or if a child is at risk. The case can also be screened out if the agency determines that no maltreatment has occurred or that the child is not at risk (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010).

Photo 9.1 Peggy McMartin Buckey and her son Ray Buckey in court during their trial for sexually molesting children at the McMartin preschool that they operated. After one child alleged sexual abuse, police sent a letter to the parents of the other children who attended the preschool. Eventually, the Buckeys were charged, along with others working at the preschool, with abuse of over 40 children. Peggy was acquitted at trial on all charges, and the jury was deadlocked on several counts against Ray, but the case was later closed. The interviewing techniques used on the children came under severe scrutiny.

530

Download more at Learnclax.com

Another resource for data on maltreated children is the National Incidence Study (NIS). Most recently, data from the fourth NIS (NIS-4) were released. This study includes information on cases investigated by Child Protective Services but also cases that were identified by professionals in the community. To receive information on these cases, 10,791 professionals (called sentinels) submitted data forms on children with whom they had contact who were victims of abuse and/or neglect during the study period (3-month reference period in either 2005 or 2006) (Sedlak et al., 2010).

According to the NCANDS, in 2014, there were about 3.2 million referrals in the United States. These referrals dealt with the alleged maltreatment of about 6.6 million children. Of the referrals, about one-fifth (17.8%) resulted in a substantiated disposition, which means the child was a victim of some form of maltreatment. In over half the cases, a professional made the report of suspected child abuse (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Results from the NIS-4 study indicate that more than 1.25 million children during 2005–2006 experienced maltreatment that resulted in demonstrable harm (Sedlak et al., 2010). When using a less restrictive definition, the NIS-4 study estimated that 1 in 25 children experienced maltreatment (even if they were not yet harmed by maltreatment but the sentinel thought the maltreatment endangered the child or if a child protective services investigation indicated maltreatment) (Sedlak et al., 2010). Neglect accounted for the majority of cases reported in the NCANDS—three-fourths suffered from neglect. Next most common was physical abuse (17%), followed by sexual abuse (8.3%) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).

As with other official data sources, these estimates of child maltreatment are probably low because child abuse

531

Download more at Learnclax.com

and neglect are likely to go undetected and unreported to Child Protective Services and/or law enforcement. One way to tap into this “dark figure of crime,” or crime not reported to officials, is through surveys. As noted, children may not be able to identify whether they have been victimized. To address this problem, researchers in one study asked questions directly of children aged 10 years and older but asked the caregiver who was “most familiar with the child’s daily routine and experiences” questions about victimization experiences of children younger than 10 (Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2009, p. 2). Results from this study showed that 10.2% of the children had been maltreated by a significant adult in their life during the previous year (Finkelhor, Turner et al., 2009).

The most serious consequence of child maltreatment is death. Fortunately, most cases of child maltreatment do not result in fatalities, but some children lose their lives far too early at the hands of an abuser. In 2014, an estimated 1,546 children died as a result of child maltreatment. Unlike maltreatment reported to NCANDS, about three-fourths of child fatalities were attributed at least in part to neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).

Who Are Victims of Child Maltreatment?

Based on reports to child protective service agencies, the “typical” victim of child maltreatment is quite young. In fact, victims from birth to 1 year old had the highest rate of victimization. About 70% of children who died from child maltreatment were under the age of 3 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Victims were almost equally likely to be males as females (48.9% compared to 50.7%). As you may imagine, however, female children are more likely than male children to be the victims of child sexual abuse (Sedlak et al., 2010). Male children, on the other hand, are at greater risk of dying from child maltreatment than are female children (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). White children made up the largest percentage of reports (44.0%), but African American (21.4%) and Hispanic (22.7%) children were disproportionately represented in reports, given their composition in the population (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Similarly, the NIS-4 study revealed rates of maltreatment for Black children to be higher than those for both White and Hispanic children (Sedlak et al., 2010).

Who Perpetrates Child Maltreatment?

To understand the causes of child maltreatment, it is particularly instructive to identify the perpetrator of the abuse. Data from the NCANDS show that biological parents are the most likely perpetrators of child maltreatment reported to Child Protective Services. More than 90% of child maltreatment victims in 2014 were victimized by one or both parents. Mothers are more likely to be perpetrators of child maltreatment than are fathers, except in cases of child sexual abuse. This difference may be attributable to the fact that mothers are likely to be responsible for the majority of caregiving responsibilities. Of the victims who were harmed by people other than their parents, relatives make up the largest group, followed by unmarried partners of parents. Most perpetrators are White (48.8%) and ages 18 to 44 (83.2%) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).

It may be difficult to imagine that a parent could take the life of a child, but of the child maltreatment

532

Download more at Learnclax.com

incidents that resulted in death, about four-fifths were perpetrated by one or both parents. Of these, 28% were perpetrated by a mother acting alone, 15% by a father acting alone, and 21.8% by both a mother and father. Just 3% of child fatalities were caused by a parent’s partner (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).

Risk Factors for Child Maltreatment

For other types of victimization, we have examined risk factors tied to the victim that place him or her at more risk of being victimized as compared with others. The very nature of being a child may place children at risk. That is, children’s vulnerability in terms of size and not being able to protect themselves may make them targets. In addition, children who are “fussy” and who have difficult temperaments are more prone to abuse than other children (Rycus & Hughes, 1998). Examining the family structure and caregivers for factors tied to an increased risk for child abuse is also instructive, because traditional explanations of victimization such as routine activities and lifestyles theories do not apply.

Familial Risk Factors

Several factors about a child’s family are tied to increased risk of maltreatment. One key factor consistently found in the lives of children who are maltreated is that they come from families living in poverty. This is not to say that all maltreated children live in poverty, but poverty and child maltreatment are correlated. Poverty is often tied to unemployment and a lack of general resources needed to meet the needs of children, often creating stress that leads to violence and neglect (P. G. Bond & Webb, 2010). In the NIS-4 study, children with parents who were unemployed and who lived in low socioeconomic status households had higher rates of maltreatment than other children (Sedlak et al., 2010).

In addition to poverty, the structure of the family impacts risk of child maltreatment. Children who live with two biological parents are at lowest risk of being maltreated, whereas children who live with a single parent who has a cohabiting partner are at greatest risk. Those children who live with a single parent with a cohabiting partner have a rate of abuse more than 10 times that of other children (Sedlak et al., 2010). In particular, boyfriends of mothers are responsible for a disproportionate share of child maltreatment. One study found that boyfriends account for half of all child abuse committed by nonparents (Margolin, 1992). In addition, family size is connected to maltreatment. Children who live in households with four or more children are at greater risk of maltreatment than children who live in households with two children (Sedlak et al., 2010). The role of fathers in particular has also been explored.

Individual Risk Factors

Factors specific to the individual also relate to risk of child abuse. According to social learning theory, abusive behavior is learned behavior. In this way, people abuse or neglect their children because they experienced or witnessed such behavior when they were younger. Age is also a factor. Research shows that young fatherhood is a risk factor for child maltreatment (Guterman & Lee, 2005) and that young teen mothers are particularly vulnerable to abusing and neglecting their children (Afifi & Brownridge, 2008). This relationship may be due to the fact that young mothers do not have the resources to meet the needs of their children. Also, they may

533

Download more at Learnclax.com

not have the maturity to deal with the stresses of full-time parenthood. Both factors may lead to abuse and

neglect.

Particularly in regard to neglect, parents may also simply lack the knowledge of what children need. In this way, they may not be equipped to provide the nurturing, food, and medical care required. In addition, parents may lack judgment for making good parenting choices, such as deciding when a child is old enough to be left alone (Cantwell, 1999). Under these circumstances, parents’ behavior may meet the definitions of neglect.

Other individual risk factors include substance use by parents. Like criminal behavior and aggression, child abuse and neglect are often linked to substance abuse. From one-third to two-thirds of all child maltreatment cases involve substance use (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999a). Substance abuse is tied to violent behavior but is also linked to an inability or unwillingness to provide physical or emotional support to children (W. B. Wilcox & Dew, 2008). Parents with addictions often fail to place their children before their addiction and may leave their children alone and unsupervised or in the care of untrustworthy people (P. G. Bond & Webb, 2010). Substance abuse often co-occurs with other problems such as mental illness, unemployment, stress, and impaired family functioning, all of which may increase risk for child maltreatment (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2009). Parental mental illness may also place children at risk. Depression, particularly, has been linked to child maltreatment (Conron, Beardslee, Koenen, Buka, & Gortmaker, 2009). Depression may lead to poor parenting in that parents suffering from depression may be emotionally unavailable to their children (Weinberg & Tronick, 1998).

Children may also have certain characteristics that place them at increased risk of experiencing maltreatment. Data from NCANDS show that children who have a disability are more likely to be maltreated than other children. Children with behavioral problems and medical problems are also at an increased risk for maltreatment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012).

Consequences of Child Maltreatment

It is often said that children are resilient—that they bounce back from adversity to overcome even the worst of situations. This is often the case. For some children, being abused or neglected will not seemingly leave lasting scars. But for others, the effects of maltreatment are deeply rooted and long lasting, impacting multiple areas of their lives.

Physical, Cognitive, and Developmental Effects

We have already discussed that abuse and neglect may cause death, but there are other physical effects that could be present. One outcome that has recently garnered attention is shaken baby syndrome, which causes brain hemorrhages, skull fractures, and retinal hemorrhages. It is estimated that from 1,200 to 1,400 children in the United States alone are injured or killed each year by shaking (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2011).

Shaken baby syndrome is a specific consequence of a specific action—shaking a baby—but other outcomes of maltreatment can impact development for children. Depending on the severity of abuse and neglect, it may

534

Download more at Learnclax.com

cause impairments to brain development, which can affect cognitive, language, and academic abilities (Watts- English, Fortson, Gibler, Hooper, & De Bellis, 2006). Children who are neglected may not have their basic developmental needs met and may suffer from developmental delays. Consider that parents who are neglectful are less likely to provide an enriched environment that would allow children to flourish. Moreover, neglected children are less likely to be getting the necessary food and nutrients that a brain needs to develop normally. Accordingly, neglected children are more likely to experience developmental delays (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2008a).

Psychological Effects

It is common for victims of all types of child maltreatment to experience guilt, shame, fear, and anger in response to their victimization. Children may blame themselves for the abuse or neglect or, if their family dissolves, for the breakup of their family unit. At least in some children, abuse and neglect have been associated with panic disorder, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder, reactive attachment disorder, anger, and dissociative disorders (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2008a).

Although all types of maltreatment may cause psychological harm, they are associated more commonly with different types of outcomes. For example, physical abuse may lead to internalizing emotions, which may lead to anxiety and depression. Neglect is commonly associated with children being unable to trust and being socially withdrawn (Bond & Webb, 2010). The psychological effects of sexual abuse often evince themselves in interpersonal relationships later in life. Sexually abused children often have difficulty developing and maintaining healthy sexual relationships. In addition, child sexual abuse victims are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, anger, and problems with substance abuse than nonabused children (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986). Child sexual abuse is also linked to suicidal ideation (G. Martin, Bergen, Richardson, Roeger, & Allison, 2004).

Effect on Criminality and Other Behaviors

As discussed in Section II, research has uncovered a victim–offender overlap in that people who are victims are often criminal and vice versa. In this way, one of the risk factors for criminality is being a crime victim. This relationship holds true for being a victim of child abuse as well. Research consistently has shown that persons who suffer child abuse are more likely to be involved in delinquent and criminal behavior than others. Being abused and neglected increases the risk of arrest for violent and general juvenile offenses by 1.9 times. This effect carries over to adulthood—abused and neglected children are 1.6 times more likely to be arrested as adults (Widom, 2000). Being sexually abused as a child increases the chances that a person will offend later in life as well. Sex offenders are more likely to have a history of sexual abuse than non–sex offenders (Jesperson, Lalumiere, & Seto, 2009). A link between child abuse before the age of 12 and intimate partner violence perpetration has also been demonstrated. Men who were maltreated were more likely to perpetrate IPV than maltreated women (Millett, Kohl, Jonson-Reid, Drake, & Petra, 2013). What do these findings suggest about social learning theory? Why would this effect be different for males and females? To read about the role that child abuse and neglect have on adult arrests and the factors that may mediate this relationship,

535

Download more at Learnclax.com

see Reading 16 by Maureen Allwood and Cathy Widom (2013) included in this section.

The effect of maltreatment on other types of crime and delinquency may be gendered in that, in retrospective studies of offenders, the relationship between child maltreatment and offending appears to be more relevant for females than males. In fact, female inmates reported more childhood maltreatment than did male inmates (McClellan, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997).

Criminal and delinquent behaviors are just one type of maladaptive behavior associated with child maltreatment. Many other behavioral consequences have been linked to child maltreatment. There appears to be a clear link between abuse and neglect in childhood and later use of alcohol and illegal drugs. It is not surprising, then, to learn that a large proportion of people in drug treatment programs report that they were abused as children (Kang, Magura, Laudet, & Whitney, 1999; Rounds-Bryant, Kristiansen, Fairbank, & Hubbard, 1998). Generally, abused and neglected children are more likely to have problems in school. In addition, these children are more likely to experience teen pregnancy (Kelley, Thornberry, & Smith, 1997). Children who are sexually abused are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and to contract a sexually transmitted disease (R. J. Johnson, Rew, & Sternglanz, 2006). Beyond consequences tied to sexual health, child sexual abuse victims are more likely to have eating disorders (Smolak & Murnen, 2002), to engage in self-mutilating behaviors (Fliege, Lee, Grimm, & Klapp, 2009), and to experience revictimization (Classen, Pales, & Aggarwa, 2005).

Effect on Adult Poverty

The link between child maltreatment and later delinquency and criminal behavior has been explored, but other outcomes have also been investigated. Generally, this research has highlighted that child maltreatment can have long-lasting negative effects. Being maltreated as a child has been shown to increase a person’s chances of living in poverty and being unemployed. In one study, adults who had experienced maltreatment in childhood had 2 times the risk of being unemployed. Physical abuse in childhood was linked to a 60% increase in the risk of living in poverty in adulthood (Zielinski, 2009).

Responses to Child Maltreatment

Legislation

As previously noted, the landmark federal legislation defining child maltreatment was the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974). This act provided definitions of child abuse and neglect and required states to pass mandatory reporting laws for suspected cases of child maltreatment in order to receive certain federal funding. It also established a national clearinghouse for information on child abuse, promoted research on child abuse and neglect, and provided grant and other monies to support research and programs designed to address child maltreatment.

The mandatory reporting requirement was especially important given the difficulty in detecting child abuse. Currently, every state in the United States has some form of mandatory reporting law for suspected child abuse cases. These laws require that certain individuals report to authorities (e.g., law enforcement, a child

536

Download more at Learnclax.com

protective agency, Department of Health and Human Services) if they suspect that a child is a victim of

maltreatment. Mandatory reporters typically include individuals who work with children, such as teachers, day care workers, law enforcement, mental health care providers, social workers, and school personnel. Some states require film developers to report. States differ regarding the standard of knowledge that triggers the duty to mandatorily report. In some states, it is a “reasonable suspicion”; in others, it is a “reasonable cause to believe”; and in others, a person is required to “know or suspect.” When a person does not report suspected child maltreatment when required to do so, he or she could be held criminally liable. Most typically, this is a misdemeanor that carries a fine as punishment (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2010b). Civil liability, however, can attach for nonreporting. To further encourage reporting, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act requires states to have legislation that provides immunity from prosecution, both criminally and civilly, for individuals who report suspected child abuse in “good faith.” See Table 9.2 for Kentucky’s mandatory reporting law for suspected cases of child abuse. In 2014, most reports were made by legal and law enforcement professionals (18.1%) and education personnel (17.7%). The next most common reporters were social services personnel (11%) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).

Table 9.2

Source: Reprinted by permission of RAINN, Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

Another approach to reducing child abuse through legislation has been through safe haven laws. These laws allow mothers or custodial parents who are in crisis to relinquish their babies anonymously to designated places so that their babies are protected and can receive medical care until a permanent home is found. The mother or custodial parent is protected from criminal prosecution if he or she follows the requirements of the safe haven laws. As of May 2010, 49 states and Puerto Rico had adopted safe haven laws. Most states allow

537

Download more at Learnclax.com

infants (up to 72 hours old in some states, up to 1 month in others, and other ages stipulated in other states) to be dropped off at hospitals, health care facilities, law enforcement agencies, emergency service providers, or fire stations (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2010a). As you may imagine, the goal of these laws is to reduce infanticide and abandonment of babies and to ensure that parents who feel they are incapable of caring for their infants know they can, without penalty to themselves, leave their children in the safe hands of others.

Criminal Justice System

Despite the difficulty in detecting child abuse, when the criminal justice system is made aware of suspected cases of child abuse, the cases are often treated seriously. Recent research analyzing 21 studies on prosecutions of child abuse cases revealed that they are treated similarly to other violent crimes. For cases that were carried forward with charges, conviction rates averaged 94% (Cross, Walsh, Simone, & Jones, 2003).

One reason why conviction rates may be high is because of the protections afforded to victims in the courtroom. Recognizing the special care that maltreated children may need from the criminal justice system, courtroom assistance is provided to them in the form of a guardian ad litem (GAL). A GAL appears on behalf of the child in court to represent the child’s best interests. In child abuse and neglect cases involving allegations against a parent, GALs are often required because, by definition, the child’s interests conflict with those of the parent. Many times the GAL will be a court-appointed special advocate, a volunteer with the National Court Appointed Special Advocates Association (2010). In addition to having court-appointed advocates, children may also be allowed to testify through videotape, closed-circuit television, or a two-way mirror rather than testify in the courtroom with the suspect present (K. J. Bennett, 2003). In addition, the judge may choose to clear the courtroom of all observers or of the suspect during the child’s testimony (National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, 2010). Anatomically correct dolls may also be used to facilitate testimony so that the child can use the doll to demonstrate abusive behavior (National District Attorneys Association, 2008). In addition, the courtroom’s furniture may be reorganized to make it more comfortable for testifying (Chon, 2010).

538

Download more at Learnclax.com

Elder Maltreatment

What Is Elder Maltreatment?

Maltreatment of the elderly is discussed in the same section as maltreatment of children because victimization of these two groups is similar in many ways. Both children and the elderly can be abused because of their status—they rely on others for their care. Because of this special status, persons who are charged with their care bear a special responsibility. When they do not meet this responsibility, they may be committing abuse or neglect.

Generally, maltreatment of a person over the age of 60 is considered elder maltreatment. Similar to child maltreatment, elder maltreatment comes in many forms. Physical elder abuse is nonaccidental harm against an elderly person that causes pain, injury, or impairment. Hitting, beating, pushing, shoving, slapping, kicking, punching, and burning are examples of physical abuse. In addition, it is elder physical abuse to force- feed, inappropriately administer drugs, inappropriately use physical restraints, and use physical punishment against elderly persons (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2011). It is also elder maltreatment to emotionally abuse an elderly person. Emotional or psychological elder abuse occurs when emotional pain or distress is caused by intimidation, humiliation, ridicule, blaming, verbal assaults, insults, and harassment. Less direct forms of emotional or psychological elder abuse include treating an elderly person like an infant; isolating an elderly person from family, friends, or activities; and refusing to engage or speak with the elderly person (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2011). Older adults can also be sexually abused. Unlike children, who cannot give consent to engage in sexual conduct, adults can as long as they are cognitively able to do so. Sexual elder abuse takes place when sexual contact occurs with an elderly person without his or her consent. This contact can be physical touching (e.g., penetration, kissing) but can also be nonphysical, such as showing an elderly person pornographic images against his or her will or coercing a woman to undress against her will (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2011).

Neglect of elderly persons is also a form of maltreatment. When an elderly person is under someone’s care and that person fails to fulfill a caretaking obligation, it is neglect. One of these obligations may be fiduciary in that persons may be responsible for paying for an elderly person’s care. In addition, in-home service providers may be neglectful if they fail to provide necessary care (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2011). Neglect at its most extreme comes in the form of abandonment. Abandonment occurs when an elderly person is deserted by a person who has assumed responsibility to provide his or her care or by a person who has physical custody of the elderly person (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2011).

Photo 9.2 An 83-year-old woman who was physically abused by her home health assistant rests at home after being released from the hospital.

539

Download more at Learnclax.com

Two additional types of maltreatment are specific to elderly persons. One is financial exploitation, which involves the illegal or improper use of an elderly person’s property, assets, or funds. This misuse can be carried out by anyone, not just a caretaker. Examples of financial exploitation include cashing an elderly person’s check without permission, stealing money, coercing an elderly person into signing a document such as a will, and forging an elderly person’s signature (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2011). Elderly persons are also at risk of having a conservatorship, guardianship, or power of attorney misused. A power of attorney is a legal document that grants a person the ability to act on another’s behalf (Stiegel, 2008). An example of power of attorney abuse is provided in Box 9.1. Seniors should also be wary of health care fraud and abuse. This type of elder maltreatment is perpetrated by nurses, doctors, health care workers, and professional care workers. It includes such behaviors as not providing health care but charging as though it were provided, double billing or overcharging for medical services, overmedicating, undermedicating, recommending fraudulent remedies, and Medicaid fraud (L. Robinson, de Benedictis, & Segal, 2011).

Although not a form of maltreatment committed by others, you should also be aware that older adults may self-neglect. Self-neglect occurs when elderly persons refuse or fail to provide the care they need for themselves or to take appropriate safety precautions. Examples of self-neglect are not eating or drinking,

540

Download more at Learnclax.com

refusing to take necessary medication, and lack of personal hygiene (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2011).

Box 9.1 Abuse of Durable Power of Attorney: Case Example

Helen was an 85-year-old woman in poor health. Her daughter, Susan, was designated as her durable power of attorney, but Susan took advantage of this role. She sold Helen’s home and placed the money from the sale into bank accounts in Helen’s name, but a year later, she withdrew all the money. Instead of using the money for Helen’s care, Susan used it for her own business ventures and personal expenses. Once Helen realized that the money was gone, she contacted the civil courts, but she could not afford a civil attorney and did not find much help with the free legal services program for elders. She also received little help from the Adult Protective Service Agency. Helen lost all hope. Six weeks later, Helen died.

Source: Stiegel (2008).

Measurement and Extent of Elder Maltreatment

It is difficult to know to what extent elderly people are maltreated in the United States each year. One reason that a true picture of elder maltreatment is hard to paint is because many elderly persons may not report their victimization to law enforcement. This lack of reporting can be due to several reasons (Hodge, 1999). Elderly persons may not want to report if the perpetrator is a family member or loved one. They also may be dependent on the care of the perpetrator and be fearful that if they report, the person will retaliate against them. A real worry may also be that they will not have anyone to care for them and will be forced to live in an institutionalized setting. In addition, they may be unaware of the abuse, especially in cases of financial or medical abuse. It is also possible that elderly persons feel shame, humiliation, and embarrassment regarding their maltreatment that impedes their seeking assistance. Finally, they may be poor witnesses in that they may not recall specific details, may be confused about what happened, and may forget about their victimization (Hodge, 1999).

Reports From Adult Protective Services

Because reporting to the police is limited, to understand the extent of elder maltreatment, we must look to resources outside of police reports, although official reports to other agencies are often used. For example, similar to what is done for child abuse, if elder maltreatment is suspected, some people are required to report this suspicion to Adult Protective Services in their jurisdiction. Others (e.g., a concerned neighbor) may use Adult Protective Services as a reporting resource even if not required to report. The National Elder Abuse Incidence Study was conducted in 1996 using reports made to adult protective service agencies in a sample of 20 counties in 15 states and reports from sentinels—trained individuals who have frequent contact with the elderly (Tatara, Kuzmeskus, Duckhorn, & Bivens, 1998). It measured the extent to which domestic elder maltreatment (maltreatment of elderly persons in noninstitutionalized settings) occurred against individuals aged 60 or older during 1996.

From this study, it was estimated that 449,924 elderly persons experienced abuse and/or neglect. Few of these victims (16%) had their cases reported to and substantiated by Adult Protective Services. In 1996, there were 236,479 reports of suspected maltreatment made to Adult Protective Services (actual reports, not including reports from sentinels). Almost half the cases were substantiated after Adult Protective Services investigated. Most of these cases involved maltreatment by another (62%), as opposed to self-neglect (Tatara et al., 1998).

541

Download more at Learnclax.com

Also using information from Adult Protective Services, Teaster et al. (2006) produced estimates of elder maltreatment for the 2003 fiscal year. These estimates were produced based on survey responses of Adult Protective Services contacts in each state, who responded about elder maltreatment cases in their records. In 2003, 253,426 reports of maltreatment against persons aged 60 and older were made to Adult Protective Services. Of these reports, 76% were investigated and 35% were substantiated (Teaster et al., 2006).

Estimates Derived From Surveys

Elder maltreatment estimates also have been derived through survey research. In the first large-scale random sample survey of elder maltreatment, Pillemer and Finkelhor (1988) found that the prevalence rate of elder maltreatment was 32 persons per 1,000. The National Crime Victimization Survey is not the best resource for elder maltreatment victimization statistics. Although it does include elderly persons in its sample, it asks questions only of persons who are not institutionalized, reports only estimates broken down for persons in certain age groups, and measures only criminal victimization. To examine elder victimization, the latest survey provides estimates for persons aged 65 and older. Using this data, the violent victimization rate in 2015 for persons aged 65 and older was 5.2 per 1,000 (Truman & Morgan, 2016). Research shows that older persons are at greater risk of experiencing property victimization. From 2003 to 2013, the property crime victimization rate was 72.3 per 1,000. Persons in this age category had the lowest victimization rates for all crimes except for identity theft (R. E. Morgan & Mason, 2014).

Other efforts have been made to estimate the extent of elder maltreatment in the United States using surveys. One national-level study was conducted using the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project. This sample included 3,005 individuals aged 57 to 85 who lived in the community. They were asked if they had experienced verbal, financial, or physical maltreatment during the previous year. The results of the study do not provide estimates of maltreatment perpetrated by nonfamily members, but 9% of the sample reported verbal maltreatment, 3.5% reported financial maltreatment, and 0.02% reported physical maltreatment by family members (Laumann, Leitsch, & Waite, 2008).

Special Case: Elder Maltreatment in Institutions

Slightly more than 5% of the population aged 65 and older live in nursing homes or assisted-living facilities (Orel, 2010). Although these facilities are charged with caring for people who cannot find this care in their own homes, sometimes people are abused or neglected there. According to Adult Protective Services records, the majority of incidents of elder maltreatment occur in domestic settings. Only 6% of substantiated reports of elder maltreatment occurred in long-term care settings, and 2% occurred in other locations, which included assisted-living facilities (Teaster et al., 2006). Another source of data regarding elder maltreatment in long- term care facilities is the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program. Every state is required to have an ombudsman program under the federal Older Americans Act. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program receives complaints about elder maltreatment in long-term care facilities. In 2012, more than 193,000 complaints about long-term care were made to the program. Of these complaints, 9,999 were for abuse, gross neglect, or exploitation (Administration on Aging, 2012). Institutions with high percentages of residents suffering from dementia (Talerico, Evans, & Strumpf, 2002) and that have low staff-to-patient ratios and

542

Download more at Learnclax.com

frequent staff turnover (as cited by Bachman & Meloy, 2008) are at risk of having high levels of elder maltreatment. To see how victimization of the elderly compares to victimizations of other persons, see Reading 17 by Ronet Bachman and Michelle L. Meloy (2008) included in this section.

Special Case: Intimate Partner Violence of Older Women

As women get older, if they remain in abusive relationships, it makes sense that these relationships will remain abusive without intervention. It is also possible that women enter into new relationships that are abusive. Although research shows that older women are less likely to experience intimate partner violence than their younger counterparts, older women do still face some risk. One study reported that almost 2% of women over the age of 55 in the sample reported physical abuse in their intimate relationships. Similar percentages reported experiencing sexual abuse. Most commonly, the person who perpetrated the abuse was the woman’s spouse (Zink, Fisher, Regan, & Pabst, 2005). This research suggests that older women may be at risk of elder maltreatment not only at the hands of family members but also by their intimate partners.

Special Case: Financial Exploitation of the Elderly

Elder persons may be at particular risk of being financially exploited given their age. In a recent study of adults aged 60 and older in Arizona and Florida, researchers discovered that older adults were at risk of fraud. In fact, 60% of the respondents in their survey indicated being targeted by fraud in the previous year, with 14% saying the fraud had been completed. In terms of what older adults are likely to experience, 10% experienced a type of shopping or purchasing fraud—they had someone attempt to sell them a phony subscription to a magazine or something else. Financial fraud was also experienced by the sample. Slightly more than 16% had someone attempt to trick them into providing financial information. A greater percentage of the sample was targeted for consumer fraud. Almost one-quarter had someone try to get them to pay money to claim a phony prize, whereas 22% had someone try to get them to give money to a phony charity or religious organization (Holtfreter, Reisig, Mears, & Wolfe, 2014).

Who Are Victims of Elder Maltreatment?

Adult Protective Services reports show that females make up a greater proportion of victims of elder maltreatment than do males (Tatara et al., 1998; Teaster et al., 2006), but NCVS data show that older males are at a greater risk of violent victimization than older females (R. E. Morgan & Mason, 2014). This disproportionate representation of females in victimization statistics is unlike most types of victimization. Why do you think this is the case? There may be several reasons. One reason is that people may be more watchful over older women and may be more likely to report suspected cases of maltreatment. Another reason may be due to the longer life expectancy of women—they make up a larger proportion of the elderly population than do males (Zink et al., 2005). Another reason may be tied to the victim–offender relationship. As you will learn in the following section, perpetrators of elder maltreatment are often spouses, and elderly females are at risk of experiencing domestic violence at the hands of their partners. Some of the maltreatment presented in the statistics may be domestic violence. This overrepresentation of females was not found in the large study of financial fraud victimization, however. In that study, being male was associated with a greater

543

Download more at Learnclax.com

chance of being targeted for fraud (Holtfreter et al., 2014).

Ripped From the Headlines

Robert Nash, 87 years old, went to lunch with a woman after she approached him outside a grocery store in Pueblo, Colorado. At lunch was another woman, an attractive 30-something-year-old named Paulina. Nash was enthralled by the women, who eventually talked him into lending them more than $55,000 to spend on clothes, furniture, jewelry, and cars. In one month, he spent $5,065 on jewelry, $4,796 on furniture, and $35,785 on two used Cadillacs. He also borrowed an additional $5,300 for the women. When a banker finally noticed the erratic spending on the account, he notified Nash’s son, who worked with the bank to not let Paulina and her friend have access to the accounts any further. They also reported the incident to the Financial Crimes Unit of the Pueblo County Sheriff’s Department. Since the incident, Colorado has passed a new law that requires lenders, doctors, and other professionals to report suspected cases of elder abuse, which would include lenders approving questionable purchases and loans. What do you think about this case? Is it abuse? What about having laws that require lenders to report such cases?

Source: Koen (2014).

As mentioned, elder maltreatment includes maltreatment of individuals over the age of 60; however, not all persons in this age group share similar risks of experiencing maltreatment. From Adult Protective Services reports, it seems that older persons are at greatest risk. In fact, slightly less than half (43%) of substantiated cases of maltreatment were against individuals who were 80 years old or older (Teaster et al., 2006). Along with gender and age, another demographic characteristic to consider is race. In official Adult Protective Services data reports, White elderly persons are shown to be the majority of the victims (Laumann et al., 2008; Teaster et al., 2006), but in NCVS data, there are no significant differences in rates of violent victimization across race (R. E. Morgan & Mason, 2014).

Characteristics of Elder Maltreatment Victimization

Most cases of investigated and substantiated elder maltreatment are of self-neglect. Next most common are caregiver neglect cases, followed by financial exploitation cases (Teaster et al., 2006). Results from the National Incidence Study were slightly different. Although self-neglect cases were most common, physical abuse cases were the next most commonly substantiated, followed by abandonment, emotional/psychological abuse, financial/material abuse, and neglect (Tatara et al., 1998). These differences are likely due to temporal differences in study time period and in study design. From the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project, it was found that verbal maltreatment committed by family members was more common than both financial maltreatment or physical maltreatment perpetrated by family members; physical maltreatment was the least commonly experienced type of elder maltreatment out of the three types examined (Laumann et al., 2008).

Who perpetrates elder abuse? Adult Protective Services data show that females make up the majority of suspected perpetrators, although these statistics were based on reports from only 11 states. Most often, an adult child was the perpetrator, constituting one-third of all alleged perpetrators in substantiated elder maltreatment cases. Other family members were the alleged perpetrators in 22% of the cases, and 11% of the alleged perpetrators were spouses or intimate partners. More than three-fourths of the alleged perpetrators were under the age of 60; about one-fourth were ages 40 to 49 (Teaster et al., 2006). NCVS data indicate that slightly less than half of all violent victimization incidents against individuals 65 or older are perpetrated by

544

Download more at Learnclax.com

someone known to the victim, with 14.3% being perpetrated by a domestic partner (intimate partner,

immediate family member, or other relative) (R. E. Morgan & Mason, 2014).

Risk Factors for Elder Maltreatment

Although it may be hard to imagine how anyone could harm or neglect an elderly person, certain risk factors place a person at risk of being a perpetrator or victim of elder maltreatment.

Perpetrator Risk Factors

If the family has suffered from domestic violence, elder maltreatment may be an outgrowth of this domestic violence pattern. As persons age and roles change, the parents who were once the abusers may become the abused by children who hold resentment. In this way, the children may be continuing a cycle of violence (Fedus, 2010). Even if abuse was not present in the family’s history, adult children who have taken on a caregiving role may find it to be quite stressful. This stress may overwhelm them to the point that they become abusive or neglectful (Bonnie & Wallace, 2003). This explanation is rooted in dependency theory—as dependency of the elderly person increases, stress will increase, as will the risk of abuse and neglect (Bonnie & Wallace, 2003). Children who take on this caretaker role may think it entitles them to access their parents’ financial resources, even if they do not legally have access to these resources. In this way, financial exploitation may occur.

Risk factors for institutional abuse are also tied to the perpetrator. Research on abuse in nursing homes shows that nurse’s aides compose the largest group of abusers (Payne & Cikovic, 1995). Nurse’s aides typically work long shifts, often for little pay. They usually have to care for many patients on their shift—elderly persons who require high levels of supervision and who have high needs—even though they may have received minimal training. The demands placed on them are, indeed, great. Without the necessary training and skills, abuse and neglect are likely unfortunate consequences.

Routine Activities Theory

Older persons typically do not have risky lifestyles. They may, however, be seen as vulnerable or suitable targets. They may be unable to physically protect themselves from victimization and, thus, may be easily harmed. Likewise, some older people may be suitable targets for scam artists, given their waning cognitive ability or lack of technological sophistication. In this way, people may take advantage of them. These risk factors have been linked in research to elder maltreatment. Elders who are unable to care for themselves are more likely to be abused than others. Similarly, about 60% of substantiated elder abuse victims experienced some degree of confusion (Tatara et al., 1998). Persons in nursing homes are also likely to experience cognitive deficits, and about half of them are confined to a bed or wheelchair (Orel, 2010). These characteristics make these elderly persons more vulnerable to abuse but also increase the burden of caring for them. That is, the stress of caring for individuals who are unable to care for themselves or who have cognitive impairments is likely high; thus, caretakers who are not equipped to care for these people are more likely than others to become frustrated and respond in abusive and aggressive ways.

545

Download more at Learnclax.com

Older persons, especially if they live alone, also may lack capable guardianship. Consider that family members make up a large portion of perpetrators of elder maltreatment—even if elderly persons do have guardianship, it may not be capable if the people who are supposed to be providing guardianship are the ones mistreating them. Regarding financial fraud, individuals who remotely purchase goods (e.g., online purchase, telemarketing purchase, infomercial purchase) are at an increased risk of being targeted for fraud (Holtfreter et al., 2014). In this way, routine activities theory may be applicable to elder maltreatment. When motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of capable guardianship coalesce in time and space, elder maltreatment is likely to occur.

Responses to Elder Maltreatment

In recognition of elder maltreatment as a serious form of victimization that warrants special consideration in the law and the criminal justice system, special laws and criminal justice programs have been developed.

Legislation

The Older Americans Act (1965) (amended in 2006) provided protection of rights for older Americans, among other things. One of these protections involved the creation of the state Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program discussed earlier. In addition, in order to receive certain funds, state agencies must develop and enhance programs to address elder maltreatment. It also provides grants for states to create elder justice systems. More recently, the Elder Justice Act (2010) was signed into law. This law provides $400 million over 4 years for Adult Protective Services, monies for grants to detect and prevent elder abuse, to establish and support forensic centers relating to elder maltreatment, to support the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, and to enhance long-term care staffing.

States also have legislation to protect elderly persons. Most abuse perpetrated against elderly persons is illegal in all states because existing statutes make these behaviors illegal regardless of the victim’s age. Emotional/psychological abuse and neglect are also illegal, depending on the behavior of the perpetrator, the outcome for the victim, and the nature of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. For example, most states impose a legal duty on adult children to care for and protect their elderly parents. Once a person has taken on the role of caregiver, that person has a duty to provide care or seek assistance in providing care. Failing to do so can lead to that person being held criminally liable (Stiegel, Klem, & Turner, 2007).

Along with criminalizing abuse and neglect, all states have Adult Protective Services agencies to which people can report suspected cases of elder maltreatment. All states require at least some persons to report suspected elder maltreatment. States vary as to who is a mandatory reporter, but people who have regular contact with older adults, such as physicians and health care workers, are mainly mandatory reporters. Reports can be made to Adult Protective Services or to other agencies such as law enforcement. See Table 9.3 for Alabama’s mandatory reporting law for elder maltreatment.

Table 9.3

546

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Reprinted by permission of RAINN, Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system has also responded to the problem of elder maltreatment. The criminal justice community has joined forces to develop multidisciplinary and multiagency teams to investigate and prosecute elder maltreatment. For example, the Northeast Healthcare Law Enforcement Association (NHLEA) consists of law enforcement managers from federal, regional, and state elder, patient abuse, and health care fraud law enforcement units. The NHLEA enforces, investigates, and prosecutes maltreatment against elderly persons and has developed a criminal offender elder abuse database to track offenders convicted of elder and patient abuse (Hodge, 1999). Other jurisdictions have Financial Abuse Specialist Teams designed to investigate financial exploitation of elderly persons. Specialized prosecution units also have been instituted. San Diego has an Elder Abuse Prosecution Unit that specializes in the prosecution of elder maltreatment and provides training to law enforcement in how to investigate elder abuse and training to banks in how to identify financial exploitation (Hodge, 1999).

As you can see, the causes and consequences of both child maltreatment and elder maltreatment are situated in the life course, but child abuse has garnered more widespread attention than has elder abuse. Nonetheless, with the passage of the Elder Justice Act and the aging of the population, coupled with longer life spans, elder maltreatment may become a policy and programmatic hot bed.

547

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

The two major forms of child maltreatment are abuse and neglect. The difference between discipline and physical abuse of a child is the intent to harm versus the intent to teach the child right from wrong. Because children often cannot verbalize how they are being abused and their parents or caregivers often are the abusers, it is difficult to know the extent of child maltreatment in the United States. Data sources such as the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System and National Incidence Study (NIS) provide most of the information known about child maltreatment. Results from the NIS-4 indicate that more than 1.25 million children experienced maltreatment during 2005–2006 that resulted in demonstrable harm. Death is the most serious outcome of child maltreatment, and almost three-fourths of child fatalities in 2014 were attributed to neglect at least in part. Victims of child maltreatment are almost equally likely to be male and female, with children under age 3 making up 71% of fatalities in 2014. White children made up the largest percentage of reports of child maltreatment, but African American and Hispanic children were disproportionately represented in reports, given their composition in the population. Biological parents of the child are most likely to be the abusers, with mothers more likely than fathers to be the perpetrator. Risk factors for child maltreatment include child’s temperament and vulnerability. Family risk factors include living in poverty, stress, single-headed households, and living with a single parent with a cohabiting partner. Parenting risk factors include witnessing or experiencing violence as a child or adolescent, substance use/abuse, depression, and mental illness. There are many consequences of child maltreatment. Children who are maltreated are at heightened risk of experiencing cognitive and developmental disorders and suffering from psychological disorders. They also may experience problems in school and have problems in their sexual relationships. Later in life, maltreated children are at risk of living in poverty and being unemployed. Children who are victims of maltreatment are likely to be involved in criminal behavior and delinquency and to use alcohol and drugs. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act made it mandatory for states to report suspected cases of child maltreatment in order to receive certain federal funding. Mandatory reporting laws require certain people to report suspected cases of child abuse. Safe haven laws protect mothers and custodial parents from criminal prosecution so they can give their babies up if they feel they cannot raise them. The criminal justice system recognizes that children need special attention and certain court-appointed advocates when they testify in court. In addition to abuse and neglect, financial exploitation is a form of maltreatment specific to the elderly. Elderly persons are also at risk of having conservatorship, guardianship, or power of attorney misused.

548

Download more at Learnclax.com

Elders are also capable of self-neglect when they refuse or fail to provide care for themselves, such as not eating or drinking, refusing to take necessary medication, and lack of personal hygiene. The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program is mandatory in every state, allowing for elder maltreatment complaints to be reported. In 1996, Adult Protective Services received 236,479 reports of suspected maltreatment. In 2006, only 6% of substantiated reports of elder maltreatment occurred in long-term care settings, and 2% occurred in other locations, which included assisted-living facilities. Females make up a greater proportion of victims of elder maltreatment than do males. Females are also the most likely perpetrators of elder maltreatment. Adult children are most likely to be the perpetrators of elder abuse. Most cases of investigated and substantiated elder maltreatment are cases of self-neglect. Next most common are caregiver neglect cases, followed by financial exploitation cases. As dependency of the elderly person increases, stress will increase, as will the risk for abuse and neglect. Research on abuse in nursing homes shows that nurse’s aides compose the largest group of abusers. Elderly persons may be unable to physically protect themselves from victimization and, thus, may be easily harmed. Some older people may be suitable targets for scam artists, given their waning cognitive ability or lack of technological sophistication. All states have mandatory reporting laws for suspected cases of elder abuse. The Elder Justice Act, signed into law in 2010, provides $400 million to Adult Protective Services for detection and prevention of elder abuse and/or maltreatment. The criminal justice system has the Northeast Healthcare Law Enforcement Association, which consists of officers and officials who enforce, investigate, and prosecute maltreatment offenders. Overall, child and elder maltreatment share some similarities, such as the types of abuse and risk factors, and show some differences in responses by the criminal justice system and typical perpetrators.

549

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. What are some issues with generating accurate estimates of the extent of child maltreatment and elder maltreatment?

2. Why do you think parents are the most likely to be perpetrators of their children’s maltreatment? Why are adult children the most likely perpetrators of elder maltreatment?

3. What is the victim–offender overlap as it pertains to child maltreatment? 4. Why do you think child maltreatment has been linked with adult poverty? 5. Why do you think females are more likely to be victims of elder maltreatment than are males? Why are

male children more likely to be killed through child maltreatment than are female children?

550

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key Terms

abandonment 338 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974) 335 child sexual abuse 329 dark figure of crime 331 dependency theory 343 Elder Justice Act (2010) 344 emotional or psychological elder abuse 337 financial exploitation 338 guardian ad litem (GAL) 337 Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 340 mandatory reporting law 335 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) 330 National Elder Abuse Incidence Study 339 National Incidence Study (NIS) 331 National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project 340 neglect 329 Older Americans Act (1965) 343 physical abuse 329 physical elder abuse 337 power of attorney abuse 338 safe haven laws 336 self-neglect 338 sexual elder abuse 338 shaken baby syndrome 334

551

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

Child Welfare Information Gateway: http://www.childwelfare.gov

This website provides a great deal of information about child maltreatment. It includes data, statistics, and laws on child maltreatment, along with information on how child maltreatment can be prevented. It also has links to resources in Spanish.

National Center for the Review & Prevention of Child Deaths: http://www.childdeathreview.org

This resource center for state and local death review teams investigates child deaths. Links for each state’s child mortality data are provided so that you can see the most common causes of death, including those attributable to child maltreatment.

National Center on Elder Abuse: https://ncea.acl.gov

This website provides background information about elder maltreatment, including definitions and statistics. Nursing home abuse, a type of elder maltreatment, is discussed. Links to information about how to report elder maltreatment and about Adult Protective Services are also provided.

National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse: http://www.preventelderabuse.org

This website provides information about the different types of elder maltreatment, including sexual violence, domestic violence, and financial exploitation. Links to publications and current news items related to elder maltreatment are also included.

552

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.childwelfare.gov

http://www.childdeathreview.org

https://ncea.acl.gov

http://www.preventelderabuse.org

Reading /// 16

In life-course criminology, turning points are often studied as key milestones that can work to shape a person’s life trajectory. A turning point may be getting married or becoming employed full-time. Such turning points are also now being studied within the field of victimology as potential events that could mark change in the outcomes of victimization. In their work examining child maltreatment and relationship to arrest, Maureen A. Allwood and Cathy Spatz Widom (2013) explore three potential turning points that may serve to reduce the negative effects of child maltreatment on adult arrests.

Child Abuse and Neglect, Developmental Role Attainment, and Adult Arrests

Maureen A. Allwood and Cathy Spatz Widom

SOURCE: Allwood, M. A., & Widom, C. S. (2013). Child abuse and neglect, developmental role attainment, and adult arrests. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50 (4), 551–578.

Child abuse and neglect have been associated with increased risk for problems in three critical areas of development: education, employment, and marriage. Given the importance of attaining these normative roles (Arnett 2000, 2007; Erikson 1964), it is likely that derailments in these key areas play important roles in a person’s life and influence pathways to subsequent adult outcomes. However, surprisingly little is known about the extent to which these types of developmental milestones play a role as pathways to adult outcomes for maltreated children. The purpose of this article is to examine whether developmental role attainment in three specific areas (high school graduation, employment, and marriage) mediates the relationship between childhood abuse and neglect and one important adult outcome (criminal behavior).

In proposing their life-course perspective, Sampson, Laub, and colleagues (Laub, Nagin, and Sampson 1998; Sampson and Laub 1993, 2005) have called attention to the importance of developmental roles for positive life outcomes, drawing on the work of Elder (1986) to focus on “turning points” in a person’s life. Sampson and Laub’s Life-Course theory (1993, 1997) suggests that failure to attain critical developmental milestones (what we label developmental roles or milestones) is problematic and increases a person’s risk of negative outcomes in adulthood. Conversely, successful navigation of these critical milestones leads to better outcomes. Sampson and Laub (1993, 1997) argued that marriage and work act as “turning points” in the life course. More recently, this theory has been extended to include high school graduation (Natsuaki, Ge, and Wenk 2008). The assumption is that the derailment in even one of these important developmental roles would increase the likelihood of poor outcomes in adulthood. Interestingly, despite the numerous studies that have reported links between childhood maltreatment and crime (English, Widom, and Brandford 2001; Maxfield and Widom 1996; Smith and Thornberry 1995; Stouthamer-Loeber et al. 2001; Widom 1989b; Zingraff et al. 1993), with one exception (Stewart, Livington, and Dennison 2008), research has not yet examined the role of turning points in the lives of maltreated children. Thus, it remains unclear whether the concept of turning points applies to maltreated children who are vulnerable to multiple negative consequences, including crime and delinquency.

Child Abuse and Neglect and Developmental Roles

553

Download more at Learnclax.com

High school graduation.

Several studies have reported that maltreated children are at risk for lower levels of educational achievement and intellectual performance and at higher risk for grade retention and repetition and academic difficulties in reading, math, and attention skills (Boden, Horwood, and Fergusson 2007; Eckenrode, Laird, and John 1993; Jonson-Reid et al. 2004; Lansford et al. 2002; Leiter and Johnsen 1997; Perez and Widom 1994). For example, Eckenrode and colleagues (1993) found that maltreated elementary and middle school students scored 10 percentile points lower on a standardized math test, had lower grades overall, and were more likely to fail a grade in school than nonmaltreated peers. Abused and neglected children have also been found to have lower levels of high school graduation compared to nonmaltreated peers (Boden, Horwood, and Fergusson 2007; Harris 1983; Perez and Widom 1994), especially maltreated girls (Andrews and Brown 1988; Boden, Horwood, and Fergusson 2007). Among those who graduated from high school and attended college, abused and neglected youth were less likely to complete college (Boden, Horwood, and Fergusson 2007; Duncan 2000). In addition, maltreated children are at increased risk for receiving special education services for both academic and emotional difficulties (Jonson-Reid et al. 2004). In sum, increasing evidence indicates that maltreated children are at increased risk for problems with academic achievement, although the reasons for these academic difficulties are not known. Some academic difficulties may be associated with brain injury or other deficits resulting from physical abuse or neglect; others may be due to malnutrition associated with neglect, or from a lack of concern about education in their families. However, the accumulated evidence strongly suggests that maltreated children are likely to experience academic problems and, in turn, it is possible that these problems may serve as one pathway to subsequent negative life outcomes.

Employment.

Child abuse and neglect have also been linked to unemployment and employment disability. For example, Sansone et al. (2005) found that adults who experienced childhood neglect were 18 times more likely to claim employment disability, especially psychiatric disability, compared to adults without a history of child maltreatment. Another study found that, regardless of disability status, adults who experienced maltreatment in childhood were more likely to be unemployed (Romito, Crisma, and Saurel-Cubizolles 2003). A recent article (Currie and Widom 2010) reported that adults with documented histories of childhood abuse and/or neglect had lower levels of employment, earnings, and fewer assets as adults, compared to matched control children. These authors also noted that maltreatment appeared to affect men and women differently, with larger effects for women than men. Despite the sparse research on this topic, the existing evidence points to increased risk for employment problems associated with child maltreatment. Again, it is not known whether these employment outcomes result from lower academic achievement, greater psychological problems, or other factors.

Marriage.

Another consequence of child maltreatment extends to a person’s interest in or ability to enter into marriage and the likelihood of maintaining a marital relationship. In several studies, both men and women with histories of childhood abuse and neglect reported greater instability in their romantic relationships (Colman

554

Download more at Learnclax.com

and Widom 2004; Fleming et al. 1999; Whisman 2006). Using data from the National Comorbidity Survey

(an epidemiologic investigation designed to study the prevalence and correlates of psychiatric disorders), Whisman (2006) found that individuals who reported physical abuse, rape, or serious physical attack in childhood were about twice as likely to experience a marital disruption (e.g., divorce, separation), compared to those who did not report a history of childhood trauma. Among adults with documented histories of child abuse and neglect, maltreatment was associated with higher rates of divorce (Colman and Widom 2004). High rates of marital disruption have also been reported for specific types of abuse. For example, Romito et al. (2003) found that women in their sample who were physically abused in childhood were more likely to be never married. A study of women in Australia found that those who reported a history of childhood sexual abuse were significantly more likely to be divorced, separated, or married more than once than those who did not report such a history (Fleming, O’Day, and Kraemer 1999). Using intraindividual analyses, Sampson, Laub, and Wimer (2006) demonstrated that for males, desistance from crime is more likely during periods of marriage than during unmarried periods (e.g., divorce, separation). These intraindividual findings provide strong support for the potential positive effects of marriage. Nonetheless, research has yet to demonstrate that marriage serves as a turning point for adults who have experienced abuse and neglect in childhood.

There is evidence that childhood maltreatment is associated with increased risk for problems in three critical aspects of adult development (education, employment, and marriage) that may, in turn, serve as pathways to subsequent negative outcomes. However, because abused and neglected children are at increased risk to be arrested as juveniles (Loeber et al. 2001; Maxfield and Widom 1996; Smith and Thornberry 1995; Widom 1989b; Zingraff et al. 1993), it may be that delinquency represents an earlier step in the process of being arrested as an adult and influences the likelihood of a person achieving or failing in these three developmental areas, particularly high school graduation and employment. Therefore, in attempting to understand the role of these developmental milestones in the lives of abused and neglected children, it is important to take into account whether the person has a history of juvenile delinquency and whether a prior history of juvenile arrest is a more critical influence on the derailment process than the developmental milestones that we focus on here. It is also possible that failure to accomplish these important roles moderates the relationship between child maltreatment and adult crime, such that it is the combination of child abuse and neglect and failure to achieve these developmental roles that leads to subsequent negative outcomes.

Given persistent differences in gender role expectations, it is also possible that the pathways from child maltreatment to adult arrest differ for males and females. Of the existing studies that have considered sex differences in consequences of child abuse and neglect, some have reported sex differences (Dodge, Bates, and Pettit 1990; Friedrich, Urquiza, and Beilke 1986; Harrison, Hoffmann, and Edwall 1989a, 1989b; Ireland and Widom 1994; Livingston 1987; Toray et al. 1991; Widom, Ireland, and Glynn 1995; Widom and White 1997), whereas others have not (Dembo et al. 1989, 1990). However, despite the growing number of women in the workforce, employment expectations continue to differ for men and women (Koski 2007) and the role played by employment in the lives of abused and neglected men and women may differ. Women might be more likely to be unemployed by choice or expectation and, therefore, unemployment may serve as a less salient developmental milestone for women than for men. On the other hand, the failure to be married might be more salient for women than men and might be associated with poorer adult outcomes for women.

555

Download more at Learnclax.com

In addition, there are sex and race differences in the potential mediators and outcome (adult arrest) examined here. Males are more likely than females and Blacks are more likely than Whites to be arrested (Miller 1996; Tracy et al. 2009; US Department of Justice 2010). Blacks are less likely to graduate from high school compared to Whites, especially during the time period examined in the present study (see Leach and Williams 2007). Blacks are also less likely to gain and maintain steady employment (Fairlie and Sundstrom 1999) and to marry (Franklin, Smith, and McMiller 1995). There is debate about whether higher unemployment rates among Blacks are due to lower educational attainment, institutional racism, or a combination of these factors. Leach and Williams (2007) suggest that both historic and current social inequalities may lead to a developmental and life-course gap between Blacks and Whites across generations.

Historically, African American children are more likely to be raised in single parent households than White children (Annie E. Casey Foundation—Kids Count Data Center, 2009; Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2011; McAdoo 1997) and, therefore, less likely to be exposed to successful marital relationships and perhaps less likely to consider marriage or less able to maintain a marital relationship. To further complicate matters, each of these developmental roles is in some way interdependent on the other.

In sum, existing research indicates that childhood abuse and neglect are associated with increased risk for problems in three critical areas of development (education, employment, and marriage) and later outcomes of adult criminal behavior. However, there is sparse research on the extent to which failure to achieve these three important developmental milestones serves as a “turning point” or mediator in the lives of maltreated children, moving them toward subsequent negative outcomes. Additionally, it is not known whether these three milestones exert different influences for maltreated children and children without such histories. That is, it is possible that these developmental roles might moderate the association between child abuse and neglect and adult arrest.

The Present Study

Based on a prospective cohort design, the present study is the first to examine whether three developmental milestones mediate and/or moderate the relationship between childhood abuse and neglect and adult crime. Specifically, we ask six basic questions: (1) Are individuals with a history of child abuse and neglect less likely to graduate from high school, to be employed, and to be married in early adulthood (approximate age 29) and more likely to be arrested as an adult, compared to matched controls? (2) Does successful achievement of developmental roles (high school graduation, employment, and marriage) decrease a person’s risk for crime in adulthood? (3) Do developmental roles (high school graduation, employment, and marriage) mediate the relationship between child abuse/neglect and adult arrest? (4) Do these relationships vary by a person’s sex or race/ethnicity? (5) Does achievement of developmental roles moderate the relationship between child abuse and neglect and risk for adult crime? (6) Does successful accomplishment of these developmental milestones continue to mediate the relationship between child maltreatment and adult arrest, after taking into account a prior juvenile arrest?

In this article, we use guidelines set forth by Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998) to determine whether certain

556

Download more at Learnclax.com

factors act as mediators in associations between variables. According to these guidelines, there are four conditions necessary to show mediation: (1) Child abuse and neglect (the independent variable) should significantly predict adult crime (the dependent variable); (2) child abuse and neglect should significantly predict the mediator(s); (3) the mediator must significantly predict adult crime, while controlling for childhood abuse/neglect; and (4) the effect of child abuse and neglect on adult crime must be reduced when the mediator is included in the model.

Methods

Sample and Design

The data used here are from a research project based on a cohort design study (Leventhal 1982; Schulsinger, Mednick, and Knop 1981) in which abused and neglected children were matched with nonabused and nonneglected children and followed prospectively into adulthood. The prospective nature of this study allows some issues of causality to be examined and helps to disentangle the effects of childhood victimization from other potentially confounding effects. Because of the matching procedure, the subjects are assumed to differ in the risk factor (i.e., having experienced childhood sexual or physical abuse and/or neglect). Since it is not possible to randomly assign subjects to groups, the assumption of equivalency for the groups is an approximation. In the first phase of this research, a large group of children who were abused and/or neglected approximately 20 years earlier were followed through an examination of official criminal records and compared with a matched group of children (Widom 1989b). The abused and/or neglected group was composed of victims of substantiated childhood physical and sexual abuse and/or neglect whose cases were processed during the years 1967 through 1971 in the county juvenile or adult criminal court (situated in a metropolitan area in the Midwest). The rationale for identifying the abused and neglected group was that their cases were serious enough to come to the attention of the authorities. Only court substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect were included. Abuse and neglect cases were restricted to those in which the children were 11 years of age or less at the time of the abuse or neglect incident. Excluded from the sample were court cases that represented: (1) Adoption of the child as an infant; (2) “involuntary” neglect only usually resulting from the temporary institutionalization of the legal guardian; (3) placement only; or (4) failure to pay child support. A comparison group of children who did not have documented cases of abuse and/or neglect was established, with matching on the basis of sex, age, race, and approximate family socioeconomic status during the time period of 1967 through 1971. Matching for social class was important because it is theoretically plausible that any relationship between child abuse or neglect and later outcomes is confounded or explained by social class differences (MacMillan et al. 2001; Widom 1989b).

Children who were under school age at the time of the abuse and/or neglect were matched with children of the same sex, race, date of birth (±1 week), and hospital of birth through the use of county birth record information. For children of school age, records of more than 100 elementary schools for the same time period were used to find matches with children of the same sex, race, date of birth (±6 months), class in elementary school during the years 1967 through 1971, and home address of the abused or neglected child. Overall, there were matches for 74 percent of the abused and neglected children. Official records were

557

Download more at Learnclax.com

checked and any proposed comparison group child who had an official record of abuse or neglect in their childhood (n = 11) was eliminated and a replacement child was substituted.

The initial phase of the study compared the abused and/or neglected children to the matched comparison group (N = 1,575) on juvenile and adult criminal arrest records (Maxfield and Widom 1996; Widom 1989b). The second phase of the research involved the tracing, locating, and interviewing of the abused and/or neglected (on average 22.3 years after their childhood victimization) and comparison group subjects. Two- hour follow-up interviews were conducted between 1989 and 1995. The interview consisted of a series of structured and semistructured questions and rating scales, measures of intelligence quotient and reading ability, and a psychiatric assessment.

Of the original group of 1,575, 1,307 subjects (83 percent) were located and 1,196 (76 percent) interviewed between 1989 and 1995. The findings reported here are based on 1,196 subjects (676 abused and/or neglected and 520 comparison subjects). The maltreated group consisted of physical abuse (n = 106), sexual abuse (n = 96), and neglect (n = 541). Because children may have experienced more than one type of abuse or neglect, the numbers add up to more than the total number of abused and neglected children in the sample.

The present study includes only participants who self-identified as either Black (or Afro-Hispanics) or White (or White of Hispanic origin) resulting in a sample of 1,169. Approximately half the group was women (48.7 percent) and 64.4 percent were White. At the time of interview, the average age of the participants was 29.24 years (SD = 3.84, range = 19.0–40.7 years). There were no differences between the abused and neglected group and comparison subjects in terms of sex, race/ethnicity, or age.

The average grade of school completed for the entire sample was 11.49 (SD = 2.10). Occupational status of the sample was coded according to the Hollingshead Occupational Coding Index (Hollingshead 1975) and levels ranged from 1 (laborer) to 9 (professional). More than half (54.9 percent) of the sample were in menial/semiskilled occupations, 33 percent held skilled, clerical, or semiprofessional jobs and 13.1 percent held professional/managerial jobs. Overall, the group is skewed toward the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

Variables and Measures

Child abuse and neglect.

Identification of childhood physical and sexual abuse and neglect was based on court substantiated cases from a Midwest county area during the years 1967 through 1971. Physical abuse cases included injuries such as bruises, welts, burns, abrasions, lacerations, wounds, cuts, bone and skull fractures, and other evidence of physical injury inflicted by a parent or caregiver. Sexual abuse cases varied from those with relatively nonspecific charges of “assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires” to more specific charges of “fondling or touching in an obscene manner,” rape, sodomy, incest, and so on. Neglect cases reflected a judgment that the parent’s (or caregiver’s) deficiencies in childcare were beyond those found acceptable by community and professional standards at the time. These cases represented extreme failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention to children. Abuse/neglect is a dichotomous variable

558

Download more at Learnclax.com

based on official records of any of the three types of maltreatment (0 = control, 1 = abuse/neglect).

Developmental role attainment.

Three dichotomous variables (0 = no, 1 = yes) were created to represent high school graduation, employment, and marriage status. For high school graduation, participants were asked about their highest level of school completed at the time of the interview. The information was then dichotomized to indicate whether or not each participant had completed high school. For current employment, a dichotomous variable was developed based on two items. First, participants were asked to indicate the number of months of employment during the past 12 months. If the number of months indicated was greater than 0 then they were asked, “Are you employed now?” Participants who responded as “employed now” were coded as currently employed (1). Others were coded “0” as not currently employed. To assess whether the person was currently married, we asked a single item about the participant’s marital status. Participants who reported “married” were coded married (1), whereas participants who endorsed being widowed, separated, divorced, or never married were coded not currently married (0).

Juvenile and adult arrests.

Arrest information is based on official criminal histories obtained from two searches of law enforcement (local, state, and Federal Bureau of Investigation) records at two time points (Maxfield and Widom 1996; Widom 1989b). Adult arrests were defined as those occurring at age 18 or older and did not include arrests for traffic offenses. Juvenile arrests are based on arrests that occurred before age 18. Any adult arrest is a dichotomous variable (1 = yes; 0 = none).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses involved several steps. Logistic regressions were conducted to determine whether child abuse and neglect predicted the outcome (any adult arrest) and to determine the effect of child abuse and neglect on three potential mediators (high school graduation, current employment, and current marriage). We then conducted mediation analyses for each of the hypothesized mediators (high school graduation, employment, and marriage), separately. If the odds ratio (OR) for the independent variable (child abuse and neglect) predicting the dependent variable (adult arrest) is attenuated to nonsignificance by the introduction of the hypothesized mediator, then this would be interpreted as fully mediating the association between child abuse and neglect and adult arrest. If the OR for the child abuse and neglect remains statistically significant, but is substantially attenuated (a .20 or greater reduction), then the potential mediator variable would be considered a partial mediator. All analyses control for age, sex, and race, except for the analyses that focus on race (analyses control for age and sex) or sex (analyses control for age and race). ORs and 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs), along with significance levels, are reported. SPSS version 17 was used. Numbers in analyses vary slightly due to missing information. Separate analyses were conducted for men and women and Whites and Blacks.

Results

559

Download more at Learnclax.com

Child Abuse and Neglect and Adult Crime

Table 1 shows that abused and neglected children were significantly more likely than controls to have an arrest as a juvenile and as an adult. Table 1 also shows that individuals with histories of childhood abuse and neglect were significantly less likely to graduate from high school, be currently employed and currently married, compared to the controls.

Table 1

Note: N = number in group; CI = confidence interval.

*** p < .001.

Developmental Role Attainment and Adult Arrests

The next set of analyses shows that successful achievement of each of the developmental roles was associated with a significant decrease in risk for adult arrest, controlling for age, sex, and race (see Table 2). More than 55 percent of those who failed to graduate from high school were arrested in adulthood, compared to less than 34 percent of high school graduates. Similarly, individuals who were currently employed were significantly less likely to have an arrest as an adult, compared to those not currently employed. The same pattern was evident for those currently married versus those not currently married. In addition, t-tests were conducted to examine mean differences in the number of arrests for each group. Individuals who graduated from high school had significantly fewer adult arrests than those who did not graduate, M (SD) = 1.38 (3.54) versus 3.33 (5.81), t = 7.13, p < .001. Similar results for number of arrests were found for those who were currently employed compared to those who were not, M (SD) = 1.46 (3.38) versus 3.56 (6.24), t = 744, p < .001 and for those who were currently married compared to those who were not, M (SD) = .97 (2.60) versus 3.05 (5.56), t = 7.59***.

Table 2

560

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: Cl = confidence interval, R2 = Nagelkerke R Square, model fits statistic for the entire sample. Analyses control for sex, age, and race.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

For tests of mediation, it is necessary for the temporal relationship between the critical variables to be correct. In this case, our potential mediators should precede the dependent variable (adult arrest). For high school graduation, we believe it is reasonable to assume that high school graduation occurred before the adult arrest. In terms of marriage, we do not have complete information about the marriage or its quality. However, we calculated the age at which the participant was married (determined by subtracting the number of years married from the age at interview) and compared that to the age of adult arrest among people who were married and arrested. Using this procedure, we found that only 16.2 percent of the participants had an arrest after marriage. Looking at people who were employed and had an adult arrest, we calculated the percent who had an adult arrest that occurred before or after the interview when information about current employment status was obtained. We found that the majority had an arrest prior to the interview (93.7 percent) and only 7.3 percent had an arrest after the interview. Thus, in nearly all cases, the temporal order for mediation was met.

Do Developmental Roles (High School Graduation, Employment, and Marriage) Mediate the Relationship between Child Abuse/Neglect and Adult Arrest?

Results thus far confirm the necessary criteria for testing mediation. Both the predictor (child abuse and neglect) and the potential mediators (developmental roles) were significantly related to the outcome variable

561

Download more at Learnclax.com

(adult arrest). Similarly, the predictor variable (child abuse and neglect) was significantly related to each of the potential mediators. The next step in the mediation analyses is to determine whether the hypothesized mediators (developmental roles attained) predict adult arrest, controlling for child abuse and neglect. Table 2 (models 2–4) shows the results of logistic regression analyses with the introduction of each of the three potential mediators, after controlling for age, sex, and race. First, looking at the column representing the entire sample, child abuse and neglect remained a significant predictor of adult arrest, despite the introduction of any of the three developmental milestones (high school graduation, current employment, or currently married) into the model. However, compared to the effect of child abuse/neglect in the simple model without the hypothesized mediators, the introduction of each developmental role reduced the magnitude of the association between child maltreatment and adult arrest. Of the three developmental roles, current employment showed the largest mediation effect, reducing the risk associated with maltreatment from OR = 1.90 to 1.61, although the effect of child abuse and neglect remained significant. Being married showed a weaker effect, reducing the risk associated with maltreatment from OR = 1.90 to 1.71.

Table 2 also shows that the introduction of each of the developmental roles into the model reduces the association between child abuse/neglect and adult arrest for females, Blacks, and Whites. However, in the case of high school graduation for females and current marriage for males and females, the reduction failed to meet our a priori criteria for partial mediation. Overall, for males, the pattern of results differs. Similar to the other subgroups, for males, marriage partially mediated the relationship between child maltreatment and adult arrest. However, for males in our sample, high school graduation and current employment reduced the effect of child maltreatment so that in those models, the effect of child abuse/neglect became nonsignificant: for education and employment. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the OR for child abuse/neglect in the marriage model while significant, was only slightly larger. Of the three developmental roles, current employment was associated with the largest effect for males, females, and Whites. For Blacks, high school graduation had the largest effect on adult arrest, whereas marriage showed the weakest effect. However, it should be noted that Blacks in the sample were less likely to be married than Whites (22.3 percent vs. 50.7 percent).

Nonetheless, when all three developmental roles were examined simultaneously for the overall sample, each one of them continued to significantly reduce the likelihood of adult arrest, despite the introduction of the other roles. With simultaneous entry of all three developmental roles, child abuse and neglect remained a significant predictor of adult arrest (OR = 1.32, 95 percent CI = 1.00–1.75, p < .05), but there was evidence of partial mediation. We also examined the cumulative effect of attaining more than one developmental role and found that for the entire sample, attaining one developmental role resulted in a marginally significant decrease in risk for adult arrest (OR = .68, 95 percent CI = .45–1.03, p < .07), attaining any two of the three developmental roles significantly lowered a person’s risk of adult arrest (OR = .29, 95 percent CI = .20–.44, p < .001), and attaining all three roles resulted in an 89 percent decrease in risk of adult arrest (OR = .11, 95 percent CI = .07–.18, p < .001).

Developmental Roles and Adult Arrest, Controlling for Juvenile Arrests

562

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 3 shows the extent to which these findings may be attributable to an earlier effect of child abuse/neglect on juvenile arrest that, in turn, would increase risk for having an arrest as an adult. Table 3 shows that the effect of child abuse and neglect on adult arrest remains significant in the model for the entire sample and for females, Blacks, and Whites. However, the OR is reduced with the introduction of juvenile arrest, suggesting that all three factors (child abuse and neglect, juvenile arrest, and developmental role) increase the likelihood of having an adult arrest. For males, graduating from high school and being currently employed substantially reduced the effect of child abuse and neglect on adult arrest to nonsignificance (see earlier Table 2). However, Table 3 shows that introduction of juvenile arrest into these models further reduced the effect of child abuse and neglect as a predictor of adult arrest. That is, for males, accounting for both developmental role attainment and having a juvenile arrest reduces the significant effect of child abuse and neglect as a predictor of adult arrest to nonsignificant.

Table 3

Note: Cl = confidence interval. R2 = Nagelkerke R Square, model fits statistic for the entire sample. Analyses control for sex, age, and race.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Developmental Roles as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Child Maltreatment and Adult Arrest

There were no significant interactions between child abuse and neglect and any of the developmental milestones predicting adult arrest. Thus, our findings indicate that developmental role attainment does not moderate the relationship between child abuse and neglect and adult arrest.

Discussion

563

Download more at Learnclax.com

We replicated earlier findings showing that child abuse and neglect increases a person’s risk for being arrested as a juvenile and as an adult. Our new findings indicate that child abuse and neglect has a negative impact on a person’s likelihood of successfully achieving three important normative roles (high school graduation, employment, and marriage) and that the failure to attain these developmental milestones was associated with a significant increase in risk for adult arrest. Furthermore, these findings suggest that these milestones partially mediated the relationship between child abuse and neglect and adult arrest. For abused and neglected youth who graduate from high school, gain employment, and marry, the likelihood of adult arrest was significantly reduced compared to abused and neglected youth who do not attain these developmental roles. However, we did not find evidence that developmental milestones moderated the relationship between child abuse and neglect and adult arrest, indicating that developmental role attainment was protective for both the maltreated and the control groups.

Why might high school graduation serve to turn an abused or neglected child’s trajectory toward a more positive outcome? First, high school graduation typically serves as an important gateway or developmental marker, affecting a person’s ability to attain other important adult roles. Second, the failure to complete high school may launch an abused and/or neglected youth toward negative adult outcomes. Alternatively, based on the effect of juvenile arrest on later arrest and its relationship to child abuse/neglect, it is also plausible that this is a continuation of a pattern that began much earlier. Third, some researchers suggest that the missed opportunities for positive outcomes and socialization experiences, for example, when a person fails to graduate from high school, may not only limit later options (e.g., employment, marriage) but may also exacerbate the levels of stress experienced by the person, making it more likely that he or she will have fewer subsequent successes and more negative outcomes (Caspi and Moffitt 1995; Roisman, Aquilar, and Egeland 2004). These possibilities are all empirically testable hypotheses and warrant further examination. Nonetheless, abused and neglected children should be encouraged and helped to remain in school with their peers. Teachers and other school administrators should receive training in how to recognize signs of abuse and neglect and in how to intervene and provide support early, so that children do not fall behind academically, socially, and emotionally. This early recognition and intervention within school systems might be particularly salient for Blacks. For Blacks, high school graduation was the developmental role associated with the largest reduction in risk of adult arrests, whereas current employment was associated with greater risk reduction for Whites. Even if high school graduation is not likely, the structure of the school environment and the time spent in school may reduce the likelihood of getting into trouble.

Current employment also partially mediated the relationship between child maltreatment and adult arrest, similar to the role of high school graduation. Employment may act to buffer abused and neglected children in a number of ways. Both the financial benefits associated with employment and the number of hours spent working (vs. being idle) may serve as deterrents from criminal behavior. For example, in an earlier study, Uggen (2000) found that employment served as a turning point for adult offenders (primarily males) age 27 and older, but not for adolescents and young adults in their early twenties. The present results suggest that employment served to reduce the risk of adult arrests for the individuals in our study as well, particularly among abused and neglected males. We found that current employment fully mediated the relationship between maltreatment and adult arrest for males, but not for females, suggesting that employment might play

564

Download more at Learnclax.com

a more important role for males given the greater expectation for male versus female employment (Koski 2007). Alternatively, our findings suggest that the impact of maltreatment on risk of arrest is greater for females than males, and perhaps achievement of these three important milestones is not enough to protect them. Our results indicated that marriage served as a partial mediator of the relationship between child abuse and neglect and adult arrest for males, Blacks, and Whites and to some extent for females. Thus, these new findings provide support for the concept of “turning points” and for the role of marriage as a deterrent for crime. These new findings also extend the literature on the role of marriage to maltreated children. However, this is a complicated issue because there is an increasing body of literature that shows that child abuse and neglect increases a person’s risk for a variety of negative outcomes (interpersonal and mental health) that may themselves serve as predispositions against marriage, as barriers to finding suitable partners, and to maintaining a marital relationship.

Although the protective effect of marriage was seen for males and females regardless of race, the magnitude of the effect may differ by race. Consistent with the extant literature, we found that Blacks were less likely to marry and therefore, they may be less likely to reap the protective benefits of marriage. Ironically, the lower rates of marriage among Blacks might be linked to lower protection from arrests, and in turn, the higher rates of arrests and subsequent incarceration among Blacks, particularly Black men, might lead to fewer eligible partners for marriage (Huebner 2007; Lewis 2010) and ultimately a lower rate of marriage. The implications of these findings regarding the role of marriage for individuals with histories of child abuse and neglect are not obvious or simple, but at a minimum, our findings suggest that efforts should be made to assist abused and neglected children to achieve successful relationships.

The current findings suggest that the failure to attain age appropriate developmental roles is important to understanding the pathways from which abused and neglected children are at increased risk for at least the one negative adult outcome examined here. Our research also shows that achieving all three developmental roles (high school graduation, employment, and marriage) dramatically reduced risk for being arrested as an adult. Further examination of the derailment process for maltreated children in relation to these developmental roles is needed. For example, is the failure to achieve these important developmental roles due to a person’s own limitations that may have developed as a result of the abuse or neglect experience or is the derailment in part influenced by family background, neighborhood characteristics, or the sociopolitical context in which maltreatment occurs? Ultimately, our goal should be to better understand how maltreated children become derailed and then how best to intervene in their lives to prevent the negative trajectory from maltreatment to poor outcomes.

For the entire sample, child maltreatment remains a significant predictor of adult arrest, even after controlling for juvenile arrest. However, throughout these analyses, the importance of having a juvenile arrest is evident. Having a juvenile arrest predicts having an adult arrest in every model tested (Table 3), and may be a more critical influence on the derailment process than each developmental milestone. Nonetheless, the evidence of a positive effect of the developmental milestones is also evident and in some cases eliminates the significant effect of child abuse and neglect. This continuity of arrest history needs further investigation to determine whether it is characteristics of the individual, the stigma of juvenile arrest, being detained as a juvenile, or

565

Download more at Learnclax.com

other responses by the system that make it difficult to overcome one’s earlier history.

Finally, despite the strengths of these new findings, some limitations warrant comment. First, developmental role attainment was reported during an interview when participants were age 29 on average. Each participant reported whether he or she had graduated from high school, was currently employed, and/or currently married. Although we know whether the person was employed or married at the time of the interview, we do not know the age at which these milestones first occurred. However, post hoc analyses indicated that the vast majority of the adult arrests occurred before the developmental milestone (or potential turning point) was achieved. That is, only 16.2 percent were arrested after the age of current marriage and less than 10 percent were arrested after being employed.

Second, for marriage, we only considered a person’s status at the time of the interview. Participants might have been previously married and since divorced, separated, or widowed. This is especially true of the abused and neglected group, given their increased risk for marital disruption (Colman and Widom 2004). For males, Sampson et al. (2006) found that being married for any period of time helps to reduce the likelihood of engaging in adult criminal behavior. It is also possible that cohabitation without marriage, more frequent now than in the past, may serve a role similar to marriage. In addition, research on the effect of marriage on crime rates has found that the quality of marital relationships has a more significant effect on desistance than marital status alone. The protective effect of the relationship is linked with specific aspects of relationships, including quality and cohesiveness of the relationship, satisfaction with the relationship bond formed between partners (Sampson and Laub 1993) and relationship stability (Capaldi, Kim, and Owen 2008). Research has also found that romantic involvement with antisocial partners promotes continuity of antisocial and criminal behavior (Capaldi et al. 2008; Herrera, Wiersma, and Cleveland 2008). Abused and neglected children may have a more difficult time forming cohesive and satisfying relationships with significant others which may affect the buffering effect of marriage (Colman and Widom 2004). These issues are beyond the scope of the present investigation but worthy of future research with maltreated individuals. Third, our findings are based on cases of childhood abuse and neglect drawn from official court records and most likely represent the most extreme cases processed in the system. This means that these findings are not generalizable to unreported or unsubstantiated cases of child abuse and neglect (Widom 1989a). We do not know the extent of unreported abuse or neglect in the control group (i.e., false negatives). Fourth, officially reported cases of child abuse and neglect are generally skewed toward the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. Thus, we do not know the extent to which these findings can be generalized to child abuse and neglect cases that occur in middle or upper class children and their families. Indeed, the consequences of abuse and neglect in the context of middle or upper class families may manifest in ways quite different than for the children in the present study. Finally, these findings represent the experiences of a group of children who were abused and neglected during the 1960s and early 1970s in the Midwest part of the United States. It is possible that children abused and neglected at a later point in time or at present may manifest different consequences as a result of different responses to their victimization (mandatory child abuse reporting laws) or to different forms of intervention.

Our study reveals the strength of the effects of child maltreatment on adult outcomes. For the overall sample, child abuse and neglect remained a significant predictor of adult arrest, even after controlling for demographic

566

Download more at Learnclax.com

characteristics, having a juvenile arrest, high school graduation, employment status, and current marriage. However, these new results show that the attainment of developmental roles partially offsets the negative consequences of childhood maltreatment.

Discussion Questions

1. What are turning points? What turning points seem to matter the most for reducing crime among adults who have been maltreated as children?

2. How does child maltreatment impact the likelihood that a person graduates from high school? Is gainfully employed? Gets married?

3. What gender differences were found in the relationship between child maltreatment, turning points, and arrest? Why do you think these gender differences emerged?

4. Were any racial differences found in these relationships? Why do you think these racial differences emerged?

Note

This research was supported in part by grants from NICHD (HD40774), NIMH (MH49467 and MH58386), NIJ (86-IJ-CX-0033, 89-IJ-CX-0007, and93-IJ-CX-0031), NIDA (DAI 7842 and DA10060), NIAAA (AA09238 and AA11108), and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the United States Department of Justice.

567

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Andrews, Bernice and Brown George W.. 1988. “Marital Violence in the Community: A Biographical

Approach.” British Journal of Psychiatry 153:305–12.

Anne E. Casey Foundation. (2009). Kids Count Data Center. Accessed on March 12, 2012 (http://datacenter.kidscount.org).

Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2000. “Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens to the Twenties.” American Psychologist 55:469–80.

Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2007. “Emerging Adulthood: What is it and What is it Good For?” Child Development Perspectives 1:68–73.

Boden, Joseph J., John Horwood L., and Fergusson David M.. 2007. “Exposure to Childhood Sexual and Physical Abuse and Subsequent Educational Achievement Outcomes.” Child Abuse & Neglect 31:1101–14.

Capaldi, Deborah M., Kim Hyoun K., and Owen Lee D.. 2008. “Romantic Partners’ Influence on Men’s Likelihood of Arrest in Early Adulthood.” Criminology 46: 267–99.

Caspi, Avshalom and Moffitt Terrie E.. 1995. “The Continuity of Maladaptive Behavior: From Description to Understanding in the Study of Antisocial Behavior.” Pp. 472–511 in Developmental Psychopathology, Vol. 2: Risk, Disorder, Adaptation, edited by D. Cicchetti and D. Cohen. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Colman, Rebecca C. and Widom Cathy Spatz. 2004. “Childhood Abuse and Neglect and Adult Intimate Relationships: A Prospective Study.” Child Abuse and Neglect 28:1133–51.

Currie, Janet and Widom Cathy Spatz. 2010. “Long-term Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect on Adult Economic Well-being.” Child Maltreatment 15:111–20.

Dembo, Richard, Williams Linda, Voie Lawrence La, Berry Estrellita, Getreu Alan, Wish Eric D., Schmeidler James, and Washburn Mark. 1989. “Physical Abuse, Sexual Victimization, and Illicit Drug Use: Replication of a Structural Analysis Among a New Sample of High-Risk Youths.” Violence and Victims 4:121–37.

568

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://datacenter.kidscount.org

Dembo, Richard, Williams Linda, Lawrence La Voie, Schmeidler James, Kern Janis, Getreu Alan, Berry Estrellita, Genung Lisa, and Wish Eric D.. 1990. “A Longitudinal Study of the Relationship among Alcohol Use, Marijuana/Hashish Use, Cocaine Use, and Emotional/Psychological Functioning Problems in a Cohort of High Risk Youths.” International Journal of the Addictions 25:1341–82.

Dodge, Kenneth A., Bates John E., and Pettit Gregory S.. 1990. “Mechanisms in the Cycle of Violence.” Science 250:1678–83.

Duncan, Renae D. 2000. “Child Maltreatment and College Drop-Out Rates: Implications for Child Abuse Researchers.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 15:987–95.

Eckenrode, John, Laird Molly, and Doris John. 1993. “School Performance and Disciplinary Problems Among Abused and Neglected Children.” Developmental Psychology 29:53–62.

Elder, Jr., Glen, H. 1986. “Military Times and Turning Points in Men’s Lives.” Developmental Psychology 22:233–45.

English, Diana J., Widom Cathy Spatz, and Brandford Carol. 2001. “Childhood Victimization and Delinquency, Adult Criminality, and Violent Criminal Behavior: A Replication and Extension.” Final Report No. NCJ192291. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.

Erikson, Erik. 1964. Childhood and Society. Oxford, England: W. W. Norton.

Fairlie, Robert W. and Sundstrom William A.. 1999. “The Emergence, Persistence, and Recent Widening of the Racial Unemployment Gap.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 52:252–70.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2011. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fleming, Allison S., O’Day Danton H., and Kraemer Gary W.. 1999. “Neurobiology of Mother-Infant Interactions: Experience and Central Nervous System Plasticity across Development and Generations.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 23:673–85.

Fleming, Jillian, Mullen Paul E., Sibthorpe Beverly, and Bammer Gabriele. 1999. “The Long-Term Impact of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Australian Women.” Child Abuse & Neglect 23:145–59.

569

Download more at Learnclax.com

Franklin, Donna L., Smith Susan E., and McMiller William E. P.. 1995. “Correlates of Marital Status among African American Mothers in Chicago Neighborhoods of Concentrated Poverty.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:141–52.

Friedrich, William N., Urquiza Anthony J., and Beilke Robert L.. 1986. “Behavior Problems in Sexually Abused Young Children.” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 11:47–57.

Harris, Linda H. 1983. “Role of Trauma in the Lives of High School Dropouts.” Social Work in Education 5:77–88.

Harrison, Patricia A., Hoffmann Norman G., and Edwall Glenace E.. 1989a. “Sexual Abuse Correlates: Similarities Between Male and Female Adolescents in Chemical Dependency Treatment.” Journal of Adolescent Research 4:385–99.

Harrison, Patricia A., Hoffmann Norman G., and Edwall Glenace E.. 1989b. “Differential Drug Use Patterns Among Sexually Abused Adolescent Girls in Treatment for Chemical Dependency.” International Journal of the Addictions 24:499–514.

Herrera, Veronica M., Wiersma Jacquelyn D., Harrington H., and Cleveland. 2008. “The Influence of Individual and Partner Characteristics on the Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence in Young Adult Relationships.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37:284–96.

Hollingshead, August B. 1975. Four-Factor Index of Social Status. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Huebner, Beth. 2007. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Likelihood of Marriage: The Effect of Incarceration.” Justice Quarterly 24:156–83.

Ireland, Timothy and Widom Cathy Spatz. 1994. “Childhood Victimization and Risk for Alcohol and Drug Arrests.” International Journal of the Addictions 29:235–74.

Jonson-Reid, Melissa, Drake Brett, Kim Jiyoung, Porterfield Shirley, and Han Lu. 2004. “A Prospective Analysis of the Relationship Between Reported Child Maltreatment and Special Education Eligibility Among Poor Children.” Child Maltreatment 9:382–94.

Kenny, David A., Kashy Deborah A., and Bolger Niall. 1998. “Data Analysis in Social Psychology.” Pp. 233–65 in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, edited by D. T. Gilbert and S. T. Fiske. Boston:

570

Download more at Learnclax.com

McGraw Hill.

Koski, Jessica. 2007. Kids, Careers, and Gender Norms: Evaluating the Potential for New Choice. New York: American Sociological Association.

Lansford, Jennifer E., Dodge Kenneth A., Pettit Gregory S., Bates John E., Crozier Joseph, and Kaplow Julie. 2002. “A 12-Year Prospective Study of the Long-Term Effects of Early Child Physical Maltreatment on Psychological, Behavioral, and Academic Problems in Adolescence.” Archives Pediatric Adolescence 156:824–30.

Laub, John H., Nagin Daniel S., and Sampson Robert J.. 1998. “Trajectories of Change in Criminal Offending: Good Marriages and the Desistance Process.” American Sociological Review 63:225–38.

Leach, Monica T. and Williams Sheara A.. 2007. “The Impact of the Academic Achievement Gap on the African American Family: A Social Inequality Perspective.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 15:39–59.

Leiter, Jeffrey and Johnsen Matthew C.. 1997. “Child Maltreatment and School Performance Declines: An Event-History Analysis.” American Educational Research Journal 34:563–89.

Leventhal, John M. 1982. “Research Strategies and Methodologic Standards in Studies of Risk Factors for Child Abuse.” Child Abuse and Neglect 6:113–23.

Lewis, Charles E., Jr. 2010. Social Work with African American Males: Health, Mental Health, and Social Policy, edited by Waldo E. Johnson, Jr. New York: Oxford University Press.

Livingston, Richard. 1987. “Sexually and Physically Abused Children.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 26:413–15.

Loeber, Rolf, Farrington David P., Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Moffitt Terrie E., Caspi Avshalom, and Lynam Don. 2001. “Male Mental Health Problems, Psychopathy, and Personality Traits: Key Findings from the First 14 Years of the Pittsburgh Youth Study.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 4:273–97.

MacMillan, Harriet L., Fleming Jan E., Streiner David L., Lin Elizabeth, Boyle Michael, Jamieson Ellen, Duku Eric K., Walsh Christine A., Maria Y. Y. Wong, and Beardslee William R.. 2001. “Childhood

571

Download more at Learnclax.com

Abuse and Lifetime Psychopathology in a Community Sample.” American Journal of Psychiatry 158:1878–83.

Maxfield, Michael G. and Widom Cathy Spatz. 1996. “The Cycle of Violence: Revisited Six Years Later.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 150:390–95.

McAdoo, H. P. 1997. Black Families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, Jody. 1996. “Victimization and Resistance Among Street Prostitutes.” Pp. 500–15 in Constructions of Deviance, edited by P. Adler and P. Adler. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Natsuaki, Misaki N., Ge Xiaojia, and Wenk Ernst. 2008. “Continuity and Changes in the Developmental Trajectories of Criminal Career: Examining the Roles of Timing of First Arrest and High School Graduation.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37:431–44.

Perez, Cynthia M. and Widom Cathy Spatz. 1994. “Childhood Victimization and Long-term Intellectual and Academic Outcomes.” Child Abuse and Neglect 18:617–33.

Roisman, Glenn I., Aquilar Benjamin, and Egeland Byron. 2004. “Antisocial Behavior in the Transition to Adulthood: The Independent and Interactive Roles of Developmental History and Emerging Developmental Tasks.” Developmental and Psychopathology 16:857–71.

Romito, Patrizia, Crisma Micaell, and Saurel-Cubizolles Marie-Joseph. 2003. “Adult Outcomes in Women Who Experienced Parental Violence during Childhood.” Child Abuse & Neglect 27:1127–44.

Sampson, Robert J. and Laub John H.. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, Robert J. and Laub John H.. 1997. “A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency.” Pp. 131–61 in Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, edited by T. P. Thornberry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Sampson, Robert J. and Laub John H.. 2005. “A Life-Course View of the Development of Crime.” Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science 602:12–45.

Sampson, Robert J., Laub John H., and Wimer Christopher. 2006. “Does Marriage Reduce Crime? A

572

Download more at Learnclax.com

Counterfactual Approach to Within-Individual Causal Effects.” Criminology 44:465–508.

Sansone, Randy A., Dakroub Hassan, Pole Michele, and Butler Melissa. 2005. “Childhood Trauma and Employment Disability.” International Journal Psychiatry in Medicine 35:395–404.

Schulsinger, Fini, Mednick Sarnoff A., and Knop Joachim. 1981. Longitudinal Research: Methods and Uses in Behavioral Sciences. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

Smith, Carolyn and Thornberry Terence P.. 1995. “The Relationship Between Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescent Involvement in Delinquency.” Criminology 33:451–81.

Stewart, Anna, Livington Michael, and Dennison Susan. 2008. “Transitions and Turning Points: Examining the Links Between Child Maltreatment and Juvenile Offending.” Child Abuse and Neglect 32:51–66.

Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda, Loeber Rolf, D. Lynn Homish, and Wei Evelyn. 2001. “Maltreatment of Boys and the Development of Disruptive and Delinquent Behavior.” Development and Psychopathology 13:941–55.

Toray, Tamina, Coughlin Chris, Vuchinich Samuel, and Patricelli Peter. 1991. “Gender Differences Associated with Adolescent Substance Abuse: Comparisons and Implications for Treatment.” Family Relations 40:338–44.

Tracy, Paul E., Kempf-Leonard Kimberly, and Stephanie Abramoske-James. 2009. “Gender Differences in Delinquency and Juvenile Justice Processing: Evidence from National Data.” Crime and Delinquency 55:171–215.

Uggen, Christopher. 2000. “Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminal: A Duration Model of Age, Employment and Recidivism.” American Sociological Review 67:529–46.

US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (September 2010). Crime in the United States, 2009. Accessed on March 12, 2012 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/09cius.htm).

Whisman, Mark. 2006. “Childhood Trauma and Marital Outcomes in Adulthood.” Personal Relationships 13:375–86.

Widom, Cathy Spatz. 1989a. “Child Abuse, Neglect and Adult Behavior: Research Design and Findings on

573

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/09cius.htm

Criminality, Violence, and Child Abuse.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59:355–67.

Widom, Cathy Spatz. 1989b. “The Cycle of Violence.” Science 244:160–66.

Widom, Cathy Spatz and White Helene Raskin. 1997. “Problem Behaviors in Abused and Neglected Children Grown Up: Prevalence and Co-occurrence of Substance Abuse, Crime, and Violence.” Journal of Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 7:287–310.

Widom, Cathy Spatz, Ireland Timothy, and Glynn Patricia J.. 1995. “Alcohol Abuse in Abused and Neglected Children Followed-Up: Are They at Increased Risk?” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 56:207–17.

Zingraff, Matthew T., Leiter Jeffrey, Myers Kristen A., and Johnsen Matthew. 1993. “Child Maltreatment and Youthful Problem Behavior.” Criminology 31:173–202.

574

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 17

Little attention has been given to the unique features of violent victimization perpetrated against the elderly. In their article, Bachman and Meloy (2008) use data from the Supplementary Homicide Reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey to compare the characteristics of homicides, robberies, and assaults of community-dwelling persons aged 65 and older to those of persons younger than 65. The authors also provide an overview of incidents of violence that occur in nursing homes, with special attention on the victim–offender relationship and risk factors for victimization.

The Epidemiology of Violence Against the Elderly: Implications for Primary and Secondary Prevention

Ronet Bachman and Michelle L. Meloy

SOURCE: Bachman, R., & Meloy, M. L. (2008). The epidemiology of violence against the elderly: Implications for primary and secondary prevention. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 186–197.

Although elderly citizens generally have a much lower rate of victimization for virtually all types of crimes compared to their younger counterparts, the unique characteristics of their victimization and its aftermath illuminate the urgent need for informed prevention strategies. For example, we know that elderly violent crime victims, particularly elderly female victims, are more likely to require medical care for injuries sustained during a violent attack compared to their younger counterparts (Bachman, Dillaway, & Lachs, 1998; Bachman, Lachs, & Meloy, 2004). Another recent study found that a violent victimization for community dwelling elderly residents increased their risk of nursing home placement even after controlling for other variables traditionally thought to be predictive of nursing home placement such as functional and cognitive impairment, social networks, and age (Lachs et al., 2006). And finally, after examining data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System, Chu and Kraus (2004) concluded that elderly victims had a higher risk of death from assault than younger age groups.

Thus, despite their decreased risk of violent victimization, the more severe consequences associated with their victimizations suggest an urgent need to more fully understand both the epidemiology and etiology of elderly victimization. This is particularly important because those older than 65 are the fastest growing age group in the United States. For example, in 1990, one in eight persons were older than the age of 65; by 2030, this ratio will decline to one in five (Wan, Sengupta, Velkoff, & Debarros, 2005).

Before we begin, we will highlight a few methodological issues. One of the problems with the extant research studying elderly victimization is that there is wide variability in the definitions of “elderly victimization” and the corresponding instruments used to measure these victimizations. Although this is true of the literature measuring violence in general, these methodological issues are particularly problematic here because of the global definition of “elder abuse,” which may include a myriad of victimizations from financial abuse and neglect to aggravated assault and murder. Clearly, research that provides one estimate of victimization for such extremely different types of crime precludes making comparisons with research using more refined categories of victimization. Moreover, many estimates of elderly victimization rely solely on reports that come to the attention of authorities such as the police or Adult Protective Services (APS). For example, the

575

Download more at Learnclax.com

National Elder Abuse Incidence Study relied on reports that had been substantiated by APS and other “sentinels” within county government (Administration on Aging, 1998). Obviously, these estimates are extreme under-reports because we know that the majority of violent victimizations against the elderly are never reported to anyone (Bachman et al., 1998).

In this article, we divide victimizations into three more homogeneous categories: murder, robbery, and assault. Although elders do become victims of rapes and sexual assaults, these cases are rare and sample sizes from even the largest surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), are too few from which to make reliable generalizations to the larger elderly population (Klaus, 2005). As such, we will not discuss sexual assault victimizations here. We also examine what is known about violence against elders living in the community compared to those residing in nursing homes. And finally, although there is no satisfactory or universal age at which individuals suddenly become “elderly,” we operationalize individuals 65 years of age or older as elderly to be consistent with past research.

Elderly Homicide Victimization

According to the supplementary homicide reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, those aged 65 and older have the lowest rates of murder compared to other age groups. Since declining from their highs in the early 1990s, these elderly homicide rates have been relatively constant since 1998 (Klaus, 2005). However, when the context of murder is examined, victimizations against the elderly look very different from those of younger cohorts.

Table l displays the percentage distribution for weapon used, the victim and offender relationship, and the precipitating circumstances of the murder for those younger than 65 and for those aged 65 and older. Although the most common method of killing for all homicide victims is firearms, elderly victims are more likely to be stabbed or bludgeoned to death compared to their younger counterparts. In fact, nearly one quarter of elderly victims are bludgeoned to death. All homicide victims were more likely to be killed by known offenders compared to strangers; however, elderly individuals had an increased risk of being killed by other family members and by strangers. This latter vulnerability is related to the difference in precipitating circumstances across age groups; elderly victims were more likely to be killed in the context of another felony, primarily robberies, compared to their younger counterparts who were more likely to be killed as a result of a conflict situation like an argument or fight.

Table 1

576

Download more at Learnclax.com

This vulnerability to robbery-related death has been found in city-level data as well. For example, homicide in the Chicago homicide file indicates that for younger age groups, assault-related homicides (e.g., argument) outnumber robbery-related homicides by an average of six to one, but this differential completely reverses by the age of 65 where robbery related homicides become more prevalent than conflict-related homicides (Bachman, Meloy, & Block, 2005). As you will see in the next section, this vulnerability to economic predation exists for nonfatal forms of violence against the elderly as well.

Nonlethal Violent Victimization of the Elderly

577

Download more at Learnclax.com

The most reliable nationally representative data on nonfatal forms of violent victimization come from the annual NCVS that is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Those eligible for the sample include individuals age 12 or older living in the United States, including persons living in group quarters such as rooming houses or dormitories. The survey does not interview members of any type of institutionalized population, however, including persons in nursing homes. Of importance, because the NCVS is a random sample of U.S. households, it uncovers victimizations that were both reported and not reported to police. Unless otherwise noted, the findings discussed below were obtained from the NCVS.

Robbery

Similar to lethal violence, the probability of becoming a robbery victim significantly decreases as individuals move through the life course. However, there are contextual differences among robbery victimizations against the elderly compared to their younger counterparts. To begin, the gender differentials in victimization that exist for younger age groups essentially disappear for those older than 65. For example, younger males are significantly more likely to become robbery victims compared to their female counterparts. However, elderly women are just as likely to be robbed as their male counterparts (Bachman et al., 1998). This is like no other time in the life course. The lack of gender symmetry with regard to victimization is also true for personal larcenies with contact such as purse snatching and pocket picking (Klaus, 2005). These findings are consistent with other victimization research from a cohort of community-dwelling elders that found there was no difference in the risk of victimization for male and female elders (Lachs et al., 2004).

Table 2 displays the percentage distribution for robbery victims by age, the victim and offender relationship, and the time and place of occurrence. Although males of all ages and elderly women are more likely to be robbed by strangers, younger women are equally likely to be robbed by known offenders.

Table 2

578

Download more at Learnclax.com

579

Download more at Learnclax.com

Of importance, this vulnerability to strangers for the elderly does not simply exist out on the street while conducting the routine activities of the day, but in their homes as well. That is, elderly women are just as vulnerable in their homes to economic predation by strangers as they are on the street (Bachman et al., 1998).

Although elderly robbery victims are slightly more likely to sustain injuries as the result of being robbed compared to younger victims, elders are much more likely than their younger counterparts to require medical care for their injuries, particularly elderly women. In fact, more than two thirds of elderly female robbery victims who were injured required medical care for these injuries.

These findings coupled with the homicide patterns in the previous section underscore the vulnerability elderly individuals have to economic predation related to violent crimes. Violence against the elderly is more likely to be predicated on the possibility of economic gain compared to victimizations against younger people. Of importance, this vulnerability affects both elderly men and women equally.

Assault Victimizations

Community-Dwelling Elderly

Similar to rates of other types of violence, elderly rates of assault victimization are lower compared to their younger cohorts (Klaus, 2005). Unlike robbery and homicide victimization, there are actually more similarities for assault victimizations when gender-specific data are examined. Table 3 displays the percentage distribution for assault victim by age, the victim and offender relationship, and the time and place of occurrence. Assaults for both males and females of all ages are more likely to be committed by known offenders compared to strangers, particularly female victims. Elderly women, like women of all ages, share a unique vulnerability from attacks by their intimate partners and by other family members. However, this vulnerability to intimate partners actually decreases as women move through the life course, whereas the percentage of assaults perpetrated by other family members remains relatively constant. This may be related to life situation changing and other family members becoming the caretakers of their elderly parents or other elderly relative. It may also be related to perpetrators of intimate partner violence aging out of offending as they become older.

Table 3

580

Download more at Learnclax.com

581

Download more at Learnclax.com

Elderly assault victims are more likely to be victimized in private locations and in the daytime compared to their younger counterparts. Data indicate that the elderly are more likely to sustain injuries as the result of an assault; however, elderly women are more likely to require medical care for their injuries when they occur compared to other assault victims. And similar to robbery victimizations, elderly victims of assault are more likely to be assaulted at their private residences and in the daytime compared to younger assault victims. It is quite possible that these risks are linked to the routine activities of elders who are generally more often at home than younger cohorts because of retirement and a decrease in nightly activities away from the home.

Institutionalized Assaults Against the Elderly

When cases of substandard nursing home environments and heinous acts of assault therein make it to the news media, people are justifiably outraged. Unfortunately, we know relatively little about the magnitude of violence against the elderly residing in nursing homes. Furthermore, it is hard to make comparisons across the few studies that have been done because of the methodological issues already highlighted in this article regarding the measurement of violence. In addition, there is the added difficulty of defining what constitutes a “nursing home” because there are a wide variety of institutions ranging from short- to long-term care, from assisted living facilities to skilled nursing facilities, and so on. The few studies that have attempted to measure the incidence of victimization in nursing homes have primarily relied on convenience samples of nursing home staff (Douglas, Hickey, & Noel, 1980; Pillemer & Bachman, 1991; Pillemer & Hudson, 1993). Unfortunately the majority of these studies have reported incidents based on a global category of “elder abuse,” in which incidents of physical violence cannot be disentangled from incidents of emotional or psychological abuse or neglect. We will highlight a few studies that did measure incidents of violence separately.

In a study conducted on the nursing aid staff of 10 Philadelphia-based nursing homes, a little more than half (51%) of the respondents stated they had yelled at a resident in anger; nearly one fourth of the respondents (23%) stated that they insulted or called a resident names; 17% used excessive physical restraint to hold a resident; and 1 in 10 nurses’ aides stated they pushed, grabbed, or shoved a resident within the last 30 days (Pillemer & Hudson, 1993). In another study relying on surveys of both nurses and nursing aides employed at skilled nursing home facilities, less than 3% reported they had engaged in some form of violence in the last year such as pushing, grabbing, slapping, or hitting (Pillemer & Bachman, 1991).

Although these studies have examined incidents of staff-to-resident abuse, a recent study investigating calls to police from nursing homes revealed that the most common incidents reported were cases of resident-to- resident assault, not cases of staff-to-resident assault, even though facilities were mandated to report all acts of assault (Lachs, Bachman, Williams, & O’Leary, 2007). After examing the narratives of the police reports, Lachs and his colleagues (2007) developed the following typologies of resident-to-resident assault: (a) unprovoked assault in which a resident with dementia-related behavioral problems assaults other residents without provocation, (b) invasion of space assaults in which residents assault others who enter their rooms uninvited, (c) male-on-male assaults similar to the most common types of assaults in the general population that are precipitated over issues that appear insubstantial (e.g., who enters the elevator first), (d) competition for resources in which assaults occur over things like chairs in the television room or in the dining room, and

582

Download more at Learnclax.com

(e) breaking point assaults when residents assault other residents after their prolonged or repetitive disruptive behaviors like talking, screaming, or unwanted touching. This study illuminates the problematic nature of assault in nursing home settings. Unlike other assaults, resident-to-resident assaults are unique in that dementia often plays a role in both acts of victimization and offending. Lachs and his colleagues conclude,

“Victim,” “perpetrator,” or both may be “blameless” in many of these episodes, in that they are facilitated by brain disease and not volitional ill will. Indeed, even the label “elder mistreatment” suggests, often incorrectly, that malevolence is a motivator in these situations, although it may promulgate more work in this sorely ignored area. (p. 844)

Not surprising, institutional-level risk factors for elder abuse include nursing homes with high percentages of residents with dementia (Talerico, Evans, & Strumpf, 2002) or other types of highly dependent residents (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2000, 2005), staffing issues such as training (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2000), low staff-to-patient ratios and frequent staff turnover, stress, and “burn-out” (Pillemer & Bachman, 1991; Pillemer & Moore, 1990; Shaw, 1998), institutional culture of the nursing home (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2000), and facility infrastructure (long hallways, poor lighting, many floors and stairwells, far away nurses stations; National Center on Elder Abuse, 2000). Perpetrators of staff abuse are often nurses’ aides as opposed to nurses, doctors, or administrative staff. Nursing aides have the most direct contact with residents so, in part, their overrepresentation among offenders is to be expected. Other perpetrator risk factors are being young, having less education, having less experience working with elder populations, and an overall dissatisfaction with the job (Pillemer & Bachman, 1991; Pillemer & Moore, 1990).

As noted earlier, resident-level risk factors for nursing home abuse include cognitive conditions associated with aggressive behavior such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2005). Residents living in tight quarters or subjected to other institutional conditions where their lack of autonomy is exacerbated are more likely to lash out, especially at other residents (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2005). Finally, residents who rarely receive visitors experience an increased risk in abuse and mistreatment by staff and other residents (Menio, 1996), undoubtedly related to the lack of guardianship for these residents.

Added to these risks is the fact that state judges are increasingly ordering older felons to nursing facilities (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2000) likely because of the fact that the correctional system is ill equipped to deal with its aging prison population. Although most criminal offenders do age out of crime, increasing the number of convicted felons in the nursing home system may result in negative safety consequences for staff and residents. Moreover, the increasing presence of younger mentally ill residents in long-term care facilities further increases the likelihood of resident-to-resident abuse as these individuals have a greater propensity toward anger, hostility, and aggressive behavior (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2000).

Discussion and Recommendations

Based on the epidemiological evidence presented in this article, it is clear that both male and female elders

583

Download more at Learnclax.com

experience unique vulnerabilities to victimization that are unlike any other time in the life course, despite their decreased rates of victimization. These findings coupled with the extant literature illustrate the often deleterious consequences victimization has for the elderly and the urgent need for primary and secondary prevention.

Future research is needed to investigate the etiology of elderly victimization. What factors increase the probability of an elder becoming the victim of violence? Are these factors different across gender and ethnic groups? Are there community level factors related to the risk of victimization against the elderly? Although we know very little about the answers to these questions, the epidemiological patterns of victimization against the elderly do illuminate specific policy recommendations.

To prevent predatory victimizations against the elderly, policies should concentrate on placing guardianship where none exists through such initiatives as neighborhood watches, transportation and home security assistance, and block clubs. One innovative effort in this area is called the Triad program, which couples local police and sheriffs’ department with senior citizens themselves to prevent victimization in their community. Like other community policing initiatives, the goal of Triad programs is to share ideas and resources to provide programs and training directed at increasing protection for vulnerable elderly populations (Cantrell, 1994).

The murders and assault against the elderly committed by other family members are likely within the context of a caregiving situation for an elderly parent or relative. As such, policies aimed at alleviating the stress of such situations and providing respite services to caregivers are extremely important. Detecting these victimizations, of course, is of paramount importance. All states and the District of Columbia have authorized the provision of APS, which establishes a system for the reporting and investigation of elderly victimization, and the provision of social services to help the victim and ameliorate the abuse. Laws in most states require professionals who have direct contact with elders such as doctors and home health providers, to be mandated reporters when it comes to cases of suspected victimization. But what services are available for elders who find themselves in an abusive home environment? Elderly victims of familial abuse face many unique obstacles different from those of their younger counterparts. As such, services and safe havens that can serve elderly victims are an urgent priority. The culture of traditional nursing home care is generally geared toward involving the family in an elder’s care and decision making. However, when a family member is an abuser, preventing family contact becomes a priority. Despite these unique needs, there are only a handful of organizations that are designed to serve elderly victims of domestic abuse. One shelter that caters to the needs of elderly victims of familial abuse is the Hebrew Home for the Aged in the Bronx of New York City (Leland, 2005). The Hebrew Home, in conjunction with the Jeanette Weinberg Center for Elder Abuse Prevention, opened this free program in January 2005 to provide temporary emergency shelter for up to 31 elders. They also provide services to find long-term housing if necessary along with important counseling and advocacy (Leland, 2005).

Finally, because violence against the elderly has such severe physical consequences in terms of increased risk of injury, requiring medical care, nursing home placement, and injuries resulting in death, secondary prevention

584

Download more at Learnclax.com

efforts following nonfatal victimizations against the elderly are extremely important. This is true as much for physical injuries as it is for the emotional trauma that undoubtedly accompanies such brutality. Health care providers need to be educated on how to aggressively respond to the unique needs of elderly victims of crime to prevent any spiral decline of health for elders.

Protection of Institutionalized Elderly

Prevention strategies for reducing staff-to-resident victimization in nursing homes entail extensive staff training, staff employment screening, incorporation of abuse prevention policies and reporting procedures, implementation of measures to decrease staff attrition, decrease of staff stress levels, and decrease of staff “burn-out” (Clough, 1999; Menio, 1996; National Center on Elder Abuse, 2000; Payne & Cikovic, 1995; Pillemer & Bachman, 1991). To address some of these issues it is suggested that institutions increase their pay scale for the positions most vulnerable to committing abuse and to being the direct target of abuse (nurse’s aides in particular), keep staffing levels high at all times, and implement career trajectories and upward mobility tracks within the organization (National Center on Elder Abuse, 2005; Pillemer & Bachman, 1991; Shaw, 1998). Oversight agencies, such as Ombudsman Programs, should also increase their vigilance at investigating and adjudicating all credible allegations.

Regarding the more prevalent resident-to-resident assaults, institutions should be proactive in providing staff training for managing dementia-related behaviors, particularly the monitoring and management of aggressive behavior. General training in conflict resolution should also be provided. Unfortunately, when training protocols were examined, specific guidelines or training materials for nursing home staff on how to interdict in cases of resident-to-resident assault could not be found (Lachs et al., 2004).

In sum, during the next 20 years, the United States will become a nation in which those 65 and older will represent more than 20% of the total population. The government has spent a great deal of time and energy considering what this growth will mean for such programs as Social Security and Medicare. However, very little attention has been given to issues regarding the quality of life older Americans can come to expect, including feeling safe in their own homes, or having safety nets available when their own homes become domains of abuse. The time is now to develop well-informed policies aimed at both preventing violence against the elderly and ameliorating the consequences of this violence when it does occur. We cannot afford to ignore victimization against the elderly.

Discussion Questions

1. What are the unique vulnerabilities to violent victimization that elderly persons face as compared with younger persons?

2. Are the consequences of being victimized different for elderly persons? Why or why not? Explain. 3. What are the policy implications of these findings? 4. Are community-dwelling elderly persons at greater risk of being victimized? Why or why not? Be sure

to use information from the reading to support your answer.

585

Download more at Learnclax.com

586

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Administration on Aging. (1998). The National Elder Abuse Incidence Study: Final report. Available from

the Administration on Aging website, http://www/aoa.gov/eldfam/Elder_Rights/Elder_Abuse/AbuseReport_Full.pdf

Bachman, R., Dilloway, H., & Lachs, M. S. (1998). Violence against the elderly: A comparative analysis of robbery and assault across age and gender groups. Research on Aging, 20(2), 183–198.

Bachman, R., Lachs, M. S., & Meloy, M. (2004). Reducing injury through self-protection by elderly victims of violence: The interaction effects of gender of victims and the victim/offender relationship. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 16(4), 1–24.

Bachman, R., Meloy, M., & Block, R. (2005, November). Examining violence against the elderly: Lethal and nonfatal patterns of robbery and assault. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Cantrell, B. (1994, February). Triad: Reducing criminal victimization of the elderly. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n2_v63/ai_15267890

Chu, L. D., & Kraus, J. F. (2004). Predicting fatal assault among the elderly using the National Incident- Based Reporting System crime data. Homicide Studies, 8, 71–95.

Clough, R. (1999). “Scandalous care”: Interpreting public inquiry reports of scandals in residential care. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 19, 13–27.

Douglas, R. L., Hickey, T., & Noel, C. (1980). A study of maltreatment of the elderly and other vulnerable adults: Final report to the United States Administration on Aging and the Michigan Department of Social Sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Klaus, P. (2005). Crime against persons age 65 or older, 1993–2002 (NCJ 206154). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Lachs, M., Bachman, R., Williams, C., Kossack, A., Bove, C., & O’Leary, J. (2004). Older adults as crime victims, perpetrators, witnesses, and complainants: A population-based study of police interactions. Journal

587

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www/aoa.gov/eldfam/Elder_Rights/Elder_Abuse/AbuseReport_Full.pdf

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n2_v63/ai_15267890

of Elder Abuse, 16(4), 25–40.

Lachs, M., Bachman, R., Williams, C., Kossack, A., Bove, C., & O’Leary, J. R. (2006). Violent crime victimization increases the risk of nursing home placement in older adults. The Gerontologist, 46, 583–589.

Lachs, M., Bachman, R., Williams, C. S., & O’Leary, J. R. (2007). Resident-to-resident elder mistreatment and police contact in nursing homes: Findings from a population-based cohort. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55, 840–845.

Leland, J. (2005, November 8). For the elderly, a place to turn to when abuse comes from home. New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/nyregion/08elder.html? _r=1&oref=slogin&emc=etal&pagewanted

Menio, D. A. (1996). Advocating for the rights of vulnerable nursing home residents: Creative strategies. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 8(3), 59–72.

National Center on Elder Abuse. (2000). Adult protective services role in the prevention of nursing home abuse: Report of a national teleconference. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center on Elder Abuse. (2005). Nursing home abuse: Risk prevention profile and checklist. Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse and U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, Administration on Aging.

Payne, B., & Cikovic, R. (1995). An empirical examination of the characteristics, consequences, and causes of elder abuse in nursing homes. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 4, 61–74.

Pillemer, K., & Bachman, R. (1991). Helping and hurting: Predictors of maltreatment of patients in nursing homes. Research on Aging, 13(1), 74–95.

Pillemer, K., & Hudson, B. (1993). A model abuse prevention program for nursing assistants. The Gerontologist, 33, 128–131.

Pillemer, K., & Moore, D. (1990). Highlights from a study of abuse of patients in nursing homes. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 2, 5–29.

588

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/nyregion/08elder.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&emc=etal&pagewanted

Shaw, M. M. C. (1998). Nursing home resident abuse by staff: Exploring the dynamics. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 9(4), 1–22.

Talerico, K., Evans, L., & Strumpf, N. (2002). Mental health correlates of aggression in nursing home residents with dementia. The Gerontologist, 42, 169–177.

Wan, H., Sengupta, M., Velkoff, V. A., & DeBarros, K. A. (2005). 65+ in the United States, 2005: Current population reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

589

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section X Victimization at School and Work

Polly, the young woman first introduced in Section II, was walking home from a local bar when she was accosted by two men. She was shoved by one of the men, and they were able to take her bag and its contents. Polly suffered several negative consequences from her victimization— most obviously, the 10 stitches in her head. But she also had a hard time coping with what happened. She found herself staying in bed when she should have been going to class. As a college student, this negative consequence could have prevented her from successfully completing the semester. So far, you have considered Polly’s victimization in terms of why she was victimized, whether she meets the criteria for being a “typical” victim, and the types of services to which Polly should have access. What you should also consider, however, is whether Polly’s victimization would be included in school victimization statistics. She is, after all, a college student. Is this designation enough for her victimization to be classified or counted as a victimization at school? Does it matter that she was not in class at the time? Would she need to be on campus for it to count as a school victimization? What would the college have to do if this was considered a school victimization? These issues are discussed in this section along with another special case of victimization, those that occur while people are at work or on duty.

590

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization at School

We often think of school as being a safe place. Schools are designed as places where young people come together to learn and grow. Attendance is not voluntary; instead, children are required to go to school, and it is the place where they spend a great deal of their lives. Parents assume that when they send their children off to school, they will willingly go and that, even if they do not love school, they are at least safe. For the most part, this is true, but not all students matriculate through school without experiencing some type of victimization. When they are victimized in the school building, on school grounds, while riding a school bus, or while attending or participating in a school function, it is termed school victimization. This type of victimization can take the form of any other victimization—property victimization or personal victimization that can include theft, robbery, simple assault, aggravated assault, rape, and murder. Other victimizations may include harassment or bullying—a focus of recent research discussed in more detail shortly.

591

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization at School: Grades K–12

The type of victimization that likely comes to mind when you think about children being harmed at school is a school shooting. When a school shooting—such as the one at Columbine in 1999—does occur, it is difficult to watch the news or read the newspaper without hearing about the incident. Indeed, the media pay close attention when young people are shot at school. Although they get heightened media attention, fortunately, school shootings are very rare. But how do we know this? The information on victimizations that occur at school comes from a variety of resources. Remember that the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) asks individuals aged 12 and over about their victimization experiences during the previous 6 months. If a person has been victimized, he or she is then asked detailed questions about the victimization, including where it occurred. From the NCVS, then, it is possible to generate estimates of the extent of victimization occurring at school for people at least 12 years of age. To supplement the NCVS, the School Crime Supplement Survey is a national survey of about 6,500 students aged 12 to 18 enrolled in schools in the United States. Students are asked about victimizations they experienced in the previous 6 months (Robers, Zhang, Truman, & Snyder, 2010). Keep in mind, though, that students younger than 12 are not included in this survey. In addition, other nationally representative surveys are commonly used to determine the extent to which students, staff, and teachers are victimized at school. For example, a survey has been implemented to assess safety and crime at schools and is filled out by school principals or those knowledgeable about discipline (School Survey on Crime and Safety 1999–2000, 2003–2004, 2005–2006, 2007–2008, and 2009–2010 school years); another is filled out by teachers in elementary, middle, junior, and high schools (Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–1994, 1999–2000, 2003–2004, 2007–2008, and 2011–2012 school years); and another is completed by students enrolled in Grades 9 through 12 in public and private schools (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 1993–2011 biennially).

From these surveys and other official data sources, we have a fairly good idea as to what types of victimization experiences occur at school. In 2014, about 850,100 nonfatal victimizations occurred against children aged 12 to 18 at school (Zhang, Musu-Gillett, & Oudekerk, 2016). Importantly, more nonfatal violent crimes occurred against this age group at school than away from school (Zhang et al., 2016). It is estimated that in 2013 3% of students experienced some type of victimization in the previous 6 months. The most common type of victimization they experienced was theft (2% of students)—1% experienced a violent victimization (Zhang et al., 2016). For students enrolled in Grades 9 through 12, violent victimization was more common —in 2013, 8% reported being in a physical fight on school property, and 7% reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (Zhang et al., 2016). Although relatively uncommon, violent death also can occur at school. Between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, 41 students were victims of homicide and 11 were victims of suicide at school (Zhang et al., 2016). Violent deaths at schools are tracked through the School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study, the Supplementary Homicide Reports, and the Web- Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System.

Photo 10.1 On April 20, 1999, Columbine High School experienced one of the worst school shootings in U.S. history. Twelve students and one teacher were shot dead by two students who also took their own lives.

592

Download more at Learnclax.com

Although the reasons behind the shootings cannot be known for certain, both boys experienced bullying at school.

Colombine Memorial by Seraphimblade, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Columbine_memorial.png. Licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Who Is Victimized?

Similar to most other types of victimization, except for sexual assault and rape, male students are more likely to be victimized at school than are female students. Almost 8% of male students in Grades 9 through 12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the previous year, compared to only 6% of female students (Zhang et al., 2016). Age is another correlate of school victimization that we can examine. Violent victimization appears to be most common among younger schoolchildren than those in high school. For example, in the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey, it was found that students in 9th grade had higher rates of fighting than did students in 10th through 12th grade (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). In addition, students aged 12 to 14 have the highest victimization rate (Robers, Kemp, Rathbun, & Morgan, 2014). Race/ethnicity is another important correlate in examining any type of victimization. More than half of victimizations at school are experienced by White youth, but data from 2014 show that there are no differences in risk of victimization at school for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian students. Where students live also influences risk of being victimized at school. Students who live in rural areas face greater overall risks of being victimized at school than students in urban or suburban areas. A final factor to consider is household income of the student. For theft, there is little difference in victimization rates across household income levels; however, violent victimization impacts children who reside in households with annual incomes less than $15,000 at the highest rate (Zhang et al., 2016).

Not only are students at risk of being victimized at school, but teachers, administrators, and staff may also

593

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Columbine_memorial.png

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

become victims. Technically, this type of victimization would be victimization at work, but because it occurs at schools, we discuss it here. Fortunately for them, teachers, administrators, and staff are fairly unlikely to be victimized while working at school. As discussed later in the section on workplace victimization, persons working in service and retail occupations, law enforcement/corrections, and mental health have much higher rates of workplace victimization than do educators and persons employed at schools. Nonetheless, victimization does occur, but risk is not constant for all teachers. Special education teachers are more likely to be violently victimized than are other teachers (May, 2010). Data from the Schools and Staffing Survey show that 5% of teachers report being physically attacked by a student during 2011–2012, and 9% said that they had been threatened with injury by a student at school during this time period (Zhang et al., 2016). A larger percentage of elementary school teachers are physically attacked as compared to secondary school teachers. Risk of victimization also varies depending on the type of school. Teachers employed in public schools are at greater risk of being threatened with injury and being physically attacked than those working in private schools (Zhang et al., 2016). As with students, teachers are more likely to be victims of theft than of violent offenses (Robers et al., 2010).

Risk Factors for School Victimization

Much like with other types of victimization, victimologists and others have attempted to discover what causes school victimization. Why are some schoolchildren victimized whereas others are not? Why are some schools safe and others riddled with crime? It is difficult to determine the exact reasons why school victimization occurs, but it is likely a combination of structural forces as well as individual factors. For example, much attention has been paid to the school’s location and its relationship to the amount of victimization that occurs there. As you may expect, schools located in crime-ridden neighborhoods are often likely to have high levels of violence and other types of victimization (Laub & Lauritsen, 1998). But there are high-performing and safe schools in these same neighborhoods, so it is not enough to locate “bad” neighborhoods to identify unsafe schools. It is also possible that the factors that place youth at risk for victimization outside school are similar to the ones that place them at risk of being victimized in school—such as low self-control, lack of capable guardianship, and having deviant or delinquent peers. In addition, adolescence is a period marked by biological changes; hormones run amuck and bodies change. Both males and females go through transitions, both physically and emotionally, and they navigate new social situations. This time can be pressure filled and stressful, which may lead to outbursts, aggression, bullying, and other maladaptive behaviors.

Consequences

We require youth to attend school in the United States, and in turn, we should be providing them a safe, productive learning environment. When this does not occur and students are victimized, many negative outcomes may arise. Results from the 2013 School Crime Supplement to the NCVS show that 3% of students were afraid of being attacked or harmed at school, and 3% who were afraid of being attacked or harmed away from school (Zhang et al., 2016). Victims reported higher levels of fear than nonvictims, which shows the powerful effects that victimization has on school-aged youth. Victims are also likely to skip or avoid school. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System study data revealed that 6% of students did not attend school at

594

Download more at Learnclax.com

least 1 day during the 30 days prior to the survey because they felt they were unsafe at or on their way to school (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Victimized students also indicated that they avoided school activities and specific places inside school buildings, such as certain hallways, the school entrance, parts of the cafeteria, and restrooms, at higher levels than did nonvictims (Robers et al., 2014). In 2013, about 5% of students admitted to avoiding school activities or certain places because they feared harm (Zhang et al., 2016).

Bullying

One specific type of victimization that can occur at school and has garnered recent attention is bullying. Bullying is the intentional infliction of injury or discomfort (or the attempt to do so) on another person repeatedly over time when there is a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim (Olweus, 2007). Bullying can be both direct and indirect. Direct bullying involves both physical and verbal actions in the presence of the victim. Physical bullying can include hitting, punching, shoving, pulling the chair out from under another person, tripping, and other physical actions. Verbal bullying includes direct name calling and threatening. Indirect bullying can be more subtle and harder to detect. It is often referred to as social bullying and includes actions such as isolating individuals, making obscene gestures, excluding from activities, and manipulation. Even though it is often said that “kids will be kids” and bullying is simply a natural part of children’s interactions, research suggests that it can have pernicious effects and that ignoring bullying in schools may be dangerous.

Before discussing the consequences of bullying, let’s first uncover the extent to which bullying occurs in schools. Bullying appears to be more common than other types of victimization. In 2013, 22% of children aged 12 to 18 said they had been bullied at school during the school year (Zhang et al., 2016). A report published by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that 1.6 million children are bullied at least weekly and that 17% of children in Grades 6 through 10 have been bullied (Ericson, 2001). Most commonly, students reported being made fun of (14%), but 6% reported having been pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on, and 4% said they had been threatened with harm (Zhang et al., 2016).

Like school victimization more generally, bullying differentially impacts some youth. In the 2001 World Health Organization’s Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Study, it was found that Black youth are less likely to be bullied than are White or Hispanic children (Nansel et al., 2001). Data from the School Crime Supplement show that a greater percentage of White (24%) students reported being bullied compared with Black (20%), Hispanic (19%), and Asian (9%) students. Females were more likely than males to be bullied at school. Research shows that females are more likely to be the targets of verbal and indirect bullying whereas males are more likely to experience physical bullying (Zhang et al., 2016). Other recent research has shown that certain groups are more at risk of being bullied than others. Youth who have learning disabilities, those who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, those with physical disabilities, obese children, and those who stutter experience higher rates of bullying victimization. Recently, attention has been given to the fact that gay youth are more likely to be targeted by bullies than are other youth and that this bullying often occurs on a daily basis (H. V. Miller & Miller, 2010). The largest group of victims tends to be slight or frail.

595

Download more at Learnclax.com

They tend to be average or poor students and are generally passive socially (Olweus, 1993a). This is not to say, however, that all bullied victims “look” the same. Other victims tend to be more assertive and hot-tempered; they react aggressively when they are bullied. They start fights in addition to being picked on (Pellegrini, 1998). Both types of bullied youth are unlikely to be in the “popular” groups in school.

As with other forms of victimization, research in bullying has uncovered the fact that there is a subset of individuals who are bully/victims—they bully and are bullied (Haynie et al., 2001). What is important about this group of youth is that they seem to fare even worse in terms of psychosocial or behavioral functioning than do those who are either bullies or victims.

Psychosocial Effects of Bullying Victimization

Although, as mentioned, bullying sometimes has been treated as “normal” behavior for children, its effects can be quite serious. It has been linked to poor psychosocial adjustment—students who are bullied more often report greater levels of unhappiness (Arseneault et al., 2006) and lower self-worth (Egan & Perry, 1998). Bullying during adolescence has been linked to anxiety and depression both contemporaneously and later in life (L. Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Ruin, & Patton, 2001; Olweus, 1993b). Being bullied also has been shown to be linked to health symptoms in children. Children who reported being bullied were more likely to report not sleeping well, bed wetting, and getting occasional headaches and tummy aches (Williams, Chambers, Logan, & Robinson, 1996). In addition to these consequences, being bullied also has negative outcomes on school adjustment and performance. Bullied youth are more likely to say they dislike school than are nonbullied youth (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Rigby & Slee, 1993), are more likely to report absenteeism from school (Rigby, 1997; Zubrick et al., 1997), and have higher levels of school avoidance (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996).

Violent Effects of Bullying Victimization

Perhaps the most serious outcome of being bullied is acting out in response. Bullying victimization has been linked to violent behavior by the victim. A report by the Secret Service revealed that 71% of school shooters whose friends, families, and neighbors were interviewed had been the targets of a bully (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). It should be noted, however, that if bullying caused school shootings, we would see many more than we do. As such, it may be a contributing factor in some instances but by no means can be considered a cause. Recently, the media have given widespread attention to several young people who have committed suicide after being bullied by their peers in various ways. With the widespread use of the Internet and cell phones, bullying methods have expanded to include what is known as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is bullying behavior that takes place via mobile phones, the Internet, and/or digital technologies. It can involve threats or harassment sent over the phone, threatening and insulting comments posted on a social networking site, and vulgar or scary text messages. Children can do the bullying themselves or enlist their friends or family. Cyberbullying can be particularly harmful given its ease of use and the fact that people can bully without having to be in the presence of the victim. They can even do it anonymously. As noted by Aftab, “The schoolyard bullies beat you up and then go home. The cyberbullies beat you up at home, at grandma’s house, wherever you’re connected to technology” (as quoted in Nies, James, & Netter, 2010). Box 10.1 tells the heartbreaking story of Phoebe Prince, a young teen who committed suicide after being cyberbullied. The

596

Download more at Learnclax.com

School Crime Supplement to the NCVS began including questions regarding bullying behavior through electronic means in 2007. In 2013, almost 7% of students surveyed reported experiencing cyberbullying during the previous school year (Zhang et al., 2016). To learn more about the extent and consequences of cyberbullying, see Reading 18 included in this section by Carter Hay, Ryan Meldrum, and Karen Mann.

Responses to School Victimization

In response to victimization and bullying at schools, many schools have instituted security measures. Most commonly, schools have hired law enforcement officers, installed metal detectors, installed security cameras, begun to lock entrances and exits during school hours, and implemented supervision of hallways during the school day (Devoe, Bauer, & Hill, 2010). According to a survey of principals, 43% of public schools in 2009– 2010 had security guards, law enforcement, or School Resource Officers. Over 60% of public schools used security cameras and 5% used random metal detector checks (Robers et al., 2014). The School Crime Supplement Survey also indicates that many students report that schools are implementing security measures. Almost one-fourth of students reported that they were required to wear picture identification at school, and 95% indicated that visitors were required to sign in at their school (Robers et al., 2014).

In addition to school security measures, laws and policies are in place to address violence within schools. Current federal law, under the Gun-Free Schools Act (2004), mandates that each state that receives federal funding must suspend for at least 1 year any student who brings a firearm to school. As such, most states have laws to address bullying, harassment, and hazing that occur at school (Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 2011)—some of which are zero-tolerance policies that mandate specific punishments for fighting and violence along with bringing weapons to school—which may serve to limit school victimization and bullying. Fortunately, most states have instituted a broad range of policies that attempt to address school victimization more holistically. For example, Box 10.2 provides a description of Florida’s laws. Although it remains to be seen how effective these laws are at reducing the amount of victimization that occurs at school, many of the laws also require mandatory reporting of suspected victimization, mandate that schools have programs and resources to reduce school victimization, and require that people are in place to oversee these programs (Limber & Small, 2003).

Box 10.1 The Story of Phoebe Prince

Phoebe Prince, a recent Irish immigrant, hanged herself January 14, 2010, after nearly 3 months of routine torment via text message and through Facebook by students at South Hadley High School. Police believe she was the victim of cyberbullying from multiple “girls at the school who had an unspecified beef with her over who she was dating” (Kotz, 2010). Her case has been called “the culmination of a nearly 3-month campaign of verbally assaultive behavior and threats of physical harm” (as quoted in Goldman, 2010). In at least one instance, she was physically attacked when a girl pelted her with a soft drink can. As of January 28, 2010, “nine students have been indicted on charges ranging from statutory rape to civil rights violations and stalking. It appears that Phoebe may finally get her justice” (Kotz, 2010). As a result of the attention that bullying has garnered through cases like Phoebe’s and others, “forty-five states now have anti-bullying laws; in Massachusetts, which has one of the strictest, anti-bullying programs are mandated in schools” (J. Bennett, 2010).

Most school-based programs are targeted at reducing school violence and/or bullying specifically. The most effective of these programs are proactive and involve parents, students, and the community (Ricketts, 2010). A

597

Download more at Learnclax.com

common type of violence-reduction program is peer mediation. Peer mediation programs train a group of students in interest-based negotiation skills, communication skills, and problem-solving strategies so they can help their peers settle disagreements peacefully and without violence. Findings from evaluations of peer mediation programs show that they can change the school climate over time (Ricketts, 2010). To specifically attack bullying, some schools have adopted bullying prevention programs. One of the most widely adopted of these programs, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, has shown promising reductions in bullying perpetration and victimization in both the United States and Norway (Olweus, 1991).

Box 10.2 Florida’s Bullying/Harassment, Cyberbullying, and Hazing Laws

Bullying/Harassment

Statute 1006.147 (2008) prohibits bullying or harassment of any student or employee of a public K–12 educational institution, during any program or activity conducted by a public K–12 educational institution, during any school-related or school-sponsored program or activity, or through the use of data or computer software accessed through a computer, computer system, or network of a public K–12 educational institution. Specific definitions of bullying and harassment are outlined in the statute.

Statute 1006.147 (2008) provides immunity from a cause of action to a school employee, school volunteer, student, or parent who promptly reports in good faith an act of bullying or harassment to the appropriate school official.

Statute 1006.147 (2008) requires school districts to adopt a policy prohibiting bullying and harassment of any student or employee of a public K–12 educational institution. The policy must substantially conform to the model policy of the state Department of Education, and must afford all students the same protection regardless of their status under the law. Requirements of the policy are outlined in the statute.

Statute 1006.07(6) requires district school boards to provide for the welfare of students by using the Safety and Security Best Practices to conduct a self-assessment of the district’s current safety and security practices. The self-assessment includes indicators for districts to develop and enforce policies regarding antibullying, antiharassment, and due process rights in accordance with state and federal laws. The assessment also includes indicators of schools surveying students on school climate questions related to discipline, bullying, threats perceived by students, and other safety or security related issues.

Statute 1006.07(2) also requires a student to be subject to in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, expulsion, or imposition of other disciplinary action by the school and possibly criminal penalties for violating the district’s sexual harassment policy.

State Board of Education Administrative Rule 6A-19.008 (1985) requires schools to have environments that are free of harassment and prohibit any slurs, innuendos, or other verbal or physical conduct reflecting on one’s race, ethnic background, gender, or handicapping condition, which creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment, or interferes with students’ school performance or participation or other educational opportunities.

Cyberbullying

Statute 1006.147 (2008) prohibits bullying and harassment of any student or employee of a public K–12 educational institution through the use of data or computer software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, or computer network of a public K–12 educational institution. The definition of harassment in the statute includes any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of data or computer software, or written, verbal, or physical conduct directed against a student or school employee that does one of the following: (1) places them in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person or damage to his or her property; (2) substantially interferes with a student’s educational performance, opportunities, or benefits; or (3) substantially disrupts the orderly operation of a school. The definition of “bullying and harassment” includes perpetuation of actions by an individual or group with intent to demean, dehumanize, embarrass, or cause physical harm to a student or school employee by accessing or knowingly causing or providing access to data or computer software through a computer, computer system, or computer network within the scope of the district school system.

Hazing

Statute 1006.135 (2005), referred to as the Chad Meredith Act, defines hazing and makes the hazing of students at a high school

598

Download more at Learnclax.com

with Grades 9–12 a criminal offense as defined within the statute. The bill prohibits the following defenses to a charge of hazing: obtained consent of the victim; the conduct or activity that resulted in the death or injury was not part of an official organizational event or was not otherwise sanctioned or approved by the organization; the conduct or activity that resulted in the death or injury was not done as a condition of membership in an organization.

Source: National Association of State Boards of Education (2010). The NASBE Healthy Schools Policy Database is a comprehensive set of state-level laws and policies from 50 states on more than 40 school health topics that includes hyperlinks to the actual policies whenever possible.

599

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization at School: College

You may have been wondering whether college students are similarly at risk for victimization while attending school. Most parents send their children to college feeling pretty confident that they will be safe, and most college students report feeling safe at school. Are these feelings justified?

Who Is Victimized?

You will be happy to learn that college students actually have lower average annual rates of victimization than their similarly aged nonstudent counterparts (K. Baum & Klaus, 2005). The difference for students and nonstudents was not significant, however, for rape and sexual assault. When college students are victimized, they are most likely to experience a nonviolent victimization, such as theft. In a study of college students enrolled in 12 institutions of higher learning, Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, and Lu (1998) found 169.9 theft victimizations per 1,000 students. Of those who are violently victimized, the most common victimization is simple assault (63% of all violent victimizations). Most violent victimizations are committed by strangers, at night, without a weapon, and off-campus (K. Baum & Klaus, 2005). In fact, college students experience violent victimizations off-campus at 20 times the rate they experience them on campus (Hart, 2007). Most violent victimizations of college students (75%) do not result in physical injury (K. Baum & Klaus, 2005).

In addition to these incident-level characteristics, college students who are victimized share common characteristics. White college students have higher violent victimization rates than do students of other races. White students and students of other races have lower violent victimization rates than nonstudents, whereas Hispanic students have similar violent victimization rates to Hispanic nonstudents. Violently victimized college students also tend to be male. Male college students are twice as likely as female college students to be violently victimized. The only type of violent victimization that female college students experience at higher rates than males is sexual victimization. Female college students have an average annual rape/sexual assault rate of 6 per 1,000 persons ages 18 to 24, compared with a rate of 1.4 for males. Male college students, on the other hand, have an average annual rate of violent victimization of 80.2, compared with 42.7 for female college students (K. Baum & Klaus, 2005). For a detailed account of sexual victimization of college students, see Section VII on sexual victimization.

Less attention has been given to property victimization of college students; however, we do have an idea as to who the “typical” college property victim is. Males tend to be property victims more so than female college students (Fisher, Sloan et al., 1998). In addition, younger students, aged 17 to 20, are at greater risk of property victimization than are older college students (Fisher et al., 1998). Employed students report higher levels of property victimization than do unemployed students or those who work part-time (M. Johnson & Kercher, 2009).

Risk Factors for Victimization at College

Although college students are not at a greater risk than nonstudents of being violently victimized, they do still

600

Download more at Learnclax.com

experience a great deal of violent victimization. With over 12 million college students under the age of 25 in 2013 (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.), a violent crime rate of 23.2 per 1,000 persons equates to 278,400 violent victimization incidents each year. So, why do this many victimizations occur?

Lifestyle/Routine Activities

Recall from Section II that routine activities theory is one of the hallmark theories of victimization. According to this theoretical perspective, risky lifestyles and daily routines place individuals at risk of being victimized. When persons engage in risky lifestyles and routines that bring them together in time and space with would- be offenders, and they are without capable guardians—thus making them suitable targets—they are likely to be victimized. Let’s consider how college students may engage in routine activities and risky lifestyles that could place them at risk.

Spending time in the presence of potential offenders increases the risk of being victimized. It is instructive that, for college students, the most common offender is another college student (Fisher et al., 1998). Students who spend more time away from home in the evening are at risk of being victimized (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2007). Spending many nights on campus during the week has been found to increase theft victimization for college students (Fisher et al., 1998). For college females, spending time in places where men are seems to increase risk, particularly for sexual victimization. That is, women who spend more time in fraternity houses are more likely than other women to be sexually victimized (Stombler, 1994). Being a member of a fraternity or sorority also has been linked to an increased risk of property victimization (M. Johnson & Kercher, 2009). Another way that college students may be exposed to potential offenders is through engaging in victimizing behavior. Those who do are more likely to be victimized than others (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2000).

Being a suitable target also increases risk of victimization for college students. A person can be deemed “suitable” for a variety of reasons. A person may have items that are valuable and easy to steal, and if these items are carried in public, he or she is at greater risk of being victimized than others (M. Johnson & Kercher, 2009). A person may be walking alone and not seem as though he or she is able to protect himself or herself. Or, as is quite relevant for college students, a person may be visibly intoxicated and, thus, may be seen as easy to victimize and unable to resist an attack; the offender may not fear that the person will fight back or even recall enough details about the event to make a reliable police report. We return to alcohol and its role in college students’ victimization shortly.

The last element relevant to routine activities theory is lack of capable guardianship. College students who live in settings with high levels of transience and low levels of cohesion—for example, student apartments where residents move year to year and change roommates frequently—are at greater risk of victimization than students who live at home or in campus dorms (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2007). Guardianship can also be created through physical means such as carrying a weapon, mace, or pepper spray or by attending prevention or crime awareness seminars. Attending crime prevention or crime awareness seminars has been found to reduce the risk of violent victimization among college students (Fisher et al., 1998). On the other hand, some research shows that the use of physical guardianship is actually related to an increase in victimization, but this may be due to people purchasing and carrying these items after being victimized (see Fisher, Daigle, &

601

Download more at Learnclax.com

Cullen, 2010b).

Alcohol

In addition to the three elements of routine activities theory, college students also often engage in behaviors that likely increase their risk of victimization. The first risky behavior we should consider is the use of alcohol and drugs. As you are well aware, the use of alcohol is pervasive among college students. Research on the use of alcohol by college students shows that between 75% and 96% of college students consume alcohol (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1995, 1998). Students also engage in binge drinking, which is defined as having 4 or more drinks in one sitting for a female and having 5 or more drinks in one sitting for a male. Almost half of college students binge drink and drink specifically to get drunk (O’Malley & Johnston, 2002). One of the most serious consequences of alcohol use among college students is criminal victimization. In fact, “college students who drink heavily are more likely to be both criminal offenders and victims of crimes” (Tewksbury & Pedro, 2003, p. 32).

Why does alcohol increase college students’ risk of being victimized? Well, as noted in Section II, alcohol impairs cognitive functioning and reduces a person’s ability to assess situations as risky. Even if a person can see that a situation is dangerous, he or she may not be physically capable of warding off a potential attacker if inebriated. A person may also have lowered inhibitions and say and do things that he or she would not normally do; thereby, a person can find herself or himself in a situation with a potential offender. Given the effects of alcohol, a person may say or do things to anger others, thus unintentionally getting into a fight or argument. Not to blame the victim, but when alcohol is involved, the victim’s actions or words may set in motion a series of events that lead to victimization.

Responses to Campus Victimization

Legislation

No parents ever want to get a phone call informing them that the child they dropped off at college was harmed, but that is just what the parents of Jeanne Clery experienced. They received the worst phone call of all: Their daughter had been raped and murdered while attending Lehigh University. She was sleeping in her dorm room when Joseph Henry entered through propped-open and unlocked doors (Clery & Clery, 2008). In response to their daughter’s death, the Clerys sued the university after they found out that the university knew about the propped-open and unlocked doors and did not tell the students about the potential dangers lurking on their campus. In addition to filing a lawsuit, they pushed for legislation that would require college campuses to better inform students about crime. As a result, the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990, renamed in 1998 the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act [20 USC 1092 (f)], was passed (hereafter referred to as the Clery Act).

The Clery Act applies to all institutions of higher learning that are eligible to participate in student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Enforced by the Department of Education, the act has three main requirements. First, by October 1 of each year, schools must publish an annual campus security report with crime statistics and a security policy that includes information about sexual assault policies, the authority

602

Download more at Learnclax.com

of campus security officers, and where students should go to report a crime. The security report must include

information about the three most recent calendar years and must be made available to all current students and employees. The crimes that must be included in the report are homicide, sex offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson. If an arrest or disciplinary referral was made, the report must also include liquor law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons possession. The location of the incident must be provided in terms of occurring on campus, in residential facilities for students on campus, in noncampus buildings, or on public property immediately adjacent to or running through the campus.

Second, colleges and universities are required to disclose incidents in a timely fashion through crime logs and warnings about ongoing threats. A crime log must be kept by the campus police or security department. Within two days of being made aware of a crime, the police or security must include the offense in the crime log, including the nature, date, time, and location of each crime. This crime log is public record—it is to be made publicly available during normal business hours and kept open for 60 days. Along with the crime log, warnings must be provided about those crimes that are required to be disclosed or those believed to represent an ongoing threat to students and employees. Warnings are commonly delivered through e-mails, phone calls, and text messages.

Third, the Clery Act requires that certain rights for both accusers and victims are protected in cases of sexual assault handled on campus. Both parties are given the same opportunity to have other people present at campus disciplinary hearings. Both parties have the right to be informed of the outcome of disciplinary hearings. Victims have the right to notify law enforcement and also have the right to be notified about counseling services available to them and options for changing academic and living situations.

Despite these requirements, there are some limitations to the Clery Act. Not all crimes that occur are required to be disclosed in the security report, not all crimes are reported to the police, and only those crimes that occur on campus property or public property adjacent to the campus are required to be in the report; thus, individuals who look to the security report for guidance about their campus safety may be getting only a partial picture of the true amount of crime that occurs. In addition, although the Clery Act mandates that colleges and universities comply with its requirements, research shows that not all schools are doing so (Fisher, Karjane et al., 2007).

In addition to the Clery Act, other federal legislation has been passed that allows for the tracking of sex offenders who have been convicted and who are required to register if they are enrolled in an institution of higher learning or volunteering on campus (Carter & Bath, 2007). In addition, at least 19 states have Clery- type legislation (Sloan & Shoemaker, 2007). To learn about how college students—in particular college women—respond to actual victimization and perceived danger on campus and how the Clery Act’s requirements impact this response, see Reading 19 included in this section by Pamela Wilcox, Carol E. Jordan, and Adam J. Pritchard (2007).

Photo 10.2 Howard and Connie Clery, sitting on the bed of their daughter, Jeanne Clery, who was brutally murdered at Lehigh University. Howard and Connie are the heads of Security on Campus, Inc.

603

Download more at Learnclax.com

Marianne Barcellona/Contributor/Getty Images

Building off the Clery Act, more recent legislation has been passed that requires universities and colleges to record and disclose dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking in its annual crime report. The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act of 2013 (as part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act) also requires colleges to provide those reporting victimization with written information regarding their rights, disciplinary procedures, victim assistance, and safety planning. In addition, new students and employees must be offered primary prevention and awareness programs regarding rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.

Ripped From the Headlines

Legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate that would increase the penalties for colleges and universities who do not comply with the requirements of the Clery Act, Title IX, and the SaVE Act. If passed, the bill would increase the penalty from $35,000 to $150,000 per violation. This bill comes at a particularly important time, for the Department of Education is currently investigating about 250 schools for violations.

Source: Westerholm (2014).

Campus Police and Security Measures

Of those 4-year colleges and universities that have 2,500 students or more, almost two-thirds have sworn law enforcement officers. Almost all public institutions have sworn personnel, whereas less than half of private campuses have sworn officers (Reaves, 2015). Instead, campuses that do not have sworn personnel have nonsworn security officers. Those that do have sworn personnel grant these officers full arrest powers. Campuses differ greatly in terms of the number of officers they employ. As you may imagine, institutions of

604

Download more at Learnclax.com

higher learning that have a large student body and are located in large, urban centers tend to have larger police

and security forces than do smaller and more traditional rural institutions (Reaves, 2015). For a list of the campuses with the largest number of sworn law enforcement officers, see Table 10.1.

Table 10.1

Source: Reaves (2015).

Almost three-fourths of college campuses have a three-digit emergency telephone number that persons can call for assistance or to report a crime. Those who are on campus and need assistance can use blue-light emergency campus phones that provide direct access to campus law enforcement. More than 90% of 4-year institutions of higher learning that enroll at least 2,500 students have these phones. In addition to these security measures, a portion of institutions of higher learning have specialized units for community policing (21%), victim assistance (12%), and general rape prevention (14%) (Reaves, 2015).

605

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization at Work

So far, we have discussed victimization that occurs when people are attending school, despite the fact that schools should provide a safe environment to encourage active learning. The work environment, you would think, should be similarly safe—and there are strict rules and laws in place, discussed next, that attempt to ensure it is just that. Nonetheless, people are not always safe from harm while they try to earn a living. But just how often are people victimized on the job? Why does it happen, and how can it be prevented? These questions and more are addressed in this section.

Definition of Workplace Victimization

Before we address the extent to which victimization occurs to people at work, let’s address what victimization at work encompasses. Obviously, if a person is victimized while physically at work—say, in his or her office— that constitutes a workplace victimization. But what if a person is victimized in the parking garage at work? Would this too be “counted” as a workplace victimization? What if a victimization occurs when a person is traveling for work or doing official work business, such as making a delivery? In short, if a person is working or on duty and victimized, the incident is considered a workplace victimization. Workplace victimizations can be violent—ranging from threats and simple assaults to homicide—or can be nonviolent—such as theft.

Much of the research that has examined workplace victimization has focused on violence that occurs in the workplace, as opposed to nonviolent victimizations. You may be surprised to learn that the concept of workplace violence has been studied for many years. In fact, the first discussions of workplace violence in the literature occurred in 1892. Data on workplace violence, though, were not collected and criminologists did not begin to consider seriously the etiology and causes of workplace victimization until the 1970s and 1980s (Jenkins, 2010). Since then, however, widespread attention has been given to violence that occurs in the workplace. One useful tool that has been developed to understand workplace violence is a typology of workplace violence (Jenkins, 2010). The first type is criminal intent incidents, which include incidents in which the perpetrator has no legitimate relationship to the business at which the crime occurs. Most commonly, the perpetrator in this type commits a crime in conjunction with the violence, such as a person who robs a gas station and shoots the attendant. The second type is customer/client incidents. These incidents occur when the perpetrator has a legitimate relationship with the business and becomes violent when receiving services from the business. An example of this second type would be a person at a doctor’s office who is quite agitated and begins punching the doctor. The third type is worker-on-worker incidents. In these incidents, the perpetrator is a current or former employee of the business and aggresses against another employee. The fourth, and last, type of incident is personal relationship incidents, in which the perpetrator has a personal relationship with the intended victim, who is targeted while at work. An example of this type would be a domestic violence incident in which a man shows up at his ex-wife’s place of employment and shoots her. Now that you have an idea of the types of victimization that constitute workplace victimization, let’s find out how much of this occurs each year.

606

Download more at Learnclax.com

Extent of Workplace Victimization

As with victimization at school, most people can safely go to work each day and be free from victimization. But some people do, in fact, experience victimization. We can get an idea of the extent of workplace victimization from a variety of data sources. As with most types of victimization, one rich source of data is the NCVS. Recall that when a person indicates in the NCVS that he or she experienced a victimization, an incident report is then completed. In the incident report, if persons indicate they were at work or on duty at the time of the victimization, the incident is counted as a workplace victimization incident. From 1993 to 1999, an average of 1.7 million violent victimizations occurred at work or while people were on duty, accounting for 18% of all violent crime during this time period (Duhart, 2001).

According to findings from the NCVS, the most common type of victimization experienced by people at work, however, is personal theft—from 1987 to 1992, more than 2 million personal thefts, on average, were experienced at work each year. Almost a quarter of all thefts reported in the NCVS occurred at work or while persons were on duty (Bachman, 1994). The second most common type of victimization measured in the NCVS is simple assault, a violent victimization. From 1993 to 1999, an average of 1,311,700 simple assaults occurred against people at work or while on duty. When aggravated assaults are included, almost 19 of every 20 workplace violent incidents were aggravated or simple assaults, which shows that other forms of violent workplace victimization are relatively uncommon. In fact, during this same period, only 6% of all workplace violent crime was rape/sexual assault, robbery, or homicide (Duhart, 2001).

Who Is Victimized at Work?

Demographic Characteristics of Victims

By now, you would probably guess that males would be more likely than females to be violently victimized at work or while on duty, but in 2009, there was no difference in the rates of workplace violence for males and females (Harrell, 2011). They are equally likely to be the victims of theft while working (Bachman, 1994). Rates of workplace violent victimization are higher for people who are White than for people who are Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The rate for workplace violent victimization was similar for Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander workers (Harrell, 2011).

The last two demographic characteristics to consider are age and marital status. Young adults aged 20 to 34 had the highest rates of workplace violent victimization. Persons who were married had lower workplace violent victimization rates than those who were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated. The last four groups all have similar rates of victimization (Harrell, 2011).

Occupations With Greatest Risk

Knowing what demographic characteristics are correlated with workplace victimization does little to inform us of what jobs are most risky. You would be right if you thought that some jobs are replete with danger. Data from the NCVS show that law enforcement jobs are the most dangerous. Persons working in this field, which includes law enforcement, corrections, and security officers, experience 18% of all workplace violent

607

Download more at Learnclax.com

victimizations (Harrell, 2011). Fortunately for your professor, college and university teachers have one of the

lowest rates. Other occupational fields that face the highest risk are mental health, retail sales, transportation, and medicine. Within these broad categories, police, taxicab drivers, corrections workers, private security guards, bartenders, custodians in mental health settings, professionals in mental health settings, special education teachers, and gas station attendants have some of the highest violent victimization rates at work (Harrell, 2011). As you might imagine, persons in retail sales have the highest robbery victimization rates, and people in law enforcement have the highest assault rates (Duhart, 2001). Persons working in government jobs are also at risk of workplace violence (Lord, 1998).

Special Case: Fatal Workplace Victimization

Of course, the most serious outcome of victimization is when a person loses his or her life. Unfortunately, this sometimes does occur when a person is at work—and it is not just caused by people “going postal.” In fact, homicide is not the leading cause of occupational injury deaths of postal workers (Jenkins, 2010). How do we know this? To track the number of fatal injuries for various occupations, the National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries program was initiated in 1992. Each year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes its findings about the extent of fatal injuries from this program so that a picture of the extent and types of fatal occupation injuries can be drawn (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011).

In 2014, a total of 4,821 people suffered fatal occupational injuries. Of these, 765 persons died in the workplace or while on duty as a result of violence and other injuries by persons or animals (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016a). Of these 765 people, 409 were homicide victims and 280 died as a result of self-inflicted wounds (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016b). Of the 409 homicide victims, most (75%) were the victims of shootings in the workplace (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016b). The most common type of workplace homicide is criminal incident, with robberies alone accounting for 40% of the cases in 2008. Coworkers and former coworkers (worker-on-worker type) accounted for only 12% of incidents in the same year (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010).

Demographic Characteristics of Victims

As with workplace violence in general, males are more likely to be murdered at work than are females. What is notable, though, is that a greater percentage of fatal workplace injuries that involve females are from homicide compared to fatal workplace injuries that involve males. In 2012, 19% of all fatal workplace injuries of females were from homicide compared to only 8% of nonfatal workplace injuries from homicide for males (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016c). Another interesting difference between men and women is who the perpetrator is when homicide at work does occur. Males were most likely to be murdered by a workplace robber, whereas females are more likely to be murdered at work by a relative or domestic partner than males (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016d). In addition to males having higher rates of workplace homicide, minorities face a greater risk of becoming victims of this specific type of workplace victimization than do others (Sygnatur & Toscano, 2000). Adults aged 45 to 54 account for the greatest percentage of workplace homicides, whereas persons under the age of 19 have the lowest rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016b).

608

Download more at Learnclax.com

Occupations and Workplaces With Greatest Risk

You have already learned that workers in some occupations face greater risk of being victimized than do others. Do you think that the same types of occupations pose the same dangers in terms of fatal workplace violence? You may be surprised to learn that, although law enforcement jobs are “risky” in terms of nonfatal violence, they are not the riskiest in terms of fatal workplace violence. Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs face the greatest risk of being murdered of any type of worker in the United States (Sygnatur & Toscano, 2000). They face 36 times the risk of all employed individuals. Consider this fact: Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs compose only 0.2% of employed workers but account for 7% of all work-related homicides (Sygnatur & Toscano, 2000). They account for a disproportionate share of workplace homicide. Law enforcement officers have the next highest rate of workplace homicide.

It is also instructive to consider workplaces that have high rates of occupational homicide. Sales and related fields have the highest rates of workplace homicide, whereas protective services and transportation have the next highest rates (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2014). Retail establishments that have the most homicides include liquor stores, gas stations, grocery stores, jewelry stores, and eating/drinking establishments. Services include hotels and motels, for example. Public administration includes detective and protective order services as well as justice and public order establishments. Finally, transportation includes taxicab establishments, which, as previously mentioned, are the riskiest occupation for workplace homicide (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1995).

Risk Factors for Victimization at Work

Now that you know what types of occupations and workplaces have the highest risks of workplace victimization and workplace homicide, the next thing to consider is why these jobs and places are so dangerous. What is it about working in retail or law enforcement, for instance, that poses a risk? Generally, a number of characteristics of certain jobs place workers at risk of being victimized (Jenkins, 2010; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1995; Sygnatur & Toscano, 2000):

Working in contexts that involve the exchange of money with the public Working with few people or alone Working late at night or during the early morning Working in high-crime areas Working in the community (such as police or taxicab drivers) Working with criminal, unstable, or volatile persons Having a mobile workplace Working in delivery of goods, passengers, or services Guarding valuables or property

Special Case: Sexual Harassment

Another special type of victimization at work is sexual harassment. Legally, sexual harassment can occur in

609

Download more at Learnclax.com

two ways. First, quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a person’s compliance with requests for sexual favors dictates employment-related outcomes, such as raises and promotion. Second, hostile work environment sexual harassment occurs when sex-related conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, or unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance (Sexual Harassment, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11[a][2][3], 1999). These are the legal definitions of sexual harassment, but a person may be considered a victim if he or she feels as though he or she was harassed, thus meeting a psychological definition. A behavioral definition of sexual harassment is that it includes sex-related behaviors that cause psychological discomfort or are illegal (O’Leary-Kelly, Bowes-Sperry, Bates, & Lean, 2009). One psychological definition is that sexual harassment occurs when sex-related behavior at work is considered by the recipient as offensive, exceeding a person’s resources, or threatening a person’s well-being (as cited by O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2009). Research shows that women are more likely to be the victims of sexual harassment than men (O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2009), especially when they exhibit more masculine personalities and when they are working in fields that are traditionally more masculine (Berdahl, 2007). Research also shows that sexual harassment is most common for people working in jobs where organizational tolerance for sexual harassment is high and when there is a small proportion of women in a workgroup (Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007).

Photo 10.3 A day at work can prove to be very dangerous for taxicab drivers, who face some of the greatest risks of violence at work.

Consequences of Workplace Victimization

610

Download more at Learnclax.com

One of the most obvious consequences of workplace victimization is that people may not be able to go to work. They may be injured and need to receive medical attention and, as a result, may need to take time off from work. They may be fearful and scared to return to work. Persons who participated in the NCVS indicated that they missed some 1,751,100 days of work each year as a result of workplace victimization. On average, each workplace victimization incident cost 3.5 days of missed work, which resulted in more than $55 million in lost wages annually, not including days missed that were covered by sick and annual leave (Bachman, 1994).

Workplace homicide also is associated with a whole host of costs. When examining medical expenses, future earnings lost, and household production losses that include child care and housework, workplace homicides from 1992 to 2001 cost $6.5 billion. Each workplace homicide cost an average of $800,000 (Hartley, Biddle, & Jenkins, 2005).

Responses to Workplace Victimization

We know the extent to which workplace victimization occurs, the occupations and workplaces at greatest risk of experiencing workplace victimization, and the risk factors for experiencing workplace victimization. But what have places of business, the government, and the legislature done to prevent victimization at work?

Prevention Strategies

For prevention strategies to be most effective, they should be tied to risk factors. That is, to prevent workplace victimization, the factors that place particular occupations or places of work at risk should be targeted and altered to effect change. In doing so, preventing workplace victimization has typically occurred in three main areas. The first prevention strategy is targeting environmental design. These strategies focus on ways to make a workplace more secure and a less attractive target. See Table 10.2 for examples of this type of prevention. The second type of prevention strategy, organizational and administrative controls, focuses on strategies that administrators and agencies can implement to reduce the risk of workplace victimization in their organizations. Although these controls can be varied, common strategies are identified in Table 10.2. The third type of prevention strategy is behavioral. Behavioral strategies are actions that workers can take to reduce their risk of workplace victimization. These include the behaviors identified in Table 10.2.

Table 10.2

611

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1996).

Employers can also do their part to reduce workplace violence perpetrated by current or former workers by being careful about who they hire and by being watchful of suspicious behavior from their employees. One thing employers should do is carefully screen their employees to uncover any issues with alcohol or drugs,

612

Download more at Learnclax.com

violence, or issues with coworkers in the past. They should also try to identify persons who tend to externalize blame for their problems, who are hostile, and who frequently change jobs, for all these characteristics are indicators of a person who may become violent at work (P. Morgan, 2010). Employers should also be watchful of warning signs of violence such as when a person is obsessed with weapons or brings weapons to work, when a person recently has been written up or fired, when a person has made a threat, when a person is intimidating or has made others fearful, when a person has demonstrated romantic interest in a coworker that is not reciprocated, when a person is paranoid, when a person cannot accept criticism, when a person has experienced personal problems, or when a person begins changing work habits (e.g., showing up to work late when usually on time) (P. Morgan, 2010).

Legislation and Regulation

You may be surprised to learn that there is not a national set of standards specific to the prevention of workplace violence (Jenkins, 2010; Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d.). There are, however, federal agencies that provide legislative guidance for workplace safety and health. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the U.S. Department of Labor has occupational safety and health legislative responsibility, whereas the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for research in this area (Jenkins, 2010). Both agencies, along with others in the federal government, provide publications and recommendations regarding workplace violence prevention. In addition to these federal guidelines, 25 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have standards and enforcement policies to address workplace violence as well as plans that have been approved by OSHA (n.d.). Some states have standards or policies that are different from the guidelines put forth by OSHA. More generally, all employers are required to provide a safe work environment that is free of recognizable hazards likely to cause death or serious bodily harm (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970). If workers are harmed while on duty, employers may be liable if they failed to disclose the dangers workers face or if they negligently ignored the threat of workplace violence (Smith, Gambrell, & Russell, LLP, 2005).

613

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

Males are the most likely targets for victimization in schools, much the same as research shows them to be for most other crimes. The most commonly occurring type of school victimization is theft. More violent acts of victimization typically happen in lower grade levels than in Grades 10 through 12. Individual, school, and structural forces all play a role in school victimization. Though extreme cases of school victimization, such as school shootings, that would get increased media attention have occurred, this type of victimization is very rare. When looking at school victimization, it is important to note that some teachers are also the targets of aggressive or criminal behavior. The typical teacher-victim is the instructor of a special education class. Though bullying can have some serious psychological effects on people, it often is considered a normative behavior in the socialization process among students. Bullying can be indirect or direct and can be social, physical, or verbal. Cyberbullying—in which people use the Internet, mobile phones, and other digital technologies to bully others—has received recent attention in the news. The most typical victimization a college student experiences is theft. College students who experience victimization, specifically violent victimization, often engage in risky lifestyles and routine activities (e.g., participating heavily in the college partying culture, binge drinking, and going to events alone and late at night). The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires most universities to have widely accessible campus crime reports, to keep crime logs and deliver warnings about crime threats, and to protect the rights of both victims and those who are accused of sexual assaults handled on campus. Campuses have also responded to the threat of crime by employing campus police or security officers and providing other safety precautions and programming for students. In the workplace, younger adults and children are, of course, at less risk for being victimized, whereas the age range at greatest risk for violent and even fatal victimization is 25 to 44. The typology of workplace violence classifies incidents into criminal, customer/client, worker-on- worker, and personal relationship incidents. Thefts are the most common type of workplace victimization. Males and White workers have higher rates of workplace victimization than do females and non-White workers. The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries program tracks all cases of fatality in the workplace. Taxicab drivers have the highest rates of workplace homicide; law enforcement officers have the highest rates of nonfatal workplace victimization. Working at night, alone, with money, with the public, in high-crime areas, in a mobile workplace, or in the community places people at risk for workplace victimization. Workplace victimization may also take the form of sexual harassment. Quid pro quo and hostile work environment are two types of sexual harassment. Women are more likely to be the victims of sexual

614

Download more at Learnclax.com

harassment than men. Though there is no standard set of workplace prevention guidelines, it is the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe work environment for all employees (e.g., screening potential employees before hiring, making sure the physical workspace is free from hazardous material or anything that could cause bodily harm). Much like school victimization, the most extreme cases of fatality in the workplace, which would get media attention, are not the most common. Personal theft of belongings is more likely to occur than a workplace shooting or any other physically violent act.

615

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. Assess your risk of being victimized at college. Are you at high risk? Why or why not? How could you reduce your risk of being victimized?

2. Based on what you have read about workplace violence, assess your risk of being a victim at your current or former place of work. If you do not work, consider your parent’s place of employment. Does your job have risk factors for violence? If yes, why? How could your place of employment reduce its risk?

3. Why do you think males and minorities have higher rates of workplace victimization than do females and nonminority workers?

4. In the workplace, do you think you would be at less risk being employed as a police officer or as a taxicab driver? Why? What does the research say?

5. How important is it for you personally to protect yourself and your belongings at work if personal theft is the most common form of victimization in the workplace? How can your own routine activities in the workplace contribute to or prevent you from being a victim of theft?

616

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key Terms

behavioral strategies 387 bullying 374 criminal intent incidents 383 customer/client incidents 383 cyberbullying 375 direct bullying 374 environmental design 387 Gun-Free Schools Act (2004) 375 hostile work environment sexual harassment 386 indirect bullying 374 Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (1990) 380 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 388 organizational and administrative controls 387 personal relationship incidents 383 physical bullying 374 quid pro quo sexual harassment 386 school victimization 371 verbal bullying 374 worker-on-worker incidents 383 workplace victimization 382 zero-tolerance policies 376

617

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

“Fact Sheet: Workplace Shootings”: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/osar0014.htm

The Bureau of Labor Statistics website provides a workplace shootings fact sheet listing statistics on the year’s fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. Charts separate the shootings by workplace industry. The links on the page offer information to victims of workplace violence about how to receive compensation and benefits for their losses.

“Harassment-Free Hallways”: http://history.aauw.org/files/2013/01/harassment_free.pdf

This article discusses ways in which sexual harassment can be prevented in schools. It provides information for students, parents, and school personnel. It also includes a brief survey that you can take to learn whether you have been a victim of sexual harassment.

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: http://www.olweus.org/public/index.page

This website is a helpful tool for understanding the types of bullying that exist as more technology develops. There is a host of information for teachers, parents, and students who may be affected by some form of school victimization, and headlining news videos about bullying that has occurred in various states. This is a website with the facts and harsh realities about school victimization but also with tips and testimonials that could prevent it in the future.

Stop Cyberbullying: http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/index2.html

This website offers valuable information on how serious this technologically advanced form of bullying is and explains what the law says and does when this type of bullying is reported. This is more of a “take action” website that explains to victims and people who want to help exactly what can be done. The site also explains how cyberbullying works and why people choose to do it so readily.

“Workplace Violence”: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration webpage defines and outlines the standards, rules, and regulations for workplace/office violence. The key resource this website offers is a detailed list of references for workplace/hazard awareness. A lengthy list of PDFs provides information on preventing victimization and being more aware of routines at work that could make you a suitable target for violence.

618

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/osar0014.htm

http://history.aauw.org/files/2013/01/harassment_free.pdf

http://www.olweus.org/public/index.page

http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/index2.html

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence

Reading /// 18

One of the key considerations of victimization research is the effect victimization has on victims. For bullying, the effects can be dramatic. Hay and colleagues (2010) investigate the effects of bullying and cyberbullying among a sample of about 400 students enrolled in two schools (one high school and one middle school) in a southeastern state. Data were collected from surveys completed by the students in the sample. This article makes several key contributions. First, it examines bullying and cyberbullying, a relatively new form of bullying. Second, it examines bullying of both male and female adolescents. Third, it uses general strain theory to understand the effects that bullying has on youth. Fourth, both internalizing and externalizing responses to bullying are considered. In this way, a theoretically driven analysis of the consequences of bullying is presented.

Traditional Bullying, Cyber Bullying, and Deviance: A General Strain Theory Approach

Carter Hay, Ryan Meldrum, and Karen Mann

SOURCE: Hay, C., Meldrum, R., & Mann, K. (2010). Traditional bullying, cyber bullying, and deviance: A general strain theory approach. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 130–147.

Agnew’s (1992, 2001) general strain theory (GST) has received significant empirical scrutiny, with much of it supporting the theory. Most tests confirm its central hypothesis that strainful events and relationships are positively related to involvement in delinquency (e.g., Broidy, 2001; Capowich, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 2001; Hoffmann & Miller, 1998; Paternoster & Mazerolle, 1994). Moreover, the effects of strain on delinquency appear to be partially explained by heightened levels of anger and frustration (e.g., Brezina, 1998; Mazerolle & Piquero, 1997; Piquero & Sealock, 2000). With these favorable results, it is not surprising that GST has moved to the “forefront of criminological theory” (Hoffmann & Miller, 1998, p. 83).

And yet, important empirical issues remain unresolved or even largely unexplored in GST research. The purpose of this study is to address three issues that we see as neglected, substantively important, and logically linked to one another. The first of these involves the need to learn more about the criminogenic effects of bullying. In a significant elaboration of GST, Agnew (2001) identified bullying—or “peer abuse”—as a strain that should be especially consequential for delinquency. Yet even as bullying has received continued attention as an adolescent social problem (e.g., White & Loeber, 2008) GST research has neglected its effects on crime and delinquency. This study addresses this void, and we do so with data that allow us to examine not only traditional notions of bullying (e.g., physical and verbal harassment) but also cyber bullying, which has garnered significant recent attention (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Wang, Iannoti, & Nansel, 2009).

A second goal of our study is to examine the effects of bullying not just on crime but also on noncriminal, internalizing forms of deviance. GST tests often assess the effects of strain on “externalizing” crimes—acts committed against others or their property. Some individuals, however, may respond with “internalizing” acts that harm themselves. Although neglected, this possibility is consistent with GST’s position that individuals cope in different ways and deviant adaptations can come in many forms (Agnew, 1992). We consider this issue by examining the effects of bullying not just on crimes committed against others but on internalizing deviance, including suicidal ideation and acts of self-harm such as “cutting” or burning oneself. These outcomes are especially important to consider when examining the effects of bullying—those who are bullied

619

Download more at Learnclax.com

may be socially isolated and ostracized, and this may lead to self-directed responses to strain (Moon, Morash, McCluskey, & Hwang, 2009).

Our final focus is on the possibility that these relationships vary across males and females. Broidy and Agnew (1997) identified important ways in which strain crime relationships may be moderated by sex, and a number of empirical studies support their arguments (e.g., Piquero & Sealock, 2004). This issue has not, however, been examined with respect to the above two issues—issues that may especially call for a consideration of sex- specific patterns. There still is uncertainty about whether males and females experience bullying to the same degree and whether they react to it in similar ways (see Espelage, Mebane, & Swearer, 2004). Sex differences also are important to consider when studying the effects of strain on internalizing deviance. As Broidy and Agnew noted, when confronted with strain, males may resort to externalizing responses, whereas females may be more susceptible to internalizing responses. This hypothesis rarely, however, has been tested in GST research, and it has not been examined with respect to bullying. Also, recent evidence contradicts the conventional wisdom that internalizing deviance is largely a problem among females—rates of deliberate self- harm and suicidal ideation are far from trivial among males in industrialized nations (Kerr, Owen, Pears, & Capaldi, 2008; Patton et al., 2007).

This study examines these three issues in conjunction with one another: Bullying is assessed in terms of its effects on both externalizing and internalizing deviance, and these relationships are examined separately for males and females. This is done with survey data collected from a sample of students in a nonmetropolitan county of a Southeastern state. First, however, we consider in more detail both GST’s positions on these various issues and the findings from prior research.

Prior Theory and Research

Bullying as a Source of Strain

Although being the victim of bullying has always fit within GST’s broad conception of strain (Agnew, 1992), attention to it emerged most notably from Agnew’s (2001) elaboration of GST in which he identified the strains that should be most consequential for crime. One of these was bullying (or “peer abuse”), which, unlike such strains as parental rejection and negative experiences at school, “has been neglected as a type of strain” (Agnew, 2001, p. 346). Agnew (2001) contended that bullying should be consequential because it satisfies four conditions that should characterize consequential strains: (1) It should be perceived as unjust (because bullying often will violate basic norms of justice), (2) it should be perceived as high in magnitude (because peer relations often are central in the lives of adolescents), (3) it should not be associated with conventional social control (because bullying often will occur away from adult authority), and (4) it should expose the strained individual to others—the bullies themselves—who model aggressive behavior.

Despite these suggestions of an important effect, exposure to bullying largely has been ignored in GST research and, more broadly, in research on the causes of crime. Some exceptions to that pattern suggest that bullying—or the related concept of criminal victimization—is important for delinquency (Agnew, 2002; Agnew, Brezina, Wright, & Cullen, 2002; Baron, 2004; Hay & Evans, 2006). Baron’s study of homeless

620

Download more at Learnclax.com

youths, for example, revealed that being a property victim significantly increased delinquency, even after controlling for a wide array of alternative explanatory variables. Of more direct relevance to the effects of bullying, Agnew et al. (2002) found that subjects who were picked on by neighborhood peers were more involved in delinquency, although this was true only for those with personality characteristics conducive to delinquency. More recently, findings from Moon et al. (2009) contradicted GST’s position: Bullying victimization was not associated with general delinquency in their study of Korean youths.

This dearth of criminological research stands in contrast to the extensive scholarship that reveals effects of bullying on many forms of social psychological maladjustment, including low self-esteem, loneliness, and depression (see Hawker & Boulton, 2000). When behavioral outcomes have been considered, however, the focus generally has been limited to school absenteeism or antisocial behavior in the preadolescent years, prior to the point in which serious crime and delinquency is pervasive. A few recent studies (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) provide important exceptions to that pattern and find that bullying increases adolescent crime or deviance. Thus, there is potentially much to be gained from giving further attention to Agnew’s (2001) hypothesis about the important effects of bullying on adolescent behavior.

It also is important for such research to focus on the newly emerging issue of cyber bullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009), which involves using the Internet or cell phones to mistreat others. This includes abusive e- mails or text messages, insulting messages or pictures on online message boards, and Web sites that disseminate degrading content. Recent surveys of adolescents indicate their potential exposure to cyber bullying—nearly 90% frequently use the Internet and 50% have their own cell phones (Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin, 2005; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). These media often are used to harass or embarrass others (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), but little is known about how this victimization may affect behavior. There is reason for concern because, unlike face-to-face bullying, cyber bullying may be especially difficult to escape from. Its electronic nature may allow it to occur without attracting the attention of teachers or parents. Also, because many adolescents—for legitimate reasons—carry their cell phones at all times and frequently use the Internet, they can be exposed to cyber bullying even when physically removed from bullies. And once information is posted to the Web, it may be difficult for the bullying victim to have it removed from all of the sites in which it may have appeared. It also can reach a much wider audience than what may be possible with traditional bullying. Mason (2008, p. 324) comments on the relentless nature of cyber bullying, noting that it “can harass individuals even when [they are] not at or around school…. [U]nlike traditional forms of bullying, home may no longer be a place of refuge.” Thus, if bullying is to be examined as an important source of strain, attention to cyber bullying should be a key consideration.

Internalizing Responses to Strain

GST predicts that individuals will respond to strain in different ways (Agnew, 1992). Tests of GST, however, have disproportionately focused on criminal responses, especially acts that harm another person either through violence or through the theft or damage of their property. When internalizing responses have been considered, the focus generally has been limited to substance use. Thus, an entire class of internalizing acts— aggression against oneself with acts of deliberate self-harm—has been ignored. This type of behavior includes

621

Download more at Learnclax.com

such things as cutting or burning oneself, jumping from heights, running into traffic, poisoning, hanging, and self-battery, with each of these acts sometimes resulting in suicide (Hawton, Rodham, & Evans, 2006).

Ignoring this type of response to strain could be a significant omission in GST research. First, by not considering a broader array of responses to strain, prior studies may have misclassified some subjects. Specifically, some adolescents may have been seen as coping with strain in prosocial ways simply because their harmful responses were not captured by a study that focused only on criminal outcomes. Insight on this comes from a study by Sharp and her colleagues (Sharp, Terling-Watt, Atkins, Gilliam, & Sanders, 2001), who found that 23% of a sample of college females reported some type of eating disorder, and this outcome was affected by strain. Given that these individuals may have committed few crimes against others, their responses to strain might have been overlooked in a more conventional test of GST.

A second reason to consider acts of deliberate self-harm is that they may be more common than is typically recognized. This issue has been studied extensively outside the United States since the 1960s, with many studies finding higher than expected rates of self-harm. For example, in the United Kingdom, more than 20,000 adolescent hospital admissions occur each year because of self-inflicted overdoses, poisonings, or injuries (Hawton et al., 2006). Comparable prevalence rates were observed in such countries as France, Ireland, and Australia (Hawton et al., 2006). This issue has garnered recent attention in the United States from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008), who found that nearly 14% of high school

students in a national survey seriously contemplated suicide in the prior year.1

The neglect of self-harm in criminological research is understandable, given our focus toward general theories that can explain a wide range of deviant or harmful outcomes. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory, for example, often is lauded for its ability to explain many noncriminal behaviors that are rewarding in the short-term but carry long-term costs. GST may be a similarly general theory—in addition to explaining criminal outcomes, it may also explain involvement in many harmful, self-directed actions that are used to cope with intense feelings of stress.

One final point should be emphasized: Self-harm may be especially important to consider when studying the effects of bullying. As many studies in psychology reveal, bullying victims suffer from a wide array of social psychological maladjustments and tend to be socially isolated. Thus, rather than responding to this strain with normal delinquent or criminal acts (many of which are committed in the context of adolescent peer groups), bullied individuals may respond with acts committed against themselves.

Male-Female Differences in the Response to Strain

Broidy and Agnew (1997) systematically introduced to criminology the idea that males and females may differ in their levels of exposure and responses to strain. They offered several relevant hypotheses. First, relative to females, males should be exposed to criminogenic strains at higher levels. Second, because of sex differences in stress coping, males should have emotional reactions to strain that are conducive to externalizing responses (crime), whereas females should have emotional reactions more conducive to internalizing responses. For example, although both males and females may get angry in response to strain, females may also experience

622

Download more at Learnclax.com

self-directed emotions like guilt, shame, and depression. And last, net of any differences in emotions, males should have behavioral reactions to strain that are more criminal, in part because they have lower personal coping resources and fewer social constraints to criminal coping.

These arguments have received at least moderate support, suggesting that higher male crime is partially explained by GST processes. For example, males are exposed to some criminogenic strains at higher levels than females (Baron, 2004; Hay, 2003), and they are more likely to respond to given strain with crime

(Agnew & Brezina, 1997; Hay, 2003; Piquero & Sealock, 2004).2 Sex differences have not yet been considered, however, in the few GST studies of bullying and peer victimization. Moreover, questions about sex differences remain in the larger study of bullying. The belief that bullying is largely a male problem disappeared when conceptions of bullying broadened to include “relational” forms of bullying (Espelage et al., 2004) like gossip, ridicule, and friendship withdrawal. All of these appear to be common among both male and female adolescents (see Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). And with respect to cyber bullying, strong conclusions on sex differences have yet to emerge, although it may be more common among females (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009).

These patterns leave open the question of whether males or females are exposed to bullying at higher levels, and they suggest that the answer to this question may depend on the type of bullying being considered. Just as important, the research on bullying has yet to examine Broidy and Agnew’s (1997) hypotheses regarding the ways in which male and female adolescents differ in their responses to bullying. Thus, there is a clear need for research that examines sex-specific responses to bullying and does so for multiple outcomes that include both externalizing and internalizing forms of deviance.

The Present Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of bullying on externalizing and internalizing forms of deviance and to assess whether these relationships vary across males and females. Our central hypothesis is that, consistent with GST, bullying is significantly related to both types of deviance. Testing this hypothesis reveals insight on the accuracy of Agnew’s (2001) claims regarding the importance of exposure to bullying, and it clarifies whether GST can be extended to explain aggression directed against the self. With respect to sex differences, two hypotheses are tested, both of which draw from Broidy and Agnew (1997) and the related research. We predict that the effects of bullying should be greater for males than females when the dependent variable is externalizing behavior. Conversely, the effects of bullying should be greater for females for dependent variables that involve internalizing deviance. We should emphasize, however, that these hypotheses are offered tentatively. The stress and coping literature upon which Broidy and Agnew based their arguments has not focused on adolescent stressors like bullying. Moreover, its concern with internalizing deviance often has emphasized emotional (e.g., depression) rather than behavioral outcomes. Thus, our test of how these relationships vary according to sex is exploratory to some degree.

Data

These issues are considered with data collected from a sample of roughly 400 adolescents in a Southeastern

623

Download more at Learnclax.com

state of the United States in the spring of 2008. Respondents were sampled from two participating schools— one high school and one middle school—located in a rural and relatively poor county. Using the standards set by the school district, a passive consent procedure was followed. Permission forms were distributed to all students 1 week prior to the survey administration, and students were excluded from the study if parents returned the form asking that their child be excluded. Each participating student then completed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire during normal school hours and was given a small reward (a candy bar) for completion. This procedure allowed for a near complete census of the two schools’ populations, with 93% of attending students participating in the study. This produced a fairly diverse sample. The average age of participants was 15 but ranged from 10 to 21. The sample was split evenly between males and females, and non-Whites represented 34 of the sample. Additionally, family disruption was common, with only 50% of respondents living in a household with both biological parents.

Measures

The survey allowed for multiple-item scales for most variables, and there are two features common to the measures that we used. First, all items in multiple-item scales included ordinal response categories, with almost all using a 4-point scale. For measures that assess frequencies, responses ranged from 1 = never to 4 = often. For items asking respondents to rate themselves on some characteristic, responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Second, with respect to scale construction, each scale was computed by averaging its constituent items.

Independent Variables

To assess the effects of bullying, two measures were used. The first is a 6-item measure (α = .85) that captures the traditional emphasis on physical and verbal harassment. Respondents indicated how often during the prior 12 months they were (a) the target of lies or rumors; (b) the target of attempts to get others to dislike them; (c) called names, made fun of, or teased in a hurtful way; (d) hit, kicked, or pushed by another student; (e) physically threatened by other students; and (f) picked on by others. Our second bullying measure is a 3-item scale (α = .80) that captures the more recent interest in cyber bullying. Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently during the previous 12 months they were (a) the target of “mean” text messages; (b) sent threatening or hurtful statements or pictures in an e-mail or text message; and (c) made fun of on the Internet.

Dependent Variables

Externalizing delinquency was measured with a 5-item scale (α = .86) of self-reported offending during the prior 12 months. Respondents indicated how often they had (a) stolen something worth less than $50; (b) stolen something worth more than $50; (c) damaged, destroyed, or tagged property that did not belong to them; (d) entered a building or house without permission from the owner; and (e) hit, kicked, or struck someone with the idea of seriously hurting them. Two measures of internalizing behavior were used, with both measured with a single item. The first is a measure of suicidal ideation in which respondents were asked how often “you think about killing yourself.” Self-harm was measured by asking respondents how often “you purposely hurt yourself without wanting to die,” with “cutting or burning” offered as examples.

624

Download more at Learnclax.com

Control Variables

A number of demographic control variables were included in the analyses to protect against concerns about spuriousness. These included five demographic variables: age (measure in years), sex (male = 1, female = 0), race (non-White = 1, White = 0), nonintact family structure (nonintact = 1, living with both biological parents = 0), and place of birth (foreign-born = 1, native born = 0). Also, to better isolate the independent relationship between exposure to bullying and the outcomes of interest, controls were included to capture key aspects of respondents’ school, family, peer, and personal characteristics. This included measures of school grades (as indicated by self-reported grades on the most recent report card); parental control, as indicated by a 10-item scale (α = .92) of parental monitoring and discipline; and unstructured time spent with peers, as indicated by a 2-item scale (r = .56) measuring time spent with friends with no adults present and time spent with friends at a mall, restaurant, or street corner. And last, all analyses included an 8-item measure (α = .85) of self-control, which included the 8 items used in the Grasmick et al. scale (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993) to

measure impulsivity and risk seeking.3

Results

The first step in the analysis was to consider the effects of bullying on our externalizing and internalizing outcomes. Given the high correlation (r = .67) between traditional and cyber bullying, the effects of the two were estimated in separate equations. Thus, with two measures of bullying and three outcomes of interest (delinquency, self-harm, and suicidal ideation), we estimated six ordinary least squares (OLS) equations, each of which included all of the controls.

The results for these equations are shown in Table 2, which reveals a consistent effect of bullying—the effects of bullying are statistically significant and relatively large in all six equations (with betas ranging from .22 to .41). Cyber bullying has modestly higher effects than traditional bullying—standardized effects of .33 for delinquency, .39 for self-harm, and .41 for suicidal ideation, which compares to effects of .22, .33, and .39 for traditional bullying. Also, both types of bullying have greater effects on self-harm and suicidal ideation than on delinquency. For traditional bullying, for example, the effect on suicidal ideation (B = .39) is nearly 80% higher than the effect on delinquency (B = .22). The pattern is less extreme but still true for cyber bullying, which has an effect on suicidal ideation (B = .41) that is 24% higher than its effect on delinquency (B = .33). Thus, bullying has a consistent, relatively strong association with delinquency, self-harm, and suicidal ideation, but this is especially true for cyber bullying in particular and for outcomes that involve internalizing rather than externalizing deviance.

Table 1

625

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 2

626

Download more at Learnclax.com

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

Our next step in the analysis was to examine whether these relationships vary across males and females; in short, do males and females differ in their response to traditional and cyber bullying? It is first useful to consider whether there were sex differences in exposure to these forms of bullying. The descriptives provided in Table 1 reveal that there were not. On scales that ranged from 1 to 4 (indicating exposure as 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, or 4 = often), both males and females had average values of approximately 1.75 for traditional bullying and 1.35 for cyber bullying. (The differences between males and females were not significant.) Thus, if bullying victimization is to produce divergent outcomes for males and females, it will

627

Download more at Learnclax.com

result not from their differing extent of exposure, but instead, from their differing reactions.

To consider this possibility, we estimated OLS regression equations identical to those presented in Table 2, except that they were estimated separately for males and females. Table 3 provides a summary of the key results from these equations. For each male-female comparison, we provide the unstandardized coefficient and standard error for the bullying measure in question. Also, we provide the z-score statistic used to determine whether the coefficients for males and females significantly differed. We used the formula recommended by Paternoster and his colleagues (Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998) that takes b1–b2 (the difference between the two coefficients) as the numerator and the square root of SEb12 + SEb22 (the estimated standard error of the differences) as the denominator. If this formula yields a value for z that exceeds 1.96, the null hypothesis that b1 = b2 is rejected for a two-tailed test with an alpha level of .05.

Table 3Z

Note: All equations included controls for age, non-White, foreign-born, nonintact family, poor school grades, parental control, time spent with peers, and self-control.

* p < .05.

The figures in Table 3 reveal that in four of the six bullying-deviance combinations, there are no significant differences in effects between males and females. Traditional bullying has effects (shown in the top pane of Table 3) that are similar for males and females across all dependent variables—each effect is significant, and the differences between the coefficients for males and females are negligible and insignificant. This pattern also is true for cyber bullying (shown in the bottom panel of Table 3) when delinquency is the dependent variable—the effect of cyber bullying on delinquency is almost identical for males and females.

A different pattern emerges, however, for the effects of cyber bullying on self-harm and suicidal ideation— these effects are significantly greater for males. To be clear, exposure to cyber bullying is associated with heightened internalizing deviance for both males and females. However, the effects on these two outcomes are about 70% higher than what is observed for females, and these effects for males are quite large in absolute terms, with standardized effects (not shown) of .52 on self-harm and .54 on suicidal ideation. Indeed, these effects of cyber bullying on males’ self-harm and suicidal ideation are nearly double the standardized effect of cyber bullying on male delinquency (B = .29).

Taken as a whole, these results are consistent with the possibility that males and females sometimes differ in

628

Download more at Learnclax.com

their responses to strain. However, support for this idea emerged only when considering the effects of cyber bullying on internalizing deviance. Moreover, the exact pattern of differences was unexpected—internalizing responses to strain were higher among males rather than females.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study used Agnew’s GST as the theoretical foundation for studying the effects of bullying on both externalizing and internalizing forms of deviance. Moreover, given prior theory and research of sex differences in stress coping, we were interested in examining how the effects of bullying would vary across males and females. Three key conclusions emerged from the analysis.

The first is that both forms of bullying victimization—a “traditional” measure based on physical and verbal harassment and a “cyber” measure based on online or electronic harassment—were significantly related to delinquency. This finding confirms the conclusions from other recent studies (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2007) that bullying has important effects on delinquency. Also, although the differences were not extreme, we found that effects were greater for cyber bullying. It will be interesting to observe whether this pattern emerges in other studies. As noted previously, there are reasons to suspect that cyber bullying could indeed be the more problematic form of bullying. Its electronic form allows it to occur in ways that are less visible and overt; it, therefore, may not attract the attention of parents or teachers. Moreover, cyber-bullied youths may find it more difficult to gain relief than those who are bullied in more traditional ways, because being physically removed from bullies offers little relief, and the bullying may reach a wider audience. Thus, although the significant effects of both types of bullying support Agnew’s (2001) position that bullying is a more consequential form of strain than earlier believed, our findings especially suggest the importance of moving “beyond the schoolyard” to consider bullying that is linked to adolescents’ growing use of the Internet and cell phones (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009).

Our second key finding is that both forms of bullying affected not simply delinquency (which was measured in terms of externalizing acts against other people or their property) but also internalizing forms of deviance like intentional self-harm and suicidal ideation. Indeed, these relationships were of greater magnitude than those observed between bullying and delinquency. One possible explanation for this involves the way in which bullying may socially isolate its victims—if victims are rejected by others or voluntarily withdraw from social interactions, this may encourage internalizing rather than externalizing emotional and behavioral responses. Again, this pattern needs to be confirmed in future studies. This is an important issue to consider; however, given GST research rarely has considered internalizing behavioral responses to strain. The findings in this study suggest that GST processes are relevant to a potentially wide array of harmful, self-defeating action not typically evaluated by criminologists.

Our final key finding is that these relationships were moderated by sex in some instances. Specifically, the effects of bullying on self-harm and suicidal ideation were greater for males, and this difference was large and statistically significant with respect to cyber bullying in particular—its effects on self-harm and suicidal ideation were approximately 70% greater for males. This finding contradicts the specific GST arguments that have been made (Broidy & Agnew, 1997)—compared to females, males were expected to respond to strain

629

Download more at Learnclax.com

with externalizing rather than internalizing deviance.

This unexpected pattern calls for speculation on what may explain it. Given that rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation are almost always higher among females (Hawton et al., 2006), males do not seem predisposed to respond to stress with internalizing deviance. Thus, a more plausible explanation for our finding could involve the focus on bullying in particular. Indeed, Hawton and colleagues reached a similar conclusion in their study of bullying—exposure to bullying increased the odds of internalizing deviance more for males than females. There may be two explanations for why bullying generated greater internalizing deviance for males. Both follow from the premise that while externalizing deviance often is facilitated by social engagement with peers (Warr, 1996), internalizing deviance often is the opposite—it is especially likely when a person is socially isolated (Hawton et al., 2006). Thus, one explanation may be that bullying victimization socially isolates males to a greater degree than what is observed for females. In connection, some have observed that relational forms of bullying are normative to some degree in female peer groups (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995); thus, rather than severing the victim’s ties to the social network, some degree of bullying may be part and parcel of female network membership. With males, however, the victimization may be less consistent with one’s membership in the group and may denigrate or emasculate the victim in ways that sever his or her ties with it (thus prompting internalizing deviance). A second and related possibility is that the bullying that males experience may be notably more severe or threatening than what is experienced by females, and this may prompt greater social withdrawal. Physical bullying is in fact more common among males (Espelage et al., 2004). Moreover, Hinduja and Patchin (2009) provided evidence on sex-differentiated emotional responses to bullying that may encourage greater social avoidance from males—males and females both expressed anger and frustration in response to bullying, but males were twice as likely to report being scared.

Taken as a whole, these conclusions can potentially advance and redirect future GST research, but they also should be viewed in the context of our study’s limitations. First, our analyses were based on cross-sectional data gathered at one point in time. Thus, rather than assessing acts of deviance that necessarily followed exposure to bullying, our incidents of deviance and bullying occurred during the same time period (the prior 12 months). Our study, therefore, offers no guarantee of capturing the appropriate causal order (Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991). To correct for this, future studies may use longitudinal data to examine lagged effects of bullying often amounting to 1 year or more. This approach provides a less than ideal match with theoretical arguments about the relatively short-term or instantaneous effects of strain (Agnew, 2001). A second limitation of our study involves the sample, which came from students from just two schools in a nonmetropolitan county. Although this sample does not appear to bias the results in favor of the observed findings, different results could emerge with samples that are more representative of the national population of adolescents. Last, and similar to other studies (although see Moon et al., 2009, for a recent exception), we were not able to confirm that those who experienced bullying perceived this to be strainful. Instead, we inferred the presence of strain from the significant positive relationships between bullying victimization and deviance. A fuller test of GST could consider this issue in a more direct way.

In concluding, it bears emphasizing that our findings suggest the notable gains in knowledge that may come

630

Download more at Learnclax.com

from greater attention to the effects of bullying on adolescent behavior. Moreover, and in the spirit of GST’s attention to general rather than narrow social dynamics, bullying should be examined in ways that emphasize the variety of forms in which it comes and the variety of consequences it may have.

Discussion Questions

1. The effects of cyberbullying on male self-harm and suicidal ideation were significantly greater than the effects of cyberbullying on female self-harm and suicidal ideation. How can you explain this finding?

2. Why do you think that being bullied has an effect on delinquency? 3. What are the policy implications of this paper? How can schools and parents use these findings? 4. How can the measure of cyberbullying be improved or expanded for future research? Given the findings,

do you think that cyberbullying is more problematic than traditional bullying? Why or why not?

Notes

1. It also should be noted that acts of deliberate self-harm often are quite serious. Even nonfatal incidents are injurious and suggest the emotional and mental suffering of those involved (Vajani, Annest, Crosby, Alexander, & Millet, 2007). Moreover, nonfatal incidents often use the same techniques (especially poisoning, cutting and piercing, and suffocation) that are common in suicide attempts. Indeed, more than 50% of those admitted to a hospital for nonfatal self-harm have a history of suicidal behavior or ideation (Vajani et al., 2007).

2. See Hoffmann and Cerbone (1999) and Mazerolle (1998) for contrary evidence.

3. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the full sample and for the male and female subsamples (for key variables of interest).

References Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87.

Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 319–361.

Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19, 603–632.

Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (1997). Relational problems with peers, gender, and delinquency. Youth & Society, 29, 84–111.

Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Strain, traits, and delinquency: Extending

631

Download more at Learnclax.com

general strain theory. Criminology, 40, 43–72.

Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, strict youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42, 457–483.

Brezina, T. (1998). Adolescent maltreatment and delinquency: The question of intervening processes. Journal of Research Crime and Delinquency, 35, 71–99.

Broidy, L. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39, 9–36.

Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 275–306.

Capowich, G. E., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (2001). General strain theory, situational anger, and social networks: An assessment of conditioning influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 445–461.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2007. Surveillance summaries, June 6, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008, 57 (No. SS-1).

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. F. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Swearer, S. N. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: Moving beyond mean level differences. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social- ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 15–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–445.

632

Download more at Learnclax.com

Hawton, K., Rodham, K., & Evans, E. (2006). By their own hand. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Hay, C. (2003). Family strain, gender, and delinquency. Sociological Perspectives, 46, 107–135.

Hay, C., & Evans, M. (2006). Violent victimization and involvement in delinquency: Examining predictions from general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 261–274.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, L. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6, 89–112.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hoffmann, J. P., & Cerbone, F. G. (1999). Stressful life events and delinquency escalation in early adolescence. Criminology, 37, 343–373.

Hoffmann, J. P., & Miller, A. S. (1998). A latent variable analysis of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 63–110.

Kerr, D. C. R., Owen, L. D., Pears, K. C., & Capaldi, D. M. (2008). Prevalence of suicidal ideation among boys and males assessed annually from ages 9 to 29 years. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 38, 390–402.

Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.

Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/~media/FilesReports/2005/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf

Mason, K. L. (2008). Cyber bullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 65–91.

Mazerolle, P. (1998). Gender, general strain, and delinquency: An empirical examination. Justice Quarterly, 15, 65–91.

633

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.pewinternet.org/~media/FilesReports/2005/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf

Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1997). Violent responses to strain: An examination of conditioning influences. Violence and Victims, 12, 323–343.

Moon, B., Morash, M., McCluskey, C. P., & Hwang, H. (2009). A comprehensive test of general strain theory: Key strains, situational and trait-based negative emotions, conditioning factors, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 182–212.

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.

Paternoster, R., & Mazerolle, P. (1994). General strain theory and delinquency: A replication and extension. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 235–263.

Patton, G. C., Hemphill, S. A., Beyers, J. M., Bond, L., Tumbourou, J. W., McMorris, B. J., et al. (2007). Pubertal stage and deliberate self-harm in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 508–514.

Piquero, N. L., & Sealock, M. D. (2000). Generalizing general strain theory: An examination of an offending population. Justice Quarterly, 17, 449–484.

Piquero, N. L., & Sealock, M. D. (2004). Gender and general strain theory: A preliminary test of Broidy and Agnew’s gender/GST hypotheses. Justice Quarterly, 21, 125–158.

Sharp, S. F., Terling-Watt, T. L., Atkins, L. A., Gilliam, J. T., & Sanders, A. (2001). Purging behavior in a sample of college females: A research note on general strain theory and female deviance. Deviant Behavior, 22, 171–188.

Vajani, M., Annest, J. L., Crosby, A. E., Alexander, J., & Millet, L. M. (2007). Nonfatal and fatal self-harm injuries among children aged 10–14 years—United States and Oregon, 2001–2003. Suicide and Life- Threatening Behavior, 37, 493–506.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375.

Warr, M. (1996). Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology, 34, 11–37.

634

Download more at Learnclax.com

White, N. A., & Loeber, R. (2008). Bullying and special education as predictors of serious delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 380–397.

Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.

635

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 19

Although colleges are generally safe places, there are still risks associated with college life. Wilcox and colleagues (2007) study college women’s actual sexual assault, sexual coercion, physical assault, and stalking victimization experiences along with their assessments of campus risk, worry about crime, and precautionary behaviors. They do so through data collected from a telephone survey of 1,010 female undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at a southeastern university. The sample was 84.2% White, with a median age of 21 years. For people who face a “real” threat of being victimized, you would think that they would (1) assess the campus as being the most risky, (2) express the highest levels of worry, and (3) exercise the most precautionary behaviors. The interrelationships among victimization, assessment of risk, worry about crime, and precautionary behavior are investigated—along with how the perpetrator may structure these relationships. How campuses report victimization is discussed in light of the researchers’ findings.

A Multidimensional Examination of Campus Safety: Victimization, Perceptions of Danger, Worry About Crime, and Precautionary Behavior Among College Women in the Post-Clery Era

Pamela Wilcox, Carol E. Jordan, and Adam J. Pritchard

SOURCE: Wilcox, P., Jordan, C. E., & Pritchard, A. J. (2007). A multidimensional examination of campus safety: Victimization, perceptions of danger, worry about crime, and precautionary behavior among college women in the post-Clery era. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 219–254.

Leading fear-of-crime researcher Mark Warr (2000) suggests,

Fear is a natural and commonplace emotion. Under many circumstances, it is a beneficial, even life- saving emotion. Under the wrong circumstances, it is an emotion that can unnecessarily constrain behavior, restrict freedom and personal opportunity and threaten the foundation of communities. (p. 482)

Warr implies that “wrong circumstances” for fear of crime are those in which there is a disconnect between fear levels and objective risk levels. “Fear, then, is not intrinsically bad. It is when fear is out of proportion to

objective risk that it becomes dysfunctional” (p. 455).1 Warr’s delineation of fear as an experience with crime often very distinct from objective experience is an important one. Furthermore, his highlighting of both the positive and negative functions of fear (vis-à-vis objective risk) is important, though what constitutes “dysfunctionally out of proportion” has not yet been clearly defined (at either end of the spectrum) in the literature. After all, it makes intuitive sense to expect and even desire a somewhat higher level of fear than actual victimization within society, with some people’s fear undoubtedly serving to reduce their future victimization risk, thus highlighting a very functional “feedback loop” or reciprocity between objective and subjective risk (Cook, 1986). At the same time, fear levels dramatically higher than actual risk and/or experience level are unhealthy anxieties that can lead to unnecessarily restrictive behaviors. Further complicating the issue is the possibility that some people with high objective risks may have low fear levels (Warr, 1994), thus creating another type of dysfunctional fear—too little fear.

Although no threshold for a healthy or functional versus unhealthy or dysfunctional objective-to-subjective

636

Download more at Learnclax.com

risk ratio has been established, it is clear that people experience crime in different ways—both objectively and subjectively—and that both types of experiences have important potential implications for well-being. Hence, knowledge about how people experience crime both objectively and subjectively is important information for those concerned with addressing crime and safety in a comprehensive, multidimensional fashion. To this end, during the past several decades scholars have studied the level of interconnectedness among victimization, perceptions of safety, individual victimization risk perception, emotional fear, and behavioral manifestations of fear (e.g., Baumer, 1985; Braungart, Braungart, & Hoyer, 1980; Ferraro, 1995; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Garofalo, 1979; Lee & Ulmer, 2000; Skogan, 1987; Warr & Stafford, 1983; Wilcox Rountree, 1998; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996a, 1996b). Theoretical models such as the risk interpretation approach (Ferraro, 1995) or the general opportunity interpretation approach (Wilcox Rountree, 1998) have been put forth to explain the interrelationships among these experiences. These risk or opportunity interpretation models suggest that various individual and contextual background characteristics, including previous victimization experiences, shape cognitive perceptions of perceived criminal opportunity and crime risk (i.e., perceived risk), which in turn increases emotional fear of crime and avoidance behavior (Ferraro, 1995; Wilcox Rountree, 1998). Extending this theoretical development, criminologists have attempted to address how interrelationships posited by such theoretical models might vary among different subgroups within the population and across different types of crime (Ferraro, 1995; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Lane & Meeker, 2000; Wilcox Rountree, 1998). For instance, understanding women’s relatively high levels of fear, despite relatively low levels of actual victimization and perceived risk, has been a source of important research. This research highlights not only women’s uniquely elevated levels of fear (in comparison to men’s fear) but their particularly elevated levels of fear of sexual assault specifically (e.g., Ferraro, 1995, 1996; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; May, 2001; Warr, 1984, 1985).

Unraveling women’s fear of sexual assault vis-à-vis objective and perceived risk of sexual assault has received attention, but subjective perceptions and feelings about other crimes experienced by women, including those associated with physical assault and stalking, are less often addressed (but see Lane & Meeker, 2003; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). As such, we know little about how women’s actual experiences with such other crimes relate to their subjective experiences. Furthermore, we know little about how an interrelationship among women’s subjective and objective crime experiences might vary not only across type of crime but also across type of offender (e.g., stranger vs. acquaintance). Actual violence against women is largely intimate partner violence (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), yet that acquaintance violence takes place in a culture that touts the dangers of random, stranger-perpetrated violence (e.g., Best, 1999). As such, it is plausible that objective victimization experiences might be loosely coupled with subjective experiences regarding stranger-perpetrated crime, with fear being experienced well beyond the victim population. In contrast, objective and subjective experiences could be more closely linked for acquaintance-perpetrated crime, whereby women who fear acquaintance-perpetrated crime are largely those who have experienced it.

In the present study, we address the above-mentioned gaps in the literature by (a) examining the interrelationships among objective and subjective crime experiences among women regarding three different types of crime—sexual assault or coercion, physical assault, and stalking—and (b) comparing the interrelationships among objective and subjective experiences across crimes involving strangers versus those

637

Download more at Learnclax.com

involving acquaintances. We address these questions using survey data collected in spring 2004 from a sample of 1,010 college women.

The College Context

The population of college women is of particular interest in examining the interrelationships among objective crime experiences in that college women appear to be at greater objective risk of some forms of criminal victimization compared to similarly aged, noncollege counterparts (e.g., Fisher & Cullen, 2000; Shipman, 1994). In fact, the tradition of campuses downplaying crime was the focus of a concerted social movement in the late 1980s and 1990s, resulting in the passage of federal law designed to make the public reporting of campus crime mandatory, more extensive, and more accurate (e.g., Fisher, 1995; Hudge, 2000; Nicklin, 2000). The Campus Crime Disclosure Act (1998), later renamed the Clery Act (2000), amended the earlier Campus Security Act (1990) with new provisions mandating that schools report hate crimes in addition to those already required (index offenses), that schools include in their reports crime that occurs on property unowned by the college but contiguous to campus, and that schools receive punishment for noncompliance in crime reporting. If such legislative policies are successful in terms of their intent, today’s college students should be well-informed about crime events on and around campus and should therefore objectively fear crimes most commonly experienced. However, campus crime reporting in the post-Clery era has been criticized for continued underreporting of crime for a variety of reasons. Numerous media and professional sources, for instance, have suggested that many campuses continue to underreport campus crime even in light of Clery because of jurisdictional confusion, organizational inefficiency, and concern with student (offender) confidentiality (Gregory, 2001; Hardy & Barrows, 2001; Kennedy, 2000; Leinwand, 2000; Megerson, 1992; Nicklin, 1999). Others have suggested that Clery-mandated crime reports underrepresent campus crime because they measure only crimes reported to police rather than victimization incidents, and they exclude categories with high-incident rates such as larceny theft (Fisher, Hartman, Cullen, & Turner, 2002). With such limitations, subjective risk on the part of students might be dangerously deflated even in the post-Clery era. If so, fear of crime may be unique among college women because fear is lower as opposed to higher in relation to objective risk.

Moreover, the extent to which women have subjective perceptions of crime more closely versus more loosely coupled with objective risks may depend on crime characteristics such as offense type and victim-perpetrator relationship. Clery, in theory, should cover all three crimes examined herein, including those committed by strangers and acquaintances; however, there may be systematic bias in noncompliance whereby certain crimes (e.g., those committed by other students) are less often reported, less widely reported, or reported with fewer details. Furthermore, even if crimes committed by acquaintances, including other students, are reported by colleges and universities in the exact same manner as are crimes committed by strangers, these reports may be received differently on the part of college or university women. Fueled by media portrayals of random violence, women may react more strongly to reports of stranger-perpetrated violence than to acquaintance- perpetrated violence.

In summary, the present study cannot discern the extent to which colleges and universities comply with Clery

638

Download more at Learnclax.com

or the manner in which campus women interpret reports that do surface at their institutions. Nonetheless, the emergence of Clery within a context in which the broader culture supports long-held biases toward magnifying stranger violence while at the same time most victimization of college women occurs at the hands of acquaintances (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000) provides an interesting confluence for exploring the interconnectedness of women’s objective and subjective crime experiences and the extent to which these interconnections might vary across crime and perpetrator type.

Fear of Crime

Early work on fear of crime relied almost exclusively on either a General Social Survey (GSS) question—“Is there an area right around here (within a mile) where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?”—or one item from the National Crime Survey (NCS; “How safe do you feel or would you feel being out alone in your

neighborhood at night?”).2 However, these measures were criticized on numerous grounds. First, as crime is not even mentioned in the questions, it was thought that the GSS and NCS measure tapped social concerns, or “urban unease,” broader than fear of crime (e.g., DuBow, McCabe, & Kaplan, 1979; Garofalo & Laub, 1978). Further, Garofalo (1981) pointed out that the items measured anticipatory feelings (“How safe would you feel …”), which might be quite different from feelings one experiences when actually encountering the situation in question. Following on these criticisms, a good deal of work in the fear-of-crime literature in recent decades has focused on issues of conceptualization and operationalization. This work has led to recognition of a multidimensionality of fear of crime, with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. Ferraro and LaGrange (1987), for instance, suggested that the NCS fear measure was more along the lines of a cognitive assessment of safety or judgment of risk than an emotionally or behaviorally based fear of crime because the question does not ask about actual feeling of worry or fear of crime or actual behavior in response to crime. Recent empirical work has supported the distinction highlighted by Ferraro and LaGrange between measures of cognitive perception of either general or personal risk (e.g., “How safe is your neighborhood from__?”; “How likely is it that__will happen to you?”) and emotional fear (e.g., “How afraid/worried are you about__?”). Studies have found moderate correlations between the two types of measures (typically around .6), and although there are some similar covariates across risk and worry measures, extant research has also unearthed important etiological differences (e.g., Bennett & Flavin, 1994; Chiricos, Hogan, & Gertz, 1997; Ferraro, 1995; Fishman & Mesch, 1996; LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989; LaGrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992; Lee & Ulmer, 2000; May & Dunaway, 2000; Mesch, 2000; Skogan, 1987; Warr, 1987; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996b). Previous research has also highlighted such distinctiveness with the behavioral dimension, showing that individual and contextual covariates vary somewhat across measures of risk perception, fear, and restricted or constrained routine activities (Ferraro, 1995; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996a).

Scholars have suggested further that fear of crime is not only multidimensional in the sense of having cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components but that it is also multidimensional in the sense of having crime-specific qualities. Previous studies have shown, for example, that the level and nature of fear vary depending on the crime category under consideration (Ferraro, 1995, 1996; Lee & Ulmer, 2000; May, 2001; Warr, 1984; Warr & Stafford, 1983; Wilcox Rountree, 1998). As such, fear of violence cannot be considered analogous to fear of property crime, and within the category of property crime fear of burglary may be quite

639

Download more at Learnclax.com

different than fear of vandalism, for instance.

Rational Fear? Its Link to Objective Risk

Given multidimensionality in fear, how do different dimensions relate to actual crime risk? A great number of studies have addressed this issue, examining both the extent to which individual-level victimization experiences relate to fear and the extent to which rates of crime in the surrounding areas relate to fear. Unfortunately, most have addressed this issue without explicitly distinguishing and examining various dimensions of fear, thus confounding whether these effects might vary across cognitive, emotional, or behavioral spheres (for exceptions, see Chiricos et al., 1997; Ferraro, 1995; Lee & Ulmer, 2000; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996b). Perhaps partly because of the failure to distinguish multiple dimensions of fear, findings regarding the effect of previous victimization of fear have been mixed with some studies supporting a positive relationship (e.g., Braungart et al., 1980; Garofalo, 1979; Skogan, 1987; Wilcox Rountree, 1998; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996b) and others questioning the strength of this relationship for at least some dimensions of fear (e.g., Baumer, 1985; Ferraro, 1995; Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978; Lane & Meeker, 2003; May, 2001; McGarrell, Giacomazzi, & Thurman, 1997). Still others have suggested that the link between victimization and fear is moderated by race, with the most pronounced effect for victimization of fear seen among Whites (Chiricos et al., 1997).

Studies assessing the link between actual risk and fear by estimating the effects of community rates of crime also reveal mixed results. Evidence exists of a positive effect of community crime on fear (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981), but other studies show weaker effects (Ferraro, 1995; Lee & Ulmer, 2000; Lewis & Maxfield, 1980; Lewis & Salem, 1986; Skogan, 1990; Taylor & Hale, 1986). Such effects have also been shown to be indirect, operating through local media coverage (Liska & Baccaglini, 1990), and effects of area crime have been shown to be conditional on a variety of other factors including individual race and age (Chiricos et al., 1997; Liska, Lawrence, & Sanchirico, 1982) and type of crime under consideration (Wilcox Rountree, 1998).

Extant research that differentiates between a cognitive component of fear assessing perceived risk of crime and an emotional component assessing worry or concern about crime has shown that the effects of personal victimization experiences and/or community rates of crime on emotional worry may operate through cognitive perceived risk (Chiricos et al., 1997; Ferraro, 1995; Lee & Ulmer, 2000) and perceived community incivilities (Wilcox Rountree, 1998). Finally, research differentiating a behavioral dimension of fear in terms of constrained behavior or safety precautions has been mixed, with some studies finding that victimization experiences and area rates of crime have little to do with safety precautions (Ferraro, 1995) and others providing evidence that victimization and area crime rates may have both direct effects on safety precautions and indirect effects through cognitive risk perceptions (Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996a).

Campus Fear

Historically, most fear-of-crime scholarship has focused on the general adult population. However, coinciding with the heightened social awareness and political attention surrounding campus crime that began in the late 1980s, fear of crime on campus has also received increased attention in the past several decades. Still, scholarly

640

Download more at Learnclax.com

empirical study of fear of crime among college students is scant, with important exceptions. Fisher and Nasar (1992, 1995; see also Nasar & Fisher, 1992, 1993), for instance, presented one of the first empirical studies of fear on campus with their work on the microlevel physical cues associated with fear in and around the Ohio State University’s Werner Center for the Visual Arts. They found that certain aspects of the built and/or natural environment were associated with student fear, including “areas that were characterized by limited prospect, much concealment, and difficult escape” (Fisher & Nasar, 1995, p. 232; see also Day, 1999). Other single-campus surveys of fear have supported these spatial patterns and also highlighted temporal and sex- based differences in student levels of emotional concerns and/or cognitive risk perceptions. For instance, several single-campus studies have found that nighttime fear exceeds daytime fear among students (Fisher, Sloan, & Wilkins, 1995; McConnell, 1997). Furthermore, college women have reported higher levels of fear than do men, regardless of time of day (Fisher et al., 1995; McConnell, 1997) and across a variety of spatial domains, including campus jogging paths, campus parking lots, libraries, and so on (McConnell, 1997). Less research has been conducted on the behavioral dimension of fear among college women, though important work by Day (1994) suggested that much traditional campus safety initiatives aimed at reducing women’s victimization and emotional fear thereof actually serve to, somewhat ironically, further control and constrain college women’s behavior.

In one of the only studies of campus fear using a national sample of college students, Fisher and Sloan (2003) examined daytime and nighttime emotional fear, along with cognitive personal risk perception, across college men and women for a variety of specific crimes (e.g., larceny theft, robbery, simple assault, aggravated assault, and rape). Women’s personal risk perception and daytime emotional fear levels exceeded those of men for every crime except larceny theft. Women’s nighttime emotional fear levels exceeded those of their male counterparts for all offenses examined. Furthermore, the link between perceived risk and fear, among women in particular, was not always obvious. For instance, among the five crime-specific risks or fears examined, women had the highest levels of perceived risk for larceny theft, yet that was the crime they feared the least at night. The crime that the college women feared most at night—rape—ranked third (out of five) among crime-specific risk perceptions. Although perceived risk was a significant positive predictor of nighttime fear of rape, the effects of various measures of objective crime experiences were less consistent. For instance, having been a victim of off-campus sexual or nonsexual assault was positively related to nighttime fear of rape, but on-campus sexual or nonsexual assault was not significant. The effect of lifetime experience with rape or sexual assault victimization specifically was also not significant, and the overall student sexual violence victimization rate was actually negatively related to nighttime fear of rape among college women.

In conclusion, the findings of Fisher and Sloan (2003) do not lend clear support for the notion of a close coupling among fear and perceived risk for college women, particularly when considering the crime of rape. Despite the importance of such findings, more work is needed to further unpack college subjective crime experiences. It would seem particularly important to extend the work of Fisher and Sloan by examining the links between objective and subjective crime experiences for other offenses affecting college women. Furthermore, it would seem important to examine whether the links between victimization and multiple dimensions of subjective crime experiences (i.e., cognitive, emotional, and behavioral) vary not only across different crimes but across different victim-offender relationships.

641

Download more at Learnclax.com

The Present Study

The present study therefore extends previous research by examining different crime-related experiences including actual victimization, perceptions of campus danger, emotional worry or concern among college women, and safety or precautionary behavior. We focus on experiences regarding three crime categories in particular: stalking, physical assault victimization, and sexual victimization. Furthermore, we examine these crime experiences with sensitivity to the possibility of domain-specificity in the sense of victimization and fear, and the interrelationships thereof, perhaps being conditional on victim-offender relationship (i.e., stranger crime vs. acquaintance crime).

Data

Data for the present study were collected from a sample of 1,010 women surveyed by telephone at a state university in the southeastern United States (referred to anonymously as State U hereafter). State U is a state- supported public university that includes an urban campus and large medical center complex. State U is located in an urban area with a population of 260,512. The university is unique among land-grant universities in that all its 16 colleges are located on one campus, resulting in a student population of more than 25,000. State U offers 88 certified degree programs that lead to bachelor’s degrees and master’s degrees in 93 fields and PhDs and other doctoral degrees in 60 programs.

Telephone interviews were conducted by specially trained interviewers contracted through Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc., using computer-assisted telephone interviewing procedures. These procedures allowed the survey instrument to incorporate a complex skip pattern, ensuring that participants were asked only relevant questions regarding the specific details of experiences with campus victimization. A university-provided list of 7,875 phone numbers for current female students was used to generate a random sample of 1,010 female students. The overall cooperation rate for valid student contacts was 83.5%. The interviews were conducted between April 1, 2004, and May 4, 2004, with each completed interview lasting an average of 17.5 minutes.

Consenting telephone contacts were included as participants if they reported that they were older than 18 and students at the university. Following this initial screening, participants were first asked questions regarding overall fear of crime on campus, then questioned regarding fear of specific types of victimization (stalking, sexual abuse or attack, physical abuse or attack) by either a known offender or a stranger, following the recommendation of Fisher and Sloan (2003). Next, participants were asked to provide basic background information; this section also included questions about current relationship status and alcohol or drug use. Finally, following the lead of recent studies of violence against women (Fisher & Cullen, 2000; Fisher et al., 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), participants’ previous victimization experiences were screened using 34 yes- no questions about specific types of events (see the appendix). Participants identified by these screening questions as victims of stalking, physical assault, or sexual victimization (including assault or rape, sexual coercion, and unwanted sexual contact) were then asked general follow-up questions regarding the circumstances (victim-offender relationship, occurrence before or during college, concurrence with other forms of victimization, etc.). Finally, detailed follow-up questions were asked only for the most recent events

642

Download more at Learnclax.com

occurring while enrolled at State U.

Measures of Variables

As indicated above, numerous survey screening questions were utilized to determine whether respondents were classified as having ever been victims of stalking, physical assault, or sexual victimization (see the appendix). If respondents indicated that any of the events comprising these types of victimization had occurred, they were asked whether the event had occurred before college, while in college at someplace other than State U, or while enrolled at State U. For those where stalking, physical assault and sexual assault, coercion, or contact victimization occurred while at State U, they were asked to reveal the relationship of the offender characterizing the most recent incident. Based on this series of screening and follow-up questions, we constructed three categories for classifying respondents according to each of three types of victimization: (a) respondent’s most recent State U stalking or physical assault or sexual victimization experience was stranger perpetrated, (b) respondent’s most recent State U stalking or physical assault or sexual victimization experience was acquaintance perpetrated, or (c) respondent had not experienced stalking or physical assault or sexual victimization since being enrolled at State U.

We compare these various categories of campus victimization with measures of subjective crime experiences spanning cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. First, we measure cognitive assessment of campus danger with a single survey item asking respondents how safe their campus is from crime. Responses ranged from 1 (very safe) to 4 (very unsafe). We measure emotional worry about crime with six separate crime- and perpetrator-specific survey questions tapping level of worry (1 = not really worried, 4 = very worried): the respondent experiences regarding (a) personally being stalked by a stranger, (b) personally being stalked by an acquaintance, (c) personally being physically abused or attacked by a stranger, (d) personally being physically abused or attacked by an acquaintance, (e) personally being sexually abused or attacked by a stranger, and (f)

personally being sexually abused or attacked by an acquaintance.3

We also measure crime experiences in the form of crime-related behavioral adjustments. For instance, we utilize a dichotomous variable to indicate (1 = yes, 0 = no) whether respondents have something they carry or keep at their home to protect themselves from crime. We also include a measure of avoidance behavior, utilizing a single survey item asking respondents how often they avoid places on or around State U’s campus out of concern for personal safety. Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (always).

We note that our measures of actual victimization versus various subjective perceptions of crime are somewhat different in terms of crime specificity and domain specificity. Victimizations include those that happened while enrolled at State U, either on or off campus. Assessment of danger refers to campus specifically and is a general and global rather than crime-specific and personal measure. Measures of emotional worry are crime specific but, like victimization, are not campus specific. Neither behavioral measure is crime specific, but one is campus specific (avoidance of campus), whereas the other (carrying or owning something for protection) is not. Given these fluctuations, we realize our examination of the interrelationships between these various crime-related experiences calls for qualification in that it cannot isolate linkages between campus victimization and campus-based danger, worry, or protective action. We nonetheless believe that examining college

643

Download more at Learnclax.com

women’s victimization (both on and off campus) vis-à-vis various dimensions of fear, whether or not the fear is specific to college or campus, is a valuable exercise in beginning to understand these linkages. We believe that women’s subjective experiences with crime in terms of perceptions of the campus environment, worry about crime (both on and off campus), and precautionary behavior (both on and off campus) should be viewed in relation to crime victimization experienced while in college, whether on or off campus. How safe women perceive their campus to be, how strained women feel in terms of emotional concern about crime, and what sorts of avoidance and general precautionary behaviors they engage in all have important implications for general well-being of college women and should therefore be of interest to administrators, faculty, student affairs professionals, and parents.

In addition to these measures of various crime experiences, we also include in some of our subsequent analyses several control variables. We control for class standing through a series of dichotomous variables indicating (1 = yes, 0 = no) whether the respondent is a freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior, with the category of graduate student being the reference group in multivariate analyses. We control for respondent’s race with a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondent is non-White (1= yes, 0 = no). We also control for whether the respondent is currently in a romantic relationship in the form of a spouse, a cohabiting partner, or a noncohabiting girlfriend or boyfriend (1 = yes, 0 = no). Household structure is controlled with a variable indicating the number of adults with whom the respondent lives.

Results

In examining the extent to which various dimensions of fear of crime among college women correspond with objective crime experiences in terms of personal victimization, we first discuss the extent of victimization experienced by sampled women. Overall, 35.6% of respondents had experienced stalking, physical assault, and/or sexual victimization while enrolled at State U. More specifically, 24.9% of participants experienced one type of victimization, 8.7% experienced two of the three types, and 1.4% experienced all three types. When examining victimization by perpetrator type within crime category, as depicted in Table 1, interesting differences clearly surface. Table 1 reveals that sexual victimization by an acquaintance is the most prevalent

form of victimization queried, with 15.5% of respondents indicating such experiences.4 In contrast, physical assault by a stranger is the least prevalent, with 1.3% of respondents experiencing such victimization. For each of the three crime categories examined, acquaintance-perpetrated victimization is substantially more common than is stranger-perpetrated victimization. Fortunately, however, the modal category for each crime type is no victimization, with an overwhelming majority (more than 80.0%) indicating no such experiences.

Table 1

644

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization and Assessment of Campus Danger

Our examination of the distribution of cognitive assessment of campus danger among respondents implies that college women may perceive the campus to be safer than their college victimization experience would suggest. According to this distribution, 15.5% of respondents indicated that they thought campus was unsafe —either somewhat or very unsafe—from crime. Interestingly, this percentage is quite a bit lower than the

35.6% who had actually experienced victimization while enrolled at State U.5

To begin to examine the extent to which assessment of campus danger relates to different types of victimization experiences, we plotted the mean levels of risk among the stranger-perpetrated, acquaintance- perpetrated, and no victimization categories for each of the three crimes under study. The results are shown in Figure 1. The data suggest that for stalking and physical assault, those experiencing stranger-perpetrated victimization actually report somewhat higher mean levels of campus danger than do acquaintance- perpetrated victims. Those not experiencing victimization, as expected, report the lowest levels of campus danger.

Figure 1 Risk Perception Levels by Victimization Experiences

645

Download more at Learnclax.com

Comparisons of means using ANOVA indicate that these means are significantly different for stalking (F = 10.221, p < .001) and physical assault (F = 7.938, p < .001). However, in neither case is the contrast between stranger- and acquaintance-perpetrated victimization significant. For stalking, the only significant contrast is between stranger-perpetrated stalking victimization and no stalking victimization (p < .001). Keeping in mind the very small number of stranger-perpetrated physical assaults (n = 13), the only statistically significant contrast among physical assault categories was between acquaintance-perpetrated physical assault and no physical assault victimization (p = .002). Differences in mean campus danger for the different categories of sexual assault were not significant (F = 2.138, p = .118).

Finally, we consider the effect of victimization experiences on cognitive assessment of campus danger within a multivariate logistic regression model, predicting the odds of perceiving the campus to be unsafe (somewhat or very unsafe) as opposed to safe (somewhat or very safe). These results are presented in Table 2. Results indicate that assessing the campus as dangerous is positively and significantly related to stranger-perpetrated stalking victimization. In comparison to those experiencing no stalking victimization (the reference category), victims of stranger-perpetrated stalking had 2.65 times greater odds of perceiving the campus to be unsafe. In contrast, it was physical assault by an acquaintance that significantly increased the odds of an unsafe assessment (by 78%) in comparison to no physical assault victimization. Odds of assessing the campus as dangerous were not significantly different for either victims of stranger or acquaintance sexual assaults in comparison to nonvictims of sexual assault.

Table 2

646

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: Model controls for class standing, race (non-White), whether in a romantic relationship, and number of adults living in same household. All control variables were nonsignificant except a dummy variable for freshman class standing. Freshman students had significantly higher odds of assessing State U’s campus as dangerous in comparison to the graduate student reference category.

* p < .05.

Victimization and Worry About Crime

We next turn to an examination of the relationship between actual crime experiences and an emotional dimension of fear of crime. For these purposes, we employ six crime- and offender-specific measures of worry about crime: worry about stranger-perpetrated and acquaintance-perpetrated stalking, physical assault, and sexual assault. Table 3 presents the percentage of respondents who indicated being worried—either somewhat or very worried—about each of these six offenses in comparison to the percentage of respondents who had actually experienced similar sorts of victimization while a student at State U. As Table 3 indicates, for all three stranger-perpetrated crimes in question, the percentages who are victimized is far less than the percentage who are fearful of such stranger-perpetrated crimes. The exact opposite pattern holds for the acquaintance- perpetrated victimizations and fears, where the percentage victimized exceeds the percentage fearful in all three instances, though the differences for acquaintance-perpetrated victimization versus worry were much smaller than the differences regarding stranger crimes.

Table 3

Such patterns suggest a weak coupling of victimization and emotional fear, especially among stranger- perpetrated crimes. Indeed, bivariate correlations between victimization and fear measures are weak, ranging from −.15 to .15. Furthermore, results from multivariate logistic regression analysis of each crime-specific worry, shown in Table 4, support the idea that victimization experiences are generally weakly related to worry

647

Download more at Learnclax.com

about crime, controlling for possible confounding effects. For each type of worry, two models are presented in Table 4—one without cognitive assessment of campus danger controlled and a second model with campus danger included. All of the coefficients for stalking and stranger-perpetrated victimization shown in Table 4 are in relation to the omitted no stalking or physical assault or sexual victimization category. All of the coefficients for campus danger are in relation to perceiving the campus to be somewhat or very safe.

Table 4

Note: Models control for class standing, race (non-White), whether in a romantic relationship, and number of adults living in same household. All control variables were nonsignificant except for race (non-White positive significant in all models). Sophomore was also positive and significant in the stalking models.

* p < .05

Hence, regarding the first model estimating worry about stranger-perpetrated stalking, previous stranger stalking victims have 88% greater odds of worry than do nonvictims of stalking. However, that is the only significant victimization effect, and that effect disappears once assessment of campus danger is controlled. Campus danger is significantly related to worry about stranger stalking, with those who perceive State U as unsafe having 2.27 times higher odds of worry about stranger stalking than those who perceive State U as safe. Combining findings from Table 2 and Table 4, it appears as if assessment of campus danger may mediate the effects of stranger stalking victimization on worry about stalking. Those who have been stalked by strangers while enrolled at State U perceive their campus as unsafe and, in turn, worry about future stranger stalking. When estimating worry about stalking by acquaintances, only acquaintance-stalking victimization is significantly related to worry about acquaintance stalking. Odds of acquaintance-stalking worry are more than 250% greater for previous victims of acquaintance stalking in comparison to nonvictims of stalking.

648

Download more at Learnclax.com

Furthermore, this effect is not diminished on controlling for assessment of campus danger. Campus danger, in fact, has a nonsignificant effect.

In our estimation of worry about physical assault, the only type of victimization significantly related to worry about stranger-perpetrated physical assault was stranger-stalking victimization. Victims of stranger stalking had significantly higher odds of worry about physical assault than did nonvictims, even after controlling for assessment of campus danger. In contrast, in estimating worry about acquaintance-perpetrated physical assault, stranger-perpetrated physical assault victimization was the only significant effect, and it disappeared on controlling for campus danger.

Worry about stranger-perpetrated sexual assault appears unrelated to sexual assault victimization experiences, by acquaintance or stranger. The only significant effect revealed in the stranger sexual assault worry model was for acquaintance-stalking victimization, and this effect disappeared on controlling for assessment of campus danger. Furthermore, the model chi-square for estimation of stranger sexual assault worry without campus danger included is nonsignificant, suggesting that the covariates do not significantly improve the estimation in comparison to a null (intercept only) model. In contrast, worry about sexual assault by an acquaintance is linked to similar victimization experiences; acquaintance sexual assault victims had 1.75 times greater odds of worry than did nonvictims of sexual assault. Furthermore, those who had been physically assaulted by an acquaintance had just more than twice the odds of worry about acquaintance-perpetrated sexual assault than did nonvictims of physical assault. However, both of these effects became nonsignificant once we controlled for assessment of campus danger.

In sum, Table 4 indicates that there appears to be an overall fairly loose coupling between victimization experiences and worries about crime among college women. Each type of worry was related to some sort of previous victimization experience, but most victimization measures in each model were nonsignificant. Furthermore, in the exceptional instances where victimization does appear related to worry, the two are not always linked in a crime-specific and offender-specific way. Instead, in some instances, crossover effects occur, whereby previous victimization experiences of one type relate to worry about another type of crime. Thus, the effects of victimization on worry were not general but instead appeared very isolated, with no clear pattern emerging regarding which specific victimization experiences mattered more. Furthermore, most of these isolated victimization experiences that did emerge in initial models disappeared in secondary models that controlled for assessment of campus danger. Assessment of campus danger, in stranger-perpetrated crime in particular, and model fits for these worries tended to improve substantially on inclusions of campus danger. Interestingly, stranger-perpetrated sexual assaults appear to be feared more than other offenses (see Table 3), but the model estimating worry about stranger sexual assault (without campus danger controlled) had the lowest model chi-square among all models presented in Table 4. The second and third lowest chi-square values were associated with the other two models of stranger worries—worry about stranger-perpetrated physical assault and worry about stranger-perpetrated stalking (without campus danger controlled). Once assessment of campus danger was added to these models, however, their model fits were the three highest among all models presented in Table 4. Hence, results from Table 4 support what Table 3 also revealed— worry about stranger-perpetrated crimes and victimization experiences appear especially weakly linked.

649

Download more at Learnclax.com

However, although worry about stranger-perpetrated crime appears weakly linked to previous victimization experiences, it appears strongly linked to cognitive perceptions of the campus environment as unsafe.

Victimization and Precautionary Behavior

The final dimension of fear of crime that we examine vis-à-vis victimization experiences is a behavioral dimension, including measures of self-protective behavior and avoidance behavior. In terms of self-protection, nearly 47.0% of students reported carrying or having in their home something to protect themselves from crime. Among that 47.0%, the most commonly named items were (a) mace or other spray (66.2%), (b) a cellular phone (12.1%), (c) a knife or sharp object (11.5%), (d) a gun (10.0%), and (e) a keychain or keys (9.4%). Figure 2 depicts the percentages that carry or own something for protection across different victimization categories. Although nonvictims are less likely than either stranger- or acquaintance-perpetrated victims to carry or own something for protection across all three offense types, the differences between stranger victims and acquaintance victims are inconsistent. Among stalking and physical assault victims, those experiencing victimization by acquaintances are more likely to carry, whereas victims of stranger sexual assault are more likely to carry than are acquaintance-perpetrated sexual assault victims. Differences among the three victim subgroups were only significant, however, in the case of sexual assault (F = 3.615, p = .027).

Figure 2 Percentages of Sampled Women Who Carry or Own Something for Protection by Victimization

As another form of precautionary behavior, 81.5% of student respondents indicated avoiding campus (or areas right around campus) at least sometimes out of concern about crime; 35.8% engaged in such avoidance usually or always. Figure 3 depicts the mean level of avoidance across the different subgroups of victims for each of the three types of crime considered here; post hoc analyses of the three different contrasts involved in each three crime categories revealed no significant differences. Thus, as was the case for emotional worry, victimization status appears to have little to do with crime-related precautionary behavior in the form of either carrying or owning something for protection or campus avoidance.

650

Download more at Learnclax.com

Figure 3 Mean Level of Campus Avoidance (Out of Concern for Personal Safety) by Victimization

Examining these relationships within multivariate models reveals similar findings. In Table 5, we present logistic regression models of protective carrying or owning and campus avoidance. As in Table 4, we present two models for each dependent variable—one without assessment of campus danger controlled and another model with campus danger included. Across all of the models for precautionary behavior there is only one significant effect of victimization. Previous sexual victimization by a stranger more than doubled the odds of carrying or owning something for protection in comparison to sexual assault nonvictimization. Furthermore, this effect remained after controlling for assessment of campus danger. Aside from that important exception, however, Table 5 indicates that nonvictims in our sample differed little from victims (regardless of perpetrator type) in terms of precautionary behavior. Cognitive assessment of campus danger was significantly and positively related to campus avoidance, but it was unrelated to carrying or owning something for protection. The overall model fits for campus avoidance were, however, not significant (with or without campus danger included); the model fit for carrying or owning something for protection was significant. Overall, then, cognitive assessment of campus danger appears to play a less important role in understanding precautionary behavior than it does in understanding worry about stranger-perpetrated crimes, for instance (see Table 4).

Table 5

Note: C is coefficient, SE is standard error, OR is odds ratio. Models control for class standing, race (non-White), whether in a romantic

651

Download more at Learnclax.com

relationship, and number of adults living in same household. All control variables were nonsignificant except for non-White (negative) and freshman and senior standing (positive) in the carry or own model.

* p < .05.

Discussions and Conclusions

Extant research in the fear-of-crime tradition has been largely void of examination of the linkages among various objective and subjective crime experiences with particular attention to (a) multiple dimensions of women’s subjective crime experiences and (b) perpetrator-specific experiences. In one of the only other studies estimating a relationship between victimization and fear among college women, a weak linkage was found (Fisher & Sloan, 2003). The present study supports that weak linkage, with some important caveats to add.

Overall, we found that victimization was weakly related to multiple subjective crime experiences, especially crime- and perpetrator-specific measures of worry, safety precautions, and avoidance behavior. This overall weak relationship was qualitatively different, however, depending on the type of crime and/or fear under consideration. Victimization appears especially weakly related to worry about stranger-perpetrated crime, for instance, because the prevalence of worry among college women in our sample was much greater than the prevalence of victimization by strangers. Furthermore, individual victimization was a nonsignificant predictor of worry about stranger-perpetrated crimes. In addition, the women in our sample engaged in precautionary behavior and avoidance behavior at rates in substantial excess of stranger victimization rates. In contrast, victimization rates by acquaintances tended to exceed rates of worry about acquaintance-perpetrated crimes among college women in our sample.

At first blush, therefore, it appears as if college women’s worries are not entirely well placed in the sense that they appear to be most worried about stranger-perpetrated crime, whereas they are less worried about the acquaintance-perpetrated crime for which they experience higher objective risk. However, such conclusions are confounded by the fact that there is undoubtedly reciprocity between victimization experiences and various fear experiences, including worry. There may be a large disconnect between levels of precautionary behavior, worry, and victimization, for instance, because the victim- and/or fear-related precautions are successful. If there is a feedback loop as part of a risk or opportunity interpretation model whereby fear and precautions lessen victimization (Cook, 1986), then an effect of victimization on fear or precautions may be difficult to unearth in a cross-sectional model. Our findings of a loose coupling between objective and subjective experiences is similar to several other studies (e.g., Baumer, 1985; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Lane & Meeker, 2003; May, 2001), and scholars have suggested one important reason for such findings is unmeasured reciprocity (Cook, 1986; Skogan, 1987). Other scholars have suggested that personal victimization is not as important in shaping worry about crime and precautionary behavior as is “indirect victimization” (victimization of others within one’s social network; e.g., Ferraro, 1995), local media exposure (Chiricos, Padgett, & Gertz, 2000), or personal, crime-specific risk perception (e.g., Ferraro, 1995; Lee & Ulmer, 2000), which has been found to mediate the effects of victimization on emotional worry, making those effects almost entirely indirect. The data for our study, unfortunately, did not allow us to compare the effects of direct versus indirect victimization experiences or to control for media exposure or personal crime-specific risk perception.

652

Download more at Learnclax.com

Our models, however, did show robust effects of generalized perceived campus danger in models of worry about stranger-perpetrated crimes, suggesting that women’s perceived risk around campus affects this sort of worry much more than does direct victimization. Some of the effects of this general perception may be, more specifically, because of unmeasured indicators of risk and criminal opportunity such as friends’ victimization, media or news exposure, or personal perceived risk.

Thus, although our findings hint at the loose coupling of objective and subjective crime experiences among college women, especially regarding stranger crime, we think it is essential for future research to examine such relationships, while measuring both direct and indirect victimization, exposure to news or information about crime, and personal crime-specific risk perception, within nonrecursive models (e.g., Liska, Snachirico, & Reed, 1988). In this way, the potential bidirectionality can be appropriately considered, and the source of perceived campus danger can be more clearly determined. Aside from their cross-sectional nature, findings from our study are further limited in that they focus on women from one large, public, southeastern university. Despite the sample’s selection from one university, sample characteristics are reasonably close to those revealed in previous national samples of college women, with our sample being somewhat older because of inclusion of a higher percentage of graduate students.

For instance, the national sample of college women analyzed by Fisher et al. (2000) was 80.0% White, 90.0% full-time, and 86.0% undergraduate, with a mean age of 21.54. In comparison, our sample was 84.0% White, 89.5% full-time, and 73.9% undergraduate, with a mean age of 23.5. Hence, although we do not claim that our findings are necessarily generalizable to all college women given the small scope of our sampling frame, we also do not think our sample is too unlike average college or university women, especially those at large, state research universities with a strong emphasis on graduate programs. As such, our findings should be useful to many universities across the country. However, future work should attempt to address whether there are relation-specific or even campus-specific effects regarding victim-fear relationships, possibly through the use of multistage sampling and multilevel modeling.

Despite its limitations, we feel that this study provides an important step toward delineating the relationship between victimization and multiple dimensions of fear among college women. Given the implications for quality-of-life indicators among college women (e.g., perceptions of campus, campus avoidance behavior, emotional distress), college administrators, faculty, and staff need to be aware of the subjective crime that many women experience above and beyond any direct crime experiences, and they need to know whether these multidimensional indicators of fear exceed actual rates of victimization or, in contrast, whether students are less fearful than their actual risks would suggest. Our work has implications, therefore, for understanding crime experiences among college women in a post-Clery era. As noted earlier, crime reporting by campuses, as mandated by the Clery Act, has been criticized for underrepresenting actual campus crime because of organizational issues, methodological issues, and confidentiality concerns. These criticisms imply that much crime that actually takes place on college campuses is not getting reported in the Clery-mandated statistics, leading some to suggest that Clery represents much more symbolic as opposed to substantive reform (Fisher et al., 2002). Our findings hint that Clery-mandated statistics may be flawed not only in terms of how much crime they report but in the nature of that crime as well. Our findings suggest that students may not be

653

Download more at Learnclax.com

getting accurate information about the specific characteristics of the crimes for which they are most at risk, as stranger-perpetrated worries predominated and are closely linked to unsafe perceptions of campus despite acquaintance-perpetrated victimization being more common. As such, it may not be sufficient simply to make crime statistics public to make people more appropriately aware of their risks. Rather, a more detailed discussion of actual risks is warranted. Nonspecific news of crime around campus, without more targeted education initiatives, may only serve to heighten worries regarding crime that students are least likely to experience—violence perpetrated by strangers—while also increasing both perceptions of campus danger and campus avoidance.

There is strong reason to believe that such changes can occur on college campuses without changing the Clery Act per se. In fact, research on the effectiveness of Clery has shown that few students actually pay attention to the published crime statistics that are formally mandated by Clery, but more students (especially women) do pay attention to other programs and information put forth by colleges that, although not formally mandated by the Clery Act, are probably a by-product of the awareness it has created (e.g., Gregory & Janosik, 2002; Janosik, 2001). Therefore, if more colleges incorporate into their informal (i.e., not Clery mandated) crime- related education and programming domain- and perpetrator-specific information about victimization risk, student fear in terms of perception of campus danger, worry about crime, and precautionary and avoidance behavior could become more congruent with actual risk. With such change, the Clery Act’s effect, albeit indirect, could shift from symbolic to substantive.

Appendix

Screening Items for Stalking, Physical Assault, and Sexual Assault

Stalking: Has anyone, male or female …

Sent you unsolicited letters? Made unsolicited phone calls to you? Stood outside your home, school, or workplace? Showed up at places you were even though he or she had no business being there? Left unwanted items for you to find? Tried to communicate with you in other ways against your will? Vandalized your property to destroy something you loved?

Physical assault: Has anyone …

Thrown something at you that could hurt you? Pushed, grabbed, or shoved you? Pulled your hair? Slapped or hit you? Kicked or bitten you? Choked or attempted to drown you? Hit you with some object?

654

Download more at Learnclax.com

Beat you up? Threatened you with a gun? Threatened you with a knife or other weapon besides a gun? Used a gun on you? Used a knife or other weapon on you besides a gun?

Sexual assault: Has anyone, male or female …

Made you have sexual intercourse by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you (by intercourse, I mean putting penis into vagina)? Made you have oral sex by force or threat of harm (by oral sex, I mean did someone’s mouth or tongue make contact with your vagina or anus or did your mouth or tongue make contact with someone else’s genitals or anus)? Made you have anal sex by force or threat of harm (by anal sex, I mean putting a penis in your anus or rectum)? Used force or threat of force to sexually penetrate you with a foreign object? Attempted or threatened but not succeeded in making you take part in any of the unwanted sexual experiences that I have just asked you about?

Not counting the above experiences has anyone …

Engaged you in any unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature such as forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, even if it was over your clothes? Attempted or threatened but not succeeded in unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature? Made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by making threats of nonphysical punishment such as lowering a grade, being demoted or fired from a job, damaging your reputation, or being excluded from a group? Made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by simply being overwhelmed by someone’s verbal pressure or pestering? Made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by encouraging or pressuring you to use drugs? Made or tried to make you have sexual intercourse or sexual contact when you did not want to by giving you drugs?

Not counting any incidents we have already discussed, have you experienced any other type of unwanted or uninvited sexual contact?

Discussion Questions

1. Why do you think that women, both college women and noncollege women, express greater levels of fear of crime than do men, even though women are generally less at risk for victimization?

2. A greater percentage of women experienced some type of victimization while enrolled at State U than

655

Download more at Learnclax.com

indicated that they thought the campus was unsafe. How can you explain this finding? 3. One finding in the paper is that individual victimization was a nonsignificant predictor of worry about

crime, once perception of campus danger was controlled for. What can explain this finding? 4. How can campuses address college women’s victimization experiences and their fear of victimization?

How do mandatory reporting laws such as the Clery Act shape college women’s perceptions about the dangers they face?

Notes

1. Scholars such as Warr (2000) often cite the discrepancy between American levels of victimization and fear as evidence of possible dysfunction regarding fear. Recent data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, for instance, suggest that the overall rate of personal victimization per 1,000 persons age 12 and older in the United States is 22.6, suggesting that just about 2% of the population is at risk, objectively speaking (Catalano, 2004). Yet four decades worth of time-series data from the National Opinion Research Center has consistently revealed that approximately 40% of Americans are fearful, as indicated by affirmative responses to the GSS question, “Is there any area right around here—within a mile—where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?” (see http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS).

2. Since that early work, the National Crime Survey has been renamed. It is now the National Crime Victimization Survey.

3. Note that the term worry as opposed to afraid is used to measure emotional fear in our study. Our measure was based on methodological work by Ferraro and LaGrange (1987) and Ferraro (1995). Ferraro (1995) suggests specially that “measures of fear of crime should tap the emotional state of fear or worry,” should contain “explicit reference to the type of crime … should be aimed at assessing the phenomena in the subject’s everyday life—not hypothetical or purposefully avoided situations” (p. 27). Our measure meets these criteria, and similar measures have been used in previous recent studies (Lane & Meeker, 2000; Miethe, 1992). Lane and Meeker (2000) suggest, in fact, that worry is often language used in lay conversations to convey the emotion of “being afraid.”

4. Because our measures of worry about crime did not distinguish between rape and other sexual assault or abuse, we combine these various sexual victimizations for the analyses presented herein. However, the reader should note that sexual coercion and/or unwanted sexual contact were far more common than was rape. In all, 3.5% had experienced sexual coercion or contact by a stranger.

5. It seems intuitive to suggest that some of the disparity between victimization levels and perceived campus danger levels is because of the fact that the survey asked about campus safety, whereas victimization included acts occurring either on or off campus. However, this logic is contradicted by the fact that when students were asked where on campus they were most fearful, they listed places both on and off campus. Based on these data, therefore, we conclude that when students assess the safety of campus or their fear levels on campus, they conceptualize campus as the greater campus vicinity, thus making the spatial referent between the victimization questions and the safety of fear questions more similar than they appear on the surface.

656

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS

References Baumer, T. L. (1985). Testing a general model of fear of crime: Data from a national sample. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 239–255.

Bennett, R. R., & Flavin, J. M. (1994). Determinates of fear of crime: The effects of cultural setting. Justice Quarterly, 11, 357–381.

Best, J. (1999). Random violence: How we talk about new crime and new victims. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Braungart, M. M., Braungart, R. S., & Hoyer, W. J. (1980). Age, sex, and social factors in fear of crime. Sociological Focus, 13, 55–66.

Campus Crime Disclosure Act, 20 U.S.C.A. 1092(f) (1998).

Campus Security Act, 20 U.S.C. 1092 (1990).

Catalano, S. (2004). Criminal victimization, 2003 (NCJ 205445). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Chiricos, T., Hogan, M., & Gertz, M. (1997). Racial composition of neighborhood and fear of crime. Criminology, 38, 755–785.

Chiricos, T., Padgett, K., & Gertz, M. (2000). Fear, TV news, and the reality of crime. Criminology, 38, 755–785.

Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. 1092(f) (2000).

Cook, P. J. (1986). The demand and supply of criminal opportunities. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 1–27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Day, K. (1994). Conceptualizing women’s fear of sexual assault on campus: A review of causes and recommendations for change. Environment and Behavior, 26, 742–765.

Day, K. (1999). Strangers in the night? Women’s fear of sexual assault on urban college campuses. Journal of

657

Download more at Learnclax.com

Architectural and Planning Research, 16, 289–312.

DuBow, F., McCabe, E., & Kaplan, G. (1979). Reactions to crime: A critical review of the literature. Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Government Printing Office.

Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces, 75, 667–690.

Ferraro, K. F., & LaGrange, R. (1987). The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry, 57, 70–101.

Fisher, B. S. (1995). Crime and fear on campus. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, 85–101.

Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Measuring the sexual victimization of women: Evolution, current controversies, and future research. In D. Duffer (Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (pp. 317–450). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women (NCJ 182369). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.

Fisher, B. S., Hartman, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Making campuses safer for students: The Clery Act as a symbolic legal reform. Stetson Law Review, 32, 61–89.

Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35–65.

Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1995). Fear spots in relation to microlevel physical cues: Exploring the overlooked. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 214–239.

Fisher, B. S., & Sloan, J. J., III. (2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault hypothesis” supported? Justice Quarterly, 20, 633–659.

658

Download more at Learnclax.com

Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J., & Wilkins, D. L. (1995). Fear and perceived risk of victimization in an urban university setting. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (pp. 179–209). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Fishman, G., & Mesch, G. S. (1996). Fear of crime in Israel: A multidimensional approach. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 76–89.

Garofalo, J. (1979). Victimization and the fear of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16, 80–97.

Garofalo, J. (1981). The fear of crime: Causes and consequences. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 839–857.

Garofalo, J., & Laub, J. (1978). The fear of crime: Broadening our perspective. Victimology: An International Journal, 3, 242–253.

Gregory, D. E. (2001). Crime on campus: Compliance, liability and safety. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 31, 27–28.

Gregory, D. E., & Janosik, S. (2002). The Clery Act: How effective is it? Perceptions from the field—The current state of research and recommendations for improvement. Stetson Law Review, 32, 7–59.

Hardy, T., & Barrows, M. (2001). Campus rapes: Underreporting by schools boasting safe records. IRE Journal, 24(4), 16–17.

Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Hudge, M. (2000). The campus security act. Journal of Security Administration, 23(2), 25–27.

Janosik, S. M. (2001). The impact of the Campus Crime Awareness Act of 1998 on student decision making. NASPA Journal, 38, 348–350.

Kennedy, M. (2000). Safety by the numbers. American School and University, 73, 34b–34f.

659

Download more at Learnclax.com

LaGrange, R. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender differences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27, 697–719.

LaGrange, R. L., Ferraro, K. F., & Supancic, M. (1992). Perceived risk and fear of crime: Role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 311–334.

Lane, J., & Meeker, J. W. (2000). Subcultural diversity and the fear of crime and gangs. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 497–521.

Lane, J., & Meeker, J. W. (2003). Women’s and men’s fear of gang crimes: Sexual and nonsexual assault as perceptually contemporaneous offenses. Justice Quarterly, 20, 337–371.

Lee, M. S., & Ulmer, J. T. (2000). Fear of crime among Korean Americans in Chicago communities. Criminology, 38, 1173–1206.

Leinwand, D. (2000, October 4). Campus crime underreported. USA Today, p. A1.

Lewis, D. A., & Maxfield, M. G. (1980). Fear in the neighborhoods: An investigation of the impact of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 160–189.

Lewis, D. A., & Salem, G. (1986). Fear of crime: Incivility and the production of a social problem. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Liska, A. E., & Baccaglini, W. (1990). Feeling safe by comparison: Crime in the newspapers. Social Problems, 37, 360–374.

Liska, A. E., Lawrence, J. J., & Sanchirico, A. (1982). Fear of crime as a social fact. Social Forces, 60, 760–770.

Liska, A. E., Sanchirico, A., & Reed, M. D. (1988). Fear of crime and constrained behavior: Specifying and estimating a reciprocal effects model. Social Forces, 66, 827–837.

May, D. C. (2001). The effect of fear of sexual victimization on adolescent fear of crime. Sociological Spectrum, 21, 141–174.

660

Download more at Learnclax.com

May, D. C., & Dunaway, G. R. (2000). Predictors of fear of crime among adolescents. Sociological Spectrum, 20, 149–168.

McConnell, E. H. (1997). Fear of crime on campus: A study of a southern university. Journal of Security Administration, 20, 22–46.

McGarrell, E. F., Giacomazzi, A., & Thurman, Q. C. (1997). Neighborhood disorder, integration, and fear of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 479–500.

Megerson, J. S. (1992). Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990: A paper tiger. Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 22(1), 24–27.

Mesch, G. (2000). Perceptions of risk, lifestyle activities, and fear of crime. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 47–62.

Miethe, T. D. (1992). Testing theories of criminology and victimization in Seattle, 1960–1990. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. S. (1992). Design for vulnerability. Sociology and Social Research, 76, 48–58.

Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. S. (1993). Hot spots of crime and fear: A multimethod study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187–206.

Nicklin, J. E. (1999). Colleges differ widely on how they tally incidents under crime-reporting law, fails to end debate over accuracy of statistics. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(38), A41.

Nicklin, J. E. (2000). Shift in crime-reporting law fails to end debate over accuracy of statistics. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(40), A50.

Shipman, M. (1994). Perceptions of campus police: News gathering and access to public records. Newspaper Research Journal, 15(2), 1–11.

Skogan, W. G. (1987). The impact of victimization on fear. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 135–154.

Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline. New York: Free Press.

661

Download more at Learnclax.com

Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhood reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Taylor, R. B., & Hale, M. (1986). Testing alternative models of fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 151–189.

Tjaden, R. B., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NCJ 183781). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Warr, M. (1984). Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid? Social Science Quarterly, 65, 681–702.

Warr, M. (1985). Fear of rape among urban women. Social Problems, 32, 238–250.

Warr, M. (1987). Fear of victimization and sensitivity to risk. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 29–46.

Warr, M. (1994). Public perceptions and reactions to violent offending and victimization. In A. J. Reiss & J. A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence: Consequence and control (Vol. 4, pp. 1–66). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. In D. Duffer (Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime and justice: Criminal justice 2000 (pp. 451–489). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1983). Fear of victimization: A look at the proximate causes. Social Forces, 61, 1033–1043.

Wilcox Rountree, P. (1998). A reexamination of the crime-fear linkage. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 341–372.

Wilcox Rountree, P., & Land, K. C. (1996a). Burglary victimization, perceptions of crime risk, and routine activities: A multilevel analysis across Seattle neighborhoods and census tracts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 147–180.

Wilcox Rountree, P., & Land, K. C. (1996b). Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of

662

Download more at Learnclax.com

conceptually distance reactions in survey data. Social Forces, 74, 1353–1376.

663

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section XI Property and Identity Theft Victimization

So far, we mainly have discussed violent or person victimizations. These are the types of victimization that commonly make the news— murders, rapes, assaults, and child abuse, to name a few. We tend to think about these when we hear the word victimization. But these are not the most common types of victimization. Instead, the most common type is property victimization. In fact, it is theft! Although this is not the type of victimization most commonly shown on the evening news, it is what will most likely happen to you if you are unfortunate enough to become a crime victim. There are, of course, other types of property victimization, and we discuss those as well. And in today’s world, criminals are acting in innovative ways. No longer does an offender need to be in your presence to victimize you. Indeed, the Internet has opened up numerous ways for you to have your money taken, your privacy violated, and even your identity stolen. In this section, we discuss these two types of victimization that generally receive less attention in the field of victimology but nonetheless impact numerous persons each year.

664

Download more at Learnclax.com

Property Victimization

Victimization is generally discussed in two categories: personal victimization and property victimization. Personal victimization, as measured in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), includes simple assault, aggravated assault, rape and sexual assault, and robbery. Property victimization as measured in the NCVS includes theft, motor vehicle theft, and household burglary. There are other types of property victimization, but we limit our discussion to these three types.

Theft

Theft, also called larceny-theft, is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, 2009) as the “unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another.” To be classified as a theft, the item cannot be taken by force, violence, or fraud. As such, if items are taken via embezzlement, confidence games, check fraud, or forgery, it is not considered larceny-theft. If these types of action are excluded, what, then, would be considered theft? Stealing a bicycle, shoplifting, pick- pocketing, or stealing any item or property, so long as it is not achieved through force, violence, or fraud, as noted, is theft (FBI, 2009).

Extent of Theft

Theft is the most common crime victimization experienced by Americans. This is supported by statistics from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) and those from the NCVS. According to the UCR, in 2015, there were more than 5.7 million larceny-thefts, resulting in a rate of 1,775.4 per 100,000 persons in the United States (FBI, 2015s). Larceny-thefts composed 71% of all property crimes that occurred in 2015 (FBI, 2015s). The extent of theft is also captured in the NCVS. For 2015, the NCVS estimates that there were over 2 times the number (11,142,310) of thefts (not including attempted and completed purse snatching and pocket picking) compared with the UCR data. Theft composed 57% of all victimizations in the NCVS (Truman & Morgan, 2016). Why do you think the estimates from the NCVS are so much higher for theft compared with those from the UCR?

Characteristics of Theft

The UCR and the NCVS also describe the characteristics of theft in the United States. According to the UCR, the average larceny costs the victim $929 in lost property, which amounts to a $5.3 billion total loss for all larcenies in 2015 (FBI, 2015s). According to the NCVS, losses for larceny are somewhat lower, with a mean dollar loss of $403 (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2007). You are probably not surprised to learn that most thefts go unreported to police. In fact, only 29% of all thefts were reported to the police in 2015 (Truman & Morgan, 2016). The low reporting rates probably contribute to the low recovery rates of stolen property. In more than 86% of larceny victimizations reported in the NCVS, the victim noted that none of his or her property was recovered (BJS, 2007).

You may wonder what items people most commonly steal. About a quarter of larcenies reported to the police

665

Download more at Learnclax.com

(remember that the UCR includes only those crimes the police know about) were thefts of motor vehicle

parts, accessories, and contents (FBI, 2009). When persons were asked in the NCVS what was stolen, almost 34% indicated that personal effects such as portable electronics, photographic equipment, jewelry, and clothing were taken (BJS, 2007).

Who Are Theft Victims?

Although virtually any possession can be stolen, theft rates do differ according to household characteristics measured in the NCVS. Rates of theft are highest for households headed by persons who are White, whereas Hispanics are more likely to be victimized than non-Hispanics. Households headed by younger people (up to 19 years of age) report higher rates of theft victimization than households headed by older persons. Households that have a total income less than $7,500 annually have the highest theft rates (BJS, 2007). Also, as the number of people in the household increases, so does the risk of theft. In fact, households with six or more people were 3 times more likely to experience a theft than were single-person households (Truman & Rand, 2010).

Risk Factors for Theft Victimization

Theft is so common, at least in terms of victimization, that it may seem as though risk is ubiquitous and theft amounts to little more than having your property in the wrong place at the wrong time. Remember, though, that researchers have linked victimization risk to certain qualities and characteristics, often due to a person’s lifestyle and routine activities. Theft victimization also has been explained using this perspective. In fact, Cohen and Felson (1979), in their routine activities theory, linked increases in property crime to the production developments that made goods smaller, more durable, and easier to move. At the individual level, exposure to delinquent or criminal others increases the chances that a person will become the victim of theft. In a study of college students, Mustaine and Tewksbury (1998) found that smoking marijuana increased the risk of minor theft victimization, whereas threatening another with a gun or threatening without a weapon increased the risk of minor and major theft victimizations. Living in a neighborhood that had too much crime or was too noisy also positively impacted minor victimization risk. In addition, having capable guardianship decreased the chances of theft. College students who had a dog in their residence and who lived in rural areas were less likely to experience minor larceny victimization. Installing extra locks also decreased the chances of major larceny victimization for college students (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998).

College students may be deemed suitable targets for theft as well. Students who eat out frequently found themselves at a greater risk of minor theft victimization than did others, likely because these students were exposing themselves to many people and displaying their wallets and money. Students who left their homes often to study were also more likely to be theft victims than were others, likely because they were exposing their personal items to would-be offenders (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998). Beyond this study of routine activities theory and theft among college students, the research on the reasons why some people become victims of theft has not been fully explored. Can you think of other theories or explanations that could elucidate why certain people have their possessions stolen?

666

Download more at Learnclax.com

Motor Vehicle Theft

Anyone who has a car has probably thought about the possibility of having it stolen, but motor vehicle theft can also occur with other self-propelled vehicles that run on land, such as sport utility vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, motor scooters, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles (FBI, 2009). When we discuss motor vehicle theft, it covers the theft or attempted theft of the vehicle itself. If a car is broken into, for example, and the contents taken, it is a larceny-theft, not a motor vehicle theft. When auto theft involves the taking of a car by an offender who is armed and the vehicle is occupied, it is called carjacking. In this section, we limit our discussion to the nonviolent victimization of motor vehicle theft.

Extent of Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization

In 2015, 707,758 motor vehicle thefts were reported to the police—this number of reported thefts equates to a motor vehicle theft rate of 220.2 per 100,000 persons in the United States (FBI, 2015t). For motor vehicle theft, the number of reports to the police, as shown in the UCR, is not too different from the estimate in the NCVS. In 2015, there were 564,160 motor vehicle thefts according to the NCVS (Truman & Morgan, 2016). Why are motor vehicle theft estimates so close for the UCR and NCVS, whereas estimates for theft, as you read earlier, are so divergent? The answer is probably tied to the nature of the victimization. If your car were stolen, don’t you think you would be quite likely to report it to the police? You would want to get the police on the case so your car could be found. You also need a police report for insurance purposes. These reasons likely contribute to the similar estimates.

Characteristics of Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization

Along with knowing the extent to which motor vehicles are stolen, we also have an idea of the characteristics of motor vehicle thefts that occur in the United States. The costs associated with motor vehicle theft are high. According to the UCR, each stolen vehicle costs, on average, $7,001 (FBI, 2015t), and the average is $6,286 according to the NCVS (BJS, 2007). For the nation as a whole, motor vehicle theft costs almost $4.9 billion annually (FBI, 2015t). However, financial costs are not the only ones that victims incur when their motor vehicles are stolen. More than one-fifth of victims report missing at least 1 day of work due to motor vehicle theft (BJS, 2007).

As previously mentioned, motor vehicle theft is widely reported to the police (69%) (Truman & Morgan, 2016). About half the victims of motor vehicle theft report that all their property (in this case, their vehicle) was recovered (Truman & Langton, 2015). Motor vehicle theft is most likely to occur at night, near the victim’s home (BJS, 2007), and in urban areas (FBI, 2009). Almost half of motor vehicle thefts occur when the victims are sleeping (BJS, 2007).

As you may imagine, though, not all vehicles are equally likely to be stolen. To determine the cars most likely to be stolen, the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) compiles a list using National Crime Information Center data based on police reports (Insurance Information Institute, 2011). See Table 11.1 for a list of the cars that were most stolen in 2015 (National Insurance Crime Bureau, 2016). After you examine the list, consider that the value of these cars being stolen may not be that much compared with the cost of more

667

Download more at Learnclax.com

expensive cars. When insurance claims rates and the size of insurance payments are considered together, the Highway Loss Data Institute has identified that the Ford F-250 Crew 4WD has the highest theft-claim rate for passenger vehicles of 2010–2012 in the United States, followed by the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew, the Chevrolet Avalanche 1500, and the GMC Sierra 1500 Crew (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2013). The average loss payment per claim for the Ford F-250 Crew 4WD was $7,060. When the number of these vehicles that are stolen and the costs associated with their loss are totaled and compared with the number of each make and model insured, their theft costs the insurance industry the most. These values take into

account the value of the contents of the vehicles as well, so it does not include just the cost of the vehicle.

Table 11.1

Source: Reprinted by permission of the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

Along with certain types of cars being prime targets, certain cities have higher-than-average rates of motor vehicle theft. In 2015, the Modesto, California, Metropolitan Statistical Area had the highest motor vehicle theft rate per capita in the United States, according to data compiled by the NICB (National Insurance Crime Bureau, 2015). All the top 10 cities for highest motor vehicle theft rates are in the western part of the United States. See Table 11.2 for the list.

Table 11.2

668

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Reprinted by permission of the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

Who Are Motor Vehicle Theft Victims?

Anyone can have their car stolen—do you know someone who has had this happen? Does this person have the common characteristics of the “typical” car theft victim? Read on to answer this question. Households headed by persons 34 and younger have the highest rates of motor vehicle theft. Households headed by persons who are Black or by persons of two or more races have higher rates of motor vehicle theft than do others. Households that rent rather than own their home, have total incomes of $7,500 per year or less, and have more people in them (single-person households have the lowest rates) experience higher rates of motor vehicle theft than do other households (Truman & Rand, 2010).

Risk Factors for Motor Vehicle Theft Victimization

Routine activities theory provides an excellent underpinning for understanding why some motor vehicles are stolen whereas others remain in the possession of their rightful owners. Remember, the three constructs relevant to this theoretical perspective are motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of capable guardianship. Motivated offenders are assumed to be present. What makes a vehicle a suitable target, though? Vehicles that are easy to steal are going to be deemed more suitable than those that are more difficult to steal. Vehicles with keys in the ignition are definitely suitable targets. Similarly, vehicles left unlocked are more suitable than locked vehicles. Cars parked on streets with poor lighting are suitable targets, whereas those parked in locked garages are not suitable targets. Also consider why a person would be compelled to steal a car. One reason is to sell the parts. A suitable target, then, would be a vehicle whose parts are easy to sell. A suitable vehicle would be a popular model, in that there would be a resale market for its parts. Common vehicles would be easier to sell parts from than more rare models that hardly anyone drives. In addition, vehicles that do not have vehicle identification numbers (VINs) etched in the windows are more suitable than vehicles with these numbers. Thieves will not want to replace the windows after stealing the vehicle.

Photo 11.1 The Cadillac Escalade had the highest theft-loss rate for passenger vehicles that are 1 to 3 years

669

Download more at Learnclax.com

old in the United States.

Capable guardianship is also an important concept to consider. Guardianship for vehicles can be physical— those things that physically provide protection from theft. For cars, this can be locks, steering wheel column locks, car alarms, ignition cut-off systems, and electronic tracking devices. It is a bit more difficult to provide social guardianship for a vehicle because people are bound to leave their cars unattended at some point. That is why it is imperative that vehicles are left locked at all times, with personal belongings and electronics stowed out of sight.

Building on routine activities theory, additional factors have been used to identify ways in which motor vehicle theft can be understood and perhaps prevented. Five situational factors have been identified: watchers, activity nodes, location, lighting, and security (WALLS). Watchers are capable guardians at the auto theft location, activity nodes are locations that draw heavy use for legal and illegal activity, location refers to the characteristics of the location that make it a suitable target for selection, lighting refers to the quality and amount of lighting near the auto theft location, and security refers to environmental cues that dissuade a person from committing auto theft (Levy & Tartaro, 2010).

Response to Motor Vehicle Theft

As previously discussed, motor vehicle theft has one of the highest reporting rates of all crimes. Even so, only 13% of motor vehicle thefts are cleared by police. When a case is cleared by police, it means the police either made an arrest in the case or cleared the case exceptionally. To clear a case exceptionally, the police agency must know who the offender is, be able to support an arrest, and know where the offender is but be unable to make an arrest and have the charges filed (FBI, 2015m). These low clearance rates suggest that many motor vehicle thieves are not being apprehended. In addition to police actions, other efforts have been undertaken to reduce motor vehicle theft victimization.

670

Download more at Learnclax.com

Several key pieces of federal legislation have been passed to deal with motor vehicle theft. The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (1984) required manufacturers to stamp identification numbers on parts in high- theft major passenger car lines (the impetus for the VIN) to make it easier to trace parts that are stolen from vehicles. Penalties for altering or removing these numbers were also increased. Investigators believe that requiring the marking of vehicle parts aids in the arrest of individuals who steal parts or vehicles (Finn, 2000). This act also made interstate trafficking in stolen vehicles part of the federal racketeering statutes (Insurance Information Institute, 2011). The Anti-Car Theft Act (1992) made carjacking a federal crime and provided funding to link all state motor vehicle departments. This funding was created in hopes that states would be able to share title, registration, and salvage information to make it more difficult for stolen vehicles to be easily titled and registered. This led to the development of the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System. It also expanded the parts-marking identification number requirement to include more than just high-theft passenger car line parts. Vans and utility vehicles that have higher-than-average theft rates and half of passenger cars, vans, and SUVs with lower-than-average theft rates were also required to have their major parts (engines, transmissions, and 12 other major parts) marked (“History of Auto-Theft Legislation,” n.d.). As part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 2 years later, the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act of 1994 authorized the development of a national, voluntary motor vehicle theft prevention program. Those people who wished to participate could place on their vehicles a decal alerting police that their car is not normally operated between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. (Federal Grants Wire, 2011). The ability of states and the federal government to determine if a car was stolen was strengthened by the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996. This act served to upgrade state motor vehicle department databases that contain title information (“History of Auto-Theft Legislation,” n.d.).

Federal legislation is not the only way to combat motor vehicle theft victimization. In many states, anti–car theft groups have formed that comprise law enforcement, insurers, and consumers. These groups work together to promote awareness of motor vehicle theft and to pass state and local legislation to reduce motor vehicle theft (Insurance Information Institute, 2011). Many states attach fees to car registration or car insurance policies that go toward funding such groups. For example, Michigan has a program called Help Eliminate Auto Theft (HEAT), funded through auto insurance policies ($1 from each policy), that offers a hotline for people to report thefts and “chop shop” operations. In 25 years of operation, the program has aided in the recovery of more than 4,200 vehicles (Insurance Information Institute, 2011).

Other ways to reduce motor vehicle theft are centered on target-hardening approaches. Target hardening is the process whereby a target is made more difficult for an offender to attack. This approach is likely to be successful in reducing motor vehicle theft. In fact, it has been argued that “the most promising preventive approach is through the manufacture of more secure vehicles” (Clarke & Harris, 1992, p. 1). Locking car doors and installing security devices can be quite beneficial in reducing motor vehicle theft. In addition, installing a steering wheel column lock, such as the Club, can reduce the likelihood that a motor vehicle will be stolen. In the event that your car is stolen, you can increase your chances of recovering it by having an electronic tracking device. One such device, called LoJack, uses a radio transmitter. If your car is stolen, the police can track your car via the radio signal to locate it. LoJack (2011) reports a 90% recovery rate for stolen vehicles equipped with this system. Electronic immobilizers can also be used that disable the ignition, starter,

671

Download more at Learnclax.com

and fuel systems until the system is activated by a computer-coded key (Linden & Chaturvedi, 2005). Research conducted in Canada and Australia indicates that these electronic immobilization systems are quite successful—theft rates for vehicles that have these systems are low (Potter & Thomas, 2001; Tabachneck, Norup, Thomason, & Motlagh, 2000).

Household Burglary

Perhaps one of the scariest things you could think of is to be alone, in the privacy of your own home, when an intruder comes in with a weapon—stealing whatever he or she wants and threatening you. If this were to occur, you would be the victim of a household or residential burglary. The FBI (2015u) defines burglary as “the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft.” To understand this definition, you must understand what constitutes a structure. The FBI’s definition recognizes structures to include houses, apartments, house trailers, houseboats when used as a permanent dwelling, barns, offices, railroad cars, vessels, and stables. Also important to note, entry into the structure does not have to occur forcefully. Entry can be achieved either via (1) forceful entry or (2) unlawful entry without force. Forceful entry includes such things as breaking a window or forcing a door open, whereas unlawful entry without force would occur if an offender used an unlocked or opened door to enter the structure. Attempted forceful entry of a structure can also constitute a burglary. Residential or household burglary—those burglaries of structures where persons live— made up 74% of all burglaries reported to the police in 2012 (FBI, 2013).

You may also have heard the term home invasion used to refer to household burglary. This term is most commonly used to refer to a specific type of residential burglary that occurs when someone is home and the offender intends to harm, use force, or use violence against the residents, as in the example just presented. Most typically, a home invasion involves forceful entry. The term home invasion has been incorporated into some state laws, where such an offense is a specific crime. For example, in Florida, a home invasion robbery occurs when a person enters a dwelling with the intent to commit a robbery of the persons inside and does, in fact, do so (Fla. Stat. § 812.135). For household burglary to occur more generally, however, intent on the part of the offender to harm the occupants or rob them is not needed, just that the offender enters the dwelling to commit a felony or theft.

Extent of Household Burglary

According to the UCR, in 2015 there were 1,579,527 burglaries, 1,130,941 of which were burglaries of dwellings (FBI, 2015d). Of all property crimes during that year, almost 20% were burglaries (including nonresidential burglary). Most household burglary occurred during the day, perhaps because this is the time when people are at work and their homes are left unguarded. We will return to this point again. On average, each residential burglary resulted in a loss of $2,316, with total losses to victims of burglary totaling $3.6 billion. Remember, however, from our discussion in Section II, that the UCR includes only information about crimes that are known to law enforcement—typically because the crime is reported to the police. About half of all crimes go unreported, and just slightly more than half (51%) of burglaries are reported to the police (Truman & Morgan, 2016). As such, the UCR likely underrepresents the true amount of crime victimization that occurs in the United States. Also, the UCR provides only limited information about the offense, criminal,

672

Download more at Learnclax.com

and victim. To find out about victimizations that are reported and not reported to the police and to understand the patterns and characteristics of victims and victimization events, we often use the NCVS. So, let’s discuss residential burglary using statistics from the NCVS.

According to the NCVS, in 2015, there were 2,904,570 household burglaries, which does not include household burglaries in which someone became a victim of a violent crime or was threatened (Truman & Morgan, 2016). According to NCVS classification rules, those incidents would be classified as personal victimizations according to what occurred (e.g., rape/sexual assault, simple assault). If a household burglary occurred and no one was home or no one was hurt or threatened, it would be classified as a property victimization. It is interesting to examine both types of incidents, however, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published a report analyzing victimization that occurs during household burglary (Catalano, 2010). When taking into account all household burglaries, it is estimated that there were almost 3.4 million burglaries in 2011. When a burglar is successful, most typically a household appliance or portable electronic device is stolen. In 2011, among households that experienced at least $1 in loss due to burglary, the median dollar value of items and cash stolen was $600 (Walters, Moore, Berzofsky, & Langton, 2013).

Characteristics of Household Burglary

From 1994 to 2011, most household burglaries were achieved through unlawful entry through an unlocked or open door or window rather than forceful entry (Walters et al., 2013). When forceful entry was used or attempted, most typically a door or window pane was damaged or removed. In about 28% of household burglaries, someone was present during the incident, and 7% of households that were burglarized had someone injured as a result. Most typically, the type of violence that occurred was a simple assault (15%), followed by a robbery (7%), and rape/sexual assault (3%). For those burglaries that occurred when no one was home, one-fourth of victims said they were at work at the time, and slightly less than one-fourth said they were participating in a leisure activity away from home. About 40% of household burglaries occurred between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. A larger percentage of burglaries occurred during this time period when no one was home, as compared with burglaries that occurred when someone was present. Even though burglary might seem to be one crime that would be perpetrated by a stranger, almost two-thirds (65%) of household burglaries that involved violence were perpetrated by someone known to the victim (Catalano, 2010).

What Households Are Burglarized?

If a burglar is intent on entering a house, which house does he or she choose? Is it random or more systematic? Well, it appears that some houses are at greater risk than others for burglary. Households composed of married couples without children have the lowest rates of burglary. When examining households with children, single-female-headed households had the highest burglary rates (Walters et al., 2013).

Race, income, age, and type of housing unit are also risk factors for burglary. Households that have a person of two or more races as head of household had the highest rates of burglary, followed by households headed by a person who is American Indian/Alaskan Native or Black. Lower-income households (those with an income of $14,999 or less) and those headed by younger persons (up to age 19) had higher rates of burglary than did

673

Download more at Learnclax.com

higher-income households and those headed by older persons. Finally, burglary rates were highest for households residing in rental properties (Walters et al., 2013).

Risk Factors for Household Burglary

As with most types of victimization, researchers have attempted to identify why some households are more likely to be burglarized compared with others. This line of inquiry has mainly focused on the decision making of burglars—why they select certain homes to break into but leave others alone. This body of research has concluded that, at least to some degree, household burglars choose suitable targets that lack capable guardians (Cromwell, Olson, & Avary, 1991; Tunnell, 1992; R. T. Wright & Decker, 1994). In other words, routine activities theory is a viable explanation for burglary victimization. Remember from Section II that routine activities theory suggests victimization is likely to occur when motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of capable guardianship coalesce in time and space. Let’s consider household burglary from this perspective.

Motivated offenders do not need to be explained, according to routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Given opportunity, then, motivated offenders will burgle homes. The selection of homes is what is interesting. What makes a home a suitable target? Ethnographic research conducted via interviews on burglars shows that they tend to target middle- or high-income neighborhoods (Rengert & Wasilchick, 1985), and quantitative research predicting burglary indicates that expensive homes are most prone to burglary (Fishman, Hakim, & Shachmurove, 1998)—even though statistics from the NCVS (that do not control for other factors) indicate that lower-income households are more prone to household burglary (Catalano, 2010). A target also becomes suitable to a burglar when it lies on a familiar route that is also along major arterial routes (Rengert & Wasilchick, 1985).

Households that lack capable guardians are also most likely to be burgled. For instance, homes are most likely to be burgled during the day, when people are at work, and most burglaries occur when no one is home (Catalano, 2010). Because burglars seek out unoccupied homes, research shows that one way to reduce the chances of having your home burglarized is by making it appear that someone is home. Ways to do this are by keeping a car in your driveway, keeping lights on outside and inside, and keeping a television or radio on even if you are not home (Fishman et al., 1998).

In addition, houses located on quiet residential streets are more prone to burglary than others (Fishman et al., 1998), whereas households in high-density areas are less likely to be burglarized (Catalano, 2010). Homes on quiet streets are less likely to have watchful eyes, and burglars may feel that they can successfully get away with their crime. Although it is difficult to change the location of your home, simply having a burglar alarm reduces the chances that your house will be burglarized (Fishman et al., 1998). In addition, findings from the NCVS show that homes located in gated or walled communities have lower burglary rates than homes not located in such communities. Also of note, residences with restricted access, such as those having doormen or a reception desk, were targeted less frequently by burglars than other residences without restricted access (Walters et al., 2013). To learn about how target hardening may reduce burglary victimization and revictimization, see Reading 20 by Alex Hirschfield, Andrew Newton, and Michelle Rogerson (2010) included in this section.

674

Download more at Learnclax.com

675

Download more at Learnclax.com

Identity Theft

As technology advances, the means by which a person’s property and money are taken also change. Especially with the widespread use of computers and the ready access people have to them, it is easier today than ever for people to access other people’s money illegally. With key pieces of identifying information, criminals can assume your identity and either access your existing accounts or open new accounts in your name. Collectively, these actions are known as identity theft, and this section describes its occurrence, its effects, and the system’s response.

Generally, identity theft is defined as the use of personal identifying information by a person to commit some type of fraud (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC], 2004). According to the FDIC (2004), it is one of the fastest-growing types of consumer fraud. Identity theft became a federal offense when the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (1998) was passed. It made it a crime for anyone to

knowingly transfer or use, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law. (FDIC, 2004, pp. 4–5)

Identity theft covers taking over an existing account (account hijacking), creating new accounts, or creating a synthetic identity to obtain services or benefits fraudulently (FDIC, 2004).

What are the common ways identity theft occurs? Computers have allowed criminals easy access to your information, but criminals do not necessarily need computers to steal your personal information. One way they can steal your information is by shoulder surfing. Shoulder surfing involves criminals watching while you input numbers such as a credit card number. Criminals also can listen while you say your credit card number over the telephone, such as while you are placing an order or booking a trip (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). Account numbers can be stolen via skimming devices placed on automated teller machines (ATMs) that record a person’s debit account number, password, account information, and other data that can then be used to imprint a new card and withdraw funds (S. Berg, 2009).

Your physical mail is also a valuable resource for offenders wanting to steal your identity. Criminals may dumpster dive, going through garbage cans or communal dumpsters or bins in hopes of finding documents with account numbers on them, checks, or bank and credit card statements (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). Criminals may find in your trash or mailbox preapproved credit card offers that they can send off in your name. You may not even know that there are open credit lines in your name that others are using.

The Internet is also widely used for identity theft. One common way of executing account hijacking is through phishing. When phishing occurs, deceptive e-mails or fake websites are used to get people to provide usernames, passwords, and sometimes account numbers to perpetrators who then are able to use this information to access accounts (FDIC, 2004). For example, an e-mail is sent to a person indicating a problem with his account and he is asked to log in to his account through a hyperlink included in the e-mail.

676

Download more at Learnclax.com

Unfortunately, the hyperlink takes the person to a spoofed website. If the person does, indeed, go to the site through the hyperlink and enters his username and password, the information is then collected and the account can be hijacked (FDIC, 2004). You may wonder how often phishing occurs. In 2006, more than 109 million adults in the United States reported receiving a phishing e-mail (Gartner, 2006). From 5% (FDIC, 2004) to 22% (Gartner, 2006) of the people who receive such phishing e-mails respond to them (FDIC, 2004). Account hijacking can also occur when people hack into financial institutions or service providers and access customers’ information (FDIC, 2004). Accounts also may be hijacked using software, called spyware, that collects information from unsuspecting persons’ computers. This software is surreptitiously loaded when a person opens an e-mail attachment or clicks on a pop-up advertisement. The software then tracks keystrokes and information such as usernames, passwords, and account information and sends it to the defrauder (S. Berg, 2009). It may not take sophisticated software, however, to hijack an account. It is estimated that 65% to 70% of identity theft is committed by employees who have access to sensitive personal data (as cited in FDIC, 2004). See Box 11.1 for an example of a real case of identity theft.

Photo 11.2 This ATM has a mini-camera installed so that PIN codes can be stolen.

dpa picture alliance archive/Alamy.

Extent of Identity Theft Victimization

It is quite difficult to know exactly how much identity theft victimization occurs each year in the United States. It is possible that you could have your identity stolen and be completely unaware—or if you did become aware, it could be weeks, months, or even years after it initially occurred. Even if you were aware your identity had been stolen, you may not notify the police. And the UCR does not neatly measure identity theft;

677

Download more at Learnclax.com

it is not one of the eight index crimes that the FBI includes in its yearly report. To begin to understand the extent and characteristics of identity theft, an identity theft victimization supplement to the NCVS was collected for the first time in 2008. Unlike with the NCVS, only persons over the age of 16 participated in the survey, and persons were asked about experiences of identity theft they experienced in the previous 2 years (Langton & Planty, 2010). Persons completing the Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) were also people participating in the NCVS. The final sample in the 2014 ITS included 64,287 persons (Harrell, 2015).

The ITS collected data on the use or attempted use of existing accounts (account hijacking), use of personal information to open a new account, or misuse of personal information for other fraudulent purposes. Existing accounts that a person might hijack include a credit card account, savings account, mortgage account, loan, or checking account. Persons may want to use personal information to obtain a job, for medical care, when interacting with law enforcement, to rent an apartment, or for government benefits (Harrell, 2015). Based on findings from the 2014 ITS, it was estimated that 17.6 million people (7% of persons 16 years old or older) were the victims of identity theft during the previous 12 months. Slightly more than two-fifths experienced more than one identify theft incident. Most commonly (86%), victims reported that they had existing credit card or bank account information misused or attempted to be misused, equating to about 16.4 million victims. About 8.6 million persons reported that someone had fraudulently used their information to open a new account, and about 1.5 million people said their personal information had been used for other fraudulent purposes (Harrell, 2015). There are other ways to assess the extent to which people are victimized by identity theft. One of these ways is to look to agencies where people report their victimizations. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) publishes a report of complaints it and other agencies (the Internet Crime Complaint Center, the Better Business Bureau, Canada’s PhoneBusters, United States Inspection Service, Identity Theft Assistance Center, and the National Fraud Information Center, among others) receive regarding fraud and identity theft. In this report, the Consumer Sentinel Network Databook, identity theft was the number one complaint received by the FTC in 2014, with 13% of all complaints. There were 332,646 identity theft complaints made to the FTC. Of these complaints, 39% were government documents/benefits fraud and 17% were credit card fraud (Federal Trade Commission, 2015).

Box 11.1 Example of Identity Theft Case

Thirty-year-old Anthony Eugene Vaughn was arrested for at least 1,000 counts of second-degree identity theft and two counts of first-degree identity theft. More than 1,000 people had their driver’s licenses, credit cards, and Social Security numbers stolen by this Thurston County criminal, who is said to have committed the largest identity theft this country has ever seen! Detectives believe that other thieves, who aided in opening several fraudulent bank accounts in victims’ names, accompanied Vaughn. Stolen ATM cards and credit cards were traced back to illegal purchases. More than 40 boxes of evidence were seized, which included driver’s licenses, credit cards, credit card swipers, and Social Security cards/numbers. This case has been traced back to a motor vehicle rummage on the Capitol campus. The vehicle, which belonged to a state employee, held thousands of people’s names and Social Security numbers. Further, Vaughn was identified as a suspect in the burglary of a safe belonging to a construction company in Mason County. A detective found that Vaughn used his home phone number to open a fraudulent account using the stolen documents from the Mason County burglary.

678

Download more at Learnclax.com

Who Is Victimized by Identity Theft?

Identity theft can happen to anyone, but results from the ITS show to whom identity theft is most likely to occur. Males and females face similar risks of being identity theft victims (Harrell & Langton, 2013). Remember that young people (ages 12–34) are the typical victims of most property and personal victimizations (Truman et al., 2013). Younger persons are actually less likely than persons ages 25 to 64 to experience identity theft. In fact, once accounting for credit card ownership, persons aged 18 to 24 are actually the least likely to report having their credit card misused (Harrell, 2015). Reports to the FTC also indicate that older persons are more often victims of identity theft than are younger persons. About a quarter of complaints filed with the FTC were by persons 29 years old or younger, and 39% were filed by those 50 and older (Federal Trade Commission, 2015). Differences across race and ethnic groups were also found in the ITS. Persons of more than one race were more likely than others (9% of persons) to report experiencing identity theft. A greater percentage of White non-Hispanics experienced identity theft than did Hispanics and Black non-Hispanics. There also was a difference in the types of identity theft experienced. Income is also relevant for understanding who is likely to be victimized by identity theft. As household income increases, so too does a person’s likelihood of being victimized. Persons living in households with incomes of $75,000 or more were more likely than others to be identity theft victims (Harrell, 2015). Locales also differed in their rates of identity theft reporting. The states with the highest rates of identity theft reports for 2014 are Florida, Washington, and Oregon (Federal Trade Commission, 2015). For an example of a state’s 2014 occurrences of identity theft, see Table 11.3, which shows the extent of reports in Arizona for 2014.

Table 11.3

Note: complaints n = 6,460. Source: Federal Trade Commission (2015, p. 24).

679

Download more at Learnclax.com

Ripped From the Headlines

Although younger people are less at risk than older persons to be identity theft victims, college students may face risks, given their characteristics. College students have to provide lots of personal information when they first get to campus—they have to get a student ID, have to register for classes, and may have to sign up for benefits like health insurance. Many college students do not have a lengthy credit history and are unlikely to check their credit history, so they may not even notice if their identity is stolen. Mary Power of the Better Business Bureau notes that college students should try to keep as much personal data as possible private.

Source: “College Students at Risk for Identity Theft” (2014).

Characteristics of Identity Theft Victimizations

One of the interesting things about identity theft victimization is that people may be unaware that they have been victimized. Others may not have any idea as to how the offender was able to victimize them. Not knowing how the offender stole your identity can be especially problematic for prevention. In the ITS, victims were asked if they knew how the identity theft had occurred. About 32% of victims indicated that they knew how their identity had been stolen. Of those victims, about 1 in 4 believed that their identity had been stolen during a purchase or transaction. It is probably not surprising to you to learn that most victims of identity theft do not know their offender—over 90% did not know anything about their offender’s identity (Harrell, 2015).

What do victims of identity theft do after realizing that their identities have been stolen? According to findings from the ITS, only 8% of identity theft victims notified a law enforcement agency about the incident. Victims who had offenders misuse their personal information (35%) and those who had offenders try to open a new account in their name (20%) were more likely than victims whose offenders tried to use an existing bank account (8%) to report the incident to the police. If victims do not tell the police, are they telling others? Results from the ITS indicate that they often do disclose the incident. About 87% of victims contacted a credit card company or bank to report that their account or personal information had been misused, and 8% notified a credit bureau (Harrell, 2015).

Risk Factors for Identity Theft Victimization

Routine activities theory helps us understand who is vulnerable to identity theft. Motivated offenders are, by definition, present. It is when motivated offenders come into contact with suitable targets in time and space without capable guardianship that identity theft is likely to occur. Suitable targets are likely to be those who are easily victimized. Why would a person be an easy target for identity theft? Consider the mechanisms by which offenders steal a person’s identity. Leaving personal identification intact in the trash, making phone calls in public places to discuss personal information, and using public Internet connections to access personal accounts all make a person a suitable target. A novice to the Internet or a person who does not understand the intricacies of how secure Internet sites work will also be a more suitable target than a savvier Internet user. Notably, even persons who are aware of the dangers are still likely at risk. What is interesting about identity theft achieved via the Internet is that potential victims will not or cannot curtail their Internet usage, even if they fear victimization. Capable guardianship, then, is a particularly important concept for identity theft,

680

Download more at Learnclax.com

especially when considering online accounts, usernames, and passwords. Guardianship often comes in the form of warning e-mails, antivirus software, and firewalls (Cox, Johnson, & Richards, 2009). But simply having bank accounts, credit card accounts, and a Social Security number puts you at risk of having this personal information stolen. For this reason, as discussed in a later section, everyone should take precautions to protect these pieces of information. The risk factors for identity theft victimization are explored using the routine activities framework in Reading 21 by Bradford Reyns (2013) included in this section.

Consequences of Identity Theft

Reporting is not the only consequence victims face after being victimized by identity theft. One consequence is the financial cost that being a victim of identity theft carries. The majority of victims incurred some financial cost associated with their victimization. These costs can be direct or indirect. Direct costs are monies and the value of goods and services taken. Indirect costs consist of things such as legal bills, phone calls, bounced checks, and notary fees (Langton & Planty, 2010). The ITS estimates that identity theft costs in 2014 totaled $15.4 billion. Of those victims who suffered an indirect and direct loss, the average was $1,343, and 14% suffered an out-of-pocket cost that was not reimbursed. In addition to financial costs, about 9% of victims noted that they had to spend more than a month trying to clear up problems resulting from having their identities stolen. Slightly more than half of victims, however, were able to resolve their problems in a day or less (Harrell, 2015).

Finally, identity theft may take an emotional toll on victims, similar to other victimizations. Thirty-six percent of victims of identity theft in the ITS indicated that they experienced moderate or severe emotional stress, 3% reported they had significant problems with relationships between family members or friends as a result of the incident, and 1% reported that they experienced significant problems at work or school as a result of being victimized (Harrell, 2015). Although fewer identity theft victims reported problems with relationships at work and school and having severe emotional distress as compared with violent crime victims, it should be evident that identity theft does carry consequences for many victims.

Responses to Identity Theft Victimization

As noted in the first part of this section, the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 introduced identity theft into the federal criminal code.

The New Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 enacted several provisions to reduce identity theft and help identity theft victims. This act

mandated that the three major credit reporting bureaus provide a free copy of credit reports to consumers once every 12 months; created the National Fraud Alert System, which allows persons who reasonably suspect that they are or will become a victim of identity theft, or who are on active duty in the military, to place an alert on their credit file; provided that credit card receipts must have shorter account numbers and developed rules for financial

681

Download more at Learnclax.com

institutions and creditors for the disposal of sensitive credit report information; noted that if a person establishes that she or he has been a victim of identity theft, credit reporting agencies are required to stop reporting the fraudulent account information; established that creditors and businesses must provide copies of records of fraudulent accounts or transactions related to them so that victims can attempt to prove their victimization; and provided for victims to report accounts affected by identity theft directly to creditors. (FTC, 2004)

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 also addressed identity theft. This act made it a federal crime to send spam e- mail under certain circumstances. For the specifics of this act, see Box 11.2. The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (2004) was passed and created the crime of aggravated identity theft, which added 2 years to the sentence of anyone convicted of unlawful identity theft during and in relation to specified felony violations. It also created an additional 5-year prison term enhancement for unlawful identity theft related to terrorist acts. In addition to these federal laws, each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia all have laws addressing identity theft. See Box 11.3 for the law in Illinois.

Not only can laws reduce the occurrence of identity theft, but there are many things individuals can do to reduce their chances of having their identities stolen. When going out of town, you should have your mail held at the post office or have a trusted friend or family member remove it from your mailbox. Do not discuss your personal information (address, telephone number, Social Security number) on a phone in public near people who can hear you and possibly intercept your information. Do not give out your personal information to people who call you on the telephone, even if they say they are from your bank or work for a business with whom you have an account. If they do, in fact, work with one of these businesses, they should have your information. If you call them, however, you should expect to be asked to verify your identity. Your personal checks should display the least amount of personal information possible—do not put your Social Security number or your phone number on your checks. Phone calls notifying you of exciting prizes you have won that require you to give your Social Security number, credit card number, or bank account number may be fraudulent. Ask for these offers to be sent to you in writing (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). Shred all documents that display your account numbers or personal information before discarding them.

As you can tell, as technology advances, the ways in which your property and goods can be stolen also expand. It will take new prevention strategies to reduce your chances of being victimized. Nonetheless, the connections between the types of property victimization and the factors that place individuals and homes at risk are evident. Although property crimes may not always make the news, these types of offenses are the ones you are most likely to experience.

Box 11.2 CAN-SPAM Act of 2003

IN GENERAL—Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly—

1. accesses a protected computer without authorization, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from or through such computer,

2. uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages,

3. materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the

682

Download more at Learnclax.com

transmission of such messages, 4. registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail

accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of such accounts or domain names, or

5. falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of five or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses, or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Source: Federal Trade Commission (2004).

Box 11.3 Illinois Identity Theft Law

A person commits the offense of identity theft when he or she knowingly uses any personal identifying information or personal identification document of another person to fraudulently obtain credit, money, goods, services, or other property. Penalties for identity theft depend on the value of the theft.

If the value of the credit, money, goods, services, or other property is less than $300, the crime is a Class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years in prison and a fine up to $25,000. Subsequent offenses are upgraded to a Class 3 felony, punishable by two to five years in prison, as is the penalty for people who have previously been convicted of certain crimes, including burglary, theft, or fraud. If the amount is between $300 and $2,000, it is a Class 3 felony; between $2,000 and $10,000 is a Class 2 felony (punishable by two to seven years in prison); between $10,000 and $100,000 is a Class 1 felony (punishable by four to fifteen years in prison); and over $100,000 is a Class X felony (punishable by six to thirty years in prison).

Penalties are increased one step (with the exception of a Class X felony) if the victim of the offense is an active duty member of the Armed Services or Reserve Forces of the United States or of the Illinois National Guard serving in a foreign country.

Source: Reprinted by permission of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

683

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

Theft made up more than half the reported cases of property crime in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and 71% of all property crimes in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) in 2015. The characteristics of your household contribute to your chances of property crime victimization— persons living in households headed by persons who are White and young and with a total income less than $7,500 have the highest theft victimization rates, according to the NCVS. There are characteristics that make certain vehicles’ and cities’ motor vehicle theft rates exceed the rates of others. Within households, there are even certain races of people who are more likely to be burglarized and/or experience some form of property victimization. In discussing motor vehicle theft, routine activities theory provides that some vehicles are more suitable targets than others. Motor vehicle theft is one of the most reported crimes to the police. In response to the fact that many motor vehicle thieves are not apprehended, federal legislation has been passed to reduce, eliminate, and protect potential victims and those who already have been victimized. Target hardening is the process whereby targets are made more difficult for offenders to attack. Household burglary is not always achieved through forceful entry; it can also be accomplished through unlawful entry. Most household burglary is committed during the day, when no one is home, via unlawful entry, and by someone known to the victim. Routine activities theory can be used to explain why some households are burglarized and others are not. Those houses that are well guarded are less likely to be burglarized than others. Also, houses that are deemed suitable targets are more likely to be burglarized. The advancement of technology has made it easier for criminals to steal other people’s identities. Common methods of identity theft include shoulder surfing, skimming, dumpster diving, phishing, and using spyware. The UCR does not neatly measure identity theft, but both the Federal Trade Commission and the Identity Theft Supplement to the NCVS measure the extent to which people’s identities are stolen. A person’s age, income, and race are indicators of the likelihood that their identities will be stolen. A person with more income is a more suitable target for criminals. As with other forms of victimization, identity theft can cause more than just financial loss. Victims of identity theft often suffer emotional stress as well. To reduce your chances of becoming a victim of identity theft, certain precautions should be taken, such as destroying old mail and credit information rather than simply tossing it in the garbage. Though many people do not report their crimes to the police, the NCVS indicates that they contact other entities, such as a credit bureau, to inform them of their victimization. The fact that laws for identity theft have been outlined in the federal criminal code signifies the increasing seriousness of this issue, which continues to plague many people. The enhancement of

684

Download more at Learnclax.com

severity of punishment is now addressed in the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.

685

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. What about the top 10 most frequently stolen passenger vehicles makes them the most likely to be stolen?

2. Why are theft rates so high in the top 10 U.S. metropolitan areas for motor vehicle theft? Why are motor vehicle theft rates so high in the western United States?

3. Why do the states with the three highest rates of identity theft reports for 2014 have such high rates? 4. What are some things one can do in order to make his or her house less likely to be burglarized? 5. What makes a person a more likely target for identity theft?

686

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key Terms

account hijacking 433 Anti-Car Theft Act (1992) 429 Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996 429 burglary 430 CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 438 carjacking 426 direct costs 437 dumpster dive 433 home invasion 430 identity theft 433 Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (1998) 433 Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (2004) 438 Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) 434 indirect costs 437 motor vehicle theft 426 Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (1984) 429 Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act of 1994 429 New Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 437 phishing 433 shoulder surfing 433 skimming 433 spyware 434 target hardening 430 theft 424

687

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

“Auto Theft”: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test4

The Insurance Information Institute website contains statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports about the types of cars that are most likely to be stolen and in which cities and states cars are most likely to be stolen, as well as the car models least likely to be stolen and the cities and states in which cars are least likely to be stolen. The website also provides this information as it pertains to motorcycle theft. A historical background information section addresses antitheft laws as well.

“Burglary of Single-Family Houses”: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/burglary_home

The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing provides a webpage dedicated to the topic of burglary. This webguide provides information about burglary, the types of housing units at risk, risk factors for burglary, and the types of goods typically stolen. There is also a discussion about burglars.

Edmunds Inside Line: http://www.insideline.com

This website is a great source for information on theft complaints for popular motor vehicles. The site not only lists the newest vehicles, but it also lists the issues and complaints buyers can expect. Recent news articles regarding motor vehicle theft, including new technologies to prevent it, are also highlighted.

Fighting Back Against Identity Theft: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft

The Federal Trade Commission’s identity theft website provides introductory information about identity theft for consumers, businesses, law enforcement, and persons in the military. It also includes ways to report identity theft victimization. Data about identity theft and ways to prevent it are also discussed.

“Preventing Auto Theft”: http://www.geico.com/information/safety/auto/preventing-auto-theft

This Geico webpage provides several tips to prevent you from becoming the next victim of auto theft. It breaks down what types of cars thieves target most commonly, as well as the types of antitheft systems available and what those systems do.

688

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test4

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/burglary_home

http://www.insideline.com

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft

http://www.geico.com/information/safety/auto/preventing-auto-theft

Reading /// 20

Much attention has been given to the fact that houses that are burglarized once are at increased risk of being burgled again. To address this risk, households can adopt security and other target-hardening measures that make it more difficult for the home to be burglarized. Hirschfield et al. (2010) evaluate the effectiveness of a widespread target-hardening program in the city of Liverpool, North West England, that was in place from July 2005 to December 2007. Their evaluation is unique in that it studied 1,739 properties to examine burglary and target hardening and determine whether target hardening was being employed in the most effective manner.

Linking Burglary and Target Hardening at the Property Level: New Insights Into Victimization and Burglary Protection

Alex Hirschfield, Andrew Newton, and Michelle Rogerson

SOURCE: Hirschfield, A., Newton, A., & Rogerson, M. (2010). Linking burglary and target hardening at the property level: New insights into victimization and burglary protection. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 319–337.

Background

Research has identified patterns in the distribution of domestic burglary both at the area level and at the level of individual properties. Routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) explains the role of the physical and social environment in the generation of spatial concentrations of burglary. For example, the interrelated variables of demographic composition, housing tenure, residential turnover, and levels of guardianship have been linked to spatial variations in the volume and location of crime (Bottoms & Wiles, 1988). These operate in conjunction with physical aspects of the environment such as street layout patterns and transport routes (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993; Groff & La Vigne, 2001).

At the household level, the most significant finding has been the identification of repeat victimization and the discovery that prior victimization is the single best predictor of future victimization (Farrell, 2005; Pease, 1998). Repeat victimization is particularly prominent in high-crime areas (Trickett, Osborn, Seymour, & Pease, 1992). Offenders use available cues to discriminate between potential burglary targets. Research informed by rational choice theory (Cornish & Clarke, 1986) highlights offenders’ use of cues that signal the likely value of goods within the property, the lack of occupancy, poor security, and low levels of natural surveillance (Coupe & Blake, 2006; Nee & Taylor, 2000; Wright, Logie, & Decker, 1995). Repeat victimization occurs partly because the factors that “flag” a property as a suitable target remain consistent over time and partly because the increased knowledge an offender gains during victimization “boosts” a property’s status as a suitable target for the future (Tseloni & Pease, 2003). Victimization may also boost the vulnerability of neighboring properties for future burglary giving rise to “near-repeat” burglaries (Townsley, Homel, & Chaseling, 2003).

It is clear that a substantial and growing evidence base exists regarding the burglary problem, its manifestation, and spatial patterning. The evidence highlights the potential to reduce burglary through

689

Download more at Learnclax.com

situational crime prevention and the manipulation of the risk, effort, and rewards as perceived by the would- be burglar (Clarke, 1997), and it advocates the prioritization of properties that have either already been burgled or that are in close proximity to victimized properties (Anderson, Chenery, & Pease, 1995; Chenery, Holt, & Pease, 1997). There is however a dearth of consistent and timely information on the manifestation of crime prevention policy, on the patterning of crime prevention activities, and more specifically, how these relate to crime and crime theories (Hirschfield & Newton, 2008). This article posits that patterns of crime prevention policy have been less thoroughly researched and questions whether our existing knowledge of crime patterns is sufficient to inform the delivery of crime prevention policy.

Lessons on the effectiveness of crime prevention measures have been derived from evaluation exercises that have sought to establish how far observed reductions in burglary can be attributed to prevention measures (Hamilton-Smith & Kent, 2005). These studies bring together information on burglary patterns and changes in these over time with “policy data” on burglary reduction interventions (Hirschfield, 2004). The evaluation of the Reducing Burglary Initiative in England and Wales indicated a significant positive relationship between the intensity of burglary reduction measures measured at the area level (i.e., the scale and timing of action on the ground) and the number of burglaries prevented (Bowers, Johnson, & Hirschfield, 2004b). This is indicative of an approach whereby information on burglary and that on crime prevention activity are effectively two data sets covering the same time periods and areas but not linked at the level of the individual property. This reflects a common dilemma in this field of research, namely, the absence of data that directly links the “problem,” in this case details about burglary at a given property with the “treatment,” namely, the target hardening installed at the property in question.

This article focuses on the analyses that can be conducted and new insights that can be gained when information on domestic burglary and target-hardening activity is linked at the level of the individual property. It draws on a recent policy evaluation that examined the impact of target hardening on domestic burglary in the City of Liverpool, North West England, between July 2005 and December 2007. Target hardening is a term used to describe the process of increasing the security of a property to make it more difficult to burgle, thereby increasing the effort needed by the offender to gain entry to a property. The intended outcome is ultimately to deter the offender from burgling an individual property. Target hardening has been employed internationally and has been widely cited as an effective strategy for burglary reduction (Hamilton-Smith & Kent, 2005; Hirschfield, 2004; Millie & Hough, 2004).

During the period analyzed, the community-safety partnership in Liverpool, Liverpool Citysafe,1 installed target hardening at 1,739 properties, at a total cost of £911,715. Target hardening comprised the fitting of new doors and fitting of security chains to door and window locks, installation of alarms, the fitting of

movement detection lighting, and fitting of security chains to doors.2 Funding for target hardening was derived from several different funding streams but predominantly through Liverpool Citysafe’s community-

safety budget, the Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI), and the Neighbourhood Renewal Initiative.3

Each funding stream carried its own set of objectives for which target hardening was intended to meet. For example, one of the objectives of the HMRI funding was to encourage residents to remain in the area while regeneration took place around them. Some of the target hardening installed to prevent crime was not aimed

690

Download more at Learnclax.com

primarily at burglary reduction but at domestic violence and criminal damage. To ensure coordination, all target hardening, regardless of funding source, was conducted by Liverpool Citysafe installers. Target hardening was installed at no cost to residents. An unknown number of residents declined the offer of target hardening (these details were not recorded). The majority of target hardening was rolled out across Liverpool one area at a time, the locations of which reflected the geographical boundaries of the variant funding streams (Newton, Rogerson, & Hirschfield, 2008).

An innovative feature of the evaluation of target hardening in Liverpool was the creation of longitudinal data on burglary and publicly funded target hardening for individual properties in Liverpool. This paved the way for a number of analyses that simply would not be possible using data just on domestic burglary or target- hardening records that had not been linked to burglary at the address level. For example, the burglary status of each target-hardened property (e.g., not burgled, burgled once, burgled twice or more) and the target- hardening status of each burgled property (e.g., target hardened, not target hardened) could be identified and linked. This could be broken down further by the timing and characteristics of the burglary and the nature, timing, and expenditure of each target-hardening episode. The extent to which all of this varied by location (e.g., within or outside of crime hot spots) could also be explored.

This article focuses on the opportunities that linked data provide for more in-depth and insightful analyses of the crime/intervention relationship. Linking burglary and target hardening can result in having the best of both worlds. All of the flexibility and advantages that come with disaggregate crime data remain, including the ability to identify repeat victimization, the opportunity to reveal spatial and temporal patterns in crime, and the option to aggregate burglary data to higher spatial levels (e.g., census zones, regeneration areas, different communities). In addition, there is the added value of being able to identify repeat episodes of target hardening, temporal and spatial patterns in target hardening, and to relate all of this to burglary at both the address and area level.

Data and Method

A range of data sets were obtained to undertake this research and to address the questions outlined above. Police force analysts provided data extracted from their crime information system on recorded domestic burglary (including burglary attempts). The data contained information on the date, time, location and modus operandi of each offence. Details were provided for 14,262 burglaries reported to Merseyside police during the 3-year period from January 2005 to December 2007.

Data on target hardening were provided by the local community-safety partnership, Liverpool Citysafe. The data set was essentially an administrative database used to record and monitor the 1,739 target-hardening installations conducted in the period July 2005 to December 2007. The target-hardening data included type of measures installed (for example, locks, bolts, and new doors), the amount spent, and the date of intervention. Additional information on administrative boundaries (e.g., census output areas, regeneration zones) and sociodemographic indicators was also made available.

The burglary records and the target-hardening data were joined together using the residential address of each

691

Download more at Learnclax.com

property. The process was facilitated by the use of a geographic information system (GIS) and the National Land Property Gazetteer, which contains all the addresses in the United Kingdom. Once the records were linked, the extent to which properties were target hardened on more than one occasion could be identified and this compared with the number of burglaries over a given time period. The time interval between burglaries could be calculated and any differences in this between target-hardened and non-target-hardened properties established. The extent to which these findings are consistent across different communities in Liverpool or vary by the intensity of crime hot spots could also be explored. The focus of this article is on the use of these data sets to examine the research questions outlined earlier.

Limitations to Data

There were a number of limitations to this research that must be borne in mind when considering the results. The analysis is based on secondary analysis of existing administrative data sets. Police data exclude burglaries not reported to the police, estimated at around 35% of all burglaries in England and Wales (Walker, Kershaw, & Nicholas, 2009). The target-hardening data only included publicly funded installations. The British Crime Survey estimates that between 96% and 98% of homes in England and Wales have some form of security device installed (e.g., deadlocks, window locks, security lights, or burglar alarms; Walker et al., 2009). It is clear prior to the target-hardening program, the majority of homes in Liverpool would have had some level of security. However, it was not possible to estimate the number of properties with existing target hardening or the level, adequacy, or appropriateness of that security. It is safe to assume that at least some of the “unprotected” properties would have had some degree of security.

The research was constrained by the use of a 2.5-year monitoring period. Both burglaries and target- hardening activity occurring before or indeed after this time period were not included in the analysis. Thus properties that were identified as having no prior burglaries may have been burgled before the monitoring period and having no prior burglaries may have been burgled before the monitoring period and indeed thereafter. The truncation of data should be borne in mind in the consideration of the property profile categories (PPCs) described below.

Finally, the analysis reported here is concerned with the relationships between target hardening and burglary. However, burglary reduction was only one of the objectives underpinning the target hardening of properties in Liverpool. Thus, the analysis did not take into account the relationships between target hardening and other factors such as reductions in other types of crime, improvements in residents’ quality of life, impacts on neighborhood satisfaction, and housing demand.

Construction of Property Profiles

Data on the presence or absence of burglary and/or (publicly funded) hardening at each property and the timing of these “events” were used to construct a series of PPCs. These were mutually exclusive groups defined by the trajectory of events affecting each property during the 2.5-year monitoring period and effectively classified properties according to their vulnerability to burglary, receipt of target hardening, and subsequent outcomes. The following PPCs were identified:

692

Download more at Learnclax.com

1. neither burgled nor target hardened; 2. burgled and never target hardened; 3. never burgled, target hardened, no subsequent burglary; 4. prior burglary, then target hardened, no subsequent burglary; 5. prior burglary, then target hardened, subsequently burgled; and 6. no prior burglary, target hardened, then subsequently burgled.

The first category accounted for the vast majority of properties in Liverpool (94%). Properties in this group were not included in the analysis as they did not appear in either the burglary or target-hardening data sets. The analyses concentrated on Categories 2 through 6. In all categories other than Categories 2 and 3, both burglary and target-hardening episodes had occurred at the properties in question albeit in a different order. Category 2 identified properties that were vulnerable but never protected; Category 3 defined properties that had been protected but never victimized either prior to target hardening or subsequently (i.e., up to the end of the monitoring period). Of particular interest from a policy evaluation point of view was Category 4. This group provided some indication of the fate of properties with a burglary history that had been protected through target hardening. Categories 5 and 6, on the other hand, identified properties where target-hardening measures had not resulted in immunity to future victimization.

Interestingly, because the linked records contained data on the type of target hardening implemented and expenditure levels, the modus operandi of the burglary, and the dates of each burglary and target-hardening “event,” it was possible to explore variations in these variables between each PPC. Thus, differences between PPCs in repeat victimization, the duration of intervals between burglaries, and concentrations of both burglary and target hardening within crime hot spots and other zones could all be explored. Initial analyses involved calculating the number and proportion of properties in each category and identifying levels of repeat victimization.

A GIS was used to generate a map of burglary hot spots on which the distribution of properties in each PPC

could be plotted.4 Thus, it was possible to visualize the distribution of properties in relation to hot spots generally and by the intensity of crime (i.e., burglary) within them. The GIS was also used to count the number of properties found in hot spots with different intensities of burglary. Thus, the extent to which properties in each PPC fell into the most intense high-crime areas could be established.

Results

The findings from the analyses reported here focus mainly on properties occupying each of the mutually exclusive PPCs. The number and percentage of properties falling into each PPC is displayed in two pie charts, Figures 1 and 2, below. The first pie chart (Figure 1) expresses the number of properties in each PPC as a percentage of all monitored properties (i.e., either target hardened, burgled, or both). The second pie chart (Figure 2) shows the number and percentage of target-hardened properties occupying each PPC.

Figure 1 Burglary Profile of Properties Either Target Hardened or Burgled (Monitored Properties), 2005– 2007

693

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: PPC = property profile categories.

694

Download more at Learnclax.com

Figure 2 Burglary Profile of Target-Hardened Properties Only (2005–2007)

Note: PPC = property profile categories.

695

Download more at Learnclax.com

The first PPC (not shown in Figures 1 or 2) contains properties that were neither burgled nor target hardened during the monitoring period. This category represents the overwhelming majority (94%) of Liverpool’s properties and highlights the fact that although domestic burglary is classified as a “high-volume crime,” it still affects only a small proportion of the total housing stock. Inevitably, an unknown number of properties in this major category would have experienced burglaries that were not reported to the police. A further unknown number of properties will have been protected by privately funded security measures although, regrettably, data were not available on these.

The second largest category (PPC2, Figure 1) includes those properties that were burgled during the monitoring period but did not receive target hardening. These 11,607 properties constituted 6% of all Liverpool properties and 87% of all monitored properties. Thus, the overwhelming majority of properties that had been victimized had not received publicly funded target hardening.

The question then arises as to which properties did receive target-hardening measures. Target-hardened properties were divided into four groups (PPCs 3 through 6, shown in Figure 2). Most of them (1,466 or 84% of the total) fell into PPC3 (namely, properties that were target hardened although they had not been burgled prior to the intervention nor subsequently, that is, up to the end of the monitoring period). PPCs 4 and 5 represent the 10% of monitored properties (178) that were burgled prior to target hardening. The 159 properties in PPC4 were free of burglary subsequent to target hardening. This sequence accords most closely with the desired outcomes of the target hardening program. Although representing just 9% of all properties target hardened, these 159 properties actually accounted for 60% of target-hardened and burgled properties indicating some degree of success for target hardening.

The two remaining PPCs identify properties that were burgled after they were target hardened. Neither sequence accords to the desired program outcomes. The larger of the groups, with 94 properties (6% of all those target hardened), was PPC6, namely, properties without burglary prior to target hardening that were subsequently victimized. The fate of these properties is counterintuitive, a reversal of the anticipated outcomes of situational crime prevention. Clearly, in this case, target hardening appears not to have been effective in preventing a burglary. Although this might have been the case, an alternative proposition, namely, that target hardening raised the risk of burglary is less tenable. The remaining unsatisfactory scenario is PPC5: properties that were burgled, target hardened and then burgled again. This was a much smaller group comprising just 19 properties.

Repeat Victimization

Future burglary risk increases with the number of prior burglaries experienced; this emphasizes the need to direct burglary prevention toward prior victims and repeat victims (Ashton, Brown, Senior, & Pease, 1998; Everson & Pease, 2001; Farrell, 2005). Targeting of repeatedly victimized properties was lower than would be expected. Of the 1,663 homes that experienced two or more burglaries over the analysis period, only 82 (5%) were target hardened. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the level of repeat victimization in PPC2, those 11,607 properties that experienced burglary but had not been protected with target hardening during the monitoring period. Within this group, there were 1,581 properties that had been repeatedly victimized with

696

Download more at Learnclax.com

over 300 burgled three or more times. The research literature suggests that these would be the most appropriate candidates for protection through target hardening and yet, as shown in Table 2, only a small fraction of target-hardening resources were directed at such properties.

Table 1

* 15 of these properties contained ‘multiple addresses’

Table 2

The prior burglary histories of the 1,738 target-hardened properties are provided in Table 2. Of these, just under 89.8% (1,560) had no prior burglary. It is possible that some of the latter may have been burgled just prior to the monitoring period and/or may have been targeted due to their close proximity to other burglaries. Most of the target hardening covering burgled properties went to those burgled just once. Only 2% (3) of target-hardened properties had experienced repeat victimization. Therefore, while 87% of burgled properties had not been target hardened, just under 90% of target-hardened properties had not been burgled previously. It is somewhat surprising that such a small proportion of target hardening was directed toward properties with

697

Download more at Learnclax.com

a prior history of burglary given that this group is the most vulnerable to subsequent burglary. Importantly, these statistics would not have emerged without linking burglary addresses to those of target-hardened properties.

Clearly, information beyond the mere sequence of events is needed to interpret the different scenarios represented by the PPCs. Additional insights can be gained by examining the location of the properties (low- vs. high-crime areas), the proportion of attempted versus successful burglaries, changes in offender modus operandi, and differences in outcome by type of target hardening. Other factors such as the responsible use of target hardening and how well maintained the equipment is over time, although important, were beyond the remit of this research.

Some of these factors are examined briefly, below. However, the main point to be emphasized here is that linking burglary and target-hardening data at the individual address level generates valuable insights not only about the efficacy of resource allocation decisions but also about vulnerability, risk and outcomes for individual properties.

High-Crime Areas

The inclusion of a range of geographical codes for each property afforded the opportunity to explore relationships between victimization, target hardening, and the spatial concentration both of burglary and target-hardening activity. Of particular interest, in this context, is the relationship between victimization, target hardening, and outcomes at the property level represented by the PPCs and geographical variations in the concentration of crime.

Disaggregate burglary data were used to define burglary hot spots of varying intensity within Liverpool. Although hot spots can change in location and intensity over time, the hot spots identified remained relatively stable over the period. A hot-spot intensity score was assigned to each monitored property based on its proximity to the hot-spot areas, and properties were assigned into quintiles according to the level of burglary risk at their location. The concentration of properties in burglary hot spots by PPC for the entire monitoring period (July 2005 to December 2007) is shown in Table 3.

Table 3

698

Download more at Learnclax.com

Burgled properties overall were categorized into five equal groups from lowest risk of burglary to highest risk of burglary based on burglary hot spots. For properties “burgled and target hardened” during the monitoring period (irrespective of the order of events), almost two thirds of these were situated in the two highest area risk categories for burglary. Forty percent of those “burgled, target hardened, and then burgled again” (PPC5) were in the most intense burglary hot spots, and 33% of those “not burgled, target hardened, and subsequently burgled” (PPC6) were also in this highest risk areas. However, a far larger proportion (86%) of the properties that had been target hardened despite not having been burgled (PPC3) were also located in hot spots with the highest burglary risk (i.e., Quintiles 4 and 5). This possibly accounts for why they were target hardened even though they had not been victimized.

The message emanating from this analysis is that there was a clear area-based dimension underpinning the allocation of target hardening. This was strongest for properties target hardened without any prior or subsequent burglary (PPC3) followed by those previously burgled, target hardened, and then free from burglary (PPC4). In both cases, properties were in the most intense burglary hot spots where, arguably, the risks of being targeted by offenders were greatest.

Viewed in isolation from this spatial context, the decision to concentrate so much of the target hardening on nonvictimized properties might be regarded as questionable and unjust. However, with the knowledge that 86% of the properties were, in fact, located in Liverpool’s highest crime hot spots, the decision makes more sense. A closer analysis of the spatial distribution of target hardening, reported in an earlier article, revealed a strong concentration of activity in Liverpool’s Neighbourhood Renewal Areas and other regeneration zones (Newton et al., 2008). This reflected the fact that target hardening was seen as a means of boosting neighborhood satisfaction and as a way of strengthening housing demand in deprived communities as well as a set of interventions for reducing burglary. The allocation of target hardening has focused attention on high- crime areas rather than individual high-risk properties. The following section considers the impact that this patterning of crime prevention activity has had on the effectiveness of the intervention.

The Cost Effectiveness of Target Hardening

699

Download more at Learnclax.com

The effectiveness of target hardening was assessed by comparing the incidence of burglary in target-hardened properties before and after installation with the incidence of burglary for comparable periods in non-target- hardened home. Estimates of “expected burglaries” for the period following target hardening would change in the same way as in the non-target-hardened properties (for more details on this methodology, see Bowers, Johnson, & Hirschfield, 2004a; Johnson et al., 2004). The availability of individual property-level data offers the potential to refine this method considerably by enabling anticipated changes in crime to be applied specifically to those properties that have been target hardened rather than to all properties within an area, many of which would not have been protected.

Over the monitoring period, the total burglaries observed in the target-hardened properties were 163 and were fewer than the number of burglaries expected based on the change in the non-target-hardened properties. This suggests a small net reduction in burglary. However, given the £917,761 investment in target hardening and the estimated value of the prevented burglaries of £527,128 (Duborg, Hamed, & Thorns, 2005), the cost benefit ratio for the initiative over the period was 0.57, meaning that for every £1 invested in target hardening only 57p was returned in benefits. At less than one, this ratio indicates that the target-hardening initiative had failed to break even. Importantly, analysis of burglary change and cost effectiveness was repeated for each of the 30 electoral wards within Liverpool revealing notable variations. The cost benefits of target hardening varied dramatically across the city from 61.2 to –14.9 (with a mean of 15). Initial investigations into the factors underlying this variation have pointed to the role of targeting. As shown in Table 4, the greatest cost benefits returns were found neither in the wards with the highest rate of, or spend on, target hardening nor in the wards with the highest level of burglary, but in those wards in which the greatest proportion of target- hardening activity was directed toward properties with a prior history of burglary. This strong positive correlation was highly significant. This analysis, albeit preliminary, suggests that while across Liverpool there was a close alignment between areas of crime prevention activity and high burglary, this does not guarantee the targeting of those properties at greatest risk, and it is at the individual level that targeting appears to be most important to the effectiveness of the intervention.

Table 4n

Note: ns = correlation is not significant.

a. Spearman rho.

* p < .05 (two-tailed).

** p < .01 (two-tailed).

700

Download more at Learnclax.com

Further Insights Into Burglary and Target Hardening

Further light can be shed on both the nature of the burglary event and the performance of target hardening by scrutinizing offender modus operandi, the balance between successful and attempted burglaries, and the impact of different interventions across the PPC. It is possible that burglaries following a target-hardening event could either be unsuccessful attempts (demonstrating that target hardening has been successful) or committed through insecure doors or windows (because target hardening may not have been operational at the time of the burglary). However, these explanations were not borne out by the analysis. Although 15% (25) of burglaries occurring subsequent to target hardening (PPCs 5 and 6) were attempted burglaries, this is equivalent to the overall proportion of attempted burglaries across Liverpool. Therefore, the proportion of attempted burglaries did not appear to be higher for target-hardened properties that were subsequently victimized.

The proportion of distraction burglaries among PPCs 5 and 6 (less than 1%) was equivalent to that for the rest of Liverpool. This negates the possibility that burglaries following target hardening occurred as a result of a tactical shift to distraction burglary. Of the 162 burglaries occurring at properties that had previously been target hardened (PPCs 5 and 6), 20% (32) were committed via insecure doors or windows, which is only marginally lower than the proportion of insecure burglaries across Liverpool (22%).

There were few discernable differences in the level or variety of target-hardening measures received between target-hardened properties that were subsequently burgled and those that were not. Properties in the four PPCs that were target hardened received an average of two to three different types of products. No significant association was found between the number of target-hardening product types and the occurrence of a repeat burglary. The same was true with respect to the total number of burglaries following interventions. However, as shown in Table 5 below, those properties suffering a burglary following target hardening (PPCs 5 and 6) were less likely to have received passive infra-red (PIR) lighting than properties not suffering a subsequent burglary (PPCs 3 and 4). However, the numbers in these categories were small and the difference was not statistically significant.

Table 5

Note: PIR= Passive Infra-Red Sensor lighting that comes on when motion is detected; PPC = property profile categories.

Linking Burglary and Target Hardening: Policy Challenges

701

Download more at Learnclax.com

By linking the analysis of crime and crime prevention patterns, this article has identified that despite a close alignment between crime and crime prevention activity at an area level, only a minority of the properties at highest risk of burglary were provided with target hardening. No victimized properties appear to have been target hardened due to their proximity to intense burglary hot spots; however, the success of this strategy will necessarily be limited if the victimized and repeat-victimized properties contributing to high-burglary rates are not themselves protected. This argument is supported by the evidence that cost effectiveness was improved when the intervention was targeted at the property level. Further investigation is needed to understand the dynamics of targeting and the competing benefits of property versus area-based targeting.

Findings from the evaluation suggested possible reasons why practitioners favored area-based targeting. First, area-based implementation is more straightforward to plan, timetable, and coordinate proving logistically more straightforward and more economical to implement. Second, to target at-risk properties, they must first be identified and located, a more complex task than the identification of high-crime areas. The profiles presented in this article are the culmination of considerable data processing and cross-referencing involving the joining of target-hardening and burglary data and their integration with sophisticated spatial analysis software. The availability of data and the ability of practitioners to make the best use of information to inform their targeting decisions may be a factor in the targeting strategies adopted. The effectiveness of property-level targeting will hinge on the extent and nature of data sharing, data quality, and the availability of skills and software. Finally, burglary reduction was only one of the policy objectives for which target hardening was implemented. The various policy objectives were not necessarily in competition; to the contrary, there is an apparent synergy to the policy aims of crime reduction, neighborhood regeneration, and neighborhood satisfaction. However, attempting to combine these priorities may have diluted the impact on burglary reduction.

Conclusions

Research on burglary and target hardening is not generally conducted at the level of the individual property and certainly not for large numbers of properties spanning a city the size of Liverpool. Thus, individual properties have not been the primary units of analysis for exploring relationships between burglary and target hardening. This article has demonstrated not only that analysis at the level of the individual property is possible but also that by doing so new insights can be gained about burglary risk, the presence or absence of protective measures, and burglary outcomes over selected time periods. Thus, it has been possible to generate new data about the burglary status of target-hardened properties and about the target-hardening status of burgled properties. This has been explored by the frequency of victimization and according to the extent to which properties were located in burglary hot spots differentiated by the intensity of crime found within them.

Some of the results were unexpected. For example, a large number of properties that were repeatedly burgled were not protected by target hardening; conversely, many of those that were protected by target hardening had not been burgled, and many of the nonvictimized properties that were target hardened were located in the most intense crime hot spots where the risks of victimization were greatest. Thus, although target hardening predominantly took place in high-crime areas, this did not guarantee the protection of the highest risk

702

Download more at Learnclax.com

properties within these areas. Of concern is the finding that the strategies for allocating target hardening may have diluted the cost effectiveness of the program in reducing burglary. None of this would have been apparent without linked data on burglary and target hardening for individual households.

There is considerable scope to broaden the range of analyses reported in this article. Geographically referenced, individual-level property data pave the way for even more ambitious analyses. For example, the interval between burglaries for individual properties can be considered in the same way as periods of desistance from crime of individual offenders. This raises the prospect of applying survival analysis used in recidivism studies to evaluate the impact of intensive supervision and other interventions on desistence from crime to compare intervals between burglaries for protected and nonprotected properties. The results from experimental research, that has already been undertaken in this area (Bowers, Lab, & Johnson, 2008), is encouraging and suggests that this might be a viable approach for evaluating the impact of target hardening in both preventing and delaying victimization.

This article has focused on the geographical alignment of the risk of crime and crime prevention activities. However, risk may not be the only concern of policy makers. Millie (2008) and Ekblom and Sidebottom (2008) have highlighted the need to consider the risk, vulnerability, and impact of crime separately. This raises questions regarding how to prioritize target hardening based on the likely risk and potential consequences of burglary, should properties with the highest risk of burglary be targeted or those residents deemed to be more vulnerable to the consequence of burglary, or some combination of or all of these factors. It is apparent that analysis of the crime patterns in isolation from the policy environment can result in the prescription of crime prevention solutions that are not practical, desirable, or effective in practice. Moving forward requires the integration of crime theory with an improved understanding of the practicalities of delivery and the wider policy goals of crime prevention.

Discussion Questions

1. One of the findings was that targeting properties that had prior burglary risk would be most effective in burglary intervention. How important is this finding for victimization reduction programming overall?

2. What do these findings suggest about the theoretical explanations for repeat victimization: the flag and boost explanations identified by Hirschfield et al. that are similar to risk heterogeneity and state dependence?

3. What are your impressions of target hardening as a prevention strategy for burglary? What else can be done to prevent burglary victimization? Is target hardening enough? Why or why not?

Notes

1. In England and Wales, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Police Reform Act 2002 place a duty on specific agencies to form partnerships within the community and to tackle crime, disorder, and misuse of drugs. This partnership in Liverpool is known as Citysafe.

2. Target hardening is used to refer to all measures covered by the Liverpool Citysafe “Target-Hardening

703

Download more at Learnclax.com

Strategy.” The authors acknowledge that some of these improvements, for example lighting, may not be viewed as strictly target-hardening strategies as they do not improve the actual physical toughness of a property.

3. The Housing Market Renewal Initiative is a national program aiming to rebuild housing markets and communities in areas where demand for housing is weak and which have seen a significant decline in population, dereliction, poor services, and poor social conditions as a result. The neighborhood Renewal Fund is a nonprescriptive grant, which has been made available to England’s most deprived areas.

4. The hot-spot analysis technique employed was Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) interpolation, using CrimeStat 3 (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/CRIMESTAT/). See Newton, Rogerson, and Hirschfield (2008) for further discussion of the methodology used.

References Anderson, D., Chenery, S., & Pease, K. (1995). Biting back: Tackling repeat burglary and car crime (Crime

Detection and Prevention Series No. 58). London: Home Office.

Ashton, J., Brown, B., Senior, B., & Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimization: Offender accounts. International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention, 3, 269–279.

Bottoms, A., & Wiles, P. (1988). Crime and housing policy: A framework for crime prevention analysis. In T. Hope & M. Shaw (Eds.), Communities and crime reduction (pp. 84–98). London: HMSO.

Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., & Hirschfield, A. (2004a). Closing off opportunities for crime: An evaluation of alley-gating. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10, 283–308.

Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., & Hirschfield, A. (2004b). The measurement of crime prevention intensity and its impact on level of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 419–440.

Bowers, K. J., Lab, S. P., & Johnson, S. D. (2008). Evaluating crime prevention: The potential of using individual-level matched control designs. Policing, 2, 218–225.

Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1993). Environmental routine and situation: Towards a pattern theory of crime. Advances in Criminological Theory, 5, 259–294.

Chenery, S., Holt, J., & Pease, K. (1997). Biting back II: Reducing repeat victimization in Huddersfield (Crime and Prevention Series No. 82). London: Home Office.

704

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/CRIMESTAT/

Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal. New York: Springer Verlang.

Coupe, R. T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44, 431–463.

Duborg, R., Hamed, J., & Thorns, J. (2005). The economic and social costs of crime against individuals. London: Home Office.

Ekblom, P., & Sidebottom, A. (2008). What do you mean, “Is it secure?” Redesigning language to be fit for the task of assessing the security of domestic and personal electronic goods. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 14, 61–87.

Everson, S., & Pease, K. (2001). Crime against the same person and place: Detection opportunity and offender targeting. In G. Farrell & K. Pease (Eds.), Repeat victimization (pp. 199–220). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Farrell, G. (2005). Progress and prospects in the prevention of repeat victimization. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 143–170). Collumpton, UK: Willan.

Groff, E., & La Vigne, N. (2001). Mapping an opportunity surface of residential burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 257–278.

Hamilton-Smith, N., & Kent, A. (2005). Preventing domestic burglary. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 415–457). Collumpton, UK: Willan.

Hirschfield, A. (2004). The impact of the Reducing Burglary Initiative in the north of England (Home Office Online Report 40/04). London: Home Office.

Hirschfield, A., & Newton, A. (2008). The crime-crime prevention relationship: A Manchester case study. Built Environment, 34, 104–120.

705

Download more at Learnclax.com

Johnson, S. D., Bowers, K. J., Jordan, P., Mallender, J., Davidson, N., & Hirschfield, A. (2004). Estimating crime reduction outcomes: How many crimes were prevented? Evaluation, 10, 327–348.

Millie, A. (2008). Vulnerability and risk: Some lessons from the U.K. Reducing Burglary Initiative. Police Practice & Research, 9, 183–198.

Millie, A., & Hough, M. (2004). Assessing the impact of the Reducing Burglary Initiative in Southern England and Wales. Home Office Online Report 42/24, London: Home Office.

Nee, C., & Taylor, M. (2000). Residential burglary in the Republic of Ireland: A situational perspective. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 105–116.

Newton, A. D., Rogerson, M., & Hirschfield, A. (2008). Relating target hardening to burglary risk: Experiences from Liverpool. Papers from the British Criminology Conference: An Online Journal Published by the British Society of Criminology, 8, 153–174.

Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimization: Taking stock (Crime Prevention & Detection Paper 90). London: Home Office.

Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2003). Infectious burglaries: A test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 615–633.

Trickett, A., Osborn, D. R., Seymour, J., & Pease, K. (1992). What is different about high-crime areas? British Journal of Criminology, 32, 18–89.

Tseloni, A. M., & Pease, K. (2003). Repeat personal victimization: “Flags” or “boosts”? British Journal of Criminology, 43, 196–212.

Walker, A., Kershaw, C., & Nicholas, S. (2009). Crime in England and Wales 2008/9. London: Home Office.

Wright, R. T., Logie, R. H., & Decker, S. H. (1995). Criminal expertise and offender decision making: An experimental study of target selection process in residential burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 39–53.

706

Download more at Learnclax.com

707

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 21

Identity theft victimization is becoming a hot topic for victimologists to research. As people turn to computers for work, entertainment, business, and banking, the opportunities for becoming a target are plenty. The reasons why some people have their identity stolen whereas others do not have not fully been explored. Bradford W. Reyns (2013) examines whether routine activities theory is a viable perspective to understanding why identity theft occurs to some. He identifies what specific online routines place individuals at an increased risk of becoming a victim of this type of crime.

Online Routines and Identity Theft Victimization: Further Expanding Routine Activity Theory Beyond Direct-Contact Offenses

Bradford W. Reyns

SOURCE: Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50 (2), 216–238.

Identity theft is a term used to categorize several offenses involving the fraudulent use of an individual’s personal information for criminal purposes and without their consent. Crimes typically associated with identity theft include credit card fraud, banking fraud, and document fraud, among others. Few empirical studies of identity theft victimization have been published, but available evidence suggests that identity theft is becoming a growing problem (Baum 2007; Langton and Baum 2010; Levi 2008; Smith 2010).

The routine activities perspective has demonstrated its usefulness in accounting for a variety of types of criminal victimization (e.g., burglary, larceny, stalking; Spano and Freilich 2009). As Tillyer and Eck (2009) have pointed out, the theory has primarily been focused upon offenders who make contact with their targets at places. However, many crimes do not require direct contact at a physical location. This has prompted Tillyer and Eck to conclude that “either routine activities theory is limited to place-based crimes or it needs revision” (2009:286). Early efforts to apply routine activity theory to crimes in which the victim and offender do not intersect in time and space have yielded mixed, but encouraging results (e.g., Choi 2008; Holt and Bossier 2009; Holtfreter et al. 2008; Marcum, Higgins, and Ricketts 2010; Pratt et al. 2010). These studies have focused upon online forms of victimization such as harassment, computer virus infection, and fraud victimization, and suggest that more work is needed both in identifying online routine activities that might place Internet users at greater risk of different types of online victimization, and in applying the theory to explain crimes at a distance. The current study addresses both of these issues by examining identity theft victimization from a routine activities perspective.

Identity Theft Victimization

Although the extant routine activities literature has explored many different types of victimization, it has not yet been empirically tested on identity theft victimization. Identity theft became a federal crime in the United States in 1998 with the passage of the Identity Theft Assumption and Deterrence Act. According to this act, identity theft occurs when, knowingly and without legal authority, an individual’s identity is appropriated with the intent to aid or engage in unlawful activity. Although identity theft is a complex concept that has assumed

708

Download more at Learnclax.com

a variety of ambiguous meanings, this definition is consistent with that provided by Koops and Leenes (2006:556) who defined it as “fraud or another unlawful activity where the identity of an existing person is used as a target or principal tool without that person’s consent.” Examples of identity theft based on these definitions include bank fraud, credit card fraud, and document fraud. As Koops and Leenes (2006) pointed out, the identity theft label is further complicated when the term is used synonymously with identity fraud (Finch 2007; McNally and Newman 2008). According to the authors, identity fraud is “fraud committed with identity as a target or principal tool” (Koops and Leenes 2006:556). As an example, a secretary may be instructed by his or her employer to sign documents that he or she is not authorized to sign, thereby committing identity fraud. It follows then that identity theft is a category of identity fraud, but incidents of identity fraud do not necessarily constitute identity theft. The key differences between these two terms are consent and whether the identity belongs to someone.

Identity theft is a crime in which the victim and offender seldom meet face-to-face. Common methods of obtaining the victim’s identity include phishing, skimming, hacking, or theft of actual identification documents (e.g., driver’s license, social security card). Recent estimates of identity theft indicate that it is a growing problem and that an increasing number of cases of identity theft involve the theft of personal information via the Internet (Finch 2007; see also Levi 2008 for a discussion of card not present frauds). These cases of Internet fraud take many forms, and involve various aspects of Internet use (e.g., e-mail, banking), with offenders increasingly finding inventive ways to access their targets—the victim’s personal information (Finch 2003; Newman and Clarke 2003; Smith 2010). Once the thief has the victim’s stolen information, it is possible to apply for credit cards or loans using the victim’s identity, acquire a driver’s license with the victim’s name (but the offender’s picture), or apply for government benefits using the victim’s identity (FTC 2010).

Little empirical criminological research has examined identity theft victimization or investigated the factors that place individuals at risk for this type of victimization. However, recent fraud victimization studies have identified low self-control, routine activities, and victim characteristics as important correlates of fraud victimization (e.g., Holtfreter et al. 2008, 2010; Titus, Heinzelmann, and Boyle 1995; van Wilsem 2011), underscoring the need for similar work with identity theft victimization. An examination of identity theft from a routine activities perspective is far overdue, and will contribute both to the identity theft victimization literature and to the routine activities literature.

Routine Activities, Crimes at a Distance, and Identity Theft Victimization

Criminologists have long recognized that technological changes can create new opportunities for crime and victimization (e.g., Clarke 2004; Cohen and Felson 1979; Newman and Clarke 2003). For instance, Clarke (2004:55) has argued that “the Internet has created a completely new environment in which traditional crimes —fraud, identity theft and child pornography—can take new forms and prosper.” Indeed, few technological innovations have had the immense impact upon societal routine activities as the advent of the Internet. According to some sources, nearly 2 billion individuals use the Internet, and in some regions of the world, a substantial portion of the population routinely accesses the Internet (Internet World Stats 2010). Recent

709

Download more at Learnclax.com

estimates suggest that approximately 77 percent of residents of North America are online, an increase of 146 percent since the year 2000. In Europe, 58 percent of residents use the Internet, which is an increase of over 350 percent since 2000 (Internet World Stats 2010). Online criminal opportunities have kept pace with these societal changes in routine activities (Clarke 2004; Newman and Clarke 2003; Reyns 2010).

Routine activity theory explains the circumstances under which opportunities for criminal victimization occur. Originally, Cohen and Felson (1979) focused upon societal routine activities, especially a greater propensity for women to be away from the home (leaving the home unguarded), as an explanation for increased crime rates in the United States following World War II. At the time routine activity theory was introduced by Cohen and Felson (1979), the Internet did not exist, and the assumption was that most offenses would transpire between a motivated offender and a suitable target at a physical location in the absence of capable guardians. Similar to the changes that occurred following World War II, our global society may be experiencing a shift in its routine activities—not a shift in activities away from the home per se, but a shift toward greater participation in remote activities. That is, activities that formerly required one to be physically present at a specific location, often at a specific time, can now be undertaken regardless of the individual’s physical location or time of day (e.g., online classes, online shopping). Further, as such technologies continue to advance, access to the Internet and the capability to participate in these remote activities continue to grow. This growth in remote, Internet-based routine activities and the subsequent profusion of criminal opportunities has necessitated an adaptation of the theory to crimes in which the offender and target do not physically meet.

Eck and Clarke (2003:34) have suggested that routine activity theory can be expanded to explain crimes in which the victim and offender do not interact at the same physical location:

Routine activity theory can be expanded to accommodate action at a distance by making one modification. If the target and the offender are part of the same geographically dispersed network, then the offender may be able to reach the target through the network.

In other words, although the victim and offender may not occupy or interact within the same physical location, the integrity of theory is maintained by an interaction of the victim and offender within a network. It is the convergence of motivated offenders and suitable targets within unguarded systems or networks that creates circumstances conducive to victimization. This expanded conceptualization of routine activity theory in which the network facilitates interaction between victim and offender is useful in applying the theory to identity theft victimization, as well as to other crimes in which the victim and offender never interact in the same place.

A growing body of research has investigated the role of online routine activities in explaining online forms of victimization (e.g., Choi 2008; Holt and Bossier 2009; Holtfreter et al. 2008; Marcum et al. 2010; Pratt et al. 2010). However, no study to date has empirically examined identity theft victimization from a routine activities perspective. Still, those studies examining fraud victimization, a related crime, shed light on the potential correlates of identity theft victimization. For instance, Pratt and his colleagues (2010) utilized

710

Download more at Learnclax.com

routine activity theory to explain fraud targeting among a representative sample of Florida residents. The authors reported that both of their measures of online routine activities, hours spent online and whether the respondent made an Internet purchase, were predictive of Internet fraud targeting. Using the same data as Pratt et al. (2010), Holtfreter and her colleagues (2008) examined the fraud targeting and victimization of Florida residents, highlighting the importance of remote purchasing behaviors (e.g., Internet purchase, telephone purchase) in both fraud targeting and fraud victimization. Further, Reisig, Pratt, and Holtfreter (2009) identified perceived risk of Internet theft victimization as an important influence on online behaviors, reporting that consumers who perceived their risk of victimization to be higher spent less time online and made fewer purchases while online.

Considering the prevalence and seriousness of identity theft, as well as the trend in criminology and victimology toward further developing and refining routine activity theory for application beyond direct- contact offenses, the current study examines identity theft victimization from a routine activities perspective. Identifying risk factors for identity theft victimization will be useful in designing situational strategies to combat this type of crime (Levi 2008; Mann and Sutton 1998; Newman 2008).

Method

Data

Data for the current study were collected in 2008 to 2009 as part of the British Crime Survey (BCS). Once a household is selected, individuals within selected households are listed alphabetically by first name, and a single respondent over 16 years old is randomly chosen to represent the household. Data are collected via face- to-face interviews that are facilitated by computer-assisted personal interviewing.

The sample size for the 2008 to 2009 BCS includes 46,286 residents of England and Wales, and has a response rate of 76 percent. As Table 1 illustrates, the sample utilized in the current study includes 5,985 of these individuals [who were randomly selected to answer module d of the survey]. This group is representative of the larger BCS sample and has the following characteristics: 53 percent female, 93 percent White, 51 percent unmarried, with a mean age of approximately 43 years old.

Table 1

711

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: IM = instant messaging; TV = television. N = 5,985.

Measures

The primary purpose of the current study was to identify risk factors for identity theft victimization by examining specific online routine activities of respondents, their individual characteristics, and their perceptions of risk of victimization. To that end, multiple measures of these concepts were chosen from the BCS data. Table 1 provides the scales and descriptive statistics for these variables.

Dependent variable.

Identity theft involves the fraudulent use of the victim’s identity for the personal benefit of the thief. Two survey items were used to create a measure of identity theft. First, respondents were asked: Have any of your cards been used without your permission or prior knowledge? Responses to this survey item were dichotomized (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Affirmative answers indicated that the respondent had been a victim of credit card fraud, the most common form of identity theft (Baum 2007; Langton and Baum 2010). Respondents were also asked:

712

Download more at Learnclax.com

Have you had money taken from your bank or building society accounts in some way? This survey item reflects whether respondents had been victims of bank or account fraud. Again, responses were dichotomized (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Based on responses to these two survey items, the respondent was identified as a victim of identity theft, meaning that he or she had experienced either credit card fraud or bank/other financial fraud. This measure of identity theft is similar to that utilized in recent administrations of the NCVS (Baum 2007; Langton and Baum 2010). It is important to point out, however, that these two survey items are not online- specific, nor do they necessarily reflect victimization within an online context. This presents a potential limitation to the results of the current study.

Online routine activities.

In an effort to examine Internet specific routine activities, 10 online routine activities measured in the BCS were identified as potential correlates of identity theft. These include using the Internet for the following purposes: (1) online banking or managing finances, (2) buying goods or services (shopping), (3) e-mail or instant messaging (IM), (4) watching television or listening to the radio, (5) reading online newspapers or news Web sites, (6) participating in chat rooms or other forums, (7) reading or writing blogs, (8) downloading music, films, or podcasts, (9) social networking (e.g., Facebook, Myspace, Bebo), or (10) for work or study. Respondents were asked: Which, if any, of the following things do you use the Internet for? Responses were dichotomized (0 = No, 1 = Yes).

Offline routine activities.

A final routine activities measure based on guardianship of the home was included in the analyses. In the case of identity theft, important information about the victim’s identity could be gained by entering the home and physically retrieving it; however, the existing research on identity crimes suggests that thieves are increasingly turning to the Internet as a means of reaching their targets (Holtfreter, Van Slyke, Blomberg 2005). This measure of home guardianship is based on the following survey item: Is your home ever left unoccupied during weekdays? Responses were dummy-coded (0 = No, 1 = Yes).

Individual characteristics.

Individuals’ personal characteristics may influence their risks of identity theft victimization inasmuch as these characteristics are linked to patterns of Internet use and victimization. Considering the connections between individuals’ personal characteristics, their online routines, and victimization, six of these individual characteristics of respondents were included in the analyses: (1) sex (0 = female, 1 = male), (2) race (0 = White, 1 = non-White), (3) age (in years), (4) marital status (0 = not currently married, 1 = married), (5) income (0 = less than £50,000, 1 = more than £50,000), and (6) employment status (0 = unemployed, 1 = employed).

Perceived risk of victimization.

The fear of crime literature suggests that perceived risk of victimization may constrain individuals’ behavior, altering their routine activities (Reisig et al. 2009; Warr 2000). Theoretically, those perceiving their risk of victimization to be higher will expose themselves to fewer risky situations and have a lower likelihood of actual victimization. At the same time, individuals who have previously been victimized may consider themselves at

713

Download more at Learnclax.com

greater risk of victimization and adjust their routines accordingly. To measure perceived risk, respondents

were asked the following question: How likely do you think you are to be a victim of bank or credit card fraud in the next year? Answer choices included: (1 = very likely, 2 = fairly likely, 3 = fairly unlikely, 4 = very unlikely). Respondents’ answers were reverse coded for the analyses, with higher scores indicating a greater perceived risk of identity theft victimization.

Analytic Strategy

The analyses proceeded in two stages. First, a baseline binary logistic regression model was estimated including only respondents’ individual characteristics on their victimization. Second, a full binary logistic regression model was estimated that included respondents’ individual characteristics as well as their routine activities and perceived risk variables. Since prior research and theory suggests that lifestyles and routine activities mediate the relationship between individual characteristics and victimization, this two-step modeling process allows for an evaluation of this proposition.

Results

Binary Logistic Regression Analysis

As model 1 in Table 2 illustrates, four individual characteristics of respondents were statistically significant indicators of victimization. Age was positively and significantly related to victimization, and although the effect was modest, older persons were at an increased likelihood of experiencing identity theft. Also, married persons were about 25 percent more likely to be victims of identity theft compared to unmarried persons. Additionally, those with higher incomes (more than £50,000) were nearly 60 percent more likely to be victimized compared to those making less than £50,000. Finally, being employed increased victimization risk about 25 percent compared to being unemployed. According to model 2 in Table 2, two of these effects remained after the theoretical variables were added to the model, suggesting as hypothesized that lifestyles and routine activities mediate the effects of individual characteristics on victimization. However, the effects of age and income remained. Additionally, as model 2 indicates, males were more likely to experience identity theft victimization compared to females.

Table 2

714

Download more at Learnclax.com

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

As model 2 illustrates, four of the online routine activity variables were associated with statistically significant increases in the likelihood of identity theft victimization. First, those respondents who used the Internet for banking and managing their finances were significantly more likely to be victims of identity theft. These individuals were about 50 percent more likely to experience identity theft than those who did not do any online banking. Second, consistent with prior research, those who indicated that they shopped online were about 30 percent more likely than those who did not shop online to be victimized (Holtfreter et al. 2008; Pratt et al. 2010). Third, e-mailing and using instant messengers (IM) increased individuals’ risks of victimization by over 50 percent. Fourth, respondents who indicated they downloaded music, movies, or other

715

Download more at Learnclax.com

media while online were at increased victimization risk compared to those who did not download these materials. This is not surprising given that research has identified downloading materials off of the Internet as a risk factor for other types of online victimization (Choi 2008).

The final relationship of theoretical importance is the relationship between perceived risk of identity theft victimization and actual victimization. Those identifying themselves as at risk of victimization were nearly three times more likely to experience identity theft. It is not clear why this is the case. It may be that some perceive their risk to be higher because they have previously been victimized. Supplemental analyses support this hypothesis, with victims having higher mean perceptions of risk than non-victims (2.91 compared to 2.28). It may also be, as Reisig et al. (2009) reported, that financially impulsive respondents perceive their risks of victimization to be higher. Explaining the relationship between perceptions of risk and actual identity theft victimization remains an open empirical question.

Discussion

The current study makes three important contributions to the criminology and victimology literatures. First, this is among the first studies to empirically examine identity theft from a victimization perspective. The results suggest that online banking, shopping, communicating (e-mail, IM), and downloading can be considered risky online routines that expose users to the threat of identity theft. However, the question that remains is why this is the case. Although individuals who use the Internet for these purposes may be at greater risk of victimization, avoiding these activities altogether would be an unnecessary restriction on users’ behavior. Instead, the results underscore the importance of network security, target hardening, and educated use of the Internet. One plausible explanation for these results is that, as routine activity theory would suggest, identity theft victimization occurs when a motivated offender and suitable target intersect within a network characterized as having low levels of guardianship. Therefore, it may be that online banking is risky only within unguarded networks or those that are susceptible to access by motivated offenders. An example may be accessing the Internet wirelessly from a laptop using a public Wi-Fi connection, such as those available in airports, hotels, and restaurants. Typing sensitive information such as passwords, credit card, or bank account numbers while connected to a public Wi-Fi network allows motivated hackers who are on the same network to access that information. While data on the type of Internet connection used by respondents were not available in the BCS, future research should consider the effect of type of network connection and other security features on the likelihood of identity theft victimization.

Certain respondent characteristics also increased individuals’ odds of victimization. Males, older individuals, and those with higher incomes were more likely to experience identity theft compared to females, young people, and those earning less than £50,000 per year. According to routine activity theory, the effects of these characteristics should be mediated by individuals’ routine activities, suggesting that there may be lifestyle differences or differences in online routine activities that were not considered herein. It may also be that frequency and/or duration of certain online activities varies by gender, age, or income. For example, perhaps individuals with higher incomes make a greater number of purchases online and therefore provide more opportunities for their information to be stolen. Or maybe males download more media and for longer periods

716

Download more at Learnclax.com

of time than females. These hypotheses could not be explored, but future research should consider the influence of frequency and duration of online routines on victimization risk.

Second, perceived risk was identified as a strong indicator of identity theft victimization, with those identifying themselves as at risk being almost three times more likely to be victimized. Yet, there has been little work exploring the nature of fear of crime within systems such as the Internet, so the current study adds to this small body of work and points toward directions for future research. Further, the effect of perceived risk observed in the present study may be the result of previous victimization, with those believing themselves to be at risk being repeat victims. Again, delving into this issue was beyond the scope of this study, but it does raise possibilities for future research.

Third, this study adds to a growing body of work applying routine activity theory to crimes at a distance. The Internet connects billions of people, and criminologists and victimologists cannot ignore the fact that these connections provide opportunities for victimization that until recently did not exist (Clarke 2004). The extension of routine activity theory advocated by Eck and Clarke (2003) provides a way to apply the theory to Internet crimes while acknowledging that our conceptions of “place” may need rethinking. The BCS provides a data set capable of testing and applying the theory to identity theft, but cybercrime data of this quality are in short supply. If the field is going to continue to advance in this arena, it is incumbent upon researchers to collect data from different populations and focus on multiple types of online victimization. Thus far, cybercrime research utilizing routine activity theory has yielded mixed results in terms of identifying routine activities that increase victimization risk, but this may be due to differences in methodologies and dependent variables under study. Overall then, more work is needed with respect to applying the theory to cybercrimes and in collecting data that make it possible to do so.

The present study has four potential limitations to consider. First, the two survey items used to construct the dependent variable do not distinguish between online and offline victimization. This allows for the possibility that the significant relationships observed between online routines and victimization may be spurious. Ideally, identity theft victimization measures specific to an online context are required to guard against this problem. Second, this study was limited in the types of online routine activities that could be considered as predictors of identity theft victimization. Further, a thorough test of routine activity theory would require operationalization of all key components of the theory—namely, exposure to motivated offenders, proximity to motivated offenders, target attractiveness, and guardianship. Measures of all of these concepts were not available in the BCS. Third, research has identified low self-control as an important correlate of victimization (e.g., Schreck 1999), particularly in tandem with individuals’ routine activities (e.g., Holtfreter et al. 2008; Schreck, Wright, and Miller 2002; van Wilsem 2011). Unfortunately, measures of low self-control were not available in the current study. Addressing these three measurement issues is a necessary next step in conducting a comprehensive test of routine activity theory on online victimization (i.e., online identity theft). Fourth, the data utilized in this study are cross-sectional; thus causal relationships cannot be established. While previous routine activities research has also utilized cross-sectional survey data (e.g., Fisher et al. 1998; Mustaine and Tewksbury 1998; Pratt et al. 2010), longitudinal data are necessary for establishing time order.

717

Download more at Learnclax.com

Despite these methodological limitations, this study suggests several avenues for future research. First, key theoretical concepts such as guardianship and target attractiveness take on new meanings in cyberspace, which necessitates adapting the concepts to online environments. For example, visual cues may alert offenders to suitable targets, but these cues may not be present if the victim and offender are physically separate. Second, Hindelang et al.’s (1978) lifestyle-exposure theory hypothesizes that demographic characteristics are antecedents to lifestyle. If this is the case, further research is needed to assess whether demographics are also precursors to online lifestyles as these results seem to suggest. Third, few studies have examined the nature or extent of fear of online victimization, perceptions of risk, or how these factors influence actual victimization risk. The current study highlights the need for more work in this area given the finding that perceived risk was a strong predictor of identity theft victimization.

These results also have implications for preventing identity theft victimization, especially given the emphasis on opportunity-reducing strategies shared by routine activity theory and situational crime prevention (Clarke 1995). Situational crime prevention advocates crime- and situation-specific prevention techniques based on manipulating the effort, risks, rewards, provocations, and excuses accompanying criminal behaviors (Cornish and Clarke 2003). The results suggest that these techniques should be focused upon Internet-based banking, shopping, communicating, and downloading activities. Further, Newman and Clarke (2003) have explained that preventing e-commerce crime requires concentrating on online environments or systems characterized by the acronym SCAREM (i.e., Stealth, Challenge, Anonymity, Reconnaissance, Escape, and Multiplicity). Therefore, a focus on systems possessing the qualities of SCAREM that facilitate banking, shopping, communications, and downloading is needed. Sampson, Eck, and Dunham’s (2010) discussion of super controllers can also inform these efforts. For instance, online place managers such as Web designers have the capability of manipulating online environments in the interest of crime prevention, but super controllers (e.g., corporate executives) provide incentives for them to do so, making them an important element in crime prevention strategy. In short, criminal opportunities are quickly evolving, and crime prevention theory, research, and practice must continue to develop to keep pace with the coming changes in technologies.

Discussion Questions

1. Can routine activities theory be used to explain nonpredatory victimization? Why or why not? 2. What specific online routine behaviors increase a person’s risk of becoming an identity theft victim?

Why do these behaviors increase risk? 3. Although not explored in this article, do you think these results would hold for both males and females?

For people of all races? Ages? Explain. 4. How can these findings be used to prevent identity theft victimization?

References Baum, Katrina. 2007. Identity Theft, 2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Choi, Kyung-shick. 2008. “Computer Crime Victimization and Integrated Theory: An Empirical Assessment,” International Journal of Cyber Criminology 2:308–33.

718

Download more at Learnclax.com

Clarke, Ronald V. 1995. “Situational Crime Prevention.” Pp. 91–150 in Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, edited by M. Tonry and D. P. Farrington. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Clarke, Ronald V. 2004. “Technology, Criminology and Crime Science.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 10:55–63.

Cohen, Lawrence E. and Felson Marcus. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review 52:170–83.

Cornish, Derek B. and Clarke Ronald V.. 2003. “Opportunities, Precipitators, and Criminal Decisions: A Reply to Wortley’s Critique of Situational Crime Prevention.” Crime Prevention Studies 16:41–96.

Eck, John E. and Clarke Ronald V.. 2003. “Classifying Common Police Problems: A Routine Activity Approach.” Crime Prevention Studies 16:7–39.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 2010. “About Identity Theft.” Retrieved December 14, 2010 (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/index.html).

Finch, Emily. 2003. “What a Tangled Web We Weave: Identity Theft and the Internet.” Pp. 86–104 in Dot. Cons: Crime, Deviance and Identity on the Internet, edited by Y. Jewkes. Devon, UK: Willan.

Finch, Emily. 2007. “The Problem of Stolen Identity and the Internet.” Pp. 29–43 in Crime Online, edited by Y. Jewkes. Devon, UK: Willan.

Fisher, Bonnie S., Sloan John J., Cullen Francis T., and Lu Chunmeng. 1998. “Crime in the Ivory Tower: The Level and Sources of Student Victimization.” Criminology 36:671–710.

Hindelang, Michael J., Gottfredson Michael R., and Garofalo James. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Holt, Thomas J. and Bossier Adam M.. 2009. “Examining the Applicability of Lifestyle-Routine Activities Theory for Cybercrime Victimization.” Deviant Behavior 30:1–25.

Holtfreter, Kristy, Reisig Michael D., Nicole Leeper Piquero, and Piquero Alex R.. 2010. “Low Self-Control and Fraud: Offending, Victimization, and Their Overlap.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 37:188–203.

719

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/index.html

Holtfreter, Kristy, Reisig Michael D., and Pratt Travis C.. 2008. “Low Self-Control, Routine Activities, and Fraud Victimization.” Criminology 46:189–220.

Holtfreter, Kristy, Slyke Shanna Van, and Blomberg Thomas G.. 2005. “Sociolegal Change in Consumer Fraud: From Victim-Offender Interactions to Global Networks.” Crime, Law and Social Change 44:251–75

Internet World Stats. 2010. “Usage and Population Statistics.” Retrieved December 14, 2010 (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm).

Koops, Bert-Jaap and Leenes Ronald. 2006. “Identity Theft, Identity Fraud and/or Identity-Related Crime: Definitions Matter.” Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 30:553–56.

Langton, Lynn and Baum Katrina. 2010. Identity Theft Reported by Households, 2007. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Levi, Michael. 2008. “Combating Identity and Other Forms of Payment Fraud in the UK: An Analytical History.” Pp. 111–31 in Perspectives on Identity Theft, edited by M. M. McNally and G. R. Newman. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Mann, David and Sutton Mike. 1998. “Netcrime: More Changes in the Organization of Thieving.” British Journal of Criminology 38:201–29.

Marcum, Catherine D., Higgins George E., and Ricketts Melissa L.. 2010. “Potential Factors of Online Victimization of Youth: An Examination of Adolescent Online Behaviors Utilizing Routine Activity Theory.” Deviant Behavior 31:381–410.

McNally, Megan M. and Newman Graeme R.. 2008. “Editors’ Introduction.” Pp. 1–8 in Perspectives on Identity Theft, edited by M. M. McNally and G. R. Newman. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Mustaine, Elizabeth E. and Tewksbury Richard. 1998. “Predicting Risks of Larceny Theft Victimization: A Routine Activity Analysis Using Refined Lifestyle Measures.” Criminology 36:829–57.

Newman, Graeme R. 2008. “Identity Theft and Opportunity.” Pp. 9–31 in Perspectives on Identity Theft, edited by M. M. McNally and G. R. Newman. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

720

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Newman, Graeme R. and Clarke Ronald V.. 2003. Superhighway Robbery: Preventing E-Commerce Crime. Devon, UK: Willan.

Pratt, Travis C., Holtfreter Kristy, and Reisig Michael D.. 2010. “Routine Online Activity and Internet Fraud Targeting: Extending the Generality of Routine Activity Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47:267–96.

Reisig, Michael D., Pratt Travis C., and Holtfreter Kristy. 2009. “Perceived Risk of Internet Theft Victimization: Examining the Effects of Social Vulnerability and Financial Impulsivity.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 36:369–84

Reyns, Bradford W. 2010. “A Situational Crime Prevention Approach to Cyber-stalking Victimization: Preventive Tactics for Internet Users and Online Place Managers.” Crime Prevention and Community Safety 12:99–118.

Sampson, Rana, Eck John E., and Dunham Jessica. 2010. “Super Controllers and Crime Prevention: A Routine Activity Explanation of Crime Prevention Success and Failure.” Security Journal 23:37–51.

Schreck, Christopher J. 1999. “Criminal Victimization and Low Self-Control: An Extension and Test of a General Theory of Crime.” Justice Quarterly 16:633–54.

Schreck, Christopher J., Wright Richard A., and Mitchell Miller J.. 2002. “A Study of Individual and Situational Antecedents of Violent Victimization.” Justice Quarterly 19:159–80.

Smith, Russell G. 2010. “Identity Theft and Fraud.” Pp. 273–301 in Handbook of Internet Crime, edited by Y. Jewkes and M. Yar. Devon, UK: Willan.

Spano, Richard and Freilich Joshua D.. 2009. ‘‘An Assessment of the Empirical Validity and Conceptualization of Individual Level Multivariate Studies of Lifestyle/Routine Activities Theory Published from 1995 to 2005.’’ Journal of Criminal Justice 37:305–14.

Tillyer, Marie S. and Eck John E.. 2009. “Routine Activities.” Pp. 279–87 in 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook, edited by J. M. Miller. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Titus, Richard M., Heinzelmann Fred, and Boyle John M.. 1995. “Victimization of Persons by Fraud.” Crime

721

Download more at Learnclax.com

and Delinquency 41:54–72.

van Wilsem, Jonah. 2011, online first. “‘Bought it, but Never Got it’: Assessing Risk Factors for Online Consumer Fraud Victimization.” European Sociological Review. doi:10.1093/esr/jcr053

Warr, Mark. 2000. Fear of Crime in the United States: Avenues for Research and Policy. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.

722

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section XII Victimization of Special Populations

On February 1, 2011, it was reported that a Swiss social worker had confessed to sexually assaulting 114 disabled children and adults. The man, working as a therapist, assaulted these people in nine different institutions over a 28-year span. He confessed to sexually abusing these people, all of whom were mentally disabled. Seventy-two of them were under the age of 18, and one was only 1 year old! He went so far as to videotape or photograph 18 of the incidents (CNN Wire Staff, 2011). You probably are wondering what could possess a person to do this to individuals under his care. But consider the victims here—these are mentally disabled individuals in institutions. These people may have been especially vulnerable to victimization given their reliance on others for care and their diminished mental capacity.

This section is dedicated to such vulnerable victims. It begins with a discussion of persons who are mentally disabled and then turns to a discussion of persons who are mentally ill. Victimization of persons who are incarcerated is then covered. You may wonder why incarcerated victims are included in the same section as mentally disabled and mentally ill victims, but as you will read, these three groups are at particular risk of being victimized, given their status and unique vulnerability.

723

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization of Persons With Disabilities

Another group of individuals who are especially vulnerable to victimization are people who have disabilities. It may seem odd, at first, to discuss persons with disabilities in the same section as those who are incarcerated. But let’s consider the fact that both groups of people, given their status, are likely targets of would-be offenders. Given what we know about lifestyles and routine activities theories, being a vulnerable target is a key factor in a person’s risk for victimization. For some people, their personal characteristics will place them at particular risk of being victimized while incarcerated. Predators and offenders in prison will target them. The same is true for people with disabilities. Predators and offenders will likely see them as easy marks for a variety of reasons. Because of this, persons with disabilities who are victimized deserve special attention.

Defining Persons With Disabilities

When you first began reading this section, an image of a person with a disability may have come to you. This image may have been of a person with a physical disability or an intellectual disability. Both of these are, in fact, examples of persons with disabilities. But what do these terms mean? A physical disability is present when a person is unable to perform daily activities such as walking, climbing stairs, bathing, getting dressed, and taking care of himself or herself. An intellectual disability falls under the broader category of developmental disability. Developmental disabilities include such things as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, severe learning disabilities, intellectual disability, and autism spectrum disorder (Petersilia, 2001). See Table 12.1 for descriptions of common developmental disabilities. A developmental disability manifests before the age of 22, is long-lasting, and causes severe impairment in at least three of five areas of activity—self-care, language, learning, mobility, and capacity for independent living (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010a). In this section, we mainly discuss persons with physical disabilities, which can occur at any point in life, and persons with developmental disabilities. If the research or study being referenced does not distinguish between developmental and physical disability, the term disability is used.

Table 12.1

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010a).

Extent of Victimization of Persons With Disabilities

As with most types of victimization, the first place we turn for a snapshot of the extent of victimization is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). For persons with disabilities, this is no different. The Crime

724

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998 mandated that the NCVS begin to collect information about the victimization of people with disabilities. To do so, the NCVS incorporated questions asking people if they have a hearing limitation, a vision limitation, a cognitive limitation, an ambulatory limitation, a self-care limitation, or an independent living limitation (Harrell, 2014). For instance, persons are asked if “because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, do you have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making a decision?” (Harrell, 2014, p. 10). If a person reported that he or she did have such a condition, that person would be considered to suffer from a disability. Notice that the NCVS’s definition of disability includes a wide range of limitations on behavior and interaction.

Based on this definition, according to findings from the 2013 NCVS, there were 1,299,500 violent crime victimizations perpetrated against persons with disabilities. The most common type of victimization was simple assault—the same type of violent victimization most commonly experienced by persons without disabilities. Comparing victimization rates of persons with disabilities with those of persons without disabilities in the NCVS shows that people with disabilities have higher victimization rates. In 2014, the victimization rate of people with disabilities was 31.7 per 1,000 compared with 12.5 per 1,000 people without disabilities (Harrell, 2016).

The NCVS is, of course, not the only source of victimization statistics for persons with disabilities. It is the only source for national-level survey-derived estimates in the United States, but other research has been conducted on smaller samples and in other countries. Much of the research was conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s. Not to say that these estimates are unreliable, but it should be noted that this area of research has not received as much attention as others. Also of importance, because most of these studies have been conducted on nonrepresentative samples, it is hard to say how generalizable the findings are. In fact, there is actually some debate in terms of the extent to which people with disabilities are more likely to be victimized than persons without, given the methodological weaknesses of the research studies (Marge, 2003).

From these studies, other pictures of the extent of victimization against persons with disabilities are revealed. In Australia, the Bureau of Statistics administered a version of their Victims of Crime Survey to adults with intellectual handicaps. From this survey, it was found that these individuals had higher rates of victimization than persons without intellectual handicaps (Petersilia, 2010). An oft-cited study by C. Wilson and Brewer (1992), in which they studied 174 adults with intellectual disabilities in South Australia, found that the relative risk of victimization was highest for violent victimizations—persons with intellectual disabilities were 12.8 times more likely to be robbed, 10.7 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and 2.8 times more likely to be assaulted (as cited in Petersilia, 2001). Other research has found that persons with disabilities are at risk of being victimized by their personal care attendants (Ulicyn, White, Bradford, & Matthews, 1990).

Official data sources also can be used to glean information about abuse of persons with disabilities. In one study, McCartney and Campbell (1998) reviewed records of 9,400 men and women with intellectual disabilities mental retardation living in 23 institutional facilities in six states. They found that 5% of them had experienced abuse by a staff member over a 22-month period. Most typically, the victim had been neglected or physically abused.

725

Download more at Learnclax.com

726

Download more at Learnclax.com

Who Is Victimized?

Among those persons with disabilities surveyed in the NCVS, women and men had similar rates of violent victimization. Black, White, and Hispanic persons with disabilities are equally likely to experience a violent victimization, a finding contrary to violent victimization patterns. Black persons have higher rates of violent victimization overall. All in all, even when disaggregating different racial groups (White, Black, other race) and examining Hispanics and non-Hispanics, persons with disabilities have higher rates of violent victimization than do persons without disabilities. Persons ages 12 to 19 with disabilities have the highest rates of violent victimization (Harrell, 2016).

When examining the types of disabilities separately, it does seem that not all disabilities impact victimization risk similarly. Persons with cognitive disabilities have the highest rates of violent victimization, compared with the other disabilities measured in the NCVS. Rates of serious violent crime and simple assault were significantly higher for persons with cognitive disabilities than for persons with other types of disabilities. Persons with a hearing disability had the lowest rates of violent victimization. Having a vision disability elevated the risk of violent crime more so for females than for males (Harrell, 2016).

Ripped From the Headlines

Four women who were supposed to be caring for 12-year-old Tamaya Audain, who is autistic, were recently charged in association with her death after she starved to death. Tamaya’s mother died and she was then left in the care of her cousin. Within 10 months, she went from weighing 115 pounds to weighing less than 60 pounds. The cousin has been charged with murder, the case worker for Audain is charged with neglect, and two psychologists have been charged with failing to report suspected child abuse. Do you think that autism played a role in the girl’s death? How could it have?

Source: “Four Charged in Starvation Death of Child with Autism” (2014).

Violence Against Women With Disabilities

Special attention has been given to studying women with disabilities. In one study of physically disabled women who used personal assistants, Powers, Curry, Oschwald, and Maley (2002) discovered that these women had experienced a wide range of abusive behavior. Many women reported that their personal assistants had stolen money or items from them (35.5%) and that their checks had been misused or forged (30%). Neglect and physical abuse were also experienced by the women—19.5% had their physical needs neglected, 14% had been physically abused, and 11% reported unwanted sexual touching. Other studies estimate that 2% of women with disabilities (physical, mental, or emotional) have been physically abused in the past year (S. L. Martin et al., 2006), 10% of women with physical disabilities have experienced abuse within the past year (McFarlane et al., 2001), and 36% of women with disabilities have experienced physical assault abuse during their lifetimes (M. E. Young, Nosek, Howland, Chanpong, & Rintala, 1997).

When we discuss victimization against women, we must, of course, give attention to rape and sexual victimization. Like other women, women with disabilities are at risk of being sexually victimized. Women with developmental disabilities are 4 to 10 times more likely to be sexual assault victims than women in the

727

Download more at Learnclax.com

general population (National Council on Disability, 2007). When only rape is examined, 15,000 to 19,000 people with developmental disabilities are raped each year in the United States (Sobsey, 1994). It is estimated that more than 80% of women with a disability will be sexually assaulted over their lifetimes (Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2003). Research on women who use personal assistance services has revealed that women may be abused by people employed by these services. In fact, Powers et al. (2002) found that women with physical disabilities and those with both physical and intellectual disabilities were more likely to report being sexually abused in general by persons employed by personal assistance services.

Most of the research on sexual victimization of women with disabilities has been largely descriptive— identifying the extent to which it occurs. Little research has identified the characteristics that place certain women with disabilities at risk. It does appear, though, that women who are younger, non-White, nonmarried, employed, and less educated are more likely than other women with disabilities (physical, mental, or emotional problems that limit activity) to be sexually assaulted (S. L. Martin et al., 2006). Also important, research on women with disabilities shows that repeat sexual victimization is also quite common. Some estimate that almost half of women with developmental disabilities who are victims of sexual victimization will experience at least 10 incidents during their lives (Valenti-Hein & Schwartz, 1995). Past sexual victimization also has been shown to increase the likelihood of being sexually assaulted 2.5 times for this population (Nannini, 2006). Although this section refers to female victims, males with disabilities are also at risk for experiencing sexual assault. In one study, 32% of males with developmental disabilities reported being sexually assaulted by an intimate partner (I. Johnson & Sigler, 2000).

Along with risk of sexual victimization, women with disabilities are at risk of being violently victimized by their intimate partners. They have indicated through surveys a particular worry about intimate partner violence, naming it one of their top five concerns (Grothaus, 1985). Given the prevalence of intimate partner violence among women with disabilities, this concern does not appear to be unfounded. One study of Canadian women found that women with disabilities (long-term physical, mental, or health problems that limit home, school, work, or other activities) were 39% more likely to experience intimate partner violence within the previous 5 years than were women without disabilities (Brownridge, 2006). Using data from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (discussed in Section VII), Breiding and Armour (2015) report that women with a disability were more likely to experience intimate partner violence (rape, sexual violence other than rape, physical violence, stalking, psychological aggression, and control of reproductive or sexual health) during the previous 12 months. For males, having a disability increased the risk of two forms of intimate partner violence—stalking and psychological aggression. Research on both males and females in Canada supports this finding. Having an activity limitation increased the risk of being a victim for both men and women. Researchers did find, however, that having an activity limitation was a greater risk for intimate partner violence for females than for males (Brownridge, Taillieu, Chan, Afifi, Santos, & Tiwari, 2016). Having a mental health–related activity limitation may also be a risk factor for intimate partner violence victimization. In a study using the General Social Survey, it was discovered that women with more frequent mental health–related activity limitations had higher rates of violent intimate partner victimization than others (Du Mont, & Forte, 2014). For more explanations regarding why women with disabilities are likely to be victimized by their intimate partners, see Reading 22 by Douglas Brownridge (2006) included in

728

Download more at Learnclax.com

this section.

Victimization of Youth With Disabilities

Children with disabilities may be especially vulnerable to victimization. Young people in general are at risk of victimization because they may be unable to defend themselves, thus being attractive targets. Children with disabilities may be around caretakers who become frustrated with them and are less emotionally invested in them than their parents. They also may be targets of peers at school. For these reasons, their victimization patterns have been examined. Professionals working with youth with disabilities perceive that children with intellectual disabilities have higher rates of maltreatment than children without them (Verdugo, Bermejo, & Fuertes, 1995). Formal school records also support this contention (Sullivan & Knutson, 2000). Similar findings have recently been shown in research on youth in Hong Kong—children with disabilities were more likely to experience violent victimization (Chan, Emery, & Ip, 2016).

Bullying, although not necessarily reaching levels that would be considered criminal, may also be a problem facing youth with disabilities. Bullying—discussed in detail in Section X—is harmful behavior directed at a youth that occurs more than once and is characterized by a power imbalance (Olweus, 1993a).

A study of children with disabilities compared to other children found that they were more likely than other children to be bullied at school—half of them reported being bullied during the school term (Dawkins, 1996). Similarly, when mothers were asked whether their children with Asperger’s syndrome or other nonverbal learning disabilities had experienced victimization by their peers, more than 90% responded yes (Little, 2002). We have already learned that many children are bullied and victimized by their peers, but it seems that children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable.

Another type of victimization of children with disabilities that appears to be especially problematic is sexual abuse. Children with disabilities are estimated to be 4 to 10 times more likely than the general population to be sexually abused. As noted by Baladerian (1991), an estimated 25% of the general population of females is sexually victimized before reaching adulthood; thus, girls with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. Also, 16% to 32% of boys with developmental disabilities are believed to be at risk for sexual abuse before the age of 18 (Badgley et al., 1984; Hard, 1986).

729

Download more at Learnclax.com

Patterns of Victimization

The NCVS provides interesting information about each incident of victimization that occurs against persons with disabilities. Individuals were asked if they believed they were victimized because of their disability; about 15% of violent crime victims with disabilities indicated that they thought so. About one-third of victims with disabilities noted they were unsure if they were victimized because of their disability. Victims were also asked if they did anything during the victimization to resist or try to stop it. Persons with disabilities were less likely than persons without disabilities to attempt to employ any measure of resistance during a violent victimization (Harrell & Rand, 2010). We will return to the use of resistance, but for now, think about the use of resistance, or lack thereof, and how it may factor into victim selection by offenders.

Violent victimizations against persons with disabilities most commonly do not involve a weapon (only 20% do), and about one-fourth of victims with disabilities suffer injury as a result (Harrell & Rand, 2010). About half of violent crime victims with disabilities reported their experiences to the police, a finding similar to violent crime victims overall. They were, however, more likely than violent crime victims without disabilities to seek assistance from victim advocacy agencies (Harrell, 2016). Property crime victims with disabilities were less likely to report their victimizations to police (Harrell & Rand, 2010).

Who is likely to perpetrate these victimizations? One of the unique features of victimization of persons with disabilities is that they often rely on others for support and care. Adults may receive care from friends and family and/or formal personal care assistance services. The victim–offender relationship, then, is worthy of discussion, because for this type of victimization, exposure to motivated offenders is likely to be different than for other potential victims. It is difficult to say exactly who is most likely to offend against victims with disabilities because many studies have exclusively asked about certain types of offenders. That is, some surveys have explicitly asked victims only about whether care providers have victimized them and not asked about other types of offenders, whereas other studies like the NCVS use general categories. As such, we know from the NCVS that persons with disabilities are most likely to be harmed by well-known or casual acquaintances and are less likely to be harmed by strangers than persons without disabilities (Harrell, 2015). A more detailed picture is provided by other studies that have revealed a startling picture of persons charged with caring for individuals actually harming them. For example, one study compared individuals with severe cognitive impairment receiving in-home supportive services in California with individuals having no severe cognitive impairment. Those with severe impairment had significantly higher rates of neglect, injury, being yelled at, suspected theft, threats by their providers, physical abuse, and sexual advances (Matthias & Benjamin, 2003). In the study mentioned earlier, researchers reviewed the records of 9,400 institutionalized women and men with intellectual disabilities living in 23 residential facilities in six U.S. states. They found that about 5% had experienced some form of abuse by a member of the facility staff during a 22-month period (McCartney & Campbell, 1998). Other studies have included questions about who the perpetrator is or have located in official records who the offender was. These studies revealed that persons are most likely to be victimized by family members, intimate partners, and personal assistance or health care providers (McFarlane et al., 2001; National Council on Disability, 2007).

730

Download more at Learnclax.com

731

Download more at Learnclax.com

Risk Factors for Victimization for Persons With Disabilities

As noted, there are a number of reasons why persons with disabilities are at risk of being victimized. Let’s discuss these factors in a bit more detail so that the risk of victimization can be better understood. First, persons with disabilities are likely seen as vulnerable, especially if they rely on others for care. They may, by necessity, allow other people access to their money, bank accounts, checking accounts, and other financial records. As you might imagine, doing so places them at risk for theft. Having home health care and personal assistants requires allowing strangers access to their homes and personal effects. According to routine activities theory, these people could be providing capable guardianship, but they may be motivated offenders instead.

Second, people with intellectual or developmental disabilities may not be able to recognize and process risk. They may not, despite doing all the “right” things to protect themselves, realize that they are in the wrong place or with the wrong people. Unfortunately, they also may not realize that a victimization has occurred. Even when they do, some research shows that they are less likely to report their victimization to police than are other victims. The decision not to report could be a result of several factors. They may have limited communication skills, which could make reporting difficult and frightening (Nettelbeck & Wilson, 2002). They may be unaware that money has been taken if they typically do not control their own finances. They may not know that sexual activity that has occurred is inappropriate and illegal if they have never been exposed to sex education (Petersilia, 2001). Reporting may also be unlikely if the offender is a family member or someone else who is caring for them. Victims may fear retaliation for reporting (National Council on Disability, 2007). Reporting may mean that the victim will have to move into a more restrictive living situation, an option that may be worse than saying nothing. For victims of intimate partner violence, they may not have access to shelters that can accommodate persons with disabilities, or similar to other victims of intimate partner violence, they may feel they lack the financial resources to leave (Petersilia, 2001).

Third, persons with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty than people without disabilities. At least one in every three adults with disabilities lives in households with an income totaling less than $15,000 per year. Overall, only 12% of those without disabilities live in households in this income range (as cited in Petersilia, 2001). Poverty is a risk factor for victimization in that people living in poverty are likely to live in crime- ridden neighborhoods in areas that are unlikely to be diligently patrolled by law enforcement.

Fourth, victimization of persons with disabilities has been linked to a dependency-stress model, especially for victimization of younger persons with disabilities. That is, because children with disabilities tend to be more dependent than other children on their parents and caregivers, it creates more stress, which may result in abuse if their parents and caregivers cannot appropriately deal with the stress of their responsibilities. Some have argued that persons with disabilities display behaviors that may promote victimization—without suggesting a victim-blaming model. Persons with disabilities may misinterpret social cues, want to please others, and think that people want to be their friends (Petersilia, 2001). In this way, they may comply with inappropriate requests, resulting in victimization (Nettelbeck & Wilson, 2002). In addition, victims with disabilities may evoke aggressive responses with their behaviors. In one study that compared nonvictims to victims matched on age, IQ, and adaptive behavior, C. Wilson, Seaman, and Nettelbeck (1996) found that

732

Download more at Learnclax.com

victims were more likely to react with inappropriately angry or aggressive responses in everyday situations with strangers, indicating that poor social competence (anger and aggression in interpersonal interactions) rather than intellectual disability was a contributing factor in victimization.

733

Download more at Learnclax.com

Responses to Victims With Disabilities

Remember that much research shows that crime victims with disabilities are unlikely to seek assistance from the police (Focht-New, Clements, Barol, Faulkner, & Service, 2008). This low level of reporting may be due to several reasons. They may be unaware, especially in cases of property victimization (Petersilia, 2001) or because of not receiving appropriate sex education, that a crime ever occurred (Nosek, 1996). In addition, persons with disabilities may be particularly dependent on the person who perpetrated the incident; thus, reporting a crime may make their day-to-day living difficult (Nosek, 1996). Even when crime victims with disabilities do come forward, there is evidence that police may be hesitant to treat the cases the same as they do when other victims come forward. These victims may be seen as less legitimate and as unreliable witnesses due to their diminished intellectual capacity. Law enforcement may not realize that persons with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder have good memories and can be reliable witnesses (Petersilia, 2010). Indeed, in Petersilia’s (2001) review of research on crime victims with developmental disorders, she notes that much research shows that people with intellectual disabilities forget information at rates similar to those of persons without intellectual disabilities and that they recall with similar accuracy to others their age (in studies of children). Children with intellectual disabilities are, however, highly impressionable and eager to please; thus, interviewers and attorneys should take special precautions in criminal justice settings (Petersilia, 2001). Prosecutors also may be hesitant to pursue these cases for similar reasons.

Research on people with disabilities who have been sexually abused is particularly instructive. It has shown that victims rarely report. Even when victims do report, offenders are rarely charged—this may be due to a number of reasons, one of which is that perpetrators are commonly acquaintances and intimate partners (Wacker, Parish, & Macy, 2008). In one study, of the 22% of alleged offenders charged with sexual abuse, only 38% were ultimately convicted (Sobsey & Doe, 1991). This lack of reporting, charging, and conviction is not unique to victims with disabilities, but the rates do appear to be particularly low for female victims of sexual abuse or violence with disabilities.

Recognizing the difficulties victims with disabilities face, the federal Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998 was passed that required the collection of statistics on the victimization of persons with disabilities via the NCVS. Also proposed was California’s Crime Victims with Disabilities Act of 1998, which would require reporting of abuse to law enforcement; provide training for law enforcement, prosecutors, rape crisis counselors, and health care providers; require victim–witness assistance programs to cover victims with disabilities; and develop continued reform for working with victims with disabilities (Assembly Bill 2038). Federal legislation (Crime Victims with Disabilities Act of 2008) was reintroduced by then senator Joseph Biden but has not been reintroduced as of May 2017.

Without federal legislation requiring reporting and victim assistance, some states have specifically addressed victims with disabilities. For example, Ohio has a mandatory reporting law requiring that a mandatory reporter who has a “reason to believe that a person with mental retardation or a developmental disability has suffered or faces a substantial risk of suffering any wound, injury, disability, or condition of such a nature as to reasonably indicate abuse or neglect of that person” (RAINN, 2017) must report. Table 12.2 provides the

734

Download more at Learnclax.com

specifics of Ohio’s law. Other states have amended their criminal codes so that persons with cognitive disabilities are afforded similar protections as those afforded to children when testifying in court, such as videotaped testimony, testimony via closed-circuit television, the use of breaks during testimony, allowing the presence of support persons in the courtroom, and adjusting the seating arrangements in the courtroom to be less intimidating (Petersilia, 2001).

Table 12.2

Source: Reprinted by permission of RAINN, Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

Even without legislation, victim service providers are already faced with addressing the needs of victims with disabilities, although some jurisdictions are likely better able to do this than others. Nonetheless, victim service providers should be able to assist victims with disabilities in finding suitable housing, applying for victim compensation, receiving counseling, getting legal services, having someone attend court with them, and navigating the criminal justice system (National Council on Disability, 2007). Beyond victim services, there are training videos, classes, and pamphlets available for law enforcement and other criminal justice professionals preparing to respond to crime victims with disabilities. Most of the training, however, has primarily focused on victims with mental illness, discussed in the next section.

735

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization of Persons With Mental Illness

Mental illness may also put individuals at risk of being victimized for many of the same reasons that people with disabilities find themselves at risk. What, though, constitutes mental illness? You may think of mental illness as being debilitating, and sometimes it is. But many people live with mental illness—they go to work, they go to school; they are, by all accounts, productive members of society. Others do, however, face severe challenges. For many, one of these challenges is an increased chance of being victimized. Before we begin a discussion of this risk, let’s first discuss what mental illness is.

Defining Mental Illness

Much of the research examining the link between mental illness and victimization has focused on persons with severe mental illness. Persons with severe mental illness often have symptoms of “impaired reality testing, disorganized thought processes, impulsivity, poor planning, and poor problem solving” (Teplin, McClelland, Abram, & Weiner, 2005, p. 911). In terms of operationalization, severe mental illness is often specified when persons have taken psychoactive medications for extended periods of time (e.g., 2 years) or have been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons (Teplin et al., 2005). But people can suffer from mental illness that may not meet these criteria. In addition, classifying severe mental illness as such does not identify the type of mental disorder diagnosis. There is, of course, a range of mental illnesses. Some of the most common ones that have been studied and linked to victimization are found in Table 12.3. Substance abuse issues such as alcohol and marijuana dependence are also mental disorders identified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th edition, textual revision), which is a diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association. This manual is used by mental health professionals to diagnose and treat patients.

Table 12.3DSM-IV-TR

736

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Data from American Psychiatric Association (2000).

Extent and Type of Victimization of Persons With Mental Illness

When persons in criminal justice first paid attention to persons with mental illness, it was not out of concern for their victimization. Instead, persons with mental illness were perceived to be violent offenders rather than victims (E. Silver, Arseneault, Langley, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2005). Research has found, however, that persons with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators (A. Levin, 2005). In terms of the extent to which persons with mental illness are victimized, it is important to note the methodology of the study. Some studies have examined the victimization of persons who are or have been institutionalized, whereas others have used samples drawn from those living in the community. We would expect to find different rates of victimization for persons living in the community than for those who are institutionalized.

When comparing persons with mental disorders in the community to persons in the community without mental disorders, it becomes clear that mental disorder is a risk factor for victimization. When comparing persons with severe mental illness to those in the general population, those with mental illness are 2.5 times more likely to be violently victimized (Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999). Indeed, studies on persons with mental disorders have consistently found high rates of victimization—estimates of victimization from 8% (sexual assault victimization in the past year for males with severe mental illness; Goodman et al.,

737

Download more at Learnclax.com

2001) to more than 50% (physical abuse in the past year for females with severe mental illness; Goodman et al., 1999).

One way to determine if persons with mental illness are in fact more prone to victimization is to compare their victimization rates with those of the general population. One rich national-level data source is, as you know, the NCVS. It provides data with which researchers can compare their estimates—with national data or with data for smaller areas such as central cities. Doing just this, Teplin et al. (2005) used the NCVS instrument to measure victimization experiences of persons with severe mental illness who were receiving psychiatric services in Chicago from January 31, 1997, to October 4, 1999, and to compare victimization incidence and prevalence to the NCVS. They discovered that more than one-fourth of those with severe mental illness in the sample had experienced either a completed or attempted violent crime in the past year. This was 11.8 times higher than the prevalence rate in the NCVS. If this finding is extrapolated to the population of persons with severe mental illness in the United States, almost 3 million persons with severe mental illness are violently victimized each year! In addition, the researchers found that almost 28% had experienced a property crime, rates that were about 4 times higher than those found in the NCVS. Also important, they found that females with severe mental illness were more likely to experience completed violent victimization, rape/sexual assault, personal theft, and motor vehicle theft than were males with severe mental illness. Males with severe mental illness experienced robbery at higher rates than did females with severe mental illness. For some types of victimization, African Americans had higher rates, but rates were generally similar and high for all racial and ethnic groups.

These findings that victimization risk is higher for persons with mental illness are not specific to the United States. In a study examining a birth cohort of males and females born in Dunedin, New Zealand, E. Silver et al. (2005) found that 34% of persons with any mental disorder had been physically assaulted during the previous year, compared with 21% of persons without a mental disorder. They also examined specific types of mental disorders—persons with schizophreniform disorders had the highest odds of completed physical assault and threats of physical assault. Persons with anxiety disorders were the most at risk for sexual assault victimization. As noted in Section IV on recurring victimization, we also know that those with mental illness are at risk of experiencing recurring victimization. Among those who have been in a psychiatric facility receiving treatment for major mental disorder, the risk of recurring victimization is great. For those who had been victimized, almost two-thirds experienced another victimization sometime during the year (Teasdale et al., 2013). Similar to the work by Silver and colleagues, it was found that suffering from different types of disorders placed individuals at different risks of recurring victimization. Those who had been diagnosed with manic or schizophrenia spectrum disorder had flat trajectories of recurring victimization, while those diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder or major depression had declining trajectories (Teasdale et al., 2013).

Why Are Persons With Mental Illness at Risk for Victimization?

Beginning in the 1950s, the United States implemented policies of deinstitutionalization that closed many institutions for mentally disordered persons, releasing them into the community (E. Silver, 2002). Intended to

738

Download more at Learnclax.com

be a more humane approach to care as well as a cost-saving device, deinstitutionalization has had negative consequences. For example, even for people who may benefit from inpatient care, there may not be beds available. In 1970, there were 200 beds available for every 100,000 civilians, but that number had declined to less than 50 by 1992 (“Deinstitutionalization,” 2011). The lack of beds has led to shorter stays when inpatient care is received—on average less than 10 days (Teplin et al., 2005). Consequently, persons with mental disorders, even severe mental disorders, may not receive necessary treatment or medicine. Without treatment or medicine, victimization risk actually increases. In fact, research shows that when individuals who have been hospitalized are released under outpatient commitment rather than without any outpatient commitment, they are less likely to be criminally victimized (Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 2002).

Persons with mental disorders also have high rates of homelessness (Teasdale, 2009), poverty (Hudson, 2005), and substance abuse (Teasdale, 2009), all of which are risk factors for victimization. These factors place persons with mental disorders at risk for victimization much in the same manner as they do for others—they become easy targets, without capable guardianship. It has been argued that persons with mental illness also may be less likely to report their victimizations to law enforcement because they fear not being believed or taken seriously. If this is the case, then motivated offenders may target them if the offenders believe they can commit crime with a lower probability of detection (E. Silver et al., 2005).

Along with lacking capable guardians, persons with mental disorders may be less diligent in their environment and less able to engage in meaningful and effective self-protection. Also, would-be offenders may perceive that the mentally ill are less able to defend themselves (E. Silver et al., 2005). This may explain why persons with mental illness who are institutionalized are also at risk. Thus far, we have mainly discussed the victimization of persons with mental illness who reside in the community, but being in a care facility or hospital may also place people at risk. The rates of violent victimization in institutions are “often as high or higher than those in the community at large” (Petersilia, 2010, p. 2). Given their unique vulnerability and perceived or real inability to defend themselves, institutionalized persons may be at a great risk for victimization. Also, there may be little oversight as to the care provided in these institutions. In addition, patient-on-patient abuse may occur.

Exposure to motivated offenders also places persons at risk of being victimized. Persons with mental disorders may very well be exposed to motivated offenders because they engage in violence at higher rates than people without mental disorders (Arseneault, Moffitt, Caspi, Taylor, & Silva, 2000). This is similar to what we expect generally for people who engage in more violent lifestyles, remembering that these individuals are more likely to be around people who are also violent. Also, people may find that their aggressive and violent behavior evokes aggressive and violent responses.

Why are persons with mental illness more violent? Are they naturally aggressive? Research suggests that violence and victimization are linked to symptomology. Exhibiting psychological symptomology, such as delusions and hallucinations, is linked to violent behavior (Appelbaum, Robbins, & Monahan, 2000; Link, Monahan, Stueve, & Cullen, 1999). When persons are exhibiting these symptoms, they are also likely to be victimized because they may cope with their symptoms by becoming aggressive and violent. They are hence

739

Download more at Learnclax.com

likely to evoke similar responses in others (Teasdale, 2009).

Photo 12.1 A mentally ill man sleeps on a city bench, clearly vulnerable to victimization.

Others have argued that when people are exhibiting heightened symptomology, they may act in bizarre ways to which others may not know how to respond (Hiday, 1997). People may act to control a person who is mentally disordered, and this action may be victimizing. In this way, persons with mental disorders may find themselves in conflicted relationships. Consider how stressful it can be to care for persons who are mentally disordered! Although it is not excusable to abuse anyone, caring for a mentally ill person may at times be overwhelming. In support of this, some research has found that involvement in conflicted relationships drives the relationship between mental disorder and violent victimization (E. Silver, 2002). This suggests that it may not be the mental disorder per se that places a person at risk but the fact that persons with mental disorders are often involved in relationships characterized by conflict that produces victimization. To read more about this link among mental disorder, conflicted relationships, and violent victimization, see Reading 23 in this section by Eric Silver (2002).

Responses to Victims With Mental Illness

It is likely that victims with mental illness face particular challenges. As previously noted, they may be less likely than others to report their victimizations to police for fear that they will not be believed or will not be taken seriously. For women, this risk may be especially germane. Females with mental illness may be unlikely to be taken seriously and may be blamed for being complicit in their own victimization (Salasin & Rich, 1993).

740

Download more at Learnclax.com

This lack of reporting is especially problematic because victimization is likely to bear psychological costs that may be particularly traumatizing for persons with mental illness. Mental illness severity and symptomology may be exacerbated by victimization—in this way, mental illness may be a contributory factor and a consequence of victimization. The correlation between victimization and substance abuse among the mentally ill may indicate the need to use these substances as a coping mechanism (Goodman et al., 2001). Again, it is likely both a risk factor for and a consequence of victimization. As previously noted, treatment providers and victim service agencies should be aware that victims with mental illnesses may need special care, treatment, and services to ensure that they can reduce their chances of being revictimized. This needed care was highlighted in work investigating the link between the receipt of victims’ compensation and mental health. In one study, it was shown that applicants for victims’ compensation who had been diagnosed with a mental health disorder were more likely to be denied victims’ compensation than others (Daigle, Guastaferro, & Azimi, 2016).

Also interesting to note is that a wide range of programs are geared specifically toward addressing the needs of offenders with mental health issues and disorders, such as mental health and drug courts, crisis-intervention training for law enforcement officers, and limited mental health treatment in programs. Of course, participation in and funding for these programs is mandated, which may explain why they abound, but similar attention to the needs of crime victims with mental illness has not been given.

741

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization of the Incarcerated

Incarceration is, by definition, punishment. It includes loss of freedom, loss of dignity, loss of heterosexual relationships, and loss of liberty. Despite what you may have heard, what happens to prisoners while they are incarcerated is not just part of being in prison. Being victimized is not part of the punishment. In fact, the state or federal government, depending on the type of facility in which an inmate is housed, is supposed to protect inmates from any type of victimization—those perpetrated by staff or other inmates. It is actually part of the correctional staff’s and administration’s jobs to make sure that the jail or prison environment is safe. Why, then, is there a whole section in this text dedicated to victimization of persons who are incarcerated? Because, despite this charge to protect and to keep a secure and safe environment, prisons are, in fact, dangerous places. This section discusses the extent to which victimization occurs to inmates, the types of victimizations most prevalent, the risk factors for victimization, and responses to victimizations that occur.

Extent of Victimization of People in Jail and Prison

As you may imagine, determining how much victimization occurs in jails and prisons is difficult. Much victimization goes unreported—inmates may be fearful of retaliation if they report, they may be scared to report if the perpetrator was a staff member, or they may feel that nothing will be done if they report. As a result, official data sources may underrepresent the true amount of victimization that occurs. Instead, survey data may be a better source of information to reveal the “dark figure of crime.”

Results from surveys indicate that victimization is more prevalent in prisons than in the general population (Wolff, Shi, & Siegel, 2009b). In one study of inmates housed in three prisons in Ohio, it was found that half of all inmates had experienced some type of victimization during the previous 6 months. Different types of victimization can also be examined separately. In this same study of inmates in Ohio prisons, 10% of inmates had been physically assaulted (Wooldredge, 1998). In an even larger study of about 7,500 prison inmates in 12 adult male and 1 adult female prison, Wolff, Shi, and Siegel (2009a) found that 34% had experienced a physical victimization during the previous 6 months. Of course, the most serious type of physical victimization that can occur behind bars is homicide. In 2007, three inmates in local jails (Noonan, 2010a) and 57 inmates in state prisons were the victims of homicides (Noonan, 2010b). For jail inmates, homicide is most likely to occur in the largest jails, to the most violent offenders, and within 7 days of admission (Noonan, 2010a). For prison inmates, homicide rates are greatest for males (99% of victims) and for Whites (46%) (Noonan, 2010b). Physical assault, however, is not the only type of victimization that inmates experience. Inmates may also have their personal effects taken. In the same study of Ohio inmates just introduced, it was found that 20% had reported a theft in the previous 6 months (Wooldredge, 1998), whereas other studies of property victimization indicate that one-fourth of inmates experienced a property victimization in the past 12 months (Lahm, 2009). Sexual victimization also occurs in prison, but we discuss that separately in a later section. To read about another form of victimization that inmates may experience and its consequences for reentry, witnessing victimization, see Reading 24 in this section by Jane C. Daquin, Leah E. Daigle, and Shelly Johnson Listwan (2016).

742

Download more at Learnclax.com

Who Is Victimized?

After researchers recognized that inmates are, in fact, at risk of being victimized while incarcerated, attention was given to identifying who is most at risk. Although little research has been done comparing males and females in terms of risk, it does appear that a greater percentage of male inmates experience physical victimization compared with females. A gendered difference discovered in physical victimization is that when females are physically victimized, they are more likely to be victimized by another inmate than are males; males are more likely to be victimized by a staff member (Wolff et al., 2009a). In addition, younger, White inmates are more likely to experience physical victimization perpetrated by other inmates than by staff (Wolff et al., 2009b). Being non-White, however, is associated with an increased risk of physical assault perpetrated by a staff member (Lahm, 2009; Wolff et al., 2009b). Other research has shown that Mexican American inmates are more likely to be victims of both personal and property crimes compared with White or Black inmates. Education and income also have been examined in terms of risk for victimization. Higher-income, more-educated inmates are more at risk for being victimized by theft, although lower-income inmates face greater risk of physical assault victimization (Wooldredge, 1998).

Photo 12.2 These inmates may be at risk for victimization given their demographic characteristics and spending time in recreation.

Risk Factors for Victimization While Incarcerated

Although the demographic characteristics of gender, age, and race give us a picture of the typical victim of

743

Download more at Learnclax.com

prison or jail assaults, they do not identify additional risk factors that can be used to help staff and administrators identify who may be at risk in their jails and prisons. These risk factors can generally be classified into one of two perspectives, the importation and deprivation perspectives. According to the importation perspective, inmates have characteristics that place them at risk of becoming victimized. These factors may be things like having a previous victimization history, stature, or personality. The deprivation perspective, on the other hand, suggests that the prison environment is depriving, and this depriving environment produces victimization. For example, dangerousness of a particular facility (e.g., security level) may play a role in whether an inmate is at risk for victimization. Let’s now consider the risk factors that have been studied in the literature.

Previous History of Victimization

Remember from Section II that one of the risk factors for victimization is having been victimized in the past and that many victims are actually revictimized. This also is true for prisoners. Incarcerated individuals are more likely to be physically victimized if they have been physically victimized in the past (Wolff et al., 2009b). About two-thirds of all inmates in the Wolff et al. study (2009a) who had been victimized in prison also had been physically victimized before the age of 18. Of those who had been victimized before the age of 18, about half had been victimized in prison during the past 6 months, suggesting a relationship between past victimization and victimization in prison. A relationship between sexual victimization in prison and prior sexual victimization history also was found. Specifically, inmates who come into prison with a victimization history are more likely than other inmates to be victimized in prison (Wolff et al., 2009a).

Mental Illness

Those who are vulnerable may be seen as easy targets in prison. As such, having a serious mental illness may impact people’s cognitive abilities and behavior, which may make them prone to victimization (Baskin, Sommers, & Steadman, 1991). In addition, if they have affective disorders such as depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder, they may be withdrawn or act in ways that suggest defenselessness, hence producing an increased risk for victimization (Wolff et al., 2009b). Some prisons separate persons with severe mental illness so that they can be treated for their disorders. One of the benefits of doing so is that they can be isolated from other prisoners who may otherwise harm them.

Risk Taking/Self-Control

One criminological theory that has been used to explain victimization is Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory of low self-control. In this theory, they propose that persons with low self-control are likely to become involved in delinquency, crime, and other analogous behaviors. In Section II, you read about how Schreck (1999) used self-control to explain victimization. Building on this work, Kerley, Hochstetler, and Copes (2009) used the theory of self-control to explain prison victimization. In partial support of the theory of low self-control (remember that self-control encompasses six constructs), they found that inmates who like to take risks are more likely to be victimized than other inmates.

Institutional Factors

744

Download more at Learnclax.com

Aspects of institutional life such as sentence length, type of crime for which an inmate is in prison, security level, proportion of non-White inmates, and lifestyles also play a role in victimization risk. Inmates closer to the beginning of their sentence are more likely to be property crime victims than other inmates (Wooldredge, 1998). Inmates serving time for sexual offenses find themselves at increased risk of being victimized by fellow prisoners, whereas inmates serving time for violent offenses are especially at risk of being physically assaulted by staff (Wolff et al., 2009b). Inmates who reside in prisons with a high proportion of violent offenders are more at risk of being violently victimized than inmates living in other prisons (Teasdale, Daigle, Hawk & Daquin, 2015). Security level also matters. Although some of the most dangerous inmates are housed in maximum-security facilities due to the seriousness of their offenses and sentence length, inmates housed in these facilities are less likely to experience both physical and property victimization. Racial composition also is important. As the proportion of non-White inmates increases in prisons, the likelihood of experiencing property and personal victimization also increases (Lahm, 2009). Although speculative, this finding could be due to a lack of prison management keeping housing units’ racial composition in balance. Sex composition of the prison also matters for risk of violent victimization. Inmates who live in male prisons are more likely than those who live in female prisons to be violently victimized (Teasdale et al., 2015). Finally, feelings that inmates have about other inmates and staff may also impact their risk of being victimized. Social distance also increased physical and theft victimization risk, whereas the number of friends at the facility decreased personal crime victimization risk. Social distance may indicate an unwillingness to incorporate oneself into the prison culture, which may signal to other inmates that others will not protect that person or that person’s property (Wooldredge, 1998). Institutions in which inmates report higher levels of dissatisfaction with officers had higher rates of physical victimization than other facilities (Wolff et al., 2009b). Perceptions of correctional officers’ fairness also seems to matter in terms of victimization risk. When inmates perceive correctional officers as unfair, their risk of victimization is higher (Wooldredge & Steiner, 2013).

Lifestyles and Routine Activities

The lifestyles and routine activities perspective also has been used to explain victimization in prison. Based on the activities in which inmates routinely engage in prison and the social distance inmates feel in relation to other inmates, it may be possible to identify who is more likely to be victimized. In one study, inmates who spent more hours in education programs and more time studying were less likely to be violently victimized but were more likely to become the victims of theft. Spending time in recreation hours and the more visits an inmate had per month also increased physical assault risk. Time spent in recreation was also positively related to theft victimization (Wooldredge, 1998). Why does spending time in these structured activities increase risk? If you think about lifestyles and routine activities theory, it may make sense. Time spent in these activities may leave a person’s things vulnerable and without capable guardianship, while placing them in the presence of potential offenders.

Special Case: Sexual Victimization of Incarcerated Persons

With the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, even more attention has been given to the sexual assault and rape of prisoners than to physical victimization or property victimization. This piece of

745

Download more at Learnclax.com

legislation requires that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research arm of the Department of Justice, annually statistically analyze the incidence and effects of prison rape in at least 10% of all state, county, and federal prisons and a representative sample of municipal prisons. This means that data about the occurrence and outcomes of prison rape must be collected and analyzed each year from more than 8,700 of our nation’s prisons. From this data, a report is submitted annually that lists institutions and identifies them, in order, in terms of incidence of prison rape. This is one list an institution would not want to be at the top of!

Because this act has required data collection, we now have a better idea as to how much sexual victimization occurs in prisons and jails. The data collected for the National Inmate Survey on adult inmates by the Bureau of Justice Statistics was done through self-report surveys, so it did not rely on inmates to make formal reports of their victimizations to institutional authorities. They did, however, have to admit to the victimization during the interview process, which was conducted via an audio computer-assisted self-interview using a touch screen and instructions delivered through headphones (Beck & Harrison, 2010).

From these data, it was found in 2011–2012 that 4% of inmates in prison and 3.2% of jail inmates experienced a sexual victimization by another inmate or someone working at the facility during the past 12 months or since they were admitted. A slightly greater percentage of inmates in both prisons and jails reported experiencing sexual victimization perpetrated by staff rather than by other inmates (Beck, Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2013).

Who Is Sexually Victimized?

Similar to sexual victimization outside prison, female inmates are more likely to be sexually victimized than male inmates. According to findings from the National Inmate Survey, 6.9% of female prison inmates and 3.6% of female jail inmates had been sexually victimized by another inmate during the previous 12 months or since admission (compared with 1.7% and 1.4% for males). These rates are more than twice that of inmate- on-inmate sexual victimization experienced by male inmates. When males are sexually victimized, they are more likely to be victimized by staff. About 2.4% of male prisoners and 2% of male jail inmates reported staff- perpetrated sexual victimization (note that consensual sexual activity with staff is considered victimization) compared with 2.3% of female prisoners and 1.4% of female jail inmates. White and multiracial prison and jail inmates were more likely to be sexually victimized by other inmates than were Black inmates, although Black jail inmates were more likely to experience staff-perpetrated sexual victimization. In addition to gender and race, education and age are factors related to sexual victimization experience. More-educated inmates report higher levels of inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization than do less-educated inmates. Prison inmates aged 55 or older were more at risk of being sexually victimized by inmates than younger inmates, whereas jail inmates aged 35 and older faced lower risks. When examining sexual assault perpetrated by staff, for both jail and prison inmates, those 35 and older faced the lowest risks. Nonheterosexual inmates reported higher levels of sexual victimization than others, with 12.2% of nonheterosexual prisoners and 8.5% of jail inmates being sexually victimized. Another potential risk factor examined was body size. Inmates who were overweight faced decreased risks of sexual victimization compared with inmates of normal weight or those who were underweight (Beck et al., 2013).

746

Download more at Learnclax.com

Adults, however, are not the only inmates housed. Juveniles are also kept in correctional facilities in the United States. Their potential sexual victimization in these facilities is also being studied as part of the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. From 2008 to 2009, the Bureau of Justice Statistics completed the first National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) (Beck, Harrison, & Guerino, 2010). This survey covered 166 state-owned or state-operated and 29 locally or privately operated facilities that house adjudicated juveniles for at least 90 days. In 2012, the second administration of the NSYC took place (NSYC- 2). In this study, 8,707 youth housed in 326 facilities completed the survey about sexual victimization occurring in the facility in which they were housed. From this study, it was discovered that 2.5% of youth in these facilities had experienced sexual victimization perpetrated by another youth and 7.6% had experienced sexual victimization at the hands of staff in the past 12 months or since admission. Similar to the patterns seen with adult inmates, youth were more likely to be victimized by staff than by other inmates. Males were more likely than females to report being victimized by staff (8.1% vs. 2.9%), whereas a greater percentage of females than males indicated they had unwanted sexual activity with other inmates (5.4% vs. 2.2%). White youth experienced higher rates of youth-on-youth sexual assault than Black or Hispanic youths, and Black youth reported greater levels of staff-perpetrated sexual victimization than White youth (Heaton et al., 2016).

Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization in Prison and Jail

In addition to demographic characteristics, other qualities seem to place inmates at increased risk for being targeted for sexual victimization. One of these risk factors is having experienced a sexual victimization before the current incarceration. In the National Inmate Survey, those inmates who had experienced a sexual victimization prior to coming to the facility were more likely to be sexually victimized by staff and other inmates than were inmates without a previous sexual victimization history (Beck et al., 2013). Similar links between previous sexual victimization history and in-prison sexual victimization have been found (Wolff et al., 2009a). These findings are similar to what other research on the risk of revictimization has found—being victimized at one point in a person’s life places him or her at risk of later revictimization.

Another risk factor for sexual victimization is sexual orientation. Specifically, inmates who have a sexual orientation other than heterosexual are more often targets for sexual victimization than are heterosexual inmates (Beck et al., 2013; Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury, 2005). Being vulnerable may also place inmates at risk. For example, being small in stature has been identified in some research as a risk factor for sexual victimization in prisons (Chonco, 1989; N. E. Smith & Batiuk, 1989; Toch, 1977). Inmates who suffer from mental disorders are also at an elevated risk of experiencing sexual victimization while incarcerated, and females with mental disorders are 3 times as likely to be sexually victimized as males with mental disorders (Wolff, Blitz, & Shi, 2007).

Responses to Victimization in Prison

Inmate Response

The very real likelihood of being victimized while in prison carries consequences with it. Many inmates spend their days in prison fearful of this potential threat. This fear leads some to request placement in protective

747

Download more at Learnclax.com

custody, which involves placement in secure housing where an inmate is often kept alone in a cell for 24 hours

a day, maybe only getting out for an hour for recreation or showering. Even then, the inmate will be isolated (McCorkle, 1992). Protective custody further impedes inmates from participating in programming such as education, treatment, or vocation training. It hardly seems fair, then, that a common response, albeit for the inmate’s “own good,” is one that is also used for punishment (solitary confinement) for inmates who have violated institutional policy.

Other inmates may use avoidance strategies such as not going to areas in the prison that they perceive to be dangerous (Irwin, 1980). Research shows that inmates who have been robbed and who are fearful are, indeed, more likely to spend more time in their cells, to avoid areas of the prison, and to avoid activities. Even more risky, inmates may carry “shanks”—crude, often handmade weapons—as a way to protect themselves should other inmates try to harm them or to take on a tough persona so that others will not target them. In addition, having been assaulted, threatened, or robbed and being fearful increase the likelihood of using aggressive precautionary behaviors such as adopting a “get-tough attitude,” lifting weights, and keeping a weapon nearby (McCorkle, 1992).

Institutional Response

Given the factors that place inmates at risk of being victimized while in prison, there are many things that institutions do to increase safety and security. Some of these things are done out of response to judicial mandates and constitutional requirements; others are out of recognition of the dangers inherent in prison. Let’s first discuss legal and constitutional requirements.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to prohibit inhumane treatment of prisoners. As the Court noted in Farmer v. Brennan (1994), not only do prison officials have to provide a humane environment, but failing to do so can make a prison official liable if he or she acts with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety or if he or she knows that the inmate faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to halt it (for a discussion of the facts of this case, see Box 12.1).

In addition to these legal requirements, prisons have also put in place policies to reduce victimization. Because physical victimization cannot occur if inmates are not in contact with one another, one way to reduce victimization is through effective classification. Classification is the process through which offenders are screened and placed in facilities that match both their needs and characteristics, both good and bad. For instance, a prisoner who has a substance abuse problem should, theoretically, be placed in a facility that offers substance abuse treatment. Likewise, a prisoner who has anger management issues, who has demonstrated an inability to control impulses, and who has victimized staff and inmates in previous incarcerations should be placed in a maximum-security facility or one that can effectively respond to violent inmates.

Box 12.1 The Case of Farmer v. Brennan

Farmer was a preoperative transsexual with feminine characteristics who was incarcerated with other males in an all-male federal prison. During his imprisonment, he was sometimes in the general population but was more often in segregation. He was transferred

748

Download more at Learnclax.com

from a correctional institute to a penitentiary, which is generally a higher-security facility with more serious offenders. After the transfer, he was placed in the general population. He was subsequently beaten and raped by other prisoners. He sought damages and an injunction against further confinement. The Supreme Court eventually heard the case and ruled that “a prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.” It is the prison officials’ duty under the Eighth Amendment to provide humane conditions for all prisoners; this means adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and protection from violence at the hands of other prisoners.

Source: FindLaw (n.d.-a).

Once in prison, administrators and staff may reduce movement in prisons and reduce prisoner interaction, thus reducing opportunity for victimization to occur. Moreover, because race appears to be a risk factor for victimization and the racial composition of the prison is related to victimization rates, some prisons track the number of White and non-White inmates living in housing units and try to keep a particular balance (Lahm, 2009).

One way prisons have responded to the deprivation of heterosexual relationships that inmates face is through the use of conjugal visits. Conjugal visits are those in which a married inmate is allowed to spend time with his or her partner, usually in prison quarters—such as in a trailer or separate housing unit—overnight or for a weekend. During these visits, the couple is afforded more privacy than the inmate normally receives, although they are regularly checked on. Currently, only six states allow conjugal visits, however, and these visits serve to reduce only consensual sexual activity and forced sexual activity borne out of the lack of access to heterosexual relationships, not sexual activity motivated by a desire to exercise power and control (Knowles, 1999). In this way, conjugal visits are unlikely to be an effective strategy to reduce rape and sexual victimization. In addition, remember that many sexual victimizations are perpetrated by prison staff, not other inmates. As such, prison staff need to be screened, rotated on different assignments throughout the prison, and trained in ethics and law. One study on correctional officers revealed that they are likely to engage in victim blaming in regard to the sexual victimization of inmates (Eigenberg, 1989), thus suggesting a need for continued education. These are but a few of the ways that prison staff and administrators may work to reduce victimization in prisons. As you may imagine, given the unique culture and environment in prisons, seriously curtailing victimization may mean that the prison culture itself—one that involves not just inmates but the relationship between inmates and staff—needs to be addressed. This is not a task so easily undertaken.

Many people are at risk of being victimized, but certain people are more vulnerable to victimization because of qualities or characteristics they possess. In this section, persons with disabilities, persons with mental illness, and persons who are incarcerated are discussed because they are all vulnerable to victimization, given their status. You should consider what responsibility we have to people who are uniquely vulnerable to victimization. What should we do to protect these people?

749

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

In order to get an accurate measure of the victimization of people with disabilities, the Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998 mandated that the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) begin to collect information about the victimization of people with disabilities. Research suggests that persons with disabilities are more likely than persons without disabilities to be victimized. The fact that victims with disabilities and disorders are often in the care of various people who recognize their vulnerability makes them targets for violence. Women with disabilities face particular risks of being victimized. According to the NCVS, women with disabilities are more likely to be victimized by their intimate partners than are men. Sexual victimization is also prevalent. It is estimated that women with developmental disorders are 4 to 10 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than women in the general population (National Council on Disability, 2007). Often, victims with mental disorders and/or disabilities are unsure of their victimizations and, therefore, may not receive assistance. Children and adolescents with disabilities are also vulnerable to victimization. They face increased risks for bullying, maltreatment, and sexual abuse. Risk factors for victimization for persons with disabilities include relying on others for assistance (routine activities/lifestyles theory); inability to recognize, process, and/or respond to risk; living in poverty; and the dependency-stress model. When mental disorders were first considered in the criminal justice system, persons with mental disorders were expected to be the offenders and not generally expected to be victims. A testable way to find out if victims with mental illness are more prone to victimization is to compare them with victimizations of the general population. Findings from such research suggest that mental illness is linked to an increased risk for violent and property victimization. The severity of one’s mental illness could make it more likely that he or she will be victimized and revictimized. Deinstitutionalization, homelessness, poverty, and substance abuse contribute to victimization of persons with mental illness. Symptomology also has been linked to an increase in victimization risk for persons with mental illness. Some estimate that up to half of all prisoners are victimized while incarcerated. Male, young, non-White inmates appear to be most at risk for victimization in prison. Previous victimization, suffering from mental illness, and having low self-control increase risk for victimization in prison. Institutional factors also play a role in prison victimization. Quite a bit of prison victimization goes unreported due to the inmate’s fear of being caught reporting. Prisoners’ sentence length, sexual orientation, physical size, age, lifestyle while incarcerated, and even what they were convicted for may or may not make them suitable targets for sexual victimization. Inmates serving time for sexual offenses find themselves at increased risk of being victimized by fellow prisoners, whereas inmates serving time for violent offenses are especially at risk of being physically

750

Download more at Learnclax.com

assaulted by staff. A response to victimization in prison and being fearful is increased likelihood of using aggressive precautionary behaviors such as a “get-tough” attitude, lifting weights, and keeping a weapon nearby. It is the prison officials’ duty to separate those prisoners who are more vulnerable and likely to be victimized from the general population. In this way, crime within the prison should be reduced.

751

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. Given that exposure to motivated offenders is a direct cause of victimization of disabled persons and those with mental disorders, do you think that offenders are initially motivated or that they become motivated once they recognize how vulnerable these special populations are? What would Cohen and Felson say?

2. What special services do victims with mental illness and victims with disabilities need from criminal justice professionals and agencies? Do we currently have enough resources in place to address their special needs? What about other social service agencies that help crime victims?

3. Think about the Farmer v. Brennan (1994) case. Do you feel special prison conditions should be available for members of the LGBTQ community who are more likely to be victimized in male or female prisons?

4. As the laws for people in the United States change, do our prison communities also need to evolve so we are providing humane living conditions as defined in our U.S. Constitution?

5. Put yourself in an incarcerated victim’s position. Would being victimized in prison make you more likely to continue being a victim, or would you use other coping strategies? What are the consequences of prison victimization?

752

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key Terms

classification 481 conjugal visits 482 Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998 (federal) 470 deinstitutionalization 474 deliberate indifference 481 dependency-stress model 470 deprivation 477 developmental disability 465 importation 477 National Inmate Survey 479 National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) 480 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 479 protective custody 480 social distance 478 symptomology 475 theory of low self-control 478

753

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov

This website offers full definitions of the developmental disorders as well as their symptoms, all of which could make a person a more suitable target for victimization. The site provides some safety and health tips for parents and caregivers of people who have developmental disorders. Most helpful are the emergency preparedness and response topics listed on the website.

“Promising Practices in Serving Crime Victims With Disabilities”: http://www.ovc.gov/publications/infores/ServingVictimsWithDisabilities_bulletin/crime.html

This page on the Office for Victims of Crime website outlines patterns and responses of victimization. Resources are listed for caregivers or the victims themselves to prevent victimization. There are statistics for how often this type of victimization occurs as well as recommendations for coordinating with law enforcement to stop victimization of persons with disabilities.

State of the USA: http://www.stateoftheusa.org/content/44-percent-of-prison-inmates-s.php

This website provides a report about prison inmate victimization, with statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The charts on the website provide an in-depth breakdown of what types of prison victimization occur based on what incidents are actually reported. This page also offers data on variations and circumstances surrounding prison inmates’ victimization. Prison facilities are ranked based on inmates’ reports of victimization.

“Violence and Mental Illness: The Facts”: http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/ViolenceandMentalIllnessTheFacts.pdf

This webpage is a very specific information source on the common stigmas and stereotypes associated with people who have mental health issues as they pertain to violence. This page does well explaining the common misperceptions of the link between violence and mental illness. Believing that persons with mental illness are always the suspects in violent situations does not help prevent their victimization.

754

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.cdc.gov

http://www.ovc.gov/publications/infores/ServingVictimsWithDisabilities_bulletin/crime.html

http://www.stateoftheusa.org/content/44-percent-of-prison-inmates-s.php

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Documents/ViolenceandMentalIllnessTheFacts.pdf

Reading /// 22

In his article, Brownridge (2006) discusses the extent to which women with disabilities (having a physical, mental, or health condition that curtails their ability to participate in the amount or kind of activities they can do at home, work, school, or otherwise) who are married or in a common-law union experience intimate partner violence. This study was conducted using a sample of 7,027 Canadian women who participated in the 13th cycle of the General Social Survey, which is a random sample of adults over the age of 15. Brownridge’s findings comport with the more general research on persons with disabilities in that women with disabilities were more likely than others to report intimate partner violence victimization. The risk factors are discussed in this paper.

Partner Violence Against Women With Disabilities: Prevalence, Risk, and Explanations

Douglas A. Brownridge

SOURCE: Brownridge, D. A. (2006). Partner violence against women with disabilities: Prevalence, risk and explanations. Violence Against Women, 12, 805–822.

Women with disabilities rank issues of violence as their most important research and health priorities (Curry, Hassounch-Phillips, & Johnston-Silverberg, 2001). Despite an apparent consensus on the importance of and need for research on violence against women with disabilities, the issue remains an understudied social problem. A review by Curry et al. (2001) found that “there is practically no literature regarding the risk of abuse, women’s experiences of abuse, and barriers to seeking help among women with disabilities” (p. 60), and that “the absence of attention to this issue from both disability and violence researchers has contributed to the ‘invisibility’ of the victimization of women with disabilities” (p. 68).

The small body of existing research on violence against persons with disabilities has identified a wide range of prevalence rates. Based on a review of research, Chappell (2003) concluded that “women with disabilities face an epidemic of monumental proportions” (p. 12). Indeed, it is common in the literature to see very high estimates of violence against persons with disabilities, such as being 50% more likely to encounter abuse than the rest of the population (Hightower & Smith, 2003) or having 2 to 5 times the likelihood of abuse compared to nondisabled persons (Melcombe, 2003). Other research suggests less extreme disparities in risk between those with and without disabilities. A study for the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services in which 62 Toronto women were sampled found that 33% of those with disabilities were physically abused compared to 22% of those without disabilities. In the same study, however, women with disabilities were less likely to report having been sexually abused (23% vs. 31%). Using data from a national survey on sexuality in the United States, Young and colleagues (Young, Nosek, Howland, Chapong, & Rintala, 1997) examined violence against women with physical disabilities. Based on a comparison of a nonrandomly selected sample of 439 women with physical disabilities and 421 women without physical disabilities, these researchers found that both groups of women had an equally high lifetime prevalence of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse (62%). Given that most research has focused on persons with developmental disabilities, typically examining sexual abuse (Curry et al., 2001), one would expect relatively little debate about the prevalence of violence against persons with developmental disabilities. However, Newman, Christopher, and Berry (2000) argued that there is little evidence for the common assumption that persons with developmental disabilities

755

Download more at Learnclax.com

are at greater risk for violence than persons without developmental disabilities, and they concluded that “until that notion is supported, it may be prejudicial to assume that people with developmental disabilities are especially vulnerable” (p. 165). Clearly, current knowledge provides an insufficient basis on which to identify the prevalence of violence against persons with disabilities.

Although there is a dearth of research on violence against persons with disabilities, there is an even greater paucity of research on women with disabilities who experience violence by an intimate partner. One possible explanation for a lack of attention to partner violence against women with disabilities concerns societal myths of these women as single and asexual (Barnett, Miller-Perrin, & Perrin, 2005). It is ironic to note, research suggests that the most common perpetrators of violence against women with disabilities are their male partners. Milberger and colleagues (2003) found that 56% of a nonrandom sample of 177 women with disabilities reported abuse, and the abusers were typically their male partners. The Disabled Women’s Network of Canada (DAWN) surveyed women with disabilities and found that the most common perpetrators of violence were current or former intimate partners (37%; Ridington, 1989). In Young et al.’s (1997) study of violence against women with physical disabilities, intimate partners were most likely to be the perpetrators of physical and emotional abuse. In fact, the sampled women with disabilities were equally as likely as those without disabilities to report having experienced violence by husbands and/or live-in partners, with 30% of each group reporting any experience of partner violence in their lifetime. However, Young et al. (1997) used a sample that was representative neither of women with nor without disabilities. As a result, it is not possible to comment on the risk for partner violence against women with disabilities relative to women without disabilities with any measure of confidence.

The purposes of the current study were (a) to identify whether Canadian women with disabilities report an elevated risk for partner violence compared to their counterparts without disabilities and, if so; (b) to examine the extent to which disabled women’s risk is elevated; and (c) to examine risk markers derived from potential explanations in terms of their impact on, and the extent to which they account for an elevated risk of, partner violence against women with disabilities.

Explanatory Framework

The diversity of disabled person’s situations and potential variables affecting their likelihood of violence impedes the development of a single theoretical explanation to account for their experiences of violence. Instead, the state of the art is to recognize an array of potential reasons for an increased risk for violence against persons with disabilities and to organize them based on where they fit within an ecological context (Curry et al., 2001; Petersilia, 2001; Sobsey, 1994; Sobsey & Calder, 1999). In the current study, available risk markers for violence against women with disabilities were organized into a framework based on whether they related primarily to the context of the relationship, to the victim, or to the perpetrator.

Relationship Factors

A commonly cited risk marker for violence against women with disabilities is dependence. To the extent that persons with disabilities are dependent, differences in power may result that, in turn, could lead to abuse

756

Download more at Learnclax.com

(Petersilia, 2001). One indication of potential dependence on a relationship is the couples’ education compatibility (Anderson, 1997). The more education resources a woman with disabilities has relative to her partner, the more power she should have in the relationship. Disabled women with fewer relative education resources may be more dependent, less powerful, and thus more prone to violent victimization.

Another relationship factor that is known to affect partner violence against women is duration of relationship. The rate of disability in Canada increases with age (Statistics Canada, 2002). Because duration of relationship also tends to increase with age (Brownridge & Halli, 2001), one would expect women with disabilities on average to have longer duration unions. If disability increases the likelihood of violence and disability is more likely among longer duration unions, one might expect that union duration will be positively related to partner violence against women with disabilities. On the other hand, research shows that duration of relationship is negatively related to violence against women in the general population (Brownridge & Halli, 1999). Based on this research, one would expect partner violence to be more likely among women with disabilities who have been in their relationship for a relatively short duration. In the absence of empirical evidence, it was not possible to choose one hypothesized direction of the relationship between duration and partner violence against women with disabilities over the other.

Victim-Related Characteristics

At the outset, it must be understood that an examination of victim-related characteristics does not equate to a victim-blaming approach. Indeed, the importance of including victim-related characteristics is widely acknowledged in the literature on violence against persons with disabilities (Curry et al., 2001; Nettelbeck & Wilson, 2002; Nettelbeck, Wilson, Potter, & Perry, 2000; Petersilia, 2001; Sobsey & Calder, 1999). For instance, Nettelbeck et al. (2000) wrote that “although any instance of victimization is dependent on offender attributes and behaviors, victim attributes and behavior will also contribute” (p. 47). Proponents of including victim-related characteristics typically argue that denial of the potential for victim-related characteristics to affect violence suggests that individuals do not have the power to reduce their risk (Nettelbeck et al., 2000; Petersilia, 2001; Sobsey & Calder, 1999). Although some victim-related characteristics may be amenable to change on an individual level, there are others that are less easily changed by the individual. The latter are typically “the result of a failure of health and social policy to adequately address the needs of persons with disabilities” (Curry et al., 2001, p. 72). Empirical evidence for the impact of these victim-related characteristics would direct prevention efforts toward formative changes in health and social policy.

Victim-related characteristics stemming from socioeconomic status (SES) have been identified as potentially affecting the likelihood of violence. Women with disabilities are more likely than nondisabled women to be of low SES. They tend to have lower educational attainment than women without disabilities, and disability and lower educational attainment are barriers to employment (Nosek, Howland, & Hughes, 2001). The unemployment rate among women with disabilities has been identified as being as high as 75% (Melcombe, 2003). This results in women with disabilities being more likely to live in poverty (Curry et al., 2001). Low SES has generally been associated with violence against women (Barnett et al., 2005). Hence, it is expected that women with disabilities will score lower on SES indicators and that this will increase their likelihood of

757

Download more at Learnclax.com

experiencing partner violence.

As noted above, the rate of disability increases with age. It has been suggested that “older age greatly increases the risk of disabilities, particularly for women, with concomitant risks of violence and abuse” (Hightower & Smith, 2003, p. 18). A woman’s age is associated with her risk for partner violence, though the relationship is usually negative (Brownridge & Halli, 2001). As well, the prevalence of disability is higher among Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal Canadians (Melcombe, 2003) and Aboriginal status is strongly associated with an increased risk for violence against women in Canada (Brownridge, 2003). Given an association between each of these victim-related characteristics (age and Aboriginal status) and violence against women, these variables needed to be controlled in the current study.

Perpetrator-Related Characteristics

Feminist disability theorists essentially view women with disabilities as being in a position of double vulnerability. This approach directs attention toward the fact that women with disabilities live in a society that is at once disablist and patriarchal (Curry et al., 2001; Thomson, 1994). Research has found an association between violence against women and male patriarchal domination (Brownridge, 2002) and male espousal of patriarchal ideology and beliefs (Smith, 1990). It is possible that women with disabilities are perceived by men who espouse a patriarchal ideology as being less difficult to dominate, which may include domination through violence.

Although women with disabilities are in a position of double vulnerability, Petersilia (2001) noted that “vulnerability by itself is rarely, if ever, sufficient to motivate a crime. The potential victim must have something the offender wants or have the ability to produce an event the offender finds desirable” (p. 676). One key factor identified by Petersilia (2001) as motivating many crimes against persons with disabilities is the effort to gain control over the victim’s behavior. Evolutionary psychology directs attention to men’s need to maintain control over “their sexual property” (Wilson & Daly, 1998). Sexual proprietariness, in terms of male sexual jealousy and possessive behavior, has been linked to violence against women (Brownridge, 2004). Men who are sexually proprietary may be more likely to act violently toward women with disabilities to gain or maintain control over “their sexual property.”

A final perpetrator-related characteristic is substance abuse. Men who feel affected by their partner’s disability, particularly if they are the primary caregiver, may experience stress (Milberger et al., 2003). Such dependency- stress models suggest that caregivers who cannot cope with the stress of caregiving abuse their charges (Petersilia, 2001). One indirect indication of stress that has also been linked to partner violence against women is heavy alcohol consumption (Johnson, 2001). Li, Ford, and Moore (2000) investigated the role of substance abuse in violence among a sample of 1,876 persons with disabilities. The study found that disabled women were more likely to be victims of violence related to alcohol or drug use than were disabled men. Although the study demonstrated that substance use can play a role in violence against persons with disabilities, and particularly women, the fact that the sample included only persons with disabilities rendered the research unable to speak to the extent to which substance abuse is responsible for violence against women with disabilities relative to nondisabled women.

758

Download more at Learnclax.com

Materials and Method

Any one of three definitions of disability is typically cited in the literature. These are the definitions of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. A comparison of the WHO and UN definitions, which have been reprinted in Howe (2000) and Curry et al. (2001), respectively, showed that they are identical; that is, disability is defined as “any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being” (Curry et al., 2001, p. 62). Although this definition is not perfect, particularly in terms of its emphasis on the individual’s deviation from “normality,” it is widely accepted around the world and is an inclusive definition that is well suited for establishing the population of persons with disabilities. In the ADA definition, disability is determined based on whether a person

(a) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, (b) has a record of physical or mental impairment, or (c) is regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. (Gilson, DePoy, & Cramer, 2001, pp. 427–428)

The main difference between the ADA and WHO and/or UN definitions appears to be the ADA’s inclusion of persons who have had disabilities in the past and the possibility for disability to be defined based on the perceptions of others.

The data in the current study identify persons with disabilities based on the WHO and/or UN definition. In its 2001 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) and its 1999 GSS, Statistics Canada (2000, 2002) identified persons with disabilities as those who reported that a long-term physical or mental condition or health problem reduced the amount or the kind of activities they could do at home, school, work, or in other activities. Of the women included in the current study, 1,092 were disabled, and 5,935 were not disabled. In other words, the prevalence of disability in the sample was 15.5%. In all analyses, the weighting scheme suggested by Statistics Canada (2002) was followed. With the data weighted, the prevalence of disability was 15.7%, which was identical to the prevalence of disability among noninstitutionalized women age 15 years and older found in the PALS (Statistics Canada, 2002). This is also virtually the same rate of disability found in the population of noninstitutionalized women in the United States (15.4%; Curry et al., 2001).

Measurement

Independent Variables

Education compatibility was obtained by calculating the ratio of the respondent’s years of education to the couple’s total years of education. For the analyses, education compatibility was grouped into the following categories: the woman had much less education (ratio < .46), the woman had less education (ratio = .46 to .49), the woman had the same years of education as her partner (ratio = .50), the woman had more education (ratio = .51 to .54), and the woman had much more education (ratio > .54). Duration of relationship was measured with a variable derived from the respondent’s report of the year in which she became married or

759

Download more at Learnclax.com

began living with her common-law partner. Education referred to the respondent’s education in years. Employment was measured in terms of whether the respondent’s main activity in the 12 months prior to the interview was looking for work, caring for children or housework (unemployed), or working at a paid job or business (employed). Age referred to the respondent’s age at the time of the interview. Aboriginal status was measured in terms of whether the respondent identified her cultural or racial background as being Aboriginal (North American Indian, Metis, or Inuit) or some other background (non-Aboriginal). Patriarchal dominance was measured with an item that asked the respondent if her partner prevented her from knowing about or having access to the family income, even if she asked. Sexual possessiveness was measured with an item asking the respondent if her partner demanded to know who she was with and where she was at all times. The measure of sexual jealousy was based on a question asking the respondent if her partner was jealous and did not want her to talk to other men. Heavy alcohol consumption was measured with a question that asked the respondent how many times in the month prior to the interview her partner had five or more drinks on one occasion.

Dependent Variable

The current study employed a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Statistics Canada, 2000). Male partner violence against women was defined as acts of physical assault (being pushed, grabbed, or shoved in a way that could hurt; being slapped; being choked; having something thrown that could hurt; being hit with something that could hurt; being threatened with or having a knife or gun used; being kicked, bit, or hit with a fist; being beaten), physical threat (being threatened to be hit with a fist or anything else that could hurt), and sexual assault (being forced into any sexual activity by being threatened, held down, or hurt in some way) perpetrated by a woman’s current marital or common-law partner within a specified time frame preceding the interview. Hence, if respondents reported having experienced any of the aforementioned forms of violence within the specified time frame preceding the interview, they were coded as having experienced violence. Two reference periods were employed in the current study, namely, 1-year and 5-year frames.

Method of Data Analysis

The analysis was conducted in two stages. To document the prevalence of violence among women with and without disabilities and investigate risk markers, the first stage consisted of descriptive analyses in which bivariate relationships were examined using cross-tabulations with chi-square tests of significance. In the second stage, more elaborate analyses were conducted using multivariate statistical techniques. These analyses allowed an assessment of the impact of the independent variables and determination of the importance of the independent variables for understanding and elevated risk for violence against women with disabilities. The multivariate technique used for this purpose was logistic multiple regression. Logistic regression is an appropriate technique for predicting a dichotomous dependent variable from a set of independent variables. This technique also has a very simple interpretation. For a given variable it simply provides a ratio of the odds of violence occurring. If the value of the odds is greater than 1, the variable is positively related to violence. If it is less than 1, the variable is negatively related to violence.

Results

760

Download more at Learnclax.com

Descriptive Analysis

Violence by Disability Status

Although women with disabilities reported a higher 1-year prevalence of violence than women without disabilities (2.0% vs. 1.7%), the difference was not statistically significant. However, when recalling violence over the 5 years prior to the interview, women with disabilities reported a significantly higher prevalence of

violence (4.9% vs. 3.5%, p < .05).1

Table 1 contains the results of each component of the 5-year prevalence of violence cross-tabulated with disability status. Women with disabilities were significantly more likely to report experiencing 6 of the 10 items measuring violence. They were 1.4 to 1.9 times more likely than women without disabilities to report being threatened to be hit with a fist or anything else that could hurt; to be pushed, grabbed, or shoved in a way that could hurt; and to be slapped. The greatest disparities occurred on some of the more severe forms of violence. Women with disabilities were twice as likely to report being beaten and kicked, bit, or hit with a fist. They were also 3 times more likely to report being forced into any sexual activity by being threatened, held down, or hurt in some way.

Table 1

* p < .10.

** p < .05.

Independent Variables by Disability Status

Table 2 provides the results of the cross-tabulations of the independent variables by disability status. In terms of relationship factors, Table 2 shows that women with disabilities were more likely than women without disabilities to be in relationships that were educationally incompatible at both ends of the continuum; that is, they were more likely to report having either much less education or much more education than their partner. Women with disabilities were more likely to have had longer duration relationships. With respect to victim- related characteristics, women with disabilities were more likely to have less than high school education and less likely to have a university degree. They were also more likely to be unemployed, older, and Aboriginal. In terms of perpetrator-related characteristics, partners of women with disabilities were more likely to engage in patriarchal dominance, sexual possessiveness, and sexual jealousy. However, they were less likely to have consumed alcohol heavily and no more likely to have drunk heavily 5 or more times in the month prior to the

761

Download more at Learnclax.com

survey.

Table 2

762

Download more at Learnclax.com

763

Download more at Learnclax.com

** p < .05.

*** p < .01.

Multivariate Analysis

Separate Logistic Regressions for Disabled and Nondisabled Women

Table 3 provides the results of the logistic regressions on the 5-year prevalence of violence for women with and without disabilities. In terms of relationship factors, the results show that, controlling for all other variables in the models, education compatibility was not significantly linked to the odds of violence for either group of women. Duration of relationship was negatively related to the odds of violence for women without disabilities. For each additional year in which a nondisabled woman had been with her current partner, her odds of violence decreased by 2.5%. For each additional year that a disabled woman had been with her partner, her odds of violence decreased by 1.9%, a difference that was not statistically significant. With respect to victim-related characteristics, education was not significantly linked to violence for either group of women. Although unemployed women with disabilities had 43% increased odds of abuse, this increase was not statistically significant. Age was negatively related to violence for women with disabilities. Each year of increase in age for women with disabilities was associated with a 4% reduction in odds of violence. Aboriginal status was not linked to significantly increased odds of violence for women with disabilities but was for those without disabilities. Aboriginal women without disabilities faced 180% increased odds of violence compared to non-Aboriginal women without disabilities. In terms of perpetrator-related characteristics, patriarchal dominance, sexual possessiveness, and sexual jealousy were linked to significantly increased odds of violence for women with and without disabilities.

Table 3

764

Download more at Learnclax.com

765

Download more at Learnclax.com

* p < .10.

** p < .05.

*** p < .01.

Of all the variables included in the current study, these had the strongest impact on the odds of violence for both groups of women. On the other hand, heavy alcohol consumption was significantly linked to increased odds of violence only for women without disabilities, who faced 11% increased odds of violence for each additional occasion in the month prior to the survey that their partner drank heavily.

Logistic Regression for Disabled and Nondisabled Women Combined

The next stage of the analysis was to enter the independent variables into the logistic regression model sequentially based on the explanatory framework. This allowed identification of whether variables derived from any particular level of the explanatory framework, or in combination, accounted for the elevated risk for violence against women with disabilities.

Table 4 provides the results of the sequential logistic regressions. The first model in Table 4 contains the results of the disability status variable without any controls. The difference in prevalence of violence between the two groups translated to women with disabilities having 39% higher odds of violence in the 5 years preceding the survey compared to women without disabilities. The second model in Table 4 controlled for the relationship factors. Controlling for relationship factors did not decrease the difference in odds between the two groups of women and, in fact, significantly increased the difference in odds. Similarly, when controlling for victim-related characteristics in the third model, the difference in odds was not decreased. The fourth model in Table 4 controlled for the perpetrator-related characteristics. When the perpetrator-related characteristics were controlled, the odds of violence for women with disabilities became only 3% higher compared to women without disabilities, a difference for all of the variables from the explanatory framework. With all variables controlled, the odds of violence for women with disabilities relative to women without disabilities were not reduced. In short, the perpetrator-related characteristics accounted for disabled women’s significantly higher odds of violence relative to women without disabilities.

Table 4

766

Download more at Learnclax.com

* p < .10.

** p < .05.

*** p < .01.

Discussion

Sobsey (2000) cautioned that research on partner violence against women with disabilities that draws comparisons with the general population may yield misleading results because women who have severe developmental disabilities are underrepresented among women in intimate relationships. Although the 1999

GSS is representative of the population of Canada, thereby including some women with severe disabilities,2 it is nevertheless the case that women with the most severe developmental disabilities may be underrepresented among women with partners. Of course, results from an examination of partner violence against women with and without disabilities would be misleading if one were to generalize to all women with disabilities. It behooves the reader to bear in mind that this research focused on violence by partners, who, as shown in the review of the literature, have nevertheless been identified as the most common perpetrators of violence against women with disabilities.

Based on the wide variation in the literature on prevalence rates, the prevalence of violence against women with disabilities is generally described as being “equal to or greater than their nondisabled peers” (Gilson et al., 2001, p. 419). The current study shows that partner violence against women with disabilities in Canada is no exception. Although women with disabilities reported 1.2 times the rate of violence compared to women without disabilities in the year prior to the interview, this difference was not statistically significant. When examining a longer time frame that provided a more accurate account of all women in the sample who had experienced partner violence, women with disabilities reported a significantly elevated risk for violence. The disparity in the rate of violence for women with disabilities compared to those without disabilities grew to 1.4 times in the 5 years preceding the interview. In other words, depending on the time frame of the dependent

767

Download more at Learnclax.com

variable, women with disabilities in Canada reported experiencing violence by intimate partners at rates that either equaled or surpassed those of women without disabilities. Moreover, the results showed that women with disabilities were particularly vulnerable to severe acts of violence by their partners in the 5 years preceding the survey. Barnett et al. (2005) commented that “investigators rarely assume that disabled women have intimate partners, so IPV (intimate partner violence) often goes undetected” (pp. 353–354). To effectively prevent and address violence against women with disabilities, stakeholders need to be aware of this false assumption and of the reality of partner violence against women with disabilities. In addition, they must also have an understanding of the dynamics underlying an elevated risk of violence against women with disabilities. To provide insights into these dynamics, an explanatory framework that organized risk markers in terms of relationship factors, victim-related characteristics, and perpetrator-related characteristics was examined.

In terms of relationship factors, although women with and without disabilities significantly differed on education compatibility and duration of union, the multivariate analyses showed that these variables did not significantly affect the odds of violence against women with disabilities, and they did not contribute to the elevated risk of violence against women with disabilities. These relationship factors were not important for understanding the elevated risk for violence against women with disabilities.

The results of the descriptive analysis were consistent with expectations on all of the victim-related characteristics. Women with disabilities were less likely to be well educated, and more likely to be unemployed, older, and of Aboriginal ancestry. However, controlling for all other independent variables in the current study, only age significantly affected the odds of violence against women with disabilities. Although disability was positively related to age, the negative relationship between age and violence generally found in the literature also held true for partner violence against women with disabilities; that is, it was young women with disabilities who were most vulnerable to violence by their partners. Given that it is conventional in Canadian society for partners within a couple to be of the same age or for the male partner to be slightly older (Eshleman & Wilson, 1998; Martin-Matthews, 2000), it is reasonable to extrapolate that young males are most likely to perpetrate partner violence against women with disabilities. Despite a significant impact of age on the odds of violence against women with disabilities, victim-related characteristics did not contribute to understanding the elevated risk for violence against women with disabilities.

With respect to perpetrator-related characteristics, contrary to expectations, male partners of women with disabilities were not more likely to abuse alcohol, and alcohol abuse did not have a significant impact on the odds of violence against women with disabilities. These results did not lend support to the dependency-stress model as an explanation for the elevated risk of partner violence against women with disabilities. On the other hand, male partners of women with disabilities were about 2.5 times more likely to behave in a patriarchal dominating manner and about 1.5 times more likely to engage in sexually proprietary behaviors than were partners of women without disabilities. The results of the multivariate analysis showed that patriarchal dominance and sexually proprietary behaviors were strongly linked to increased odds of violence for women with and without disabilities. Moreover, controlling for these perpetrator-related characteristics accounted for the elevated risk for violence against women with disabilities. These results did lend support to the applications of feminist disability and evolutionary psychology theories. Hence, it is important for

768

Download more at Learnclax.com

stakeholders to recognize not only that women with disabilities have partners and are susceptible to partner violence but also that ideologies of patriarchy and male sexual proprietariness also affect these women’s lives and, in fact, appear to account for their elevated risk for partner violence.

At this juncture it is important to note some limitations of the current research. It has been argued that a tendency for women with disabilities to have lower education levels, low self-esteem, and less assertiveness may render these women less likely to interpret violent acts as violence (Curry et al., 2001). This suggested that behavioral indicators were appropriate for measuring violence against the sampled women with disabilities. However, it also bears adding that women with disabilities have been found to experience forms of abuse that were not measured with the modified version of the CTS used in the current study. For example, Gilson et al. (2001) identified several forms of abuse that are unique to women with disabilities including removal of an accessibility device, withholding medication, and threatening institutionalization. Exclusion of such acts results in underestimating the prevalence of partner abuse against women with disabilities. This was illustrated in a study by McFarlane et al. (2001), who employed the Abuse Assessment Screen-Disability (AAS-D) instrument with a clinical sample of 51 women with physical disabilities. The AAS-D included two standard questions (one on physical and one on sexual assault) and two disability-related questions on abuse (e.g., being prevented from using a wheelchair, cane, respirator, or other assistive devices). Of the sampled women, 9.8% reported at least one form of abuse having occurred in the past year. Without the two disability- related questions, the prevalence would have been 7.8%. Of course, the disability-related questions would not be applicable to women without disabilities and so would not have been appropriate for use in the current study because the analysis required use of the same dependent variable for women with disabilities and women without disabilities. Nevertheless, readers must recognize that the prevalence rates of violence in the current study likely underestimate the rate of partner abuse experienced by women with disabilities in Canada. A second limitation concerned the survey method. Women with disabilities that would prevent them from understanding the survey were excluded, and so these women were not represented. As well, women who would have required assistance to complete the survey by phone were excluded. Although the research conducted by Young et al. (1997) suffered from its own limitations, in addition to completion of the survey over the phone they were able to offer respondents hard-copy, computerized, or audio cassette versions to allow women with severe disabilities to complete the survey in privacy. On the other hand, if offering such options in the GSS would have required these women to lose their anonymity, then new compromises would have been introduced into the survey.

Although this research was not without limitations, it has filled an important gap in our knowledge of partner violence against women with disabilities. Extant research was widely acknowledged as “acutely deficient” (Barnett et al., 2005, p. 352). Nosek et al. (2001) criticized past studies of abuse and disability based on seven principles of valid research: (a) failure to operationally define variables and distinguish between different forms of violence, such as physical and sexual violence; (b) use of no standardized measures; (c) failure to categorize specific incidents; (d) heterogeneity in terms of gender, age, and type of disability; (e) use of convenience sampling; (f) failure to use comparison groups; and (g) lack of multivariate statistical analyses. Although the data did not allow a meaningful categorization of women by type of disability, the current study largely addressed these weaknesses of past research (variables were operationalized, standardized measures of violence

769

Download more at Learnclax.com

were employed, distinctions were made between types of violence, there was a focus on gender, age was controlled, advanced sampling methods were used, women with disabilities were compared to the population of women without disabilities, and multivariate statistical analyses were employed).

In conclusion, partner violence against women with disabilities is a social problem in need of recognition and attention by stakeholders. Although women with disabilities need supports to reduce their vulnerability, the apparent importance of perpetrator-related characteristics derived from feminist disability and evolutionary psychology theories suggested that more attention should also be directed toward perpetrators. Efforts to reduce patriarchal dominating and male sexually proprietary behaviors in the general population will also help to reduce partner violence against women with disabilities. In addition, given that partners of women with disabilities are more likely to express these behaviors, efforts specifically directed to these men are needed. For example, community awareness campaigns for violence prevention could specifically address patriarchal domination, sexual proprietariness, and violent behavior in the context of relationships involving women with disabilities. Men who espouse patriarchy and sexual proprietariness need to receive the message that such ideologies are inappropriate and, along with violence, such behaviors toward women, including women with disabilities, will not be tolerated.

Discussion Questions

1. The author includes a quote from Chappell (2003) stating that “women with disabilities face an epidemic of monumental proportions” (as cited by Brownridge, 2006, p. 805). Based on the findings presented in this article, do you agree? Why or why not?

2. This study presents findings from Canada’s General Social Survey. Do you think that these results would be similar if the study was conducted on data collected from persons living in the United States? Why or why not?

3. Many have argued that individual characteristics can explain why women with disabilities are more likely to be victimized than others, such as living in poverty, having lower educational attainment, and experiencing barriers to employment; however, Brownridge (2006) finds that perpetrator-related characteristics explain intimate partner violence against women with disabilities more readily than victim characteristics. How can you reconcile these findings?

4. Given the risk factors for intimate partner violence for women with disabilities, what are the policy implications for reducing this type of victimization?

Notes

1. Given that the purpose of the remaining analyses was to examine an elevated risk for violence against women with disabilities, the remaining analyses were conducted with the 5-year prevalence rate.

2. Given that the Participation and Activity Limitations Survey (PALS) and GSS were representative of the Canadian population and used the same definition of disabilities that spanned the continuum in terms of severity. Of the women reporting disabilities in the PALS, 32.2% reported mild disabilities, 25.3% moderate disabilities, 28.3% severe disabilities, and 14.1% very severe disabilities (Statistics Canada, 2002).

770

Download more at Learnclax.com

References Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence

approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 655–669.

Barnett, O., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (2005). Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brownridge, D. A. (2002). Cultural variation in male partner violence against women: A comparison of Quebec with the rest of Canada. Violence Against Women, 8, 87–115.

Brownridge, D. A. (2003). Male partner violence against Aboriginal women in Canada: An empirical analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 65, 83.

Brownridge, D. A. (2004). Male partner violence against women in stepfamilies: An analysis of risk and explanations in the Canadian milieu. Violence and Victims, 19, 17–36.

Brownridge, D. A., & Halli, S. S. (1999). Measuring family violence: The conceptualization and utilization of prevalence and incidence rates. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 333–350.

Brownridge, D. A., & Halli, S. S. (2001). Explaining violence against women in Canada. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Chappell, M. (2003). Violence against women with disabilities: A research overview of the last decade. AWARE: The Newsletter of the BC Institute Against Family Violence, 10(1), 11–16.

Curry, M. A., Hassounch-Phillips, D., & Johnston-Silverberg, A. (2001). Abuse of women with disabilities: An ecological model and review. Violence Against Women, 7, 60–79.

Eshleman, J. R., & Wilson, S. J. (1998). The family (2nd Canadian ed.). Scarborough, Canada: Allyn & Bacon.

Gilson, S. R., DePoy, E., & Cramer, E. P. (2001). Linking the assessment of self-reported functional capacity with abuse experiences of women with disabilities. Violence Against Women, 7, 418–431.

Hightower, J., & Smith, G. (2003). Aging, disabilities, and abuse. AWARE: The Newsletter of the BC

771

Download more at Learnclax.com

Institute Against Family Violence, 10(1), 17–18.

Howe, K. (2000). Violence against women with disabilities: An overview of the literature. Retrieved April 28, 2003, from www.wwda.org.au/keran.htm

Johnson, H. (2001). Contrasting views of the role of alcohol in cases of wife assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 54–72.

Li, L., Ford, J. A., & Moore, D. (2000). An exploratory study of violence, substance abuse, disability, and gender. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 61–72.

Martin-Matthews, A. (2000). Change and diversity in aging families and intergenerational relations. In N. Mandell & A. Duffy (Eds.), Canadian families: Diversity, conflict, and change (2nd ed., pp. 323–360). Toronto, Canada: Harcourt Brace.

McFarlane, J., Hughes, R. B., Nosek, M. A., Groff, J. Y., Swedlend, N., & Mullen, P. D. (2001). Abuse Assessment Screen-Disability (AAS-D): Measuring frequency, type, and perpetrator of abuse toward women with physical disabilities. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 10, 861–866.

Melcombe, L. (2003). Facing up to facts. AWARE: The Newsletter of the BC Institute Against Family Violence, 10(1), 8–10.

Milberger, S., Israel, N., LeRoy, B., Martin, A., Potter, L., & Patchak-Schuster, P. (2003). Violence against women with physical disabilities. Violence and Victims, 18, 581–591.

Nettelbeck, T., & Wilson, C. (2002). Personal vulnerability to victimization of people with mental retardation. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3, 289–306.

Nettelbeck, T., Wilson, C., Potter, R., & Perry, C. (2000). The influence of interpersonal competence on personal vulnerability of persons with mental retardation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 46–62.

Newman, E., Christopher, S. R., & Berry, J. O. (2000). Developmental disabilities, trauma exposure and post-traumatic stress disorder. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1, 154–170.

Nosek, M. A., Howland, C. A., & Hughes, R. B. (2001). The investigation of abuse and women with disabilities: Going beyond assumptions. Violence Against Women, 7, 477–499.

772

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.wwda.org.au/keran.htm

Petersilia, J. R. (2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities: A review essay. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 655–694.

Ridington, J. (1989). Beating the “odds”: Violence and women with disabilities (Position Paper 2). Vancouver: Disabled Women’s Network of Canada.

Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 5, 257–273.

Sobsey, D. (1994). Violence and abuse in the lives of people with disabilities: The end of silent acceptance? Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Sobsey, D. (2000). Faces of violence against women with developmental disabilities. Impact, 13(3), 2–3.

Sobsey, D., & Calder, P. (1999). Violence against people with disabilities: A conceptual analysis. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Statistics Canada. (2000). 1999 General Social Survey, Cycle 13 victimization: Public use microdata file documentation and user’s guide. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Industry.

Statistics Canada. (2002, December 3). Participation and activity limitation survey: A profile of disability in Canada. Daily, pp. 1–8.

Thomson, R. G. (1994). Redrawing the boundaries of feminist disability studies. Feminist Studies, 20, 582–598.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1998). Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives and the evolutionary psychology of male sexual proprietariness. In R. E. Dobash & R. P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking violence against women (pp. 224–230). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Young, M. E., Nosek, M. A., Howland, C., Chanpong, G., & Rintala, D. H. (1997). Prevalence of abuse of women with physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 78(12, Suppl. 5): S34–S38.

773

Download more at Learnclax.com

774

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 23

Historically, research on persons with mental disorders and crime focused on their criminal behavior rather than on their criminal victimization. More recently, the victimization experiences of mentally disordered individuals have come to light. Beyond just identifying that mentally disordered persons are at risk for victimization, Silver (2002) uses theory to examine explanations for their increased victimization risk. In doing so, he uses a sample of 270 discharged psychiatric patients and a sample of nonpatients drawn from the same neighborhood. He finds that involvement in conflicted social relationships influences victimization risk for persons with mental disorders.

Mental Disorder and Violent Victimization: The Mediating Role of Involvement in Conflicted Social Relationships

Eric Silver

SOURCE: Silver, E. (2002). Mental disorder and violent victimization: The mediating role of involvement in conflicted social relationships. Criminology, 40, 191–212. With permission from the American Society of Criminology.

Most prior studies of the relationship between mental disorder and violence depict mentally disordered people as violent actors (Link et al., 1992, 1999; Monahan et al., 2000; Quinsey et al., 1998; Silver, 2000a, 2000b; Silver et al., 1999; Steadman et al., 1998, 2000; Swanson et al., 1999). Few studies, however, have attempted to measure the amount of violence that is committed against people with mental disorder (but see Hiday et al., 1999; Lehman and Linn, 1984). Thus, we know relatively little about the risk of violent victimization that is associated with mental disorder and even less about why such victimizations occur.

As a result of deinstitutionalization policies that began in the 1950s and 1960s, most mentally disordered people currently reside in communities where they are engaged in social relationships with a range of others, including family members, friends, and other community residents (Johnson, 1990; Silver, 2000a). Further, several studies suggest that these social relationships may often become strained as family members and others seek to manage and control the behavior of their mentally disordered relatives and acquaintances (Cascardi et al., 1996; Estroff and Zimmer, 1994; Hiday, 1997; see also Felson, 1992). According to Hiday (1997:400), symptoms of serious mental disorder can “create tense situations between a mentally ill person and others,” particularly when others attempt to exert social control by “persuading the person with mental disorder to desist in disturbing or annoying behavior or comply with treatment.” Hiday further suggests that “these tense situations can escalate to accusations, anger, and eventually pushing, hitting, and fighting.” Thus, it appears that one important reason mentally disordered people may become victims of violence is that they are at greater risk of becoming involved in conflicted social relationships in which others are attempting to control their behavior.

The purpose of the current study is to determine whether the increased risk of violent victimization that is associated with mental disorder can be explained by the disproportionate involvement of mentally disordered people in conflicted social relationships. To the extent that mental disorder leads people to behave in ways that elicit grievances (or produce negative emotions) in others, mentally disordered people may be more likely

775

Download more at Learnclax.com

to become the targets of social control efforts that may include violence. This may be particularly true for mentally disordered people who use illegal substances because the behaviors associated with acquiring and

using substances may elicit additional social control responses (Hiday, 1997).1 Indeed, research on violence committed by discharged psychiatric patients has shown that those who use drugs are more likely to engage in violence (Steadman et al., 1998; Swanson et al., 1990), which suggests that they also may be more likely to engage in other forms of behavior that people construe as unwanted or offensive.

To examine the link between involvement in conflicted social relationships and violent victimization, this study draws on Felson’s (1992) social interactionist theory of violence and Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory of crime and delinquency, both of which emphasize the situational dynamics surrounding violent interactions. From Felson’s (1992) perspective, people use violence in social interactions with others as part of a strategy of informal social control (see also Felson and Steadman, 1983). From Agnew’s (1992) perspective, violent behavior is one of several negative outcomes that result from exposure to stressful events that produce negative emotions, such as anger, rage, or fear. Both perspectives, therefore, support the notion that mentally disordered people who are involved in conflicted social relationships—that is, relationships in which their behavior elicits grievances (or negative emotions) in others—will be at greater risk of being victimized by violence.

Mental Disorder and Violent Victimization

In the only recent study to directly compare the violent victimization rates of mentally disordered and nonmentally disordered people, Hiday et al. (1999) found that recently involuntarily hospitalized psychiatric patients in North Carolina were approximately 2.5 times more likely to be victimized by violence than were members of the U.S. general population (8.2% compared with 3.1%). However, this comparison remains tentative because it was based on victimization data from very different sources (i.e., North Carolina versus the entire United States) and because it was made without statistical controls for other known correlates of violent victimization (i.e., race, gender, SES, and neighborhood disadvantage). Thus, we do not know the extent to which the observed association between mental disorder and violent victimization is due to spurious associations with other known correlates of violent victimization. An important contribution of the current study is that it controls for both individual- and neighborhood-level correlates of violent victimization in examining this association.

Moreover, the study by Hiday et al. (1999) was not designed to provide information on the types of social relationships that give rise to violent victimization. Fortunately, however, qualitative data bearing on this question are available. In a study of 143 in-depth interviews with seriously mentally disordered people and their relatives, Estroff and Zimmer (1994) observed a significant amount of reciprocal antagonism and tension in the social relationship of mentally disordered people. They concluded that “violence seldom happens unilaterally, and that hostility and violence from others is not uncommon in the personal histories and current social networks of the respondents” (p. 271). This conclusion points to the importance of examining involvement in conflicted relationships with others as a possible explanation for the violent victimization of mentally disordered people.

776

Download more at Learnclax.com

However, because most studies of victimization have focused primarily on predatory street crime (Meier and Miethe, 1993), little is known about the risk of violent victimization that may result from involvement in conflicted relationships with others. To fill this gap, the current study addresses the following research questions: (1) Are people with mental disorder more likely than those without mental disorder to be victimized by violence, after controlling for known individual- and community-level correlates of victimization? (2) Is the increased risk of violent victimization that is associated with mental disorder mediated, in part, by the greater involvement of mentally disordered people in conflicted social relationships with others? (3) Is the increased risk of violent victimization that is associated with mental disorder and illegal drug use also, in part, mediated by involvement in conflicted social relationships?

To address these questions, this study uses data from the Pittsburgh site of the MacArthur Foundation’s Violence Risk Assessment Study (Silver, 2000a, 2000b; Silver et al., 1999; Steadman et al., 1998). The data consist of a sample of discharged psychiatric patients (N = 270) and a sample of nonpatients (N = 477) drawn from the same neighborhoods as the patients, using the same data collection and measurement procedures. Both the patient and the nonpatient data contain measures of subjects’ recent violent victimization and the quality of their social relationships with others, among other relevant factors. Thus, the MacArthur data provide a unique opportunity to measure the association between violent victimization and serious mental disorder and to examine the contribution that involvement in conflicted social relationships makes to this association.

Data, Measures, and Statistical Procedures

Psychiatric Patient Sample

Between 1992 and 1995, the MacArthur Foundation’s Violence Risk Assessment Study sampled admissions from the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (WPIC), a university-based acute psychiatric inpatient facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Silver, 2000a, 2000b; Silver et al., 1999; Steadman et al., 1998). To be eligible for participation in the study, patients had to be acute (i.e., short-stay) civil admissions, between the age of 18 and 40, English-speaking, White or African American, and have at least one of the following types of major mental disorder diagnoses: schizophrenia, depression, mania, psychosis, delusions, substance abuse disorder, or personality disorder.

The mean length of hospitalization for subjects treated at WPIC was 20 days (the median was 15), consistent with the lengths of hospitalization for patients admitted to psychiatric facilities in the United States (Rouse, 1998). The mean length of stay of 20 days was similar to the mean length of stay of 23 days for all patients admitted to WPIC during the three-year period that these data were gathered. Most patients (72.6%) were admitted to the hospital voluntarily. The fact that the patient sample was drawn from a population of acute (i.e., short-stay) inpatients must not be taken as an indication that they were not seriously mentally ill. Although subjects tended to be released quickly after admission, they also tended to require repeated admissions for psychiatric problems. Of the 270 patients in this study, 76% had experienced at least one prior admission to an inpatient psychiatric facility, and 30% had experienced four or more prior admissions. Hospital data collection was conducted in two parts: an initial interview to obtain a wide array of background

777

Download more at Learnclax.com

data, and a second interview by the research clinician to confirm the subject’s hospital chart diagnosis and to administer several other clinical scales. All subjects were asked for written informed consent to participate in the study. Five attempts were made to reinterview subjects in the community (approximately every 10 weeks) over the one-year period after discharge from WPIC.

Using the same interview schedule, interviewers also spoke with a collateral informant, i.e., a person who was familiar with the subject’s behavior and functioning in the community. Collateral informants were nominated by subjects during each follow-up interview. If the collateral nominee did not have at least weekly contact with the subject, the interviewer suggested a more appropriate person based on a review of the subject’s social network data. Collateral informants were most often family members (47.1%), but also were friends (22.0%), professionals (16.1%), significant others (11.8%), or others (e.g., coworkers, 3.0%). All subjects and collateral informants were paid for each completed interview.

Official records provided a third source of information about the patient’s behavior in the community. If a patient was readmitted to a psychiatric hospital, the hospital was contacted to obtain information regarding the rehospitalization, including dates of hospitalization, diagnosis, and reasons for admission. Arrest records for all patients were requested at the end of the one-year follow-up.

Of the 4,069 patients admitted to WPIC between 1992 and 1995, 2,532 met the study’s eligibility criteria. A total of 629 patients were approached to participate in the study. The refusal rate was 33.2%. Twenty-nine patients who agreed to participate were discharged before the hospital interview could be completed. The final sample given a hospital interview was 391, of whom 312 (80%) completed the first follow-up interview. Postdischarge census tract locations were identified for 270 of these 312 subjects (87%). There were no significant differences in terms of sex, age, race, or admission diagnosis between enrolled subjects who did not complete the first follow-up interview (N = 79) and those who did (N = 321), nor were there any significant differences between subjects for whom the postdischarge census tract location was known (N = 270) and those for whom it was not known (N = 42).

Community Comparison Sample

A detailed description of the methods used to gather the community comparison is provided by Steadman et al. (1998). Briefly, the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Social and Urban Research identified a community sample in Pittsburgh that was drawn from the same census tracts in which the patients lived during the one-year period after their discharge from WPIC.

The subjects in the community sample were interviewed only once. They and their collateral informants were questioned about the subject’s behavior in the past ten weeks, the same time frame used for the patients. Official arrests recorded also were obtained. In addition to being selected from the same census tracts as the patients, the nonpatient community respondents had to have lived at the current address for at least two months, be between the age of 18 and 40, and be White or African American (i.e., the same criteria used to gather the patient sample).

Measures

778

Download more at Learnclax.com

Violent Victimization

Violent victimization was measured based on the following questions about subjects’ victimization experiences in the ten weeks after discharge from WPIC: (1) Has anyone hit you with a fist or object or beaten you up? (2) Has anyone tried to physically force you to have sex against your will? (3) Has anyone used a knife or fired a gun at you (or threatened to do so with the weapon in hand)? Seven percent of subjects reported having been hit or beat up during the past ten weeks; 3% reported having been forced to have sex; and 2% reported having been threatened or attacked with a knife or gun. Because affirmative responses to these items were relatively rare, they were combined into a dichotomous indicator coded 1 for subjects who answered yes to any of the questions (10%) and 0 for all others.

Involvement in Conflicted Social Relationships

Involvement in conflicted social relationships was measured by summing two items that were embedded in a larger instrument designed to elicit information on subjects’ social networks during the past ten weeks. Specifically, subjects were asked to identify from their social networks anyone “with whom you really don’t get along, or don’t like, or who really upsets you,” and anyone “who really doesn’t seem to like you or who you

seem to upset.”2 The distribution of responses to these items was skewed: Most subjects (78.3%) identified no one, 13% named one person, and 5% named two people. Because less than 3% of the sample named three or more people in response to these items, responses of three or more were recoded to 3. Although this measure gauges the extent to which subjects were involved in conflicted relationships with others, it does not differentiate between conflicts that resulted from social control efforts aimed at redressing grievances (Felson, 1992) and conflicts that resulted from the release of negative affect, more generally (Agnew, 1992).

Patient Status

Patient status was measured as a dichotomous variable coded 1 for subjects in the patient sample and 0 for subjects in the community comparison sample.

Individual-Level Control Variables

A large number of individual-level control variables are available in the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment data (Monahan et al., 2000). For the purpose of this analysis, control variables were selected if they had been found consistently in previous research to be significant predictors of violent victimization (for a review, see Sampson and Lauritsen, 1994). These measures include gender, age, socioeconomic status, employment status, and race. Gender was measured as a dichotomous variable coded 1 for males. Age was measured as a dichotomous variable coded 1 for subjects who were under 25 at the time of the interview. Socioeconomic status was measured as a combination of subjects’ education, income, and occupational status based on the Hollingshead and Redlich five-factor scale. From this scale, a dichotomous variable was created and coded 1 for subjects in the lowest SES category and 0 for all others. Employment status was measured by a dichotomous variable coded 1 for subjects who were unemployed for the entire ten-week follow-up period and 0 for all others. Race was measured by a dichotomous variable coded 1 for African Americans and 0 for Whites.

779

Download more at Learnclax.com

In addition, the analyses reported below control for subject violence committed during the same ten-week period covered by the violent victimization measure. This is a crucial control variable because an unknown proportion of the victimization experiences reported by subjects may have grown out of conflicts that were initiated by the subject’s violent behavior. Unfortunately, the data do not allow the victimization incidents to be disaggregated into those that were and were not initiated by subject violence. Therefore, it is necessary to control statistically for subject violence.

Subject violence was measured using questions adapted from the Conflict Tactics Scale. Subjects and collaterals each were asked whether the subjects had been involved in a violent incident during the past ten weeks. Violent acts included acts of battery that resulted in physical injury, sexual assaults, assaultive acts that involved the use of a weapon, or threats made with a weapon in hand. Only the most serious act for each violent incident was coded. Incidents of child discipline without injury were excluded. Violent acts reported by any of the three data sources—subject self-report, collateral report, or official records—were reviewed by a team of trained coders to obtain a single reconciled report of violence. A high degree of inter-rater reliability was achieved (Cohens’s kappa = .93; for additional details on coding and reliability, see Silver, 2000a). From these reconciled reports, a dichotomous violence measure was created and coded 1 for subjects who engaged in a violent act during the ten-week follow-up period, and 0 for those who did not.

Neighborhood-Level Control Variables

Studies of victimization that include individual- and community-level risk factors are rare in criminology. However, those that have been conducted have found that both community- and individual-level factors are important predictors of victimization risk (Lauritsen, 2001; Rountree et al., 1994; Sampson and Lauritsen, 1990; Sampson and Wooldredge, 1987; Sampson et al., 1997). Thus, all of the models reported below are estimated with controls for neighborhood characteristics, operationalized here as the census tract in which

subjects lived.3 Using census tract identifiers, data from the patient and community comparison samples were matched to census tract records from the 1990 U.S. census to create a multilevel analysis file consisting of both neighborhood- and individual-level characteristics.

The neighborhood structural characteristics examined here include neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and neighborhood residential mobility. These measures were derived from a principle components factor analysis (using oblique rotation), in which the following variables were found to load on the disadvantage factor (factor loadings are provided in parentheses): percent public assistance (.92), percent female-headed households (.91), poverty rate (.87), unemployment rate (.87), percent African American (.81), high income (–.80), percent vacant dwellings (.76), percent managerial employment (–.75), and mean household wage (–.73). The eigenvalue for this factor was 6.2; the explained variance was 56.6%. A second factor, labeled “neighborhood mobility,” consisted of the proportion of individuals residing in the same home as five years ago (–.90) and the percent foreign born (.86). The eigenvalue for this factor was 1.8; explained variance was 16.4%.

Results

780

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 1 compares the patient and community samples on each of the variables included in this study. Although the community sample was drawn from the same neighborhoods as those of the patients, significant differences were observed in the characteristics of the individuals in each sample. As shown, the patient sample contained a higher percentage of males, a lower percentage of African Americans, a higher proportion of low SES individuals, a lower proportion of employed individuals, a higher proportion of individuals who had engaged in violence toward others, and a higher concentration of individuals in highly residentially mobile neighborhoods. There were no significant differences between the samples in terms of age or neighborhood disadvantage. Moreover, Table 1 shows that patients were significantly more likely than were nonpatients to have been involved in conflicted social relationships with others. In addition, patients were more likely to have been victims of violence, although a more rigorous test to this relationship (controlling for demographic differences between the samples) is provided in the multivariate analyses below.

Table 1

781

Download more at Learnclax.com

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001 (based on Pearson’s chi-square).

a. Includes subjects in the upper third of the neighborhood mobility factor score.

b. Includes subjects in the upper third of the neighborhood disadvantage factor score.

782

Download more at Learnclax.com

As a backdrop to the multivariate logistic regression analyses that follow, Table 2 presents bivariate associations with violent victimization for each of the study variables. Column 1 of Table 2 shows the unstandardized logistic regression coefficients and standard errors for each variable, and column 2 shows the odds ratios, which represent the multiplicative change in the odds of violent victimization that is associated with a one-unit change in each predictor variable. Consistent with prior research on victimization (Lauritsen, 2001; for a review, see Sampson and Lauritsen, 1994), the risk of violent victimization was found to be higher for males, African Americans, younger people, people of low SES, the unemployed, people who have been violent toward others, and those who live in more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Moreover, Table 2 shows that involvement in conflicted social relationships was significantly and positively related to the likelihood of violent victimization at the bivariate level.

Table 2

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001.

783

Download more at Learnclax.com

a. UC = unstandardized coefficient; S.E. = standard error.

b. Unrecoded factor score.

The multivariate analyses are presented in Table 3. Model 1 of Table 3 shows the significant bivariate relationship between patient status and violent victimization reported previously in Table 1. Model 2 adds the individual- and neighborhood-level control variables to the equation. Not surprisingly, violence toward others in the past ten weeks was strongly and significantly related to violent victimization, net of the other control variables, as was neighborhood disadvantage. The strong effect of violence toward others on victimization suggests that a significant proportion of violent victimizations may grow out of situations in which violence is mutually inflicted.

Table 3

* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001.

a. UC = unstandardized coefficient; S.E. = standard error.

b. Unrecoded factor score.

Model 2 also shows that the effect of patient status on violent victimization was reduced when the control

784

Download more at Learnclax.com

variables were introduced to the equation, which suggests that some of the effect of patient status on violent

victimization was spuriously related to the control variables.4 However, the effects of patient status on violent victimization remained significant, net of the control variables. Thus, patient status contributed significantly to the probability of violent victimization, over and above the effects of the individual- and neighborhood- level control variables.

Model 3 of Table 3 shows that involvement in conflicted social relationships was significantly and positively related to violent victimization, net of the individual and neighborhood control variables. Moreover, controlling for involvement in conflicted relationships resulted in a 22% reduction in the unstandardized coefficient for patient status [(.60–.47)/.60], and it rendered the relationship between patient status and violent victimization nonsignificant. This result suggests that a substantial amount of the increased risk of violent victimization that was associated with patient status was due to the disproportionate involvement of patients in conflicted social relationships with others. In contrast, the coefficient for neighborhood disadvantage remained significant in Model 3, which suggests that the risk of victimization associated with living in a disadvantaged neighborhood involves processes other than relationship conflict. Such processes may include proximity to a larger pool of motivated offenders (see below).

Because research on violence committed by discharged psychiatric patients has shown that those with drug abuse problems are at greater risk of engaging in violence than are patients without such problems (Steadman et al., 1998; Swanson et al., 1990), and because substance use may further lead patients to behave in ways that elicit social control efforts from others, the analyses in Table 3 were replicated after disaggregating the patients into those who reported using illegal drugs in the ten-week period prior to hospital admission and those who did not.

Patients who used illegal drugs were indeed more likely than were control subjects to be victims of violence, as were patients who did not use illegal drugs. However, the increased risk of victimization for patients who did not use illegal drugs disappeared when the control variables were introduced. In contrast, the effect for patients who used illegal drugs was reduced but remained significant. These results suggest that it is the combination of mental disorder and substance use that may be particularly important in increasing the risk of violent victimization among patients. More important, however, is that we see that the likelihood of violent victimization among patients who used illegal drugs was reduced by 23% and rendered nonsignificant when involvement in conflicted social relationships was introduced to the equation. Thus, involvement in conflicted social relationships appears to explain the increased risk of violent victimization that is associated with drug use among the patient sample. Once again, the effect of neighborhood disadvantage remained significant after controlling for relationship conflict.

Discussion

This study showed that mentally disordered people were more likely than were nonmentally disordered people to be victimized by violence, after controlling for known individual- and community-level correlates of violent victimization. Moreover, the risk of victimization was found to be particularly strong when mental disorder

785

Download more at Learnclax.com

co-occurred with illegal drug use. Results also showed that mentally disordered people were more likely than were nonmentally disordered people to be involved in conflicted social relationships with others. More importantly, however, this study showed that the significant relationship between mental disorder and violent victimization was rendered nonsignificant when involvement in conflicted social relationships was controlled statistically, a result that held after illegal drug use by the patients was taken into account. Together, these results suggest that one important reason mentally disordered people are more likely than are nonmentally disordered to become victims of violence is that their relationships with others are more likely to involve conflict.

The theoretical implications of this study lie in highlighting the potentially important contributions that situational theories such as those proposed by Felson (1992) and Agnew (1992) can make to the study of violent victimization. Felson (1992) views violence as an informal social control strategy aimed at deterring the behavior of others or obtaining “justice” as defined by the actor. As a subclass of what Felson (1992:4) refers to as “distressed people,” people who are mentally disordered (and who abuse drugs) may find it difficult to feign positive emotions, and they may be less able to show deference, thereby resulting in behavior that others may consider inappropriate or provocative. To the extent that people with mental disorder (and drug use problems) perform less competently in this regard, their behavior is likely to produce grievances in others. Such grievances, in turn, may elicit aggression from others as a form of informal social control or retaliation.

Similarly, Agnew (1992) argues that exposure to negative stimuli, including (but not limited to) behaviors or verbalizations that the individual experiences as noxious, may lead to violence. People with serious mental disorders, particularly those experiencing delusional beliefs or hallucinations, or those with substance abuse disorders, may introduce a variety of negative stimuli into their relationships with others (Hiday, 1997). Such negative stimuli may, in turn, increase the likelihood that the mentally disordered person will become the victim of violence as others attempt to apply “corrective actions” in the situation.

In emphasizing motivational factors related to relationship conflict, the current study departs from the more familiar lifestyle/routine activity perspective that is typically invoked in criminological studies of victimization (Meier and Miethe, 1993). Nonetheless, the finding that involvement in conflicted social relationships contributes to the violent victimization of mentally disordered people does not imply that the lifestyle/routine activity perspective is irrelevant. First, as noted above, the effect of neighborhood disadvantage on violent victimization remained significant after controlling for involvement in conflicted social relationships and other demographic variables, suggesting that proximity to motivated offenders may be an important factor. In addition, as one of the reviewers of this paper pointed out, it may be that involvement in conflicted social relationships leads to rejection and avoidance of the mentally disordered person, thereby decreasing his or her access to capable guardianship.

Thus, an important implication of this study may lie in suggesting that the situational theories of Felson and Agnew can complement the more traditional routine activity approaches by enabling an examination of the role of motivation in the violent encounter. Whereas the traditional routine activity approach to predatory crime treats offender motivation as constant (Cohen and Felson, 1979), the situational approach described

786

Download more at Learnclax.com

here treats motivation as central by arguing that the grievances (or negative affect) produced by conflicted relationships may motivate situational participants to behave violently (Felson, 1993). Thus, we may expect the specification of motivational factors rooted in relationship conflict to increase the explanatory power of routine activity models of violent victimization.

A similar argument was recently put forth by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996:6) in the context of youth victimization. They argued that “in addition to environmental conditions highlighted by the lifestyle theory … more attention needs to be given to the risk-increasing potential of individual characteristics and attributes.” Of particular relevance is their notion of “target antagonism,” which suggests that individual characteristics, including possessions, skills, or attributes, increase the risk of victimization by arousing anger, jealousy, or destructive impulses in others. The results reported here suggest that an important source of target antagonism leading to the violent victimization of mentally disordered people may include the extent to which the psychological, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of mental disorder (and substances use) lead them to become involved in conflicted relationships with others.

In addition to explaining violent victimization, grievances (and negative affect) may also help to explain the increased rates of violent behavior that have been observed among people with mental disorder. For example, a recent study of the perception of coercion among hospitalized psychiatric patients found that approximately two-thirds of patients who felt coerced into being hospitalized also reported feeling angry and fearful as a result (Monahan et al., 1999). This suggests that the conflict associated with efforts at informal social control by caretakers may inadvertently contribute to violence among psychiatric patients by eliciting grievances among them, particularly when social control efforts include involuntary treatments. Similarly, in a study of a combined sample of former psychiatric patients, ex-offenders, and members of the general population, Felson (1992) found that the effect of stressful life events on violent behavior was mediated by the victimization experiences of the respondents. In other words, the reason respondents (including former patients) committed more violence was that they had been victimized.

Similarly, a recent study by Hiday and colleagues (2000) found that psychiatric patients who had been victimized by violence were significantly more likely to engage in violence during the four-month period prior to their hospitalization for psychiatric treatment. Further, several recent studies have found that people with mental disorders who have behaved, or threatened to behave, violently in the recent past also report feeling threatened and, in fact, often were victims of violence (Estroff and Zimmer, 1994; Swanson et al., 1998, 1999). Thus, measuring the victimization experiences of mentally disordered people may ultimately help to explain their greater involvement in violent behavior.

Before concluding, some caveats are in order. First, because the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study was not designed to measure victimization, but was designed as a study of patient violence, the measure of victimization used here was limited. Specifically, I could not determine the number of victimizations suffered by subjects, nor could I determine the extent of injury that occurred. Moreover, the data did not allow me to identify the perpetrators of the victimizations. Therefore, the current study could not examine whether involvement in conflicted relationships had similar effects on victimizations that ranged in seriousness and

787

Download more at Learnclax.com

frequency, or those that were committed by family members, friends, or acquaintances.

Second, as mentioned earlier, the measure of relationship conflict used here was limited in that it did not differentiate between conflict that resulted from social control efforts and conflict that resulted from the release of negative emotions, more generally. Thus, this study was unable to assess the relative merits of Felson’s (1992) social interactionist perspective and Agnew’s (1992) theory of general strain as explanations for the violent victimization experiences of people with mental disorder. Distinguishing between these mechanisms empirically is the next logical step in understanding the social psychological processes that lead to violent victimization. Finally, the current study focused only on drug use by the patients because of the prominence of this variable in the literature on mental disorder and violence (Silver, 2000a; Silver et al., 1999). Nonetheless, similar hypotheses to those examined here may also be tested with respect to alcohol abuse.

Clearly, a more detailed study of the nature of the relationship between mental disorder and violent victimization should be pursued in the future. Toward this end, the importance of the current study lies in suggesting that one important direction for future research should be to collect more detailed information on the situational and interpersonal dynamics that surround the victimization experiences of mentally disordered people, with a particular emphasis on the social, contextual, and clinical factors that may lead to involvement in conflicted social relationships.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you think that involvement in conflicted social relationships would mediate the effect of mental disorder for persons with less severe mental disorder? Why or why not?

2. What are some alternate explanations for why persons with mental disorder are victimized? 3. This study showed that it is not mental disorder per se that increases victimization risk but that

conflicted social relationships mediate the effects of mental disorder. Discuss the reasons that mentally disordered individuals are likely to be involved in conflicted social relationships. How can this likelihood be reduced?

4. How might the theoretical ideas presented in this article apply to the victimization of persons with disabilities? What other theories could apply to the victimization of persons with mental disorders?

Notes

1. Although the current study focuses on the effect of substance use on violent victimization, similar hypotheses may be formulated with respect to alcohol abuse.

2. For the patient sample, in which multiple follow-up interviews were conducted, the items refer to the ten- week period prior to hospital admission and therefore occur before the period in which violent victimization was measured. However, for the community comparison sample, in which only one interview was conducted, the items refer to the same ten-week period as the violent victimization measure. Thus, the likelihood of confounding between the violence measure and the measure of relationship conflict is potentially greater for the community comparison sample than for the patient sample.

788

Download more at Learnclax.com

3. Most people regard their neighborhood as larger than one block but smaller than an entire sector of a city. Census tract boundaries lie between these two extremes and are drawn to encapsulate relatively homogeneous populations in terms of demographic and economic characteristics. Although census tracts are imperfect operationalizations of neighborhoods, they come closer than any commonly available geographic entity in approximating the usual conception of a neighborhood.

4. Interestingly, the positive bivariate relationship between African American status and violent victimization that was reported in Table 2 was not observed in Model 2 of Table 3. This is due to the high correlation between African American status and neighborhood disadvantage (Pearson’s r = .69, p < .001). In analyses not shown, in which the neighborhood disadvantage variable was not included in Model 2, the effect of African American status remained significant (odds ratio = 1.70, p < .05). (Note that the same finding was reported by Silver [2000b] with regard to the relationship between African American racial status and violence committed by the patient sample.)

References Agnew, Robert. 1992. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology

30:47–87.

Cascardi, Michele, Mueser Kim T., Joanne DeGiralomo, and Murrin Mary. 1996. Physical aggression against psychiatric inpatients by family members and partners. Psychiatric Services 47:531–533.

Cohen, Lawrence E. and Felson Marcus. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44:588–608.

Estroff, Sue E. and Zimmer Catherine. 1994. Social networks, social support, and violence among persons with severe, persistent mental illness. In John Monahan and Henry J. Steadman (eds.), Violence and Mental Disorder. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Felson, Richard B. 1992. “Kick ’em when they’re down”: Explanations of the relationship between stress and interpersonal aggression and violence. The Sociological Quarterly 33:1–16.

Felson, Richard B. 1993. Predatory and dispute-related violence: A social interactionist approach. In Ronald V. Clarke and Marcus Felson (eds.), Routine Activity and Rational Choice: Advances in Criminological Theory (Vol. 5.). New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.

Felson, Richard B. and Steadman Henry J.. 1983. Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology 21:59–74.

789

Download more at Learnclax.com

Finkelhor, David and Asdigian Nancy L.. 1996. Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyle/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims 11:3–19.

Hiday, Virginia A. 1997. Understanding the connection between mental illness and violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 20:399–417.

Hiday, Virginia A., Swanson Jeffrey W., Swartz Marvin S., Borum Randy, and H. Ryan Wagner. 2000. Victimization: A link between mental illness and violence? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. In press.

Hiday, Virginia A., Swartz Marvin S., Swanson Jeffrey W., Borum Randy, and Ryan Wagner H.. 1999. Criminal Victimization of Persons with Severe Mental Illness. Psychiatric Services 50: 62–68.

Johnson, Ann Braden. 1990. Out of Bedlam: The Truth About Deinstitutionalization. New York: Basic Books.

Lauritsen, Janet L. 2001. The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 17:3–32.

Lehman, Anthony F. and Linn Lawrence S.. 1984. Crimes against discharged mental patients in board and care homes. American Journal of Psychiatry 141:271–274.

Link, Bruce G., Andrews Howard, and Cullen Francis T.. 1992. The violent and illegal behavior of mental patients reconsidered. American Sociological Review 57:275–292.

Link, Bruce G., Monahan John, Steve Ann, and Cullen Francis T.. 1999. Real in their consequences: A sociological approach to understanding the association between psychotic symptoms and violence. American Sociological Review 64:316–332.

Meier, Robert F. and Miethe Terance D.. 1993. Understanding theories of criminal victimization. In Michael Tonry and Norval Morries (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 17. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Monahan, John, Lidz Charles W., Hoge Steven K., Mulvey Edward P., Eisenberg Marlene M., Roth Loren H., Gardner William P., and Bennett Nancy. 1999. Coercion in the provision of mental health services: The MacArthur studies. In J. Morrissey and J. Monahan (eds.), Research in Community and Mental

790

Download more at Learnclax.com

Health, Vol. 10: Coercion in Mental Health Services—International Perspectives. Stamford, Conn.: JAI Press.

Monahan, John, Steadman Henry J., Appelbaum Paul S., Robbins Pamela C., Mulvey Edward P., Silver Eric, Roth Loren H., and Grisso Thomas. 2000. Developing a clinically useful actuarial tool for assessing violence risk. British Journal of Psychiatry 176:312–319.

Quinsey, Vernon L., Harris Grant T., Rice Marnie E., and Cormier Catherine A.. 1998. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Rountree, Pamela Wilcox, Land Kenneth, and Miethe Terance. 1994. Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology 32:387–414.

Rouse, Beatrice A. 1998. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Statistics Source Book. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services. Publication 98–3170.

Sampson, Robert J. and Lauritsen Janet L.. 1990. Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender- victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 27:110–139.

Sampson, Robert J. and Lauritsen Janet L. 1994. Violent victimization and offending: Individual-, situational-, and community-level risk factors. In Albert J. Reiss and Jeffrey A. Roth (eds.), Understanding and Preventing Violence, Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Sampson, Robert J. and Wooldredge John. 1987. Linking the micro- and macro-dimensions of lifestyle- routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 3:371–393.

Sampson, Robert J., Raudenbush Stephen W., and Earls Felton. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924.

Silver, Eric. 2000a. Extending social disorganization theory: A multilevel approach to the study of violence among persons with mental illnesses. Criminology 38:301–332.

Silver, Eric. 2000b. Race, neighborhood disadvantage, and violence among persons with mental disorders: The importance of contextual measurement. Law and Human Behavior 24:449–456.

791

Download more at Learnclax.com

Silver, Eric, Mulvey Edward P., and Monahan John. 1999. Assessing violence risk among discharged psychiatric patients: Toward an ecological approach. Law and Human Behavior 23:235–253.

Steadman, Henry J., Mulvey Edward P., Monahan John, Robbins Pamela C., Appelbaum Paul S., Grisso Thomas, Roth Loren H., and Silver Eric. 1998. Violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric inpatient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry 55:393–401.

Steadman, Henry J., Silver Eric, Monahan John, Appelbaum Paul S., Pamela Clark Robbins, Mulvey Edward P., Grisso Thomas, Roth Loren, and Banks Steven. 2000. A classification tree approach to the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior 24:83–100.

Swanson, Jeffrey W., Borum Randy, Swartz Marvin, and Hiday Virginia A.. 1998. Violent behavior preceding hospitalization among persons with severe mental illness. Law and Human Behavior 23:185–204.

Swanson, Jeffrey W., Holzer Charles E., Ganju Vijay K., and Jono Robert T.. 1990. Violence and psychiatric disorders in the community: Epidemiologic Catchment Area Surveys. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 41:761–770.

Swanson, Jeffrey W., Swartz Marvin, Estroff Sue, Borum Randy, H. Ryan Wagner, and Hiday Virginia A.. 1999. Psychiatric impairment, social contact, and violent behavior: Evidence from a study of outpatient- committed persons with severe mental disorder. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 33:86–94.

792

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 24

Prison is a violent place, and we know that many prisoners experience victimization during incarceration. As such, it is possible that prisoners are also witnessing victimization. The witnessing experiences of prisoners has received little attention, thus the witnessing experiences of prisoners and the attending consequences are not known. To fill this gap in the literature, Daquin, Daigle, and Listwan (2016) identify the types of victimizations prisoners witness and the effects witnessing has on offender reentry. They find that witnessing certain types of victimization has significant negative effects on reentry.

Vicarious Victimization in Prison: Examining the Effects of Witnessing Victimization While Incarcerated on Offender Reentry

Jane C. Daquin, Leah E. Daigle, and Shelley Johnson Listwan

SOURCE: Daquin, J. C., Daigle, L. E., & Listwan, S. J. (2016). Vicarious victimization in prison: Examining the effects of witnessing victimization while incarcerated on offender reentry. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43 (8), 1018–1033.

According to national estimates, approximately 4% of the nation’s prisoners have experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization (Beck, Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2013). Non-sexual victimization (e.g., physical assaults and theft) rates appear to be much higher. Research indicates that between 32% and 66% of inmates experience physical victimization (Copes, Higgins, Tewksbury, & Dabney, 2011; Perez, Gover, Tennyson, & Santos, 2010; Wolff & Shi, 2011; Wolff, Shi, & Siegel, 2009; Wooldredge, 1998) with prevalence estimates for property victimization (i.e., theft) ranging from 18% to 49% (Lahm, 2009; Maitland & Sluder, 1998; Wooldredge, 1994, 1998). Although the estimates vary widely, there is agreement that violence in prison is commonplace.

What is less understood, however, is the extent and impact of witnessing victimization while confined. Drawing from the literature on exposure to community-based violence, we know that this exposure can result in short- and long-term negative consequences such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Rossman, 2000), aggressive behavior (Diamond & Muller, 2004), depression, substance abuse (Colbert & Krause, 2009), and future violence perpetration (Bell & Jenkins, 1991). Several studies have linked exposure to violence in prison to decreased well-being (Hochstetler, Murphy, & Simons, 2004; Wooldredge, 1999), increased emotional distress (Listwan, Colvin, Hanley, & Flannery, 2010), and tendencies toward antisocial behavior (Boxer, Middlemass, & Delorenzo, 2009). Although these studies support a relationship between vicarious victimization in prison and psychological distress, none have isolated the relationship between witnessing different types of violence and criminal justice–related post-release outcomes. It is likely, however, that these negative consequences of witnessing victimization in prison also have consequences for inmates as they attempt to reenter their communities. As most inmates are in fact released into the community (Carson & Golinelli, 2013), this potential negative impact of witnessing victimization is worthy of exploration. Even so, few studies have examined this relationship. This omission is somewhat surprising given the attention on reentry and how prison experiences, including being violent in prison, shape the ability of prisoners to successfully reintegrate into the community (Cochran, Mears, Bales, & Stewart, 2014). This study extends the

793

Download more at Learnclax.com

previous literature by identifying the extent to which individuals witness different types of victimization in prison and the effects of witnessing victimization in prison on post-release criminal justice–related outcomes, such as arrest and parole violation. In this way, the current study adds to the existing literature on victimization in prison and reentry as well as on the exposure to victimization literature. Knowing the extent to which exposure to victimization influences post-release outcomes for inmates is a critical first step in reducing its effects.

Literature Review

For recently released prisoners, the risk of reoffending in the community is great (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014). As a whole, released prisoners face legal barriers that restrict the type of jobs they can obtain (Berg & Huebner, 2011), and their access to public welfare and housing subsidies (Petersilia, 2003). Ex-inmates often come out of prison with educational deficits (Harlow, 2003), family problems (Travis, McBride, & Solomon, 2003), antisocial peers, addictions, and mental and physical health problems (Petersilia, 2003). What has received less attention, however, is what impact an inmate’s experience in prison has on post-release outcomes.

Emerging research suggests that the harsh conditions of imprisonment can have a criminogenic effect rather than a deterrent effect (Cid, 2009; Drago, Galbiati, & Vertova, 2011; Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009; Villettaz, Killias, & Zoder, 2006). In fact, Chen and Shapiro (2007) found that the harshness experienced in prison impacts recidivism, and Listwan, Daigle, Hartman, and Guastaferro (2014) found that exposure to coercive prison experiences influenced successful post-release outcomes. Finally, in a recent study using a national sample of serious and violent offenders, inmates who are threatened or experience physical victimization had poorer release outcomes (Zweig, Yahner, Visher, & Lattimore, 2014). As noted by Cullen, Jonson, and Nagin (2011), “Imprisonment is thus not simply a cost to be weighed in future offending but, more important, a social influence that shapes inmates’ attitudes toward crime and violence, peer networks, ties to the conventional order, and identity” (p. 53).

The Impact of Witnessing Violence

The general strain theoretical perspective provides a context for understanding the relationship between witnessing victimization and negative post-release criminal justice outcomes. Although Agnew’s (1992) original presentation of general strain theory focused solely on experienced strain, he later examined vicarious and anticipated strains involving physical victimization, including the frequency of serious victimization of those close, either in proximity or relationship, to the individual (Agnew, 2002). Given that inmates live in such close proximity while confined, it is possible that the majority of inmates have been exposed to at least one episode of victimization. It is hypothesized that strain caused by witnessing victimization is likely to lead to adverse effects, such as anger, which could result in negative post-release outcomes (see Blevins, Listwan, Cullen, & Jonson, 2010).

Although the prison literature has not fully explored the impact of seeing violence, two areas of literature— exposure to violence in the community and witnessing domestic violence (DV) in childhood—can be used as a backdrop to understanding witnessing victimization in prisons. Whether an individual is exposed to violence

794

Download more at Learnclax.com

in the home (i.e., witnessing DV) or in the community, there are often numerous attending deleterious consequences. Exposure to violence has been linked to depression and substance abuse (Colbert & Krause, 2009; Martinez & Richters, 1993), PTSD (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001; Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Martinez & Richters, 1993), anxiety (Gaylord-Harden, Cunningham, & Zelencik, 2011; Maker, Kemmelmeier, & Peterson, 1998; Overlien, 2010), violence perpetration (Bell & Jenkins, 1991; Gorman- Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2004), and future victimization (Maker et al., 1998). While much of the exposure to violence literature focuses primarily on children, there is evidence that the attending consequences potentially influence individuals later in life. Witnessing violence early in life was associated with alcohol use as well as depressive and somatic symptoms for both males and females later in life (Colbert & Krause, 2009). When considering the consequences of witnessing violence across the life course, it appears that the effects have the potential to be long-lasting.

Although one might expect outcomes to vary based on the type of violence the individual witnesses, research examining seeing specific types of victimization is limited. Diamond and Muller (2004) examined the differences in the effects of witnessing psychological abuse compared with witnessing physical abuse. Witnessing either physical or psychological abuse during childhood was significantly related to higher levels of psychopathology, suggesting that observing non-physical interpersonal aggression may have harmful negative effects similar to those of witnessing physical violence (Diamond & Muller, 2004). Gibson and colleagues (1999) examined antecedents to PTSD and discovered that exposure to victimization was significant for male inmates. In particular, seeing someone being hurt or killed was the most commonly reported event among those meeting lifetime criteria. However, these events were witnessed during the inmate’s lifetime and not necessarily in prison.

Recently, there has been some attention given to the psychological consequences of witnessing violence in prison. In one study, coercion in prison (includes direct and witnessed victimization) was negatively associated with posttraumatic cognition and symptoms, as well as traumatic symptoms (Listwan, Colvin, et al., 2010). Similarly, Boxer et al. (2009) found that among a sample of recently released inmates, those who witnessed violence while incarcerated had poorer psychological adjustment compared with the individuals who did not. Neither study examined the impact of specific types of witnessed victimization such as physical and sexual victimization, theft, and emotional abuse on criminal justice outcomes.

The type of victimization witnessed in prison may matter in multiple ways. For example, research suggests that events with the potential to lead to bodily injury or harm are more impactful than other events. Studies examining military personnel who witness atrocities in war find that exposure to violence has clear psychological impacts (Ford, 1999). In that vein, witnessing (seeing or hearing) sexual assault, for example, may be even more likely to be associated with negative consequences. Studies have documented inmates’ fear of victimization and its relationship to psychological outcomes such as anxiety and depression (McCorkle, 1993) and that inmates fear being sexually victimized more so than other types of victimizations (Smith & Batiuk, 1989). As such, it is reasonable to assert that inmates may experience greater levels of personal distress associated with being fearful of rape and other sexual victimizations. Witnessing victimization may lead to similar outcomes given that it may impact a person’s perceptions of their likelihood of direct victimization.

795

Download more at Learnclax.com

Current Study

The current study examined the extent to which ex-prisoners witnessed different types of victimization while incarcerated. In addition, it examined the effects that witnessing different types of victimization has on individual post-release outcomes. Specifically, witnessing stealing, sexual victimization, physical assault, and verbal abuse were separately analyzed for their potential relationship to criminal justice outcomes (i.e., an overall criminal justice outcome measure, arrest, and parole violation).

Method

Data

Data for the current study were gained from a federally funded cross-sectional study of inmates returning to the community after a period of incarceration (Listwan, Hanley, & Colvin, 2010). Data were gathered in two stages. The first stage of data collection occurred through face-to-face interviews during a 13-month time period (August 2006–August 2007). At the time of the interviews, all of the participants were residing in community-based halfway house locations throughout Ohio. Participants were contacted soon after their release from prison (mean time from release to interview = 52.7 days, SD = 51.5). It should be noted that not all inmates released from prison in this particular state return to halfway houses. However, an analysis revealed that the demographic characteristics of the final sample were similar to those of prisoners across the state. The researchers reviewed participants’ parole, halfway house, and incarceration records. The participants’ official records were examined to assess other community variables (e.g., employment, treatment exposure) and barriers to successful reentry (e.g., securing housing and/or the existence of supports). The recommitment to prison data were obtained through the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Participants were followed in the community for an average of 2.5 years.

Participants

The sample included adult males who were recently released from Ohio’s Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections penal institutions. The sample for this study focused solely on male adult inmates and excluded both juveniles and female offenders. At the time of the interview, the participants were residing in one of 22 halfway houses in the community. Participants were recruited from halfway houses across the state of Ohio using a four-stage sampling approach (see Listwan, Hanley, et al., 2010, for further discussion). Halfway house personnel provided names of 2,341 eligible individuals, and the researchers were able to make face-to- face contact with 1,738 individuals. Of the 1,738 eligible participants who were contacted, 1,642 agreed to participate. Twenty-nine of the participants were interviewed twice and were subsequently deleted, bringing the final sample size to 1,613.

Sample Description

Table 1 describes the sample and the prevalence estimate of each type of witnessed victimization. On average, parolees were 34 and a half years old (SD = 10.1), and about 75% had a high school diploma or higher. Almost half (47%) of the sample were White, and 89% were not married. The majority (53%) had been

796

Download more at Learnclax.com

incarcerated before the incident that led to their last incarceration. Fifty-four percent reported attending

religious services, and 18% were diagnosed with a mental illness while incarcerated. Approximately 58% of the respondents reported directly experiencing at least one type of victimization. In terms of post-release outcomes, roughly 35% of the individuals in the sample were arrested while on parole, 32% had at least one parole violation, and 60% had experienced at least one of the negative criminal justice outcomes.

Table 1N

Measures

Dependent Variables

797

Download more at Learnclax.com

The current study examined the impact witnessing victimization in prison has on prisoner reentry. The dependent variables used in this study include arrest, parole violation, and any negative criminal justice outcome.

Arrest.

To examine the impact of witnessing victimization on reoffending, a measure of arrest was created. Using a record check, arrest was measured using two sources, which included parole officer case notes and online record checks. If a participant had a non-traffic offense that occurred during the 2.5-year follow-up period, the arrest variable was coded as 1. If no non-traffic offenses occurred, then the variable was coded as 0.

Parole violation.

To examine parole outcome, a variable was created to measure whether respondents received a parole violation. Information on whether an individual had received a parole violation was collected using parole officer case notes and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections records. Parole violation was coded as 1 for those who received a violation and 0 for those without a parole violation.

Any negative criminal justice outcome.

A variable was created to measure whether a participant had received any negative criminal justice outcome. For this measure, a 1 was given if an individual had a “yes” for at least one of the following: arrest, parole violations, parole revocation, or reincarceration. Those without an arrest, parole violation, parole revocation, or reincarceration were coded as 0.

Independent Variables

Exposure to victimization was measured by asking individuals whether they witnessed verbal assaults, fighting, theft, or sexual victimization within the last 12 months of their most recent period of incarceration. Sexual victimization was measured using two questions that asked respondents to indicate whether they had witnessed either coerced or forced sexual activity. For each of the four types of victimization, respondents indicated whether (coded as 1) or not (coded as 0) they had witnessed at least one incident of victimization.

Nearly all of the respondents reported witnessing at least one form of victimization during the last 12 months they were incarcerated, with the most common type experienced being witnessing emotional victimization (see Table 1). Ninety-four percent of respondents reported witnessing emotional victimization during the last 12 months they were incarcerated. A large majority also reported witnessing fighting (92%), and approximately 81% witnessed stealing. Witnessing sexual victimization was the least experienced, with 22% of the sample witnessing this type of victimization.

Control Variables

Other variables that may impact reentry were also included as controls. As done in previous research, previous victimization, age, race, marital status, mental illness, level of education, prior incarceration, and religion were included as control variables (Listwan, Hanley, et al., 2010).

798

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimization experience.

A measure of direct victimization is included. The measure included both sexual and nonsexual (physical, emotional/verbal, and theft) victimization, with 1 coded for respondents who indicated experiencing at least one form of victimization during the last 12 months.

Age.

Age in years at the time of the interview was included.

Race.

The race of respondents was recorded during the interview. Race originally was coded as the following: 1 for “White, non-Hispanic”; 2 for “Black, non-Hispanic”; and 3 for “Other.” The variable was recoded as non- White or White.

Marital status.

To account for marital status, a measure was included. Respondents were asked to indicate their relationship status. Responses included married; single; divorced; separated; single, but living with someone; single, but dating someone; and other. The variable was recoded as married or not married.

Mental illness.

To examine mental health, respondents were asked whether they had been diagnosed with a mental illness (coded 1 for yes and 0 for no).

Education.

To measure level of education, respondents were asked, “How far in school did you go?” Responses included less than high school, high school, General Educational Development (GED), some college, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree. The variable was recoded to reflect having less than a high school degree (coded as 0) and having a high school degree or greater (coded as 1).

Prior prison.

Time spent incarcerated is positively associated with having experienced or been exposed to victimization. To measure whether a respondent had been incarcerated before the incident that led to his being in prison last, respondents were asked whether he (a) had been incarcerated in the same prison before or (b) had been incarcerated in a different prison before.

Religion.

Engagement in religious services was included as a measure of program participation, which may reduce the risk of victimization by removing individuals from other prisoners and increasing the time spent in the vicinity of correctional staff (Clear, Hardyman, Stout, Lucken, & Dammer, 2000). Respondents were asked whether they participated in religious services while incarcerated, with participation in religious services coded as 1 and

799

Download more at Learnclax.com

non-participation coded as 0.

Analytical Plan

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of witnessing different types of victimization on criminal justice outcomes, holding the control variables constant. To do so, separate models were conducted to examine the influence of witnessing victimization on any criminal justice outcome, parole violation, and arrest.

One issue that arises when using data in which persons are clustered within sampling units is that the observations are not independent from each other. In this case, ex-inmates from one prison are more likely to be similar than inmates from another prison. To control for this issue, robust standard errors were used when estimating the multivariate regression models in STATA 13, which increased the standard errors for the coefficients and reduced the likelihood of rejecting a null hypothesis when it is true (Wooldridge, 2009).

Results

Binary multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the influence of a number of factors on the likelihood of negative post-release outcomes. Table 2 shows the full model for any negative criminal justice outcome and parole violation. The results for the analysis predicting any negative criminal justice outcome are presented in column 1. Only one variable significantly predicted the likelihood of having at least one negative criminal justice outcome. Parolees who reported witnessing theft while incarcerated faced odds of any negative criminal justice outcome that were 85% higher than those who had not witnessed stealing.

Table 2N

800

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

a. The models for parole revocation and reincarceration produced null findings and therefore were not presented in the current article.

b. Marital status was a perfect predictor in the model for any negative criminal justice outcome and was not included in the model.

* p < .05.

801

Download more at Learnclax.com

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Column 2 shows that one witnessing variable and one demographic variable were statistically significantly related to parole violation. Parolees who reported witnessing sexual victimization faced odds of receiving a parole violation that were 35% greater than parolees who did not witness sexual victimization. In addition, the odds of receiving a parole violation were 55% higher for parolees diagnosed with a mental illness compared with those who were not diagnosed with a mental illness.

As shown in Table 3, parolees who reported witnessing sexual victimization faced odds of re-arrest that were 44% higher than those who had not witnessed a sexual victimization. Two demographic variables were also related to arrest. Older respondents faced lower odds of re-arrest compared with younger respondents. The strongest predictor of being arrested while on parole was mental illness, with respondents who were diagnosed with a mental illness while incarcerated being 49% more likely to be arrested than respondents who were not diagnosed with a mental illness.

Table 3N

802

Download more at Learnclax.com

803

Download more at Learnclax.com

Note: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Discussion

The current study isolates the link between witnessing different types of victimization in prison and individual criminal justice outcomes and has two main findings. First, nearly all parolees reported witnessing at least one type of victimization during their incarceration, with witnessing emotional victimization (94%) and witnessing fighting (92%) being the most common, followed by witnessing stealing (82%) and witnessing sexual victimization (23%), respectively. This finding is not surprising given the prevalence of victimization in prisons and the ways in which inmates are confined. The prison structure (e.g., cells and common areas) facilitates interaction and places inmates in close, regular proximity (Kerbs & Jolley, 2007), which may make it easy for other inmates to witness the occurrence of victimization. Wolff and Shi (2011) found that although an inmate’s cell was the most frequently reported location in which physical and sexual victimization occurred, a significant proportion of victimization incidents occurred in the areas where inmates frequently congregate, including the yard, dining areas, showers, the library, and corridors.

Kerbs and Jolley (2007) found that property victimization was common for older inmates, particularly those residing in low-security facilities and open barrack-style housing. They argued that such open floor plans facilitated theft, especially when the inmate was away at the dining hall (Kerbs & Jolley, 2007). These findings suggest that the physical structure of prison may be the reason a significant portion of this sample reported witnessing fighting, theft, and emotional victimization. Not only do these three types of victimization appear to commonly occur, these types of victimization are also likely occurring in locations within prisons where many inmates are able to witness them.

Second, while nearly all of the parolees reported seeing fighting and emotional victimization, these two types of victimization were not related to any of the outcomes at the multivariate level, which is not consistent with the witnessing DV/exposure to violence literature. The absence of a relationship between witnessing these two types of victimization and post-release outcomes may be because there is little variation in the responses for both measures. Of the 1,581 respondents who answered whether or not they witnessed emotional victimization, only 80 respondents did not witness this type of victimization. Similarly, of the 1,601 respondents who indicated whether or not they witnessed fighting, 129 did not witness fighting. It may also be that because witnessing psychological and physical victimization is so common, it does not have an effect. In this way, seeing victimization is simply part of the everyday landscape of prison. It is possible that because almost everyone is witnessing these types of victimization, exposure to them has little effect on an individual’s ability to reintegrate into society.

Observing theft and sexual victimization, on the contrary, were significantly related to post-release outcomes. Witnessing theft significantly increased the odds of a respondent having any of the negative criminal justice outcomes. The effects of witnessing theft may be tied to the depriving nature of prisons. Upon entrance to

804

Download more at Learnclax.com

prison, inmates are stripped of their autonomy, personal identities, privacy, and access to material goods (Sykes, 1958). Their worldly possessions consist of what little they can amass during incarceration. Witnessing theft reinforces the fact that they have little control or power, and at any time, they may be stripped of their few belongings, which may result in feelings of hopelessness. Low levels of perceived personal control and autonomy are linked to psychological consequences, such as depression, anxiety, and feelings of helplessness (Goodstein, MacKenzie, & Shotland, 1984; Ruback, Carr, & Hopper, 1986; Wright, 1991). These consequences may translate into antisocial behaviors, including criminal behavior, that are reflective of an individual’s ability to reintegrate into society.

Of all the types of victimization, witnessing sexual victimization appears to be most related to post-release outcomes. This finding supports the assumption that witnessing sexual victimization is a source of vicarious strain and can lead to similar negative emotional reactions as directly experiencing strain (Agnew, 2002). It is also plausible that seeing someone in close physical proximity being victimized may reinforce the fact that at any point they too can become a victim. For males, witnessing sexual victimization may be more traumatic than other types of victimization. Although any form of victimization can result in adverse emotional reactions, sexual victimization, specifically of males, challenges traditional views of masculinity. Such views that dictate that men should be strong, assertive, sexually dominant, and heterosexual influence society’s misconceptions about male rape, both inside and outside of prison (Davies, 2002). In prison, rape is a way to assert masculinity and signify power (Fleisher & Krienert, 2009) with sexual victimization demonstrating the aggressor’s superior strength and knowledge, while identifying the victim as weaker and less knowledgeable (Man & Cronan, 2001). Being the victim goes against this idea of males as the more powerful and dominant sex. For individuals who witness this form of victimization, the anticipation of becoming a victim may have significant consequences.

As discussed in the literature review, the anticipation of becoming a victim may have significant psychological consequences for individuals. For inmates, just witnessing sexual victimization and the anticipation of potentially becoming a victim may result in long-lasting strain. Individuals with poor coping skills lack the ability to respond to strain in a prosocial manner and may resort to delinquency (e.g., violence or substance use) as a way to alleviate the pressures of strain (Hoffmann & Su, 1997; Mazerolle, Burton, Cullen, Evans, & Payne, 2000). Poor coping resources combined with beliefs of victimization as a form of emasculation may cause prisoners who witnessed sexual victimization to respond with aggression and anger as a means of reasserting masculinity and alleviating the strain of victimization.

Particularly relevant to the current study is that parolees may not possess good coping resources such as effective problem-solving skills and having non-delinquent social networks once released (Agnew, 1992). Insomuch that they lack good coping skills and resources and respond to strain with negative emotionality, parolees who witness victimization are at risk of engaging in behaviors that could lead to arrest, parole violations/revocations, reincarceration, and substance use. In line with this link, Boxer et al. (2009) found that experiencing violence in prison, through either direct experience or witnessing, was significantly related to a composite measure of personality and behavior items (Boxer et al., 2009). This finding suggests that witnessing violence in prison is related to aggressive behaviors, such as hitting someone, that may result in

805

Download more at Learnclax.com

parole violations and/or revocation, and ultimately re-arrest. If the consequences of observing victimization are similar to those of experiencing victimization, it is likely that prisoners who witness victimization, specifically sexual victimization, will engage in behavior that may lead to negative criminal justice outcomes.

An interesting finding is that after controlling for direct and indirect experiences of victimization, having been diagnosed with a mental disorder is significantly related to negative post-release outcomes. This finding indicates that prisoners who have been diagnosed with a mental illness have difficulty adjusting outside of prison. Having a mental illness may impair individuals’ ability to cope with the effects of witnessing victimization. Thus, screening for mental illness and connecting prisoners to treatment in the community is a necessary part of the reentry process. In addition, persons with mental illness may need additional support from parole officers and caseworkers, including connecting them with relevant services in the community. Because certain persons with mental illness who have been victimized are also at risk of experiencing additional victimization, this increased support may also serve to reduce risk of victimization as well as offending (Teasdale, Daigle, & Ballard, 2014). Future research should examine how the experience of exposure to victimization affects the ability of persons with mental illness to successfully reintegrate into society, and whether witnessing victimization has particularly negative consequences for certain types of mental illness. To explore this, measures of mental illness of incarcerated persons will need to be more nuanced and should include official records to reduce measurement error.

Although the study illustrates that victimization in prison does have an impact, this study is not without limitations. The current study relied on a preexisting data set that contained victimization and post-release data from male parolees residing in halfway houses in only one state. Having data on only males and from only one state precludes generalizing the findings to all parolees in halfway houses throughout the country.

A second limitation of this study is the cross-sectional nature of the victimization data. Face-to-face interviews were conducted between 2006 and 2007 with parolees who had recently been released from prison (within 6 months of their release date). However, follow-up interviews are needed to enhance our understanding of the persistence of the effects of witnessing victimization in prison. Another limitation is the lack of measures for barriers to reentry after the parolees were released into the community. More information is needed on whether or not parolees were able to find and maintain housing, whether or not they were able to pay their bills, and what type of support they had in the community to help with their reintegration. Finding stable housing and employment has been identified as one of the most difficult obstacles to successful reentry (Helfgott, 1997; Petersilia, 2003).

The results can be used to inform policy and practice within prison and after release. Although much effort has been made to reduce the occurrence of sexual victimization in prisons as a result of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), the findings here suggest that other forms of victimization have negative effects on post-release outcomes. Reducing the occurrence of victimization within prisons can reduce the occurrence of witnessing victimization. Among the various types of victimization, sexual victimization is the least likely to occur; thus, efforts to combat victimization in prisons should also focus on theft and emotional abuse in addition to physical and sexual victimization. A meta-analysis points at promising ways to reduce misconduct

806

Download more at Learnclax.com

in prison—behavioral treatments that target criminogenic needs with high therapeutic integrity produced the largest mean effect sizes on misconduct level (French & Gendreau, 2006). As such, it is important that prisons expand their use of treatment services rather than turn to policies that are not evidence-based or rely primarily on deterrence-based strategies (Nagin et al., 2009).

Until we can eradicate violence in prison, however, attention must be given to those individuals who have already been exposed and are transitioning back into the community. Although victimization in prison is problematic, the current study highlights the effects being exposed to victimization has on reentry. Unlike direct experiences of victimization, there generally is no record of exposure to victimization in prisoners’ records. Case managers should screen for exposure to victimization experiences so that they then can link resources to the community to offenders. This ability to identify those offenders in need of service is particularly dire given that consequences associated with witnessing victimization while incarcerated may exacerbate the barriers that already make the transition home difficult.

Risk assessment and treatment/intervention are needed both within correctional institutions and after release for psychological problems and strain that could negatively impact reentry. Treatment can be used to help prisoners cope with the negative emotions that result from witnessing victimization. Again, prisoners likely lack effective coping skills, and therefore, they are likely to act out in anger and frustration. Treatment, such as group therapy, can be a prosocial way of verbally expressing emotions and an opportunity to learn how to express emotions in ways that will not lead to crime.

In addition, screening prisoners and matching them to appropriate interventions is especially important. Even where post-release control is available, the control is more focused on surveillance and supervision and then on rehabilitation and providing assistance (Petersilia, 1999; Travis & Petersilia, 2001). Consequently, post- release programs should be more attuned to what is causing recidivism, which includes witnessing victimization in prison. As such, this risk factor should be included in risk assessments and intervention protocol.

Discussion Questions

1. What are the consequences associated with witnessing victimization? 2. How might witnessing victimization affect offender reentry? 3. Why were only certain types of witnessing victimization related to negative criminal justice outcomes? 4. Do you think these findings would be the same if the study had been conducted on female inmates?

Why or why not?

References Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87.

Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19, 603–632.

807

Download more at Learnclax.com

Beck, A. J., Berzofsky, M., Caspar, R., & Krebs, C. (2013). Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported by inmates, 2011–12 (Report No. NCJ 241399). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bell, C. C., & Jenkins, E. J. (1991). Traumatic stress and children. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 2, 175–188.

Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28, 382–410.

Blevins, K. R., Listwan, S. J., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2010). A general strain theory of prison violence and misconduct: An integrated model of inmate behavior. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 148–166.

Boxer, P., Middlemass, K., & Delorenzo, T. (2009). Exposure to violent crime during incarceration: Effects on psychological adjustment following release. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 793–807.

Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298–310.

Carson, E. A., & Golinelli, D. (2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991–2012 (Report No. NCJ 243920). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Chen, M. K., & Shapiro, J. M. (2007). Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity- based approach. American Law and Economic Review, 9, 1–29.

Cid, J. (2009). Is imprisonment criminogenic? A comparative study of recidivism rates between prison and suspended prison sanctions. European Journal of Criminology, 6, 459–480.

Clear, T. R., Hardyman, P. L., Stout, B., Lucken, K., & Dammer, H. R. (2000). The value of religion in prison: An inmate perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 53–74.

Cochran, J. C., Mears, D. P., Bales, W. D., & Stewart, E. A. (2014). Does inmate behavior affect post- release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism relationship among youth and adults. Justice Quarterly, 31, 1044–1073.

808

Download more at Learnclax.com

Colbert, S. J., & Krause, N. (2009). Witnessing violence across the life course, depressive symptoms, and alcohol use among older persons. Health Education & Behavior, 36, 259–277.

Copes, H., Higgins, G. E., Tewksbury, R., & Dabney, D. A. (2011). Participation in the prison economy and likelihood of physical victimization. Victims & Offenders, 6, 1–18.

Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 9, 48S–65S.

Davies, M. (2002). Male sexual assault victims: A selective review of the literature and implications for support services. Aggression and Violence Behavior, 7, 203–214.

Diamond, T., & Muller, R. T. (2004). The relationship between witnessing parental conflict during childhood and later psychological adjustment among university students: Disentangling confounding risk factors. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 295–309.

Drago, F., Galbiati, R., & Vertova, P. (2011). Prison conditions and recidivism. American Law and Economics Review, 13, 103–130.

Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (Report No. NCJ 244205). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Fitzpatrick, K. M., & Boldizar, J. P. (1993). The prevalence and consequences of exposure to violence among African-American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 424–430.

Fleisher, M. S., & Krienert, J. L. (2009). The myth of prison rape: Sexual culture in American prisons. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ford, J. D. (1999). Disorders of extreme stress following war-zone military trauma: Associated features of posttraumatic stress disorder or comorbid but distinct syndromes? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 3–12.

Flench, S. A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185–218.

809

Download more at Learnclax.com

Gaylord-Harden, N. K., Cunningham, J. A., & Zelencik, B. (2011). Effects of exposure to community violence on internalizing symptoms: Does desensitization to violence occur in African American youth? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 711–719.

Gibson, L. E., Holt, J. C., Fondacaro, K. M., Tang, T. S., Powell, T. A., & Turbitt, E. L. (1999). An examination of antecedent traumas and psychiatric comorbidity among male inmates with PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 473–484.

Goodstein, L., MacKenzie, D. L., & Shotland, R. L. (1984). Personal control and inmate adjustment to prison. Criminology, 22, 343–369.

Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2004). Exposure to community violence and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33, 439–449.

Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations (Report No. NCJ 195670). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Helfgott, J. (1997). Ex-offender needs versus criminal opportunity in Seattle, Washington. Federal Probation, 61, 12–24.

Hochstetler, A., Murphy, D. S., & Simons, R. L. (2004). Damaged goods: Exploring predictors of distress in prison inmates. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 436–457.

Hoffmann, J. P., & Su, S. S. (1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency and drug use: A strain theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 34, 46–78.

Kerbs, J. J., & Jolley, J. M. (2007). Inmate-on-inmate victimization among older male prisoners. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 187–218.

Lahm, K. F. (2009). Inmate assaults on prison staff: A multilevel examination of an overlooked form of prison violence. The Prison Journal, 89, 131–150.

Listwan, S. J., Colvin, M., Hanley, D., & Flannery, D. (2010). Victimization, social support, and psychological well-being: A study of recently released prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1140–1159.

810

Download more at Learnclax.com

Listwan, S. J., Daigle, L. E., Hartman, J. L., & Guastaferro, W. P. (2014). Poly-victimization risk in prison: The influence of individual and institutional factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2458–2481.

Listwan, S. J., Hanley, D., & Colvin, M. (2010). The prison experience and reentry: Examining the impact of victimization on coming home (Document No. 238083). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Maitland, A. S., & Sluder, R. D. (1998). Victimization and youthful prison inmates: An empirical analysis. The Prison Journal, 78, 55–73.

Maker, A. H., Kemmelmeier, M., & Peterson, C. (1998). Long-term psychological consequences in women of witnessing parental physical conflict and experiencing abuse in childhood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 574–589.

Man, C. D., & Cronan, J. P. (2001). Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for “deliberate indifference.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 92, 127–185.

Martinez, P., & Richters, J. E. (1993). The NIMH community violence project: II. Children’s distress symptoms associated with violence exposure. Psychiatry, 56, 22–35.

Mazerolle, P., Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., & Payne, G. L. (2000). Strain, anger, and delinquent adaptations: Specifying general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 89–101.

McCorkle, R. C. (1993). Fear of victimization and symptoms of psychopathology among prison inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 27–41.

Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115–200.

Overlien, C. (2010). Children exposed to domestic violence: Conclusions from the literature and challenges ahead. Journal of Social Work, 10, 80–97.

Perez, D. M., Gover, A. R., Tennyson, K. M., & Santos, S. D. (2010). Individual and institutional characteristics related to inmate victimization. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 378–394.

Petersilia, J. (1999). Parole and prisoner reentry in the United States. Crime and Justice, 26, 479–529.

811

Download more at Learnclax.com

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rossman, B. B. (2000). Time heals all: How much and for whom? Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 31–50.

Ruback, B. R., Carr, T. S., & Hopper, C. H. (1986). Perceived control in prison: Its relation to reported crowding, stress, and symptoms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 375–386.

Smith, N. E., & Batiuk, M. E. (1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The Prison Journal, 69, 29–38.

Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Teasdale, B., Daigle, L. E., & Ballard, E. (2014). Trajectories of recurring victimization among people with major mental disorders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 987–1005.

Travis, J., McBride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2003). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry (Report No. NCJ 204557). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Travis, J., & Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 291–313.

Villettaz, P., Killias, M., & Zoder, I. (2006). The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re- offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/22/

Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2011). Patterns of victimization and feelings of safety inside prison: The experience of male and female inmates. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 29–55.

Wolff, N., Shi, J., & Siegel, J. (2009). Patterns of victimization among male and female inmates: Evidence of an enduring legacy. Violence and Victims, 24, 469–484.

Wooldredge, J. D. (1994). Inmate crime and victimization in a southwestern correctional facility. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 367–381.

812

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/22/

Wooldredge, J. D. (1998). Inmate lifestyles and opportunities for victimization. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 480–502.

Wooldredge, J. D. (1999). Inmate experiences and psychological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 235–250.

Wooldridge, J. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South- Western College Publishing.

Wright, K. N. (1991). The violent and victimized in the male prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16, 1–26.

Zweig, J. M., Yahner, J., Visher, C. A., & Lattimore, P. K. (2014). Using general strain theory to explore the effects of prison victimization experiences on later offending and substance use. The Prison Journal, 95, 84–113.

813

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section XIII Victimology From a Comparative Perspective

Let’s revisit what happened to Polly in Section II.

What if this scenario left out one important detail: that Polly was participating in a study-abroad program, thus her victimization occurred not in her home country but in a foreign country in which she was a visitor, not a permanent resident or citizen? Does the location matter? What should she do in this situation? Who should she contact? Who can help her? Does she have any rights? These are questions we explore in this section as we trace the development of victimology across the globe and highlight victims’ rights and assistance programs from an international perspective.

814

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victimology Across the Globe

Considering that the birth of the field of victimology is often attributed to the early work of German criminologist Hans Von Hentig and Romanian lawyer Benjamin Mendelsohn (their work was discussed in detail in Section I), two men from two different countries, it shouldn’t be surprising that over the last three decades victimology has become a subject studied across the globe (Kirchhoff, 2010). The development of this field of study has not been evenly distributed, with some countries being more advanced than others (Fattah, 2010). For example, in some parts of the world, victimology is considered a subdiscipline of criminology, whereas in other parts, it is its own distinct discipline and students can receive degrees in victimology and/or victim studies. Likewise, in some countries, victimization surveys are carried out and in other countries they are not. We discuss several of these surveys a little later in this section. It should also be noted that in some countries, victims benefit from well-developed and comprehensive victim assistance programs, and in other countries, these types of programs are sorely lacking or do not exist (Lehner-Zimmerer, 2011). We end this section with a brief description of some of these programs.

The development of the field of victimology outside of the United States (and primarily in Europe) has been largely collaborative in nature and supported by the work of several key organizations including the World Society of Victimology, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, and International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT). Each of these organization and their contributions to the study of victimology are discussed briefly.

The World Society of Victimology (WSV) was conceived from the First International Symposium on Victimology in Israel in 1973. Since its inception, the symposium has been hosted by WSV every 3 years in locations all over the world with a mission of “Advancing research, services, and awareness for victims” (World Society of Victimology [WSV], 2014). According to the WSV website, the five goals of the organization are “(1) to promote research in victimology and on victim needs; (2) to provide services for victim service providers and victimologists; (3) to provide education and training; (4) to advance advocacy and rights; and (5) to provide member opportunities” (WSV, 2014).

The society boasts members from a variety of agencies and academic disciplines. The international nature of the WSV allows for active networking and collaboration with governmental agencies in many countries and the United Nations (UN). Through research and program development, the WSV has successfully advocated for reforms such as the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, which is essentially a victims’ rights charter. Aside from the UN, the WSV has active projects through the Council of Europe, the National Organization for Victim Assistance in the USA, and Victim Support in the United Kingdom. As of 2014, the WSV was affiliated with agencies and governments worldwide, providing international advocacy and counseling and sponsoring a variety of training activities for policymakers and practitioners.

Located in Germany, the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law is made up of a department of criminal law and a department of criminology, both active in conducting research that brings

815

Download more at Learnclax.com

about a diverse array of academics from across Europe. The original iteration of the institute came into existence in the late 1930s stemming from the work of Dr. Adolf Schönke (Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, 2015). Originally titled Seminar for Foreign and International Criminal Law, in 1947, the institute was retitled as the Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law and shifted into a branch of the Max Planck Society (a research organization) in 1966.

Although the primary focus of the institute is comparative law, since the early 1990s the institute has also been promoting victimological research, including examining the following:

What information is available on the type, extent and application of victim rights and on regulations governing compensation in the particular countries? What information exists on the attitudes of different parties involved in the criminal procedure (victims, judges, public prosecutors) toward the goals of the criminal procedure, the situation of the victim and regulations governing compensation? (Würger, 2013)

Like the Max Planck Institute, the International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT) engages in comparative research; however, unlike the Max Planck Institute, whose primary focus remains on criminal law, INTERVICT is dedicated solely to the study and advancement of victimology. Located at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, the mission of INTERVICT is to “promote and execute interdisciplinary research that can contribute to a comprehensive, evidence-based body of knowledge on the empowerment and support of victims of crime and abuse of power” (International Victimology Institute Tilburg, 2014).

816

Download more at Learnclax.com

Measurement and Extent of Victimization Across the Globe

Although victimology’s roots are quite cosmopolitan, only fairly recently has victimological research been comparative in nature. According to Elder (1976), comparative research is “an approach to knowing social reality through the examination for similarities and differences between data gathered from more than one nation” (p. 210). Comparative victimological research, in the form of international crime victimization surveys, provides us with a tool for not only measuring but also for understanding victimization across the globe.

As previously discussed in Section II, victimization studies can take different forms. We highlight the forms victimization studies can take from a comparative perspective. International victimization studies use randomized samples from several countries that are representative of populations from which they are taken (Schneider, 2001). The International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) and the International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD) are examples of international victimization studies that we discuss in this section. International victimization studies allow for comparisons across countries to be made. National victimization studies are similar to international victimization studies in that they, too, use representative random samples, however, a national victimization survey collects data in only one country. Such surveys are conducted in many countries annually including Andalusia (Spain), Australia, England and Wales, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States (Schneider, 2001). Because of the difference in definitions and methodology employed, it is usually not possible to use national victimization surveys to make comparisons between countries. Local victimization studies involve surveys that are restricted to the population of a specific region or city. Finally, victimization studies may focus on a specific type of victimization, such as sexual violence or violence against women. Take, for example, the International Violence Against Women survey that is designed to exclusively measure violence experienced by women at the hands of their male partners. These types of studies are referred to as specialized victimization studies (Schneider, 2001).

International Crime Victims Survey

One oft-cited survey of international victimization is the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), which was created to provide a standardized survey instrument to compare crime victims’ experiences across countries (van Dijk, van Kesteren, & Smit, 2008). The first round of the survey was conducted in 1989 and was repeated in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004–2005. Collectively, more than 340,000 persons have been surveyed in more than 78 countries as part of the ICVS program. Respondents are asked about 10 types of victimization they could have experienced: car theft, theft from or out of a car, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft, attempted or completed burglary, sexual victimization (rapes and sexual assault), threats, assaults, robbery, and theft of personal property (van Dijk et al., 2008). If a person has experienced any of these offenses, he or she then answers follow-up questions about the incident. This survey has provided estimates of the extent of crime victimization in many countries and regions of the world. In addition, characteristics of crime victims and incidents have been produced from these surveys. According to the last round of surveys completed,

817

Download more at Learnclax.com

almost 16% of the population of the 30 participating countries has been the victim of a crime (van Dijk et al., 2008). To learn more about the ICVS and findings from it, see Reading 25 in this section by John van Kesteren, Jan van Dijk, and Pat Mayhew (2013).

International Self-Report Delinquency Study

Initially designed to collect comparative data on juvenile delinquency among adolescents residing primarily in Europe, the International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD) has been expanded to include questions pertaining to victimization. The ISRD has undergone three waves of data collection. The first sweep of the ISRD (ISRD-1) was conducted from 1990 to 1991 among 12 European countries and the United States. The second sweep (ISRD-2) was conducted from 2006 to 2008 and included 31 countries. The third sweep of the ISRD saw fieldwork completed in spring 2014.

The ISRD is administered to adolescents in the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades via pencil-and-paper surveys or electronically via computers (I. H. Marshall & Maljevic, 2013). A total of 67,883 questionnaires were collected as part of the ISRD-2 study (Junger-Tas et al., 2010). Whereas the ISRD-1 did not include questions on victimization, four questions were added to the ISRD-2 questionnaire. Students are asked to recall victimization experiences that happened to them in the past 12 months:

Thinking back over the last 12 months, did any of the following happen to you …

Someone wanted you to give him/her money or something else (watch, shoes, mobile phone) and threat-ened you if you did not do it? Someone hit you violently or hurt you so much that you needed to see a doctor? Something was stolen from you (such as a book, money, mobile phone, sport equipment, bicycle)? You were bullied at school (other students humiliated you or made fun of you, hit or kicked you, or excluded you from their group)? (Gruszczynska, Lucia, & Killias, 2012)

Key findings from the ISRD-2 include that, on average, almost one-third of the surveyed population of the 30 countries experienced robbery, assault, theft, and/or bullying. Theft (20%) and bullying (14%) were more common than robbery (about 4%) and assault (4%). In most of the countries, boys were at greater risk of experiencing violent victimization than girls. This held true except for bullying, which affected girls more frequently in some countries. A decreased risk of victimization was associated with family bonding, sound neighborhoods, and order at schools (Gruszczynska, Lucia, & Killias, 2012).

Building off the ISRD-2, seven questions pertaining to victimization were included in the ISRD-3 questionnaire. Of these questions, three are carryovers from the ISRD-2 questionnaire (Someone wanted you to give him/her money or something else … ; Someone hit you violently or hurt you … ; and Something was stolen from you …), and four questions are new. These new questions are intended to measure hate crimes, cyberbullying/harassment, and child abuse. The following are the four new questions:

Someone threatened you with violence or committed physical violence against you because of your religion, the language you speak, the color of your skin, your social or ethnic background, or for similar reasons?

818

Download more at Learnclax.com

Has anyone made fun of you or teased you seriously in a hurtful way through e-mail, instant messaging, in a chat room, on a website, or through a text message sent to your mobile phone? Has your mother or father (or your stepmother or stepfather) ever hit, slapped, or shoved you? Has your mother or father (or your stepmother or stepfather) ever hit you with an object, punched or kicked you forcefully, or beat you up?

Results from the ISRD-3 are forthcoming.

British Crime Survey/Crime Survey for England and Wales

Similar to the NCVS and the ICVS, the British Crime Survey (BCS) is conducted to measure the extent and characteristics of victimization in England and Wales. The BCS is a type of national victimization study that surveys persons aged 16 and over living in England and Wales. Beginning in 1982, the BCS was conducted every 2 years until 2001, when it was changed to reflect victimizations during the previous 12 months. Beginning April 1, 2012, the BCS changed its name to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). Using computer-assisted personal interviewing, the 2010–2011 CSEW surveyed 51,000 people—47,000 adults and an additional 4,000 children in the 10- to 15-year-old supplement. Persons were asked about victimizations that they and their households experienced. To get the sample, about 1,000 interviews were conducted in each police force area. If individuals answered yes to any screen question about victimization, they completed a victim module that included detailed questions about the event. Findings from the 2010– 2011 CSEW indicated that there were 6.4 million crimes against households and those 16 years old and older. Of those who were victimized, 23% experienced more than one victimization (Office for National Statistics, 2015).

International Violence Against Women Survey

The International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS) is another international survey that, similar to the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) conducted in the United States, is designed to collect information specific to violence against women. Coordinated by the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, and Statistics Canada, the IVAWS collects data from women on violence they have experienced at the hands of men including the details and consequences of their victimization, as well as background information on the survey participants and their male partners (H. Johnson, Ollus, & Nevala, 2008b). The IVAWS was initiated in 1997, and since then 11 countries have participated. Table 13.1 lists questions asked on the IVAWS. To learn more about how culture and context may influence victimization risk, see Reading 26 in this section by Elsie Yan, Ko- Ling Chan, and Agnes Tiwari (2015) about elder abuse in Asia.

Table 13.1

819

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Reprinted from H. Johnson, Ollus, & Nevala (2008a).

820

Download more at Learnclax.com

Justice System Responses to Victimization

Victims and the United Nations

The United Nations is a collection of countries established on October 24, 1945, in the wake of World War II to promote peace and security and to strengthen friendships between nations. The United Nations is designed to help countries solve their economic, social, and humanitarian problems. Fifty-one countries joined in the beginning, a number now bolstered to 193 sovereign nations.

On November 29, 1985, the United Nations met to discuss crime victims and the dangers of rampant crime and its effects. The committee pledged to promote the safety and well-being of victims around the globe by creating both national and international laws to protect the rights of victims. The United Nations then adopted the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. This declaration created a basic standard on how victims of crime need to be treated. Victims are defined via the declaration as “persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power” (United Nations, 1985).

Under this declaration, victims have a universal right to receive fair treatment and true justice under the letter of the law. It established several ideals to receive justice for victims. These ideals included restitution, compensation, and victim assistance programs. Restitution is the idea that offenders make some sort of payment to the victims of their crimes to balance the scales of justice. This includes when the government harms its people and creates victims. Compensation is the principle that states if the offender is unable to give monetary support to the victim the government should try to provide that to the victim. Victim assistance programs were created to grant medical, mental, and social help from organizations to aid in the recovery of victims. These programs need to be available and accessible to improve recovery for victims.

The United Nations created a Handbook on Justice that is used to help guide the creation of victim service programs. It also aided in establishing policies for workers in the justice system who come into contact with victims. These policies are victim-sensitive to ensure the well-being of everyone affected by crime. Workers that these policies target include anyone in the court system, law enforcement, doctors, prison personnel, and even members of the clergy.

International Court of Justice

In 1945, the United Nations created the International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in the Hague, the Netherlands. The ICJ serves two primary purposes: (1) to resolve issues presented to the court by countries under the jurisdiction of the United Nations and (2) to provide assistance in the form of legal opinions sought by various branches of the United Nations as well as other specific agencies. If a country is not under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, that country may not present a case to the ICJ. Furthermore, countries

821

Download more at Learnclax.com

that can bring cases before the ICJ must adhere, prior to the trial, to any ruling that could be handed down by the court. Finally, the ICJ cannot prosecute specific individuals, only countries (International Court of Justice, n.d.).

A few points relating to the structure and trial and advisory processes of the ICJ should be made. Regarding structure, a total of 15 judges (from different countries) serve terms of 9 years (can be reelected) and are put in place by the Security Council and General Assembly. Moreover, the judges function independently from their respective countries, providing unbiased opinions and rulings. Pertaining to the trial process in the ICJ, the first stage occurs when parties provide written pleas to one another. Following the plea, oral proceedings occur, after which a final decision is handed down by the court. Regarding advisory opinions handed down by the ICJ, the first step taken by the court is to identify specific countries and organizations that would have knowledge on the question at hand and then obtain written information pertaining to the inquiry. Although considered confidential, written statements provided by the countries to the ICJ are commonly revealed in public announcements alongside the advisory opinions. Such opinions are advisory and are not necessarily binding nor do they require adherence (International Court of Justice, n.d.).

The general characteristics of the court, procedural aspects, and how victims are impacted by the ICJ are all very important. A prime example of how victims are influenced by the ICJ is evident in the case of Hissène Habré, an ex-dictator from Chad. During his time in power throughout the 1980s, Hissène Habré was believed to have been involved in the torture and killing of thousands of individuals. Belgium sought extradition multiple times since 2005, but nothing came from the situation, and Habré has remained in exile in Senegal since the early 1990s. In 2012, the ICJ ruled in favor of Belgium (who brought the case against Senegal), stating that Habré be extradited to Belgium or be tried in Senegal immediately. The ruling provides the beginning stages of justice for victims of Habré by requiring swift justice be imposed on the former dictator either through extradition or an immediate trial (Human Rights Watch, 2012).

International Criminal Court

Located in The Hague, which is one of the largest cities in the Netherlands, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has functioned as a dominant and independent legal body that handles significant international crimes occurring between countries. The ICC came into existence following the adoption (1998) and subsequent ratification (2002) of an international treaty labeled the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute indicated that the ICC could prosecute specific individuals for four serious international offenses: (1) genocide, (2) crimes against humanity, (3) war crimes, and (4) crimes of aggression (see Table 13.2 for specifics). However, for individuals to be prosecuted, two conditions must have been met, specifically (1) the offender must be a citizen of a country that ratified the Rome Statute, and (2) jurisdiction must be granted by the country where the offender is from.

Table 13.2

822

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Reprinted from Eberhardt (n.d.).

Aside from general characteristics of the ICC, a few other important details about the court should be highlighted. First, whereas the ICC has served as an international legal body, the court is not governed by the United Nations. Second, the ICC is composed of four branches: the presidency, judicial divisions, office of the prosecutor, and the registry. The first three of these branches have concentrated on judicial aspects of the court such as administration (presidency), legal proceedings (judicial divisions), and prosecution (office of the prosecutor), whereas the last branch has focused on assisting the court (registry). Third, the judicial division can be subdivided into divisions including appeals (containing at least five judges, one being the president), trial, and pretrial (both having no less than six judges) stages. Fourth, areas of current focus by the ICC can be subdivided into (1) situations under investigation, which include (but are not limited to) Uganda, Darfur, Kenya, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and (2) preliminary examinations, which include (but are not limited to) Colombia, Nigeria, Georgia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Ripped From the Headlines

823

Download more at Learnclax.com

On 16 July 2014, the District Court of The Hague held that the state of the Netherlands is responsible regarding the death of about 300 men, who were killed subsequent to their eviction from a compound near Srebrenica where Dutch peacekeepers of UNPROFOR (Dutchbat) were posted in 1995.

The case against the Netherlands was brought by the relatives of ten victims and the association ‘Mothers of Srebrenica’. This association has earlier brought claims against the United Nations before Dutch courts and the European Court of Human Rights, which have been rejected on the ground of immunity of the UN.

Source: Reprinted from Rechtspraak, Press Release, The Netherlands liable for deportation of more than three hundred men in Srebrenica, The Hague, 16-7-2014 (http://www.sharesproject.nl/tag/srebrenica/).

Photo 13.1 Taking action … Bosnian Muslims are suing the Dutch government claiming they should have been protected during the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica.

AP Photo/Peter Dejong

The ICC has also provided information regarding the role of victims in the court setting. In 2005, the ICC set up the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV), which provides two forms of assistance to victims. First, the office seeks to increase participation of victims during all parts of court proceedings, part of which allows for legal representation to be freely selected by victims. Second, the office focuses on providing reparations to victims, which may include financial compensation for both past and future problems associated with victimization as well as rehabilitation. Moreover, reparations can be paid to multiple victims who have been impacted by an incident or to a single victim. Financial compensation for these victims may come from the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV), which contains funds from private entities, countries, various forfeitures, and fines. In total, the TFV is currently assisting approximately 80,000 victims. Between both forms of assistance provided by the OPCV there has been a dramatic increase in the number of victims being provided representation and assistance, which from 2006 to 2010 increased from 65 to 1,252 victims.

824

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.sharesproject.nl/tag/srebrenica/

Ripped From the Headlines

Two friends were on holidays in a Member State other than their own. They stayed in a hotel in the center of the country’s capital city. On the fifth day of their stay, there was a burglary in their hotel room during dinner time. Their camera, money and jewelry were taken. As the two women didn’t speak the local language, they decided not to report the crime to the police. They were not aware of the possibility to call a Victim Support organization. With her credit card one of them had with her during dinner, they booked an earlier flight home. Back home, the travel insurance refused to give the women compensation because they didn’t report the crime in the Member State where the crime took place. It cost the women a lot of money and it ruined their holiday.

Source: Reprinted from Victim Support Europe (2014).

825

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victims’ Rights and Assistance Programs

Has the scenario in the previous Ripped From the Headlines box ever happened to you? If so, you are a victim of cross-border crime. A cross-border victim is “anyone who has suffered directly from a crime that took place in a country different than one the victim lives in” (Victim Support Europe, 2014). As a cross-border victim, you are afforded certain rights, and there are agencies you can turn to for support. This section highlights these organizations and describes some innovative victims’ rights programs in various countries across the globe.

European Union

The European Union (EU) is composed of 28 nation-states that, together, encompass roughly 7% of the world’s population and reside predominantly in Europe. To safeguard free movement (the ability to move about safely within and across borders of EU member states), the EU has placed emphasis on protecting victims’ rights. The EU therefore acts to ensure that victims are recognized and treated with respect and dignity; are protected from further victimization and intimidation from the offender and further distress when they take part in the criminal justice process; receive appropriate support throughout proceedings and have access to justice; and have appropriate access to compensation (European Union, 2014).

Additionally, the EU ensures that victims benefit from these rights “without discrimination across the EU, irrespective of their nationality or country of residence,” and whether minor or serious crime is involved, whether they have reported the crime, and whether they are the victim or a family member (European Commission, n.d.).

Within the EU, victims of crime are afforded certain rights as outlined in several key documents including the Directive Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime; EU Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings; and the Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to Compensation to Crime Victims. According to these documents, victims of crime have the following rights: the right to respect and recognition, to be heard, to information, to reimbursement of expenses, to protection, to support, to compensation, to interact with trained professionals, and to receive cross-border assistance.

If you have fallen victim of a crime within a member state of the EU, you may turn to Victim Support Europe, which has been providing victim support services for over 30 years. It is the parent network for all national victim support organizations in Europe. Its members provide universal support services for all victims of crime, regardless of the type of crime committed. Victim support organizations that are members of Victim Support Europe can offer the following types of help:

Information on your rights as a victim Emotional support before, during, and after the criminal justice processes Assistance to solve financial and practical issues following the crime Assistance and support for the preparation and attendance of a trial

826

Download more at Learnclax.com

Assistance in applying for state compensation for criminal injuries Information and advice in respect to health care, home security, employment, privacy, finance, education and support services (Reprinted from VSE, 2014)

Different Approaches in Different Locales

The victims’ rights movement has not garnered the same amount of attention across the globe as it has in Western countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For instance, France has a long history of providing victims with financial restitution. In 1977, France became one of the first countries to establish a victim compensation law (Kastsoris, 1990). Although this early incarnation only allowed victims to seek financial remedy by pressing charges against the individual who victimized them, more recent efforts have substantially increased French victims’ access to victim compensation (Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, 2015; Ministére de la Justice, n.d.). Currently, victims of crime who are either French nationals or citizens of the European Union are able to apply for state- sponsored compensation by bringing their case before an independent tribunal. The amount of compensation that victims receive depends on the seriousness of the crime; victims of seriously violent offenses are eligible for total reimbursement, whereas victims of less serious crimes, such as theft, are only eligible for partial reimbursement (Ministére de la Justice, n.d.).

France’s commitment to victims’ rights is further emphasized by the fact that it does not require victims to personally apply for victim compensation. Instead, police agencies are capable of applying on victims’ behalf (Advocates for Human Rights, 2010). By allowing this, victims in France are less likely to be exposed to secondary victimization because they are not required to appear in court to receive funding.

In some countries, specific legislation has been passed that protects individuals should they fall victim to a crime. In Australia, each state or territory has passed legislation that provides victims with a host of fundamental rights that ensure that their information is kept confidential, that they are treated fairly by the criminal justice system, and that the likelihood of secondary victimization is limited (Victim Support Australia, 2003). First and foremost, victims throughout Australia have the right to timely notification of available victim services, such as counseling, legal help, welfare, and medical care. They also have the right to be kept informed of the status of the criminal case against their attacker, including whether the offender has been caught, the offender’s name, the crime he or she is being charged with, and whether he or she has posted bail. If the case goes to trial, prosecutors are charged with explaining the court process to victims, letting them know if and when they must appear in court, and keeping victims informed of the offender’s final disposition and sentence.

Victims of violent crimes, such as those that involve death or physical bodily injury, are furthermore entitled to additional rights. Such victims, as well as the victims of nonviolent crimes in some jurisdictions, are given the opportunity to sign up for the Victims Register, a database that allows victims to stay informed of an offender’s status after he or she is incarcerated. This includes being made aware of how long the offender’s sentence is, if he or she escapes from jail, and when he or she is expected to be released. Certain states, such as Queensland, also allow for victims to make comments at an offender’s parole hearing (Victims of Crime

827

Download more at Learnclax.com

Assistance Act 2009).

Throughout Australia, victims of violent crimes also have the ability to prepare a victim impact statement, which can be presented to the court between an offender’s conviction and sentencing, as well as receive victim compensation to cover medical expenses, psychiatric help, and economic losses. The requirements necessary for the receipt of victim compensation funds vary according to state or territory, often according to the seriousness of the crime. In the state of Victoria, for instance, primary victims are eligible to receive up to $60,000 (State Government of Victoria, 2013), whereas victims from the state of Western Australia can receive up to $75,000 (Department of the Attorney General, 2006).

In Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed new legislation on April 3, 2014, designed to provide crime victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. The Victims Bill of Rights (see Box 13.1) is a historical piece of legislation that seeks to create clear federal statutory rights for victims of crime for the first time in Canada’s history. This legislation establishes statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution and ensures a complaint process for breaches of these rights.

Each province has set up a method for victims of violent crime to receive financial assistance. The assistance must be applied for by the victim; it is not an automatic recompense. For purposes of this legislation, a victim of a violent crime is defined as any individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage, or economic loss as a result of an offense committed under the Criminal Code, the Youth CJ Act, and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. This definition also applies to some offenses under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The proposed rights would be available only to a victim living in Canada, a permanent resident of Canada, or a Canadian citizen. The Victim Bill of Rights Act also proposes that clearly defined individuals may act as representatives for a victim who is deceased or incapable of acting on his or her behalf. These individuals are defined as follows: “The victim’s spouse or an individual cohabitating with the victim in a conjugal relationship for at least 1 year prior to the victim’s death; a relative or dependent of the victim; and anyone who has custody of the victim or of the victim’s dependent” (Harper, 2014).

As previously discussed, Victim Support is a continent-wide network of agencies throughout Europe with the goal of coordinating agency goals, increasing victim resources, and setting standards on how to assist victims of crime (Victim Support, 2014). Victim Support provides services across and within Europe. For instance, Victim Support in the United Kingdom specifically includes England, Wales, and Northern Ireland and also provides witness services for individuals presenting evidence in criminal trials. The organization classifies itself as a national charity, offering free and confidential services to victims and witnesses. Although Victim Support is not officially part of the criminal justice system, the agency is highly influential among different criminal justice agencies. Victims are provided with advocacy, not legal advice or counseling. This includes helping with housing and acting as a liaison between the victim and police, among other services (Dunn, 2004).

Box 13.1 Canadian Victims Bill of Rights

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced on April 3, 2014, the introduction of legislation to create a Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that would transform the criminal justice system by creating, at the federal level, clear rights for victims of crime—a first in

828

Download more at Learnclax.com

Canadian history. The legislation would create the following statutory rights for victims of crime:

Right to information: Victims would have the right to general information about the criminal justice system and available victim services and programs, as well as specific information about the progress of the case, including information relating to the investigation, prosecution, and sentencing of the person who harmed them. Right to protection: Victims would have the right to have their security and privacy considered at all stages of the criminal justice process, to have reasonable and necessary measures to protect them from intimidation and retaliation, and to request their identity be protected from public disclosure. Right to participation: Victims would have a right to convey their views about decisions to be made by criminal justice professionals and have them considered at various stages of the criminal justice process, and to present a victim impact statement. Right to restitution: Victims would have the right to have the court consider making a restitution order for all offences for which there are easy-to-calculate financial losses.

Source: Harper (2014).

The first conceptualization of Victim Support was seen in Bristol (located in South England) in 1974 by a local probation officer and a police officer. The organization now boasts over 1,000 staff members and over 4,000 volunteers among 374 different offices. Volunteers are required to complete 40 hours of basic training, then continue with more specialized training (e.g., domestic violence) over the following months (Dunn, 2004). Victim Support now helps over 1 million victims and almost 200,000 witnesses a year in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland alone (Victim Support, 2014). As of 2004, over half of the victims referred were for property crime and approximately one-fourth for violent crimes. The vast majority of victims are referred by the police, but an agency goal is to target referrals from other agencies to catch victims who do not report their crimes to the police (Dunn, 2004).

In many parts of the world, victim services get their start through the provision of specialized services for women and children who have been the victim of violence (Lindgren & Nikolić-Ristanović, 2011). This is the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina where the victims’ rights movement is a fairly recent phenomenon and largely accredited to the country’s troubled past. The first victim services in the country were established by women’s group activists to meet the needs of war refugees and women and children who were the victims of violence. Take, for example, Medica Zenica. Created in the midst of brutal conflict in the 1990s, Medica Zenica is one of the first and longest-running nongovernmental organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina dedicated to providing services to female victims of war and postwar violence, including victims of war rape and other forms of war torture, sexual violence victims, domestic violence survivors, and victims of human trafficking (Medica Zenica, 2014). Services provided by Medica Zenica include crisis intervention, temporary shelter and related services, individual and group counseling, occupational therapy and economic empowerment, legal aid, medical support and assistance, and an emergency telephone hotline.

The state of Tamil Nadu in southern India has taken a rather innovative approach to dealing with female victims of crime. All female police stations, referred to as “women helpline” units, have been established in most districts of Tamil Nadu. These all-women units are tasked with handling cases pertaining to premarital problems, marital problems, and general problems (see Table 13.3 for a description of the nature of these cases) with the main objective being “reconciliation between the parties without going to court” (Natarajan, 1996, p. 67).

829

Download more at Learnclax.com

Photo 13.2 On March 28, 2014, actress Angelina Jolie and Great Britain’s secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs, William Hague, visited Medica Zenica.

Table 13.3

830

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: Reprinted from Natarajan (1996).

831

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

Comparative victimology allows for a method of both measuring and understanding victimization around the world. Victimology has expanded to a variety of countries in the last 30 years; however, this line of research has not been equally distributed across all countries. Outside the United States, victimology has been significantly influenced by the World Society of Victimology (WSV), the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, and the International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT). The World Society of Victimology seeks to promote advocacy, research, education, and services for victims of crime on the international level. The Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law provides a moderate level of attention toward victimological research, including on attitudes, rights, and compensation for victims. The International Victimology Institute Tilburg centers solely on conducting victimological research. From a comparative perspective, victimization surveys can be conducted on three levels: (1) international, (2) national, and (3) local. International victimization surveys include the (1) International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) and (2) the International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD, specifically the ISRD-2), both of which investigate violent and property offenses between countries. One example of a national victimization survey is the British Crime Survey (BCS; recently changed to the Crime Survey for England and Wales), which measures household and individual victimization. The survey found that approximately 23% of the sample experienced victimization in the past year. Aside from general victimization surveys, specialized victimization studies tap into specific types of victimization, such as how the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS) investigates violence against women. A variety of international justice system responses exist, which are part of (1) the United Nations (UN), (2) the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and (3) the International Criminal Court (ICC). The UN has identified the ideals of assistance programs for victims, restitution, and compensation. The ICJ was created (and functions) as part of the UN and serves two purposes: (1) to resolve issues between countries under the court’s jurisdiction and (2) to provide legal opinions regarding legal matters. The International Criminal Court is an independent international court that came into existence with the ratification of the Rome Statute. Whereas the court focuses specifically on four international crimes, the ICC legally assists victims through the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) and financially through the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV). Victims’ rights vary significantly by country, with some notable examples of these rights present in Western countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States). In France, financial compensation for victims (of various types of crime) has been in existence for over 30 years and can be applied for by victims or by police on behalf of victims.

832

Download more at Learnclax.com

In Australia, victims of crime have their personal information kept confidential, are notified of victims’ services, and are notified about trial proceedings, in addition to being granted other specific rights for victims of violence (e.g., information about the offender while in prison and when the offender will be released). In Canada, the Victims Bill of Rights has provided (at the federal level) victims the right to (1) information, (2) protection, (3) participation, and (4) restitution. In the United Kingdom, Victim Support provides crime victims with different types of advocacy, such as with housing assistance. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, specialized victim assistance programs are provided, such as Medica Zenica (a nongovernmental organization), to assist victims of violence during and following the war. In certain parts of India, female victims of crime are assisted by all-female police departments.

833

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. Aside from the three main areas of criminal justice systems across the majority of societies (law enforcement, courts, and corrections), should victim services/assistance be considered a fourth area? Should this be a mandatory part of the criminal justice system? Why or why not?

2. Between the ICVS and ISRD, which provides a more comprehensive investigation of victimization between countries? Which would be better for investigating juveniles? Which would be better for investigating multiple types of victimization?

3. Would the model described in certain parts of India, regarding the use of all-female police departments to handle issues related to victimization of females, be reasonable to use in certain locations in the United States? Why or why not? What might the benefits and drawbacks of this model be if used in the United States?

834

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key Terms

Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) 525 cross-border victim 529 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power 526 Handbook on Justice 526 International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) 523 International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD) 524 international victimization studies 523 International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT) 523 International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS) 525 local victimization studies 523 Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law 522 national victimization studies 523 specialized victimization studies 523 Victims Bill of Rights 531 Victim Support 531 Victim Support Europe 530 World Society of Victimology (WSV) 522

835

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS): http://www.unicri.it/services/library_documentation/publications/icvs

The International Crime Victims Survey involves more than 2 decades of data collection efforts spanning more than 70 countries and 300,000 individuals. Aside from violent and property victimization, the ICVS also measures sexual victimization.

International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT): www.victimology.nl

The International Victimology Institute Tilburg is one of the leading research institutions focused solely on victimological inquiry. Moreover, the institute concentrates on interdisciplinary efforts in the investigation of victimization based on the multifaceted nature of victimology.

Mothers of Srebrenica: http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=9659

Maintained by The Hague, the Mothers of Srebrenica webpage provides a description of the civil suit filed on behalf of roughly 6,000 women impacted in 1995 by the Srebrenica genocide.

Victim Support Europe: http://victimsupport.eu

Victim Support Europe focuses on providing assistance to victims through the enhancement of services and victims’ rights within Europe.

World Society of Victimology: http://www.worldsocietyofvictimology.org

The World Society of Victimology is one of the leaders in international victimology. The society functions as a nongovernmental organization (which provides consultations and is associated with the United Nations) that promotes comparative victimological research and cooperation between nations to further the assistance of victims.

836

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.unicri.it/services/library_documentation/publications/icvs

http://www.victimology.nl

http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=9659

http://victimsupport.eu

http://www.worldsocietyofvictimology.org

Reading /// 25

The ICVS has been conducted six times from 1989 to 2010 in over 80 countries; its data provide a rich picture of victimization risk. In this review, John van Kesteren, Jan van Dijk, and Pat Mayhew (2013) discuss four major areas of analysis from the ICVS: (1) the level of crime reported in the survey compared to police data; (2) trends in crime; (3) reporting to the police by victims, satisfaction with the police, and provision of victim services; and (4) attitudes toward crime and criminal justice.

The International Crime Victims Surveys: A Retrospective

John van Kesteren, Jan van Dijk, and Pat Mayhew

SOURCE: van Kesteren, J., van Dijk, J., & Mayhew, P. (2013). The International Crime Victims Surveys: A retrospective. International Review of Victimology, 1–21.

At a special meeting on crime prevention of the Council of Europe in Barcelona at the end of 1987, plans for a standardized survey of crime victims were aired for the first time (van Dijk et al., 1987). In the next year, Pat Mayhew, Martin Killias and Jan van Dijk actually launched the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), a standardized victimization survey modelled after the Dutch, British and Swiss national surveys (van Dijk et al., 1990). The survey went into the field for the first time in 1989 in 13 nations. The surveys have since, with some adjustments, been carried out in five subsequent sweeps, with intervals of four or five years (1992, 1996, 2000, 2005 and 2010). The last round in 2010 was conducted in 13 countries (van Dijk, 2012). Altogether the ICVS has to date been carried out once or more in 80 countries from all world regions. The full dataset is available for secondary analyses. It can be downloaded from a newly launched website of Lausanne University (http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/icvs/, last accessed 11 July 2013).

The ICVS built upon and mirrors some fairly generic features of victimization surveys, such as interviewing representative samples from national or city populations (in our case samples of 1000–2000 respondents) about their experiences of crime, using face-to-face interviewing or, where possible, Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Respondents were screened for experiences of victimization over a given ‘recall period’ of five years, and were then asked to focus on their experiences over the past 12 months. The ICVS screener questions cover a limited selection of common crimes. The screener questions use definitions and concepts based on colloquial language rather than the law. Respondents were interviewed about possible victimizations that can be seen as affecting the household as a whole (theft of a car, theft from a car, theft of a motorcycle or moped, theft of a bicycle, burglary and attempted burglary). The respondent also answered about his/her personal experience in relation to theft of personal property, robbery, sexual offences, assault and threats and, in later rounds, bribe-seeking by public officials and credit card fraud. There have been additional questions in different ICVS rounds; these have differed but topics have included the use of crime prevention measures, the seriousness rating of types of crime, fear of crime, and (for victims) the police response and the provision and need for victim support.

What Has the International Crime Victims Survey Shown?

837

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/icvs/

Space precludes documenting the full extent of analytical work done with ICVS data. Just four thematic clusters of results are singled out. Within each cluster we will highlight results that stem from the unique, international nature of the ICVS. The first is what it has shown as to the level of crime in different countries compared to the picture from police figures. In this section we will also look at the victimization risks of different segments of the population and at the phenomenon of repeat victimization. The added value of the ICVS here is to test whether results of bespoke national surveys regarding these phenomena can be seen as universally applicable. As a special focus we will look at the results of a multi-level analysis of the relationships between gun ownership as measured by the ICVS and rates of violent victimizations in which guns were involved, at both the individual and collective level.

The second cluster of results concerns what ICVS measures of trends in crime show relative to trends according to police figures. Here, we present findings on the relationships between the level of security measures as measured by the ICVS in different countries and trends in types of property crime (especially household burglary).

The third set of results relates to the reporting behaviour of victims and levels of satisfaction with police performance, and the provision of, and need for, specialized victim assistance. Our aim here is to underline the importance of the ICVS as an instrument to monitor the implementation of international standards concerning victims’ rights, and to benchmark national victim policies.

The fourth cluster of results deals with attitudes towards crime and criminal justice. Here again, the universality of the findings from the ICVS surveys in different countries will be at issue. The special approach is a multi-level analysis of the social correlates of public attitudes towards punishment, in particular differentiating between victims and non-victims.

International Crime Victims Survey and Police Measures of Crime

Van Dijk (2008) looked at 39 countries across the world in relation to ‘total ICVS crime’ (as measured mainly in 2000) and ‘total police recorded crime’ around the same period (drawing mainly on the 2000 United Nations [UN] Crime Survey, which collects a range of criminal justice statistics). Figure 1 shows the results. Total ICVS crime is shown in the lighter orange bars as the percentage of those victimized once or more (the victimization rates); ‘recorded crime’ is shown in the darker orange bars, which represent the total number of crime recorded by the police per 100,000 population.

Figure 1 Total Crime by Countries According to the International Crime Victims Survey (the Percentage Victimized Once or More) and Police Figures (Total Recorded Crime per 100,000 Population)

838

Download more at Learnclax.com

Figure 1 shows no correlation between the actual level of victimization and the rates of crime recorded by the police (r = 0.212; n = 39; n. s.). Some countries with exceptionally high recorded crime also show a comparatively high victimization rate (South Africa), but many others do not (e.g., Finland, Canada and

839

Download more at Learnclax.com

Switzerland). Comparisons between country rankings according to the ICVS and police figures were repeated for different types of crime. The results showed positive correlations for robbery (r = 0.663, n = 37), and theft of cars (r = 0.353; n = 34), but much weaker (and statistically insignificant) correlations for other types of crime. These results suggest that police figures of recorded crime are nothing but a source of misinformation on the levels of crime when comparing different countries. For comparative studies on levels of crime victimization surveys are therefore an indispensable tool.

The conduct of the ICVS has not just provided a better comparative count of crime. By reducing the ‘noise’ in international counts of crime it also opened new opportunities for epidemiological criminology. The conduct of the ICVS in 80 nations, including all the main Western countries, allows for cross-sectional analyses of relationships between the characteristics of nations and national levels of various types of crime. In the reports on the first rounds of the ICVS, strong correlations were shown between the national ownership rates of cars and bicycles and the rates of thefts of such items. The correlation between ownership of vehicles and theft rates is often regarded as self-evident. On reflection, though, these strong and universal links are far from mundane. If levels of crime are determined by the presence of a more or less fixed number of motivated offenders (as many motivational criminological theories assume), an increase in available targets would not lead to more crimes but simply to a reduction in the risks of victimization per target. Thus, the finding that levels of theft are invariably strongly linked to ownership levels and that risks per target actually tend to go up with higher ownership rates, are difficult to reconcile with motivational theories. The results on vehicle ownership levels and theft of vehicles rather support the theory that levels of property crime are determined by criminal opportunity structures (Felson and Clarke, 1998). Bicycle theft, like car and motorcycle theft, appears to be clearly driven by availability. Even in otherwise low crime countries, such as China and Japan, the general availability of bicycles generates high rates of bicycle theft as ‘crimes of expediency’.

Victimization surveys such as the ICVS are well placed to analyse links between victim characteristics such as vehicle ownership and victimization. The cross-national dataset of the ICVS also allows analyses of other factors and victimization at the country level. Analyses have consistently shown that levels of victimization are positively related to urbanization and age composition (the proportion of young people). In a secondary analysis of ICVS 2000 data, a relationship was also found between victimization and indicators of neighbourhood cohesion (van Wilsem et al., 2003). Victimization by violent crime has also been found to be related to socio-economic inequality and/or poverty, as well as to the consumption of alcohol (van Dijk, 2008).

Data from victimization surveys can shed light on characteristics that act as risk-enhancing or risk-reducing factors. Various theoretical models have been developed to explain how the differential vulnerability of individuals to criminal victimization is determined by their lifestyle or ‘routine activities’ (Felson, 2002; Hindelang et al., 1978). The ICVS includes information on demographics, such as the age, gender, town size, marital status, income and education level of respondents. Previous multivariate victimological risk analyses using the ICVS datasets have shown that many of these factors have independent effects on victimization by contact crimes. The ICVS 2004 data were analysed using a log linear analysis to determine how relevant factors influence victimization risks independently of each other (van Kesteren et al., 2000). The results

840

Download more at Learnclax.com

presented in Table 1 show that youth increases the risk of victimization, especially for contact crimes; likewise, seniority acts as protective factor. The second most important risk factor is the size of the place in which people live; those living in large cities are most at risk. A third risk factor for victimization by contact crime is the status of being single. Other personal characteristics are less salient in explaining differential risks. However, in some rounds of the ICVS a question was included on the frequency of going out at night. This factor was found to explain a considerable amount of victimization, especially for contact crimes.

Table 1

a. The odd ratios are based on prevalence rates in 1999 (% victimized once or more). Controlled means that each category (e.g. town size) is considered controlling for associations with all other categories.

b. Car thefts are thefts of and from cars. Motorcyde thefts are included In ‘all property crimes’.

c. ‘Petty crimes’ cover car vandalism, bicycle theft and thefts of personal property.

d. Those on ‘lower’ incomes have an income less than the average in each country. Those on ‘higher’ incomes earn more than the average.

e. The ‘going out’ variable is based on answers to a question about how many times people usually go out

841

Download more at Learnclax.com

in the evening. Those counted as ‘often’ indicated they went out at least once a week or more. Those counted as ‘not often’ go out less frequently.

f. Those with ‘lower’ education are in the lower half of the educational distribution. Those with ‘higher’ education are in the upper half of the distribution.

Repeat Victimization

In the ICVS questionnaire, respondents who report a victimization of a particular type are asked how often they have been victimized by such a crime in the course of the last year. Having been a victim recently has been found to be a strong predictor of future victimization, controlling for other factors. In the ICVS (1998, 1992 and 1996), the percentages of victims who were revictimized in the course of the same year varies from 45% among victims of sexual incidents and 35% among victims of threats/assaults to 25% among victims of robberies and 15% among victims of burglaries (Farrell and Bouloukos, 2001). Analyses of the 2000 ICVS dataset have shown that such repeat victimization constitutes 40% of all crime for the 11 crime types in the 17 industrialized countries (Farrell et al., 2005). This includes across-crime-type as well as within-crime-type repeats. Aggregate rates were highest in the UK (52% of all crime), The Netherlands (48%) and the US (47%). Japan was the only country where repeat victimization constituted less than a third of all crime reported to the ICVS. Subsequent analyses focusing on repeat victims have revealed that this subgroup tends to be less satisfied with their treatment by the police, to have less trust in their neighbours, and to be less inclined to report further victimization to the police (van Dijk, 2001). The ICVS thus bears testimony to the fact that in almost all countries repeat victims ought to be made the target of special policies of prevention and victim care.

The Guns-Violence Link

A unique asset of the ICVS is the possibility of carrying out multi-level analyses to see how victimization risks reflect both the characteristics of victims and non-victims, and the wider context in which they are placed. An example here is an analysis of handgun and other gun ownership (which the ICVS unusually measures) and violent victimization incidents in which guns were involved (van Kesteren, 2013).

The results show that rates of ownership of handguns are positively related to victimization rates for contact crimes involving firearms, including assaults and threats involving a gun. A positive but statistically insignificant relation is found between handgun ownership and victimization by contact crimes generally. This finding confirms the earlier result that rates of victimization by assaults and threats are unrelated to handgun ownership (van Dijk, 2008). There is no correlation at the national level between handgun ownership and victimization by property crime. Nor is there any relationship between long-gun ownership and any type of victimization. These results show that analyses of the gun-violence link at the macro level should focus on handgun ownership.

In multi-level analyses of the ICVS data we have looked at gun ownership, which comes out as an independent predictor of victimization by contact crimes in countries with low, average and high levels of gun availability. Table 2 shows the results of the analysis.

842

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 2

Source: van Kesteren (2013).

* p < 0.05 on a Chi-squared test.

The results depicted in the right-hand column show that in all three categories of countries handgun owners are significantly more at risk of experiencing an incident involving a gun than non-handgun owners, controlling for several other factors. This finding refutes the idea that gun ownership offers protection against gun attacks. The risk-enhancing effects are largest for owners in countries where relatively few inhabitants own guns—suggesting that many gun owners exhibit a distinct lifestyle, for example involvement with criminal activities, which enhances their risk of a gun assault. In countries with high ownership levels, individuals who own guns are probably less atypical, although they also run somewhat higher risks than others of being assaulted by someone with a gun. As expected, no similar relationships were found concerning the ownership of long guns. By and large the results offer little support for the notion that more guns bring about less crime.

To conclude, at the community level, high levels of gun ownership seem to have conflicting effects on levels of violence. When conflicts arise in high-gun environments, the stakes in a fight are relatively high. This may deter some would-be attackers and prevent acts of simple violence. In other words, would-be attackers may feel less restrained in low-gun countries, such as Great Britain and The Netherlands. At the same time, in high-gun countries the risks of escalation to more serious and lethal violence are higher. On balance, considerably more serious crimes of violence are committed in such countries. For this reason, the stringent gun reduction policies of many governments seem to be a sensible public health approach. At the individual level, the statistical facts are unambiguous. Contrary to what has been claimed by proponents of widespread gun ownership in the USA (e.g. Lott, 1998), those households that own guns run higher risks of seeing their members being criminally victimized, either by other household members or by outsiders who are not deterred from attacking. This result certainly sheds serious doubt on the notion of gun ownership as a protective factor.

843

Download more at Learnclax.com

Trends in Crime

Of the countries that have taken part in the ICVS since 1989, there are 15 developed countries about which information is available from at least four different rounds, enabling an analysis of trends in crime over the last 10–15 years. The average victimization rates for these countries showed them to have peaked halfway through the 1990s but to have declined since. The pattern for individual countries was nearly always the same. The drops are most pronounced in vehicle-related crime and burglary. In looking at trends in crime, van Dijk and Tseloni (2012) used results from countries that had taken part in four or five rounds of the ICVS between 1989 and 2004/2005. Rates of overall victimization in North America (Canada and the USA), Australia, and the nine European countries for which ICVS based trend data are available, show distinct downward trends. The drop in crime in the USA was already evident between the 1989 and 1992 ICVS rounds. The turning point came somewhat later in Canada, most European countries and Australia. Trend data were available from only two middle-income cities in the developing world, but these also point at a downturn in overall victimization since 1996 (Buenos Aires) or 2000 (Johannesburg). In a separate analysis, van Dijk and Tseloni (2012) centred on 10 European countries. In all the countries except Belgium, rates of victimization in 2005 and/or 2010 were significantly lower than those of about 10 years before.

In a secondary analysis of ICVS trend data, Farrell et al. (2011) have detected a distinct sequencing in the drops in different types of crime. Across countries, car theft was the first type of crime to drop, followed by burglaries, thefts from cars, thefts from the person, and finally assaults. The uniformity of this sequence suggests that across countries similar factors reducing specific types of crime have come into play at the same time. Car thefts may have been the first to drop because the relatively high losses to car owners and insurers propelled early investments in security. Farrell et al. (2011) put forward the hypothesis that car theft is a ‘debut crime’. Early reductions in car theft may have slowed down the initiation of young people into an offending lifestyle. Based on anecdotal evidence, it seems plausible that burglaries may also act as debut crimes for offenders, later moving on to commit robberies, and engage in drug dealing and extortion of business people. The international drops in all types of crime, then, might have been triggered by early improvements in car and household security, resulting in drops in car theft and burglary with subsequent knock-on effects for other, more serious types of crime.

Van Dijk and Tseloni (2012) note the fortuity of the ICVS being initiated in time to register the rise in volume crime, its general ‘peaking’ around the mid-1990s, and its subsequent decline since. Moreover, the ICVS covered a wider range of countries than alternative standalone survey counts did. In addition, across this broad range of countries, the ICVS offered a picture of identical falls in crime, independent of changes in crime reporting or recording per country. It would be unfair to say that the ICVS holds credit for the criminological ‘bombshell’ of the international drop in crime, but in helping to document this, it has greatly added to the case that parochial (national) popular explanations of the fall in crime—such as policing improvements, greater imprisonment, economic conditions, etc.—are not adequate.

Responsive Securitization

As discussed elsewhere, rates of victimization are determined by interactions between the rational choices of

844

Download more at Learnclax.com

offenders and victims in a market of crime (van Dijk, 1994). As long as the benefits of crime outweigh the costs of offending, the pool of offenders will expand and crime rates go up. Resulting rises in the losses of crime to victims makes investment in self-protection on the part of potential victims more worthwhile. Pools of well-protected potential victims expand, shrinking criminal opportunities for crime. When the scale of such responsive securitization reaches a critical level, potential new offenders are discouraged from entering the criminal market, and crime rates start to fall.

As discussed above, the second type of crime that started to fall across Western nations after car theft was household burglary. Over the years, several forms of household security have been introduced, such as high- security locks and bolts, burglar alarms, lighting, etc. In the ICVS, respondents are asked about the installation of basic security measures such as a burglar alarm. In a secondary analysis of data from 114 regions in Europe and North America, collected in the first two sweeps of the ICVS, we looked at the relationships between regional levels of affluence, degree of urbanization, burglary victimization rates, fear of burglary and the use of burglar alarms (van Dijk, 1995). Figure 2 shows the results in the form of a structural model that explains a fair amount of the variation in levels of burglary victimization and burglar alarm ownership.

Figure 2 Main Drivers of the Possession of Burglar Alarms; a Secondary Analysis of the International Crime Victims Survey 1989–1992 at Regional (NUTS 2) Level (N = 114)

SOURCE: Van Dijk (1995).

In simple terms, the model shows first of all strong links between the level of burglary in different regions and fear of burglary, and between fear of burglary and the purchase of burglar alarms. It also shows that people living in relatively wealthy and urbanized regions tend to live more often in detached houses and to experience more burglaries. These results can be seen as an empirical illustration of the model of responsive securitization concerning household burglary. In these wealthier regions where detached houses offer greater opportunities for burglars, burglary victimization rates are higher. These negative experiences generate increased awareness

845

Download more at Learnclax.com

of risks and lead to improvement in self protection, including expensive measures that affluent people can best afford. While the model shows that responsive security takes place, it falls short of showing that reduced opportunities for burglary through improved protection subsequently result in lower rates of burglary victimization. To test this final step in the model longitudinal data are needed. The litmus test of the impact of responsive securitization on burglary rates is whether local or national trends in burglary victimization rates can be predicted by the penetration rate of security measures: in other words, do countries with a higher penetration of household security experience lower burglary rates in the years ahead?

The repeat of the ICVS in 2005 and 2010 allows us to explore this empirically. In 2010, the ICVS was repeated with the usual method of CATI in just eight Western nations, Canada, Denmark, England/Wales, Estonia, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Fortunately these nations showed considerable variation in the penetration of household security in 2005 and the data therefore allow us to test the effects of responsive securitization by examining the link between the level of security penetration measured in the two surveys and the changes in burglary victimization (van Dijk, 2012; van Dijk and Vollaard, 2012). The results show that in England/Wales, The Netherlands, Canada and Germany more people were concerned about their risks and had installed security. In Denmark, Estonia and Switzerland people were less worried and less inclined to take precautionary measures. If we look subsequently at the trends in burglary victimization between 2004 and 2009 (the measure of risk being that in the year before fieldwork), a divergent pattern emerges. In England/Wales, The Netherlands and Canada rates have fallen; in Germany and Sweden rates remained stable; and in Denmark, Estonia and Switzerland they went up. The results are graphically depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3 The Sum of Levels of High-Grade Locks and Burglar Alarms in 2005 by Changes in Burglary Rates (% Points) Between 2004 and 2009; Eight Countries for Which International Crime Victims Survey Data Were Available

Figure 3 depicts the statistically significant relationship between the level of security in 2005 and the change in burglary victimization between 2004 and 2009. Since ICVS data can, as explained, be disaggregated to the level of individuals, it is possible to analyse the impact of responsive securitization among different segments of the public. Since the purchase of home security is partly (as discussed above) dependent on affluence, this impact might be most pronounced among more affluent parts of the population. Results of the ICVS show how across 12 Western nations the lowest income groups have indeed stepped up their household security to a

846

Download more at Learnclax.com

lesser extent than the middle and upper classes. As was to be expected, the survey also shows that the lowest income quartile has benefited less from the falls in burglary victimization than the rest of the population (van Dijk, 2008). When left to market forces alone, responsive securitization is bound to increase the security gap between the haves and have nots.

Reporting and Police Performance

Like other victimization surveys, the ICVS asks victims about their behaviour and experiences, including their possible contacts with the police. The ICVS measures levels of reporting to the police to see the extent of differences between countries, and whether these help explain variations in police figures at country level. Without going into detail, suffice it to say that fairly marked differences in reporting levels emerge. There are generally higher rates in more affluent countries, but still differences nonetheless. Referring back to the data on which Figure 1 is based, the concordance between police-recorded crime and a measure of ICVS crime reported to the police was rather closer than was the case for police-recorded crime and all ICVS crime. This is important testimony to the fact that victims’ reporting habits are one factor influencing the officially recorded output of police forces.

Although the decision to report a victimization incident has been shown to be mainly driven by a simple cost– benefit assessment, it also serves to some degree as a measure of confidence in the police. Reporting rates tend to be lower in ex-communist countries and countries with relatively new democracies, such as Greece, Spain and Portugal in Europe and many countries in Latin America (van Dijk, 2008). Using data from the ICVS 2000, Goudriaan (2005) found that country-level variations in reporting property crimes were related to confidence in local policing (among victims and non-victims); van Dijk et al. (2008) also showed an interrelationship between levels of reporting, confidence in local policing and—a third factor—the degree to which victims who did report felt satisfied with the police response (see below). These findings confirm what many criminologists have always suspected: namely, that rates of crimes recorded by the police reflect the productivity of police forces rather than the national pools of offenders. High recorded crime rates, looking from a comparative perspective, such as those of the Scandinavian countries, reflect favourably on the performance of national police forces rather than negatively, as was traditionally often assumed by the police community.

Victims’ Satisfaction With the Police Response

If they had reported to the police, victims were asked in the ICVS whether they were satisfied with the police response. The answers to this question offer a rare opportunity to assess the implementation of international legal standards concerning the treatment of victims by the police, such as the 1985 Victim’s Declaration of the United Nations and the 2001 European Union (EU) Council Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings (in 2013 transposed into the Directive on Victims Rights). According to the results of the ICVS 2005, on average 53% of reporting victims were satisfied with the way the police had handled their complaint. The respondents in Denmark (75%), Finland (72%), Switzerland (72%), Australia, Scotland and Luxembourg (70%) were most satisfied after reporting any of the five crimes considered, although figures in several other countries were not far behind. The police response was considered least

847

Download more at Learnclax.com

satisfactory in Estonia (17%), Peru (18%), Maputo (27%), Greece (28%) and Mexico (28%). Also considerably lower than the average were satisfaction levels in Japan (44%), Italy (43%), Hungary (41%), Bulgaria (40%), Johannesburg (36%), Istanbul (33%) and Sao Paulo (32%). Satisfaction levels did not differ between different types of crime in the countries/cities. In developing countries, victims of property crimes tend to be more dissatisfied than victims of contact crimes because they would have liked more effective support in recovering stolen goods (van Dijk, 1999). The findings point to serious deficiencies in the treatment of victims by the police in several countries, including some EU member states.

The enactment of binding legislation on victims’ rights in the EU makes it pertinent to monitor trends in victim satisfaction with the police over time. In this regard, a comparison between the results of the ICVS 2000 and ICVS 2005 is important (van Dijk and Groenhuijsen, 2007). Although numbers are small, it is striking that in so many Western countries levels of victim satisfaction with the police have significantly gone down since 2000. This is most markedly the case in England and Wales and the USA (with a drop of 10 percentage points), The Netherlands (minus 9), Canada (minus 8) and Sweden (minus 7). Nation-specific crime victim surveys in England/Wales and The Netherlands, using much larger samples, have also registered a decline in satisfaction in recent years (Allen et al., 2006; van Dijk & Groenhuijsen, 2007). This intriguing result can be interpreted in different ways. One explanation is that victims are treated as professionally as before but that expectations among victims have been raised to the point that they no longer feel satisfied. Police forces may now also ask victims whether they want to be informed about the investigation. If subsequently no information is given, victims might be more upset than if the offer had not been made in the first place. Another possible interpretation is that police forces have bureaucraticized the reporting of crimes, for example by inviting reporting on the internet. In addition, in countries where special provisions for victims outside the police have been set up, police forces may feel that victim needs are being duly met if a referral is made to such support agencies. It seems striking in this respect that in Europe victims are generally more satisfied with the police in countries where victim support outside the police hardly exists, such as Denmark, France, Finland and Luxembourg. Police forces in the USA, Canada, the UK and The Netherlands may be inclined to relegate victim support to existing, well-functioning outside agencies. As will be shown below, the latter hypothesis finds support in the ICVS data on the reception of specialized victim support. It is precisely in the countries where victim support is most often received that satisfaction with the police has declined (e.g., the UK, the USA and The Netherlands).

Those respondents who indicated that they were dissatisfied with the way the police handled their report of a crime were asked why (multiple responses were again allowed). Overall, the main reason for dissatisfaction was that the police ‘did not do enough’. One in five victims mentioned impoliteness as a source of dissatisfaction, although among those reporting sexual incidents the figure was one in three. Again, considering the EC 2001 instructions on the rights of crime victims to be treated with respect for their dignity, this result is disappointing. To determine possible shifts in the relative importance of different types of complaints a comparison was made of the relative frequency of response categories in the various ICVS sweeps. Of particular interest were the percentages of reasons given that fell into the category ‘did not give sufficient information’. The complaint about lack of information made up 7% of all reasons given in 1996 and 2000, but 12% in 2005. This upward trend in victims complaining about lack of information is visible across

848

Download more at Learnclax.com

the EU.

Victim Support

Victims who had reported to the police any of four types of crime with the most serious consequences for victims—burglary with entry, robbery, sexual incidents and threats and assaults—were asked whether they had received support from a specialized agency. Such support was described as ‘information or practical or emotional support’. Those who had not received any help were asked whether they would have appreciated help in getting such information or practical or emotional support. Using this information, estimates were made of the proportion of victims wanting specialized help that actually received it (the take-up rate of existing specialized victim support agencies) (van Dijk et al., 2008).

For the victims of the four types of crimes together, 9% had received specialized support in 2005. Victims of sexual offences were most likely to receive support (30% did so). Less than one in 10 of victims reporting robberies or threats and assaults had received help (robbery: 8%; threat/assault: 8%). Victims of burglaries with entry had much less often received help (4%).

In most countries support is mainly offered to victims of contact crimes (robbery and crimes of violence) and only rarely to victims of burglary. Only in the UK, The Netherlands and Belgium do 10% or more of burglary victims receive support. The coverage rates of specialized support agencies for crime victims are the highest in New Zealand (24%), the UK (19%) and the USA (16%). Within continental Europe, victim support is most developed in the North West. Globally, least support seems to be available in Hungary (0.4%), Lima (1%), Bulgaria (1%), Finland (2%), Germany (2%), Greece (2%), Maputo (2%), Turkey/Istanbul (2%), Italy (3%) and Spain (3%).

The proportion of victims contacted by victim support after they have reported to the police seems to have grown since 1996/2000 in a number of countries, although few differences are statistically robust. Increases since 1988 can be observed in Austria (from 8% to 13%), Canada (9% to 14%), Belgium (4% to 13%), Japan (0% to 8%) and the USA (11% to 16%), as well as in Northern Ireland (11% to 21%) and Scotland (10% to 22%). In countries with long-established nationwide infrastructures for victim support such as England and Wales, The Netherlands and Sweden, the degree of coverage has remained stable or declined. Elsewhere the coverage of victim support has remained at the same comparatively low levels or even declined further.

Victims who had not received support were asked whether it would have been useful. On average 42% of victims reporting any of the four types of crime felt such help would indeed have been useful for them. Two out of three victims of sexual offences (68%) expressed a need for such help. Roughly four out of 10 of the victims of the three other types of crime would have appreciated such help. As reported above, victims of burglary are less likely to receive help in most countries. However, the percentage of burglary victims who would have welcomed support is not much lower than among victims of robbery or threat and assault (burglary, 40%; robbery, 44%; threat and assault, 42%).

The results indicate that the need for help among victims of serious crime is widespread, although not universal. The percentage of victims who would have appreciated help but did not receive it was 50% or

849

Download more at Learnclax.com

higher in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe. In developed nations only 30% or 40% expressed such needs. The distribution of the need for help across regions is the reverse of that to its actual reception. In developing countries many more victims would have wanted such help. This is partly due to the fact that in those countries such help is rarely offered and partly due to fewer other general provisions of health care or social work being available. Among developed countries, the percentages of victims who would have liked to receive victim support tends to be smaller in countries with extended welfare states, such as Austria (26%), Germany (27%), Canada (27%) and The Netherlands (30%). Higher percentages were found in the USA (38%), England and Wales (45%) and especially in some Southern European countries (Spain: 68%; Portugal: 70%).

Globally, 9% of victims of the four more serious crimes considered received specialized help. Of those who did not get help, 43% expressed a need for it. Thus, the proportion of victims whose needs for special assistance are met can be approximated by dividing the proportion of victims who received support (making an assumption that they needed it) by the sum of those who received support and those who would have wanted it. Such a calculation shows that in the last couple of years victim support agencies provided services to roughly a fifth of victims with manifest needs. Using the same formula, victim support organizations reach about a third of victims of sexual offences in need of help, a fifth of victims of robbery and threats/assaults with needs, and a tenth of victims of burglaries. For all four groups the supply of specialized help falls short of the demand. The gap between supply and demand for victim support is by far the largest for the group of burglary victims.

The proportion of victims of more serious crimes whose expressed needs are actually met by support agencies vary across countries. The proportions actually contacted by victim support are the highest in North America and North-Western Europe (New Zealand: 47%; USA: 33%, The Netherlands: 35%). Take-up rates in the range of 10–25% are achieved in several other Western countries. However, besides developing countries, there were several affluent Western countries where victim support reached only a tiny proportion of victims in need of help (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Italy and Germany). The provision of these services, a mandatory obligation under EU law, shows high variation among the member states of the EU.

Attitudes Towards Crime and Criminal Justice

The ICVS has always included a small set of questions on perceptions and attitudes. As shown above (Figure 3), perceptions of the likelihood of victimization by burglary are related to actual risk of victimization by burglary at the regional level. This relationship has consistently been found both at the individual and collective level (van Dijk et al., 2008). More tellingly, analyses of trends in victimization rates by burglary and risk perceptions over time have confirmed the relationship. Risk perceptions track trends in actual victimization risks and show the same curvilinear trend between 1989 and 2010, peaking around 2000 (van Dijk and Vollaard, 2012; van Kesteren et al., 2000). In all ICVS rounds the classical question about feelings of safety in one’s own neighbourhood at night has been retained. At the individual level, answers are strongly related to gender, with females feeling more insecure. At the collective level, the association with actual levels of victimization by contact crimes has consistently been found to be weak. Feelings of insecurity are relatively

850

Download more at Learnclax.com

high in several countries with low levels of common criminality, such as Japan, Germany and Italy. This lack of a clear relationship is confirmed by trend analyses (van Kesteren et al., 2000). These negative findings suggest that the feelings of insecurity in one’s neighbourhood are only loosely connected to real victimization risks; rather, feelings of insecurity seem more to reflect concern about rising crime, which is largely driven by external factors such as neighbourhood cohesion or sensational media reporting (Baier and Pfeiffer, 2013).

Conclusion and Discussion

Victimization surveys are now firmly established in criminological research in very many countries. However, surveys comparing the level and nature of crime internationally are a rather newer enterprise than standalone national surveys, although the ICVS itself started over two decades ago. It came into its own because of growing recognition of the difficulties of comparing police figures. Initial scepticism about the feasibility of interviewing samples of the population in different countries using a standardized questionnaire has gradually been overcome. Independent reviews have confirmed the superiority of the ICVS over comparisons of independent national surveys (Lynch, 1996). The ICVS finding that victims across the world assess the relative seriousness of different types of crime very similarly lends support to the value of comparative study; there is a high degree of communality in prevailing definitions of crime.

The arrival of several national victimization surveys and in particular the ICVS has given a boost to epidemiological studies on crime. While the ICVS has not provided impeccable or comprehensive data by any means, it has arguably improved on what can be gained from police records as regards comparative levels and patterns of victimization in different parts of the world. From the outset the ICVS reports have highlighted the close links between opportunity structures such as ownership of different types of vehicles and patterns of crime. It has offered opportunities to revisit classical issues, such as the links between alcohol abuse or gun ownership and violent crime, using victimization rates as a dependent variable. It has also offered an important addition to the picture from police records on trends in crime, including a focus of attention on the importance of victim-centred factors, such as the level of security measures taken by potential victims as drivers of the universal drop in crime. In these respects, mainstream criminology has benefited from the development of victimology as a separate field of empirical studies looking at those at the receiving end of crime.

Besides providing an alternative count of crime, the ICVS has also helped to test several victimological theories. Analyses of its datasets have shown that the risks of victimization depend on personal characteristics, which are very similar across countries in either enhancing or ameliorating risks. Analyses have also shown that repeat victimization accounts for a large amount of victimization everywhere. Other special analyses have shed light on the impact of gun ownership on gun-related crime at both the individual and collective levels. Follow-up questions to victims have offered insights into how victims are similar in some ways, and differ in others in their responses to victimization and the needs they have arising from it. ICVS results allow governments to benchmark their policies regarding the treatment of victims by the police or by victim support organizations.

851

Download more at Learnclax.com

Developments and Prospects

While the ICVS has shown that it is feasible to conduct standardized surveys in a large number of countries, it nonetheless carries several practical lessons. Conducting surveys in a standardized way, more or less on time, and with sound adherence to the ICVS template posed a considerable logistical challenge. Tight oversight from the central team was needed to ensure that country coordinators engaged with tedious technical detail to maintain consistency. Financial matters were time-consuming and challenging, especially with regard to developing countries. Moreover, there were occasional issues as regards ownership of results. When and how these were released was also a minefield—as crime ‘league tables’ are politically sensitive. For countries taking part that had their own national surveys, country coordinators also sometimes needed to be able to explain why the ICVS could give different results to victimization risks than national surveys.

Policy interest in international comparisons of crime using victimization surveys has been enhanced by the results to date. Thus, countries are likely to be keen to enter into future comparative survey exercises— especially if fieldwork costs are met. However, even where self-funding is necessary, countries that have not taken part in a standardized survey to date may want to sign up, particularly when they have insufficient resources for a bespoke national survey. This makes it attractive for them to take a ride on the back of another survey vehicle, especially when comparisons with other countries are on offer. A striking example of this are the repeats of nationwide surveys based on the ICVS in Georgia in 2010, 2011 and 2012, which have demonstrated a very significant drop in crime (van Dijk and Chanturia, 2011). An abridged version of the ICVS has also been used in 2012 in Moldova, Tadjikistan and Azerbaijan (van Dijk, 2013). This said, the conduct of victimization surveys in developing countries seems to have stayed somewhat behind. This is unfortunate, since in many of these countries crime remains a major concern and statistics of recorded crimes are of poor quality, if they exist at all.

The logistical challenges of mounting comparative victimization surveys remain. So too do the methodological challenges of improving crime measurement internationally through survey techniques that are hard to standardize in diverse environments. ‘Survey saturation’ in Westernized countries may also become an issue, whatever mode of interviewing is adopted. Over the lifetime of the ICVS, the development of CATI has reduced fieldwork costs and helped consistent questionnaire administration. Now, though, many people (particularly more heavily victimized younger ones) rely only on mobile phones. A key issue is whether viable representative samples can be obtained with the growing diversity of telephone provision—although survey companies will be under strong commercial pressure to achieve a solution. The inclusion of mobile phone users in sampling designs is an obvious priority. As internet use grows, Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) offers a way forward for surveys in the future, with cost advantages. Pilot testing with CAWI for the national victimization surveys in The Netherlands and Finland has begun, with fairly encouraging results. However, the methodological challenges of CAWI include possible bias due to differential internet access, a degree of respondent self-selection, and mode effects (possibly resulting in inflated rates for some types of victimization; Beulens et al., 2012). In the medium to long term, ways round these problems may be found, particularly by using incentives and representative panels that polling companies are increasingly likely to offer.

852

Download more at Learnclax.com

What of initiatives currently in place for further international comparative surveys? At present there are no elaborate plans to repeat the ICVS globally. However, there have been other developments afoot—albeit with a less global focus—which have taken, or are taking forward comparative survey-based measures of victimization in different countries. An initiative, led by Eurostat, is a standardized household victimization survey—the EU Safety Survey. The survey can be seen as an extension of the EU’s sponsorship of the 2004/2005 ICVS. It is intended to meet the perceived need for a full EU-wide comparative survey tailored to the current legal and social realities of the EU and its particular policy interests. The results will complement the numbers of crimes recorded by the EU Member States annually published by Eurostat. The European Parliament, however, has raised concerns about the utility of the survey (van Dijk, 2013) and at the time of writing, it is uncertain whether and when this survey will actually be executed. One option is that the European Commission will issue a tender for such a survey as it did in 2004. In the meantime, several initiatives have been taken outside Europe to conduct ICVS-based comparative victimization surveys, for example in Japan which repeated the ICVS in 2012. Most promising are recent developments in Latin America. The Inter American Development Bank is sponsoring a series of surveys in the Caribbean using the core parts of the ICVS questionnaire, and the Centre of Excellence UNODC/UNEGE in Mexico City is coordinating a round of surveys across Latin America. Hopefully, the impetus for future, global rounds of the ICVS will come from these new regional initiatives.

Discussion Questions

1. What does the ICVS show regarding the level of victimization compared with crimes known to the police?

2. What does the ICVS show regarding the relationship between guns and violence? 3. How often do victims report their experiences to the police? Are they satisfied with their interactions? 4. How can the ICVS be compared with findings from the NCVS? 5. What do we know about repeat victimization from the ICVS?

References Allen J, et al. (2006) Policing and the Criminal Justice System—Public Confidence and Perception, Findings

from the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey. London: Home Office Online Report 07/6.

Baier D and Pfeiffer Ch (2013) Representative Studies on Victimization, Research Findings from Germany. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London, New York: Springer.

Beulens B, van der Laan J, Schouten B, et al. (2012) Disentangling mode-specific selection and measurement bias in social surveys. Discussion paper, The Hague: Statistics Netherlands.

Farrell G and Bouloukos A (2001) International overview: A cross-national comparison of rates of repeat victimization. In: Farrell G and Pease K (eds) Repeat Victimization, Crime Prevention Studies, Crime

853

Download more at Learnclax.com

Prevention Studies, Vol. 12. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Farrell G, Tseloni A and Pease K (2005) Repeat victimization in the ICVS and NCVS. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 7(3): 7–18.

Farrell G, Tseloni A, Tilley N, et al. (2011) The crime drop and the security hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48(2): 147–175.

Felson M (2002) Crime and Everyday Life. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Felson M and Clarke RV (1998) Opportunity makes the thief. Police Research Series, Paper 98, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London: Home Office http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/? lang=en&where&ext&query=OPPORTUNIY+MAKES+THE+THIEF&noneW=&exactW=&format=all&search_type=cateogory&site=&x=34&y=9

Goudriaan H (2005) Reporting crime. Effects of social context on the decision of victims to notify the police. PhD. Veenendaal: Universal Press.

Hindelang MJ, Garofalo J and Gottfredson M (1978) Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Lott, JR Jr (1998) More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

van Dijk JJM (1994) Understanding crime rates: On the interactions between the rational choices of victims and offenders. British Journal of Criminology 34(2): 105–121.

van Dijk JJM (1995) Opportunities for crime: A test of the rational-interactionist model. In Crime and Economy. Reports presented to the 11th Criminological Colloquium (1994). Criminological Research, Vol. XXXII. Council of Europe Publishing.

van Dijk JJM (1999) The experience of crime and justice. In: Newman G (ed.) Global Report on Crime and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Dijk JJM (2001) Attitudes of victims and repeat victims towards the police: Results of the International Crime Victims Survey. In: Farrell G and Pease K (eds) Repeat Victimisation (Crime Prevention Studies,

854

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/?lang=en&where&ext&query=OPPORTUNIY+MAKES+THE+THIEF&noneW=&exactW=&format=all&search_type=cateogory&site=&x=34&y=9

12). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

van Dijk JJM (2008) The World of Crime: Breaking the Silence on Problems of Security, Justice and Development Across the World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

van Dijk JJM (2012) Closing the Doors: Highlights of the International Crime Victims Survey 1987–2012, Valedictory Lecture. Tilburg: Tilburg University.

van Dijk JJM (2013) The International Crime Victims Survey: Latest results and outlook. Newsletter European Society of Criminology 13(3): 24–34.

van Dijk JJM and Chanturia T (2011) The Remarkable Case of Georgia: Georgian Crime Trends in an International Perspective; Secondary Analysis of the 2010/2011 Crime and Security Survey. Tblisi: Ministry of Justice.

van Dijk JJM and Groenhuijsen MS (2007) Benchmarking victim policies in the framework of European Union Law. In: Walklate S (ed.) Handbook of Victims and Victimology. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

van Dijk JJM, Leger GJ and Shapland J (1987) Information systems, crime and crime prevention. In: Council of Europe Conference in Barcelona on the Reduction of Urban Insecurity, Strasbourg: Council of Europe/Standing Conference on Local and Regional Authorities of Europe.

van Dijk JJM, Mayhew P and Killias M (1990) Experiences of Crime across the World. Key Findings from the 1989 International Crime Survey. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.

van Dijk JJM and Tseloni A (2012) International trends in victimization and recorded crime. In: van Dijk J, Tseloni A and Fane 11 G (eds) The International Drop in Crime; New Directions in Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.

van Dijk JJM, van Kesteren JN and Smit P (2008) Criminal Victimization in International Perspective, Key Findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. Den Haag: Boom Legal Publishers (Onderzoek en Beleid, WODC, 257).

van Dijk JJM and Vollaard B (2012) Self-limiting crime waves. In: van Dijk J, Tseloni A and Farrell G (eds) The International Drop in Crime; New Directions in Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.

855

Download more at Learnclax.com

van Kesteren JN (2013) Revisiting the gun ownership and violence link: A multi-level analysis of victimization survey data. British Journal of Criminology. Advance Access 11 September 2013.

van Kesteren JN, Mayhew P and Nieuwbeerta P (2000) Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries; Key Findings from the 2000 International Crime Victim Survey. The Hague: Onderzoek en Beleid, No 187, Ministry of Justice/WODC.

van Wilsem J, de Graaf ND and Wittenbrood K (2003) Cross-national differences in victimization. Disentangling the impact of composition and context. Sociological Review 19(2): 125–142.

856

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reading /// 26

You read about elder abuse in Section IX of the text. In it, you learned about some of the reasons why older persons may be victimized and the special characteristics of these victimizations (e.g., occurring in institutions). Elder abuse occurs in non-Western nations, and the extent to which this occurs and underlying causes may be different from elder abuse in Western societies. Elsie Yan, Ko-Ling Chan, and Agnew Tiwari (2015) review the literature on elder abuse in Asia and how cultural features may play a role in risk.

A Systematic Review of Prevalence and Risk Factors for Elder Abuse in Asia

Elsie Yan, Ko-Ling Chan, and Agnes Tiwari

SOURCE: Yan, E., Chan, K.-L., & Tiwari, A. (2015). A systematic review of prevalence and risk factors for elder abuse in Asia. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16 (2), 199–219.

Elder Abuse in Asia—An Overview

Elder abuse refers to “intentional actions that cause harm or create a serious risk of harm, whether or not intended, to a vulnerable elder by a caregiver or other person who stands in a trust relationship to the elder, or failure by a caregiver to satisfy the elder’s basic needs or to protect the elder from harm” (National Research Council, 2003, p. 40). Abuse includes physical assault, psychological aggression, violation of personal rights, sexual abuse, financial exploitation, neglect, and self-neglect. The impact of elder abuse may be particularly detrimental as abusers are most frequently the victims’ own adult offspring. Aside from the bruises, fractures, and other bodily injuries resulting from physical assault (Anetzberger, 2004), elevated levels of depressive symptoms have been observed among mistreated elders in comparison with their intact counterparts (Mouton, Rodabough, Rovi, Brzyski, & Katerndahl, 2010). Prospective studies also suggest that older persons subjected to abuse and neglect have a greater mortality risk than those who are not victimized (Dong, Simon et al., 2009).

Elder abuse is prevalent worldwide. In the United States, 5–10% of people aged 65 or older have been abused by someone on whom they depend for care or protection (Fulmer, Paveza, & Guadagno, 2002; National Research Council, 2003). A survey in Canada reports prevalence rates of 7% for emotional, 1% for financial, and 1% for physical or sexual abuse (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2002). A study in the United Kingdom finds prevalence rates of 5.4% for verbal, 1.5% for physical, and 1.5% for financial abuse (Bennett & Kingston, 1993).

The number of abused elders is expected to increase, given that many countries are experiencing a rapid aging of the population. This is particularly acute in Asia whose population is aging at an unprecedented pace. In 2012, 11% of Asians were 60 years or older, a figure expected to rise to 24% by 2050 (HelpAge International, 2012b). The greatest increase in the aging population will occur in those over 75 years, from 15% in 2000 to 27% in 2050 (HelpAge International, 2012b). Over the past three decades, substantial research has been conducted on elder abuse in Asia, especially among Chinese, Indian, Singaporean, Japanese, and Korean populations. This article reviews the existing literature on prevalence and risk factors. Special attention will be

857

Download more at Learnclax.com

paid to academic work that reflects on risk factors in Asia that are relevant to the understanding of elder abuse.

Background to the Review

Cultural Considerations in Understanding Elder Abuse in Asia

Interpersonal relationships are culturally constructed and any attempt to understand elder abuse in Asia must take account of this cultural context. Inherited from Confucian teachings, the concept of filial piety emphasizes the virtues of benevolence and propriety (Lin, 1992). It prescribes that adult children should provide care, respect, and financial support for their parents and show them obedience (Cheng & Chan, 2006; Ng, Loong, He, Liu, & Weatherall, 2000; Ng, Philips, & Lee, 2002; Sung, 2001). Earlier findings show that older people continue to have high filial expectations of the younger generation and that young people still accept these obligations for their parents (Lee & Sung, 1997). However, a more recent study shows that young people are now likely to interpret filial duty differently from their parents. While most regard it as a way of following cultural traditions and reciprocating the parent’s love and care, many also suggest that practicing filial piety may depend on their future circumstances (Tsai, Chen, & Tsai, 2008). For example, in Hong Kong “love and care” is increasingly interpreted as paying for parents’ institutional care. Intergenerational conflicts are likely to result from such divergent generational expectations.

Based on the limited number of studies undertaken in some Asian countries, it is evident that Asians identify culturally specific forms of mistreatment that would not necessarily be deemed abusive from a western perspective. For instance, the concept of “disrespect” captures actions and attitudes that violate basic Asian cultural norms. In their qualitative study of home care workers, Tam and Neysmith (2006) report that disrespect is the main form of elder abuse in the Chinese community. Examples include “family members being excessively bossy or rude; or sharing the care of the elder between different family members so that parents feel like ‘a ball being kicked around among relatives.’” Qualitative interviews with older Chinese confirmed that disrespect results in unsettled feelings. Examples provided by such Chinese elders included “being ignored by children” and “behaving as if [the elder person] is the enemy” (Dong, Chang, Wong, Wong, & Simon, 2011). Hong Kong Chinese elders considered “being treated as if transparent” to be a serious and common form of abuse (Hong Kong Christian Service, 2004).

Disrespect and lack of dignified living conditions are also considered a major form of elder abuse by older Indians (HelpAge India, 2012b; Nagpaul, 1998). “Being taken for granted,” “being used as additional domestic help,” and “not being appreciated for contributions made to household chores” are other examples of elder abuse in India (Shah, Veedon, & Vasi, 1995). In many situations, however, abuse is attributed to the younger generation leading a lifestyle that does not accord with their parents’ expectations (Nagpaul, 1998).

Similar observations have been made in other Asian cultures. Chang and Moon (1997) show that older Koreans consider lack of respect for elders, and inappropriate treatment of them by family members, to be a prominent form of abuse. Korean elders tend to see insufficient attention from their daughters-in-law as a form of abuse (Chang & Moon, 1997). Some such culturally specific examples include “failure to employ

858

Download more at Learnclax.com

Korean language usage that denotes respect,” “direct expression of disagreement with the mothers-in-law,” and “failure to acknowledge the older person when arriving and leaving the residence.” In a survey of 587 community-dwelling older Koreans, 58.9% of respondents believed that older persons did not receive proper respect (Kim, 2002). Respondents in this study identified neglect as the most serious form of abuse of older persons, followed by verbal mistreatment. Studies of older Japanese provide another example of culturally specific types of elder abuse. When asked to generate examples of extreme abuse, respondents provided illustrations of “blaming”; that is, elderly parents being blamed for whatever problems the adult children were having (Arai, 2006).

While many Asian cultures consider disrespect to be a serious form of elder abuse, their elders may show a high tolerance for financial exploitation. In India for instance, many older Indians are schooled in the traditional belief that they will have to give up their worldly goods to prepare for their next reincarnation. Under such circumstances, many will give away all their wealth to younger family members, thereby falling victim to financial exploitation. Indeed, 50% of financial abuse in Delhi involves family members and inheritance problems (Shah et al., 1995). Moon, Williams, and Stein (1993) show that Korean American elders, compared to their African American and Caucasian counterparts, are more tolerant of hypothetically abusive case scenarios, especially in instances of financial abuse.

Perhaps predictably, Asian populations are reluctant to seek help for elder abuse, mainly because it is perceived as a private family matter (Dong, Simon, & Gorbien 2007; Yan & Tang, 2001). Acknowledging one’s own victimization also means admitting to others that family members, especially adult children, are not fulfilling their filial obligations of respecting and obeying their elders (Cheng & Chan, 2006; Sung, 2001). In many Asian cultures, this is a shameful acknowledgment and results in a significant loss of face (Chan, 2009). A quantitative study in India found that 55% of elders who had been abused had not reported it to anyone. Of these, 80% gave the reason that they wished to uphold family honor (HelpAge International, 2012a). About one third (36%, n = 45) of older Koreans reported no help-seeking intentions in the face of a hypothetical abusive situation. Their reasons included viewing abuse as a family problem, high tolerance of the abuse, shame, victim blaming, and mistrust toward third-party intervention (Lee & Eaton, 2009). Apparently, discussing family matters with a third party, especially if the problem involves a child’s abusive behavior, is considered shameful because such behavior may be attributed to poor parenting (Lee & Eaton, 2009). In a study comparing various groups of Asian immigrants to the United States, older Koreans showed the greatest tolerance of financial exploitation, a propensity to blame the victims of elder abuse, and more negative attitudes toward the involvement of nonfamily members and the reporting of abuse to the authorities (Moon, Tomita, & Jung-Kamei, 2001). A significantly higher percentage of older Korean immigrants (25%) than American-born Asians (0% of Chinese Americans and 13% of Japanese Americans) felt that neighbors should not report elder abuse to the police or outside agencies (Moon et al., 2001).

Older persons also tend to be ignorant of the community resources available for victims of elder abuse (Dong et al., 2011; Moon & Evans-Campbell, 2000). Korean American elders have been shown to be significantly less aware of the formal and informal resources available to them than their Caucasian American counterparts (Moon & Evans-Campbell, 2000). Korean American elders are also significantly more likely than other

859

Download more at Learnclax.com

groups to blame the victim (Moon & Benton, 2000; Moon et al., 2001)—in this case, themselves—which may lead to reduced help-seeking behaviors (Lee & Eaton, 2009).

Prevalence of Elder Abuse in Asia

Considerable variation, with figures ranging from 0.22 per 1,000 to 62%, is observed in the prevalence estimates of elder abuse across Asia. Psychological abuse and neglect are frequently reported in studies using older persons or their caregivers as informants. Physical violence and financial abuse are more commonly observed in cases identified in clinical settings and reported to governmental or nongovernmental organizations (Table 1).

Table 1

860

Download more at Learnclax.com

861

Download more at Learnclax.com

The PRC

Published work on elder abuse estimates in the PRC is drawn mainly from two studies. The first is based on a convenience sample of 412 older Chinese attending an urban medical center in Nanjing. Dong et al. (2007, 2008, 2010) report a prevalence of 35%, with caregiver neglect being the most common form of mistreatment (16.9%), followed by financial exploitation (13.6%), emotional abuse (11.4%), physical abuse (5.8%), sexual abuse (1.2%), and abandonment (0.7%). Thirty-six percent of the abused participants in this sample had experienced two or more types of abuse.

The second study involved 2,000 older Chinese in Hubei recruited through a two-stage cluster sampling. Wu et al. (2012) report similar prevalence rates of 36.2%. Psychological abuse was the most common form of mistreatment (27.3%), followed by caregiver neglect (15.8%), physical abuse (4.9%), and financial exploitation (2%). Ten percent of the participants in this study had suffered multiple forms of elder mistreatment.

Hong Kong

Drawing on a convenience sample of 355 community-dwelling Chinese aged 60 or above, one study reports prevalence rates of 2% for physical and 20.8% for verbal abuse (Yan & Tang, 2001). Another study of 276 older Chinese indicates that 27.5% of older respondents reported having experienced at least one abusive behavior by their family caregiver during the year of survey (Yan & Tang, 2004). The most common form of abuse in this sample was verbal abuse (26.8%). Violation of personal rights (5.1%) and physical abuse (2.5%) were comparatively rare.

In a sample of 122 family caregivers of older persons with dementia recruited from local community centers, 62% and 18% of respondents reported having verbally or physically abused their care recipients in the past month (Yan & Kwok, 2010). Another study of 464 younger adults indicates that they would verbally (20%), physically (2.4%), or socially (2.4%) abuse an older person if there were no social constraints or punishment for doing so (Yan & Tang, 2003).

Taiwan

In Taiwan, 195 subjects including both institutionalized and community-dwelling older Chinese completed the Psychological Elder Abuse Scale (PEAS; Wang, 2006). Participants had experienced an average of 6.32 psychologically abusive behaviors. The most commonly reported experiences were “desire to see relatives unfulfilled” (62.6%), “economic dependence on others” (61%), and “being left alone involuntarily” (44.1%).

Wang (2005) collected information from 114 formal caregivers in nursing homes using the Caregiver Psychological Elder Abuse Behavior (CPEAB) scale. Along a possible range of 20–80, the participants’ mean score was 31.93, indicating that most of them had engaged in some form of abusive behavior. Only one reported never having demonstrated any abusive behaviors toward a care recipient. “Accusing the patient verbally” (mean = 2.18), “ignoring the patient’s requests” (mean = 2.11), and “insulting the patient” (mean = 2.02) were the items with the highest mean scores. A similar study of 92 family caregivers (Wang, Lin, & Lee, 2006) reports mean scores of 30.45 for “blaming [the elder] verbally” (mean = 2.06), “ignoring requests”

862

Download more at Learnclax.com

(mean = 1.96), and “refusing to accept [elders’] opinions” (mean = 1.86). These items showed the highest

mean scores.

Chinese Immigrants in Canada

Lai (2011) reports a prevalence of 4.5% in a random sample of 2,272 community-dwelling Chinese aged 55 or above residing in seven major cities in Canada. Among this sample, 2.5% reported having experienced multiple types of mistreatment. The more common abusive acts included “being scolded” (2.5%), “being yelled at” (2.4%), “being treated impolitely all the time” (1.5%), and “being ridiculed” (1.2%).

India

In a survey of 864 community-dwelling women aged 60 or above in Pune, 47% reported that they were being abused and 40% felt they were being neglected by their family (Bambawale, 1997). Chokkanathan and Lee (2005) report a prevalence rate of 14.1% in a sample of 400 community-dwelling Indians aged 55 or above, with chronic verbal abuse being the most common (10.8%) followed by financial abuse (5%), physical abuse (4.3%), and neglect (4.3%). Almost half the older persons who reported abuse said that they had experienced multiple forms (Chokkanathan & Lee, 2005). In a representative household survey of 300 older Indians, Sebastian and Sekher (2011) show that nearly half of the respondents (49%) reported having experienced abuse or neglect from their family members in the year of survey. Neglect and verbal abuse (39%) were the most common forms of mistreatment followed by physical abuse (13%).

In a large-scale representative study conducted by HelpAge India (2012a), 31% of the 5,400 community- dwelling respondents aged 60 or above sampled had experienced abuse and 24% faced abuse on a daily basis. More than half of those who reported abuse had endured this for over 4 years. Among those who reported abuse, 44% identified disrespect as the most common form, 30% neglect, and 26% verbal abuse. Forty-six percent of the respondents in this sample had observed examples of abuse in their surroundings.

Singapore

In Singapore, Cham and Seow (2000) review all cases of non-accidental injuries in older persons presenting to the emergency department of a major hospital. Among the 62,826 older patients treated between 1994 and 1997, they identify 17 cases of elder abuse, giving a prevalence rate of 0.3%. Using similar research methods, Phua, Ng, and Seow (2008) identify 42 (0.13%) cases in 31,145 patients presenting to an emergency department over a 12-month period. The 42 cases identified include physical mistreatment (n = 27), neglect (n = 25), psychological mistreatment (n = 6), financial mistreatment (n = 2), abandonment (n = 1), and self- neglect (n = 1).

Japan

In a sample of 78 older Japanese living in an agricultural village on the main island, 17.9% reported abuse (Anme, McCall, & Tatara, 2005). Among those who did so, the most common type of abuse was psychological (50%) followed by neglect (42.8%), financial exploitation (35.7%), physical abuse (21%), inadequate administration of medicine (21%), self-neglect (14.3%), and sexual abuse (7.1%; Anme, 2004).

863

Download more at Learnclax.com

Attempts have also been made to investigate caregivers’ reports of their own abusive behaviors. In a survey of 412 principal family caregivers of older Japanese users of visiting nursing services, 34.9% reported having engaged in potentially harmful behavior against the older care recipient over the past year (Sasaki et al., 2007). The most frequently reported behaviors were verbal aggression (16.8%) and ignoring (13.6%). In another survey of 123 Japanese caregivers of older persons referred to a memory clinic, 15.4% reported abuse (Kishimoto et al., 2013). Psychological abuse was reported in all cases, and two cases also involved physical maltreatment. In a representative sample of 4,391 older Japanese, more than half had heard of the term “elder abuse,” among whom 18.1% personally knew someone who had been a victim (Tsukada, Saito, & Tatara, 2001).

Cases reported to social services agencies also allow a glimpse at the patterns of elder abuse in Japan. Reviewing the records of a total of 150 elder abuse victims receiving telephone counseling services from March 1996 to September 1997, Yamada (1999) concludes that financial abuse (49.8%) was the most common form of abuse in this sample followed by psychological abuse (46%), physical abuse (35.3%), neglect (21.3%), self-neglect (1.3%), and sexual abuse (0.7%).

Despite the relatively high rates of elder abuse reported in the community, official records of elder abuse in Japan indicate a relatively low prevalence. Reviewing cases identified by officials in 489 municipalities, Nakanishi, Nakashima, and Honda (2010) find a rate of 0.429 per 1,000 in 2008. Based on the responses from 917 municipalities, Nakanishi et al. (2009) also estimate that the rate of new reports of suspected cases over a 6-month period was 0.35 per 1,000 and the rate of substantiated cases 0.22 per 1,000.

South Korea

Drawing from a representative sample of 15,230 older Koreans residing in Seoul, Oh, Kim, Martins, and Kim (2006) report an overall prevalence rate of 6.3% for elder abuse. The prevalence of individual subtypes was emotional abuse (4.2%), financial abuse (4.1%), verbal abuse (3.6%), neglect (2.4%), and physical abuse (1.9%). Lee and Kolomer (2005) interviewed 481 family caregivers providing care to older Koreans with dementia. They report that 16.4% had often “yelled at the care recipients,” 7.5% had often “confined the care recipients to a room,” 4% had often “left their care recipients unattended,” 2.9% had often “not prepared a meal for the care recipients,” and 14.9% had “hit the care recipients.” In a sample of 934 older Koreans recovering from stroke, the prevalence of elder abuse was 13.5% (Kim, Jeon, & Kim, 2012). Emotional abuse was the most frequently reported form (10%) followed by financial neglect (3.8%), caring neglect (3.3%), financial abuse (2.1%), and physical abuse (1.9%).

Korean Immigrants in the United States

In a sample of 100 older Korean immigrants residing in Los Angeles, 34% indicated seeing or hearing about at least one incident of elder abuse and neglect among their Korean relatives, friends, and neighbors, amounting to a total of 46 incidents (Chang & Moon, 1997). Financial exploitation was found to be the most frequent type (36%), followed by psychological abuse (24%), culturally specific forms of abuse such as “grown up children refusing to live with their parents” or “lack of contact from grown up children” (17%), neglect

864

Download more at Learnclax.com

(15%), and physical abuse (4%).

Risk Factors for Elder Abuse in Asia

Considering the high prevalence and impact of elder abuse in Asian societies, researchers have also studied the risk factors for such mistreatment.

Victim Characteristics

A handful of studies have looked at how demographic, psychological, and social characteristics may affect the occurrence of abuse.

Age.

Advanced age appears to be a protective factor against elder abuse in most Asian societies. Abuse is significantly more likely to be experienced by the young-old living in the PRC (Dong & Simon, 2010, 2013). One study estimates that older adults in the PRC have a 68% lower likelihood of suffering abuse or neglect (Dong, Simon, Gorbein, Percak, & Golden, 2007). Similar findings have been obtained in Korea, where participants over 80 were least likely to be abused in comparison with other age-groups (Oh, Kim, Martins, & Kim, 2006).

Gender.

A greater susceptibility to abuse among older females has been observed in studies conducted in the PRC (Dong & Simon, 2010) and India (Chokkanathan & Lee, 2005; Sebastian & Sekher, 2011). In one study in India, 30% of the male but 60% of the female respondents had been mistreated by family members (Sebastian & Sekher, 2011). Another study shows that a significantly greater number of women have experienced verbal and physical abuse and neglect compared with men (Chokkanathan & Lee, 2005). Two studies report different findings. Wu et al. (2012) find that in the PRC, males experienced an increased risk of neglect relative to females. Another study, in Korea, reports significantly higher prevalence rates of abuse in older men than older women for overall, emotional, and verbal abuse (Oh et al., 2006).

Marital status.

Research findings on the impact of marital status are mixed. Two studies in the PRC have found that older Chinese who had been abused were more likely to be currently unmarried (Dong & Simon, 2008; Wu et al., 2012). In both India and Korea, being a widow is associated with an increased risk of abuse (Kim et al., 2012; Sebastian & Sekher, 2011). In other studies conducted in the PRC, marital status is not associated with abuse (Dong, Simon, & Gorbien, 2007, Dong & Simon, 2008; Dong & Simon, 2013).

Living arrangements.

It has been observed that living alone is associated with an increased risk of abuse in the PRC (Wu et al., 2012), India (Sebastian & Sekher, 2011), and Korea (Oh et al., 2006). Yan and Kwok (2010) show that the number of coresiding days between caregiver and care recipient is predictive of elder abuse. Another study,

865

Download more at Learnclax.com

however, reports no association with the number of persons living in the household and abuse (Dong & Simon, 2013).

Education level.

Lower education levels have consistently emerged as a risk factor for elder abuse and neglect in the PRC (Dong, Simon, & Gorbien, 2007; Dong & Simon, 2008, 2013; Wu et al., 2012), Chinese immigrants in Canada (Lai, 2011), India (Sebastian & Sekher, 2011), and Korea (Oh et al., 2006). After adjusting for age and sex, illiterate people are 3 times more likely to be abused (Dong et al., 2008), while 5 years or less of schooling is also associated with an increased risk (Wu et al., 2012). In India, the chance of an older respondent who had received at least a high school education of being abused was almost half that of older respondents who either were illiterate or had only received primary schooling (Sebastian & Sekher, 2011). In Korea, participants with no education were more likely to be abused than those with tertiary levels of education, with an odds ratio of 1.61 (Oh et al., 2006).

Income.

Studies on the role of income have yielded mixed findings. Lower monthly income has been associated with elder abuse and neglect. In the PRC, those without any income are nearly 3 times as likely to suffer abuse as those earning US$125+ (Dong, Simon, & Gorbien, 2007). After adjusting for age and sex, lower income is positively associated with an increased risk of abuse and neglect. Those without any income are also more likely to report being the victims of abuse and neglect (Dong & Simon, 2013; Dong et al., 2008). In India, older persons who are economically dependent are more vulnerable to verbal abuse and neglect than those who are not (Sebastian & Sekher, 2011). Low family income is an identified risk factor for abuse in Korea (Oh et al., 2006).

Physical health.

One study in the PRC indicates that physical disability and chronic illness are associated with increased risk of abuse (Wu et al., 2012). Self-reported poor visual ability has been linked with physical and verbal abuse in Hong Kong (Yan & Tang, 2004). Levels of psychological abuse increase with the number of chronic diseases suffered by, and functional dependence of, Taiwanese elders (Wang, 2006). Studies in India (Chokkanathan & Lee, 2005), Japan (Sasaki et al., 2007), and Korea (Oh et al., 2006) all show that poor health and functional impairment are risk factors for abuse.

Not all studies, however, identify a negative association between physical health and abuse. Dong and Simon (2010) find that impairment in physical function and indicators of activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living are not independently associated with increased risk of elder mistreatment, after considering potential confounding variables. Their 2013 study also shows that medical conditions, overall health status, quality of life, or recent change in health status are not associated with abuse.

Cognitive functioning.

It has generally been observed that rates of abuse are higher among older persons with cognitive decline. A

866

Download more at Learnclax.com

study in Taiwan shows that the experience of psychological abuse increases with cognitive impairment (Wang,

2006). In Japan, it has been estimated that the risk of abuse is higher for frail older persons who are cognitively impaired (4.76 times), who wander due to cognitive impairment (15.01 times), or who have sensory disorders (6.98 times; Anme, 2004; Anme et al., 2005). Abusive behaviors by caregivers are common for older persons with behavioral disturbances (Sasaki et al., 2007; Kishimoto et al., 2013). This is also true of older Koreans, where people with cognitive impairment are more likely to be abused by their family caregivers (Lee, 2009; Lee & Kolomer, 2005).

Studies suggest that older persons with or without cognitive impairment may experience different types of mistreatment. Work carried out in Singapore shows that older patients who have been abused or neglected have different characteristics (Phua, Ng, & Seow, 2008). Suspected victims of neglect are more likely to be bedbound and require maximal care. Their cognition may be significantly impaired and they are unable to make informed decisions. Suspected victims of physical mistreatment are comparatively mobile and cognitively intact, compared to suspected victims of neglect.

Psychological variables.

Researchers have also identified depression in the abused person as a risk factor for abuse. Depression is a prominent predictor of different types of abuse and neglect. It is associated with a higher risk of self-reported physical mistreatment, psychological abuse, and neglect (Wu et al., 2012) and also with physical and psychological abuse (Dong & Simon, 2013; Wu at al., 2012). Older Chinese in the PRC who have been mistreated are more likely to report feelings of being dissatisfied with life, bored, helpless, and worthlessness (Dong & Simon, 2010). Those who self-report poor or very poor quality of life are 3 times as likely to report abuse and neglect (Dong et al., 2008).

Social variables.

Studies suggest that the abused person’s lack of social support and feelings of loneliness are associated with increased risk of abuse. Dong and Simon (2008) find that a medium or high level of social support is associated with a 59% lower likelihood of a report of elder mistreatment. Specifically, “having someone to listen to and talk to,” “having someone to show them love and affection,” and “having someone to help with daily chores” are all associated with a decreased risk of elder mistreatment (Dong & Simon, 2008). Conversely, a sense of loneliness in abused persons is associated with an increased risk of mistreatment. Specifically, feelings of lacking companionship, being left out of life, and being isolated are associated with increased risk of mistreatment (Dong, Beck, & Simon, 2009; Dong, Simon, Gorbien, Percak, & Golden, 2007; Dong & Simon, 2008). This association remains significant even after controlling for age and gender (Dong, Simon, Gorbien, Percak, & Golden, 2007). It has been shown that perceived social support, but not instrumental social support, mitigates the effects of loneliness on elder mistreatment (Dong et al., 2009). Lack of social support has been identified as a risk factor for abuse in older Chinese immigrants in Canada (Lai, 2011).

The association between lack of social support and elder abuse has also been observed in India (Chokkanathan

867

Download more at Learnclax.com

& Lee, 2005). In Japan, the odds of being abused increase by 11.7 times for those who do not receive much support from family members living elsewhere (Anme et al., 2005).

Abuser Characteristics

Kinship.

Most studies report that adult sons and daughters-in-law are the primary abusers in most cases followed by daughters-in-law acting alone. This, presumably, is a function of coresidence. In Hong Kong, 88% of abusers are adult children (Yan & Tang, 2004). In India, estimates that the son is the abuser range from 56% to 62.5% (Chokkanathan & Lee, 2005; HelpAge India, 2012a; Sebastian & Sekher, 2011). In Japan, a review of helpline reports indicates that 36% of abuses are committed by an adult son and 25% by a daughter-in-law (Yamada, 1999). Another study in Japan reports that nearly two thirds of abusers are daughters-in-law (Anme et al., 2005).

Age.

In Taiwan, being a younger caregiver is associated with psychological abuse of the older person (Wang, 2005).

Caregiver burden.

Several studies examine the role of caregiver burden on abuse when providing care to older persons with cognitive or physical impairments. Compared with nonabusive caregivers, abusive caregivers in Japan report significantly more role conflict and care burden (Anme et al., 2005; Kishimoto et al., 2013; Sasaki et al., 2007). The association between care burden and abuse has also been implicated in studies conducted in Hong Kong (Yan & Kwok, 2010) and Korea (Lee, 2009; Lee & Kolomer, 2005).

Social support.

Studies explore the effects of the social support experienced by the caregiver. In Taiwan, caregivers with fewer social resources are more likely to be psychologically abusive (Wang, Lin, Tseng, & Chang, 2009). In Korea, Lee and Kolomer (2005) examine a cohort of 481 caregivers and care recipients. Their findings suggest that formal social support (nursing services, paid home care, day care programs, and so on), but not informal social support (from family members, etc.), is associated with a lower risk of abuse.

Childhood experience of family violence.

In a study of the likelihood of elder abuse, Yan and Tang (2003) show that high levels of childhood experiences of abuse consistently emerge as the single most salient predictor of participants’ endorsement of the proclivity to abuse older people.

Discussion

There is a considerable amount of literature on elder abuse. We now have some understanding of the extent of the problem, its antecedents, and its consequences. Research into elder abuse in Asia, however, remains underrepresented in this body of work. Part of the reason for this is that Asian scholarship is not well

868

Download more at Learnclax.com

represented in English-language journals. When performing the literature search for this review, we became aware that a sizable amount of work on elder abuse in Asia has been published in the form of research reports in Korean and Japanese. Scholars conducting research on elder abuse in Asia should be encouraged to publish in English-language journals to disseminate their findings. Research reports produced in an Asian language should be accompanied by an English summary that allows international readers to access the main findings.

Cultural sensitivity is essential for research into elder abuse in Asia. This needs to go beyond using culturally sensitive instruments, which measure culturally specific types of abuse. Many older Asians may be reluctant to report their own abusive experiences to people outside their families. In conducting research in this area, special attention should be paid to building rapport with participants in the data collection process. Studies that employ indirect estimates by asking participants to report abuse they have heard of or witnessed may be an alternative to traditional research that focuses on personal experience.

Limitations

While the present review summarizes the major findings from the elder abuse literature in Asian societies, several limitations should be noted. First, the present review excluded research studies published in languages other than English, although a significant amount of research has been published in Asian languages. Given the exclusion criteria, research on intimate partner violence in older couples was also excluded. Research on the impact of elder abuse, which is extremely scarce in the Asian population, also falls outside the scope of this review. Much of the existing research on elder abuse in Asian populations is flawed in the key areas reported here, but the prevalence of the problem in Asia warrants further and more rigorous research.

Conclusion—Key Findings

Prevalence estimates of elder abuse across Asian populations vary. The variations can be attributed to differences in research methodologies including the types of abuse investigated, sampling methods and sample populations, recall periods, informants, and the instruments employed. There is debate in the literature about the risk and protective factors for elder abuse. Part of the variation can be attributed to methodological differences, but it is also plausible that there may be underlying subgroups of victims.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

Older Asians are reluctant to report abusive experiences to people outside their families, so prevention and intervention efforts should concentrate on building rapport with suspected victims. Given victims’ reluctance to disclose their abuse experiences outside the family, mobilizing victims’ social networks, family, and friends will aid prevention and intervention efforts. Routine screening for elder abuse in social and medical settings should go beyond physical examination. For instance, given that depression is a prominent risk factor for elder abuse, screening for abuse in older persons with depression should be part of routine examination. Given that social isolation is a major risk factor for abuse, outreach programs that proactively seek out those at risk should facilitate early detection. Culturally sensitive instruments are needed that will map

869

Download more at Learnclax.com

culturally specific types of abuse while at the same time providing enough flexibility for comparison

between multisite cross-cultural studies. Larger studies that use representative samples are also needed to provide more concrete prevalence estimates. Research must reflect the reality that older persons constitute a heterogeneous population and take into account differences in gender, class, cognitive and physical abilities, and so on. Longitudinal studies that investigate the underlying mechanisms of how various factors impact on abuse and their mediating and moderating effects are needed.Important research reports produced in Asian languages should also be disseminated in English to allow easy access for international audiences.

Discussion Questions

1. Are there differences in prevalence across the countries reviewed in this article? 2. What cultural features may play a role in explaining the occurrence of elder abuse? 3. What cultural features may play a role in reporting of and service use for elder abuse? 4. What factors other than culture influence the risk of elder abuse?

Note

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research Grant Council General Research Fund #751113.

References Akaza, K., Bunai, Y., Tsujinaka, M., Nakamura, I., Nagai, A., Tsukata, Y., & Ohya, I. (2003). Elder abuse

and neglect: Social problems revealed from 15 autopsy cases. Legal Medicine, 5(1), 7.

Anetzberger, G. (2004). The clinical management of elder abuse. New York, NY: Hawthorne Press.

Anme, T. (2004). A study of elder abuse and risk factors in Japanese families: Focused on the social affiliation model. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 4, 62–63.

Anme, T., McCall, M., & Tatara, T. (2005). An exploratory study of abuse among frail elders using services in a small village in Japan. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 17, 1–20.

Arai, M. (2006). Elder abuse in Japan. Educational Gerontology, 32, 13–23.

Bambawale, U. (1997). The abused elderly. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 106, 389–395.

Beach, S. R., Schulz, R., Williamson, G., Miller, L. S., Weiner, M., & Lance, C. (2005). Risk factors for potentially harmful informal caregiver behavior. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(2),

870

Download more at Learnclax.com

255–261.

Bennett, G., & Kingston, P. (1993). Elder abuse: Concepts, theories and interventions. London, England: Chapman & Hall.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. (2002). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.

Cham, G. W., & Seow, E. (2000). The pattern of elderly abuse presenting to an emergency department. Singapore Medical Journal, 41, 567–570.

Chan, K. L. (2009). Protection of face and avoidance of responsibility: Chinese men’s account of violence against women. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23, 93–108.

Chang, J., & Moon, A. (1997). Korean American elderly’s knowledge and perceptions of elder abuse: A qualitative analysis of cultural factors. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 6, 139–155.

Cheng, S. T., & Chan, A. C. M. (2006). Filial piety and psychological well-being in well older Chinese. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 61B, 46–53.

Chokkanathan, S., & Lee, A. E. Y. (2005). Elder mistreatment in urban India: A community based study. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 17, 45–61.

Dong, X., Beck, T., & Simon, M. A. (2009). Loneliness and mistreatment of older Chinese women: Does social support matter? Journal of Women and Aging, 21, 293–302.

Dong, X., Beck, T., & Simon, M. A. (2010). The associations of gender, depression and elder mistreatment in a community-dwelling Chinese population: The modifying effect of social support. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 50, 202–208.

Dong, X., Chang, E. S., Wong, E., Wong, B., & Simon, M. A. (2011). How do U.S. Chinese older adults view elder mistreatment? Findings from a community-based participatory research study. Journal of Aging and Health, 23, 289–312.

Dong, X., & Simon, M. A. (2008). Is greater social support a protective factor against elder mistreatment? Gerontology, 54, 381–388.

871

Download more at Learnclax.com

Dong, X., & Simon, M. A. (2010). Is impairment in physical function associated with increased risk of elder mistreatment? Findings from a community-dwelling Chinese population. Public Health Report, 125, 743–753.

Dong, X., & Simon, M. A. (2013). Urban and rural variations in the characteristics associated with elder mistreatment in a community-dwelling Chinese population. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 25, 97–125.

Dong, X., Simon, M. A., & Gorbien, M. (2007). Elder abuse and neglect in an urban Chinese population. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 19, 79–96.

Dong, X., Simon, M. A., Gorbein, M. J., Percak, B. A., & Golden, R. (2007). Loneliness in older Chinese adults: A risk factor for elder mistreatment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55, 1832–1835.

Dong, X., Simon, M. A., Odwazny, R., & Gorbien, M. (2008). Depression and elder abuse and neglect among a community-dwelling Chinese elderly population. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 20, 25–41.

Dong, X. Q., Simon, M. A., Beck, T. T., Farran, C., McCann, J. J., Mendes de Leon, C. F., … Evans, D. A. (2009). Elder abuse and mortality: The role of psychological and social wellbeing. Gerontology, 57, 549–558.

Fulmer, T., Paveza, G., & Quadagno, L. (2002). Elder abuse and neglect: Policy issues for two very different problems. Public Policy and Aging Report, 12, 15–18.

Han, H. D. (2002). A study of the Korean approach to the prevention of elder abuse. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, S4, 364–365.

HelpAge India. (2012a). Elder abuse in India: Summary of research reports. Retrieved from http://www.helpageindia.org/about-us/reports-a-surveys.html

HelpAge India. (2012b). Report on Elder Abuse in India. New Delhi, India: Author.

HelpAge International. (2012a). Ageing in the twenty-first century: A celebration and a challenge. New York, NY: Author.

872

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.helpageindia.org/about-us/reports-a-surveys.html

HelpAge International. (2012b). Global age watch. Retrieved from http://www.helpage.org/globalagewatch/

Hong Kong Christian Service. (2004). Elder abuse in Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/family/eld_abuse_rep.pdf

Kim, H. G. (2002). Aging of the population and the subsequent increase in the mistreatment of the elderly in Korea. Nursing & Health Sciences, 4, A1–A2.

Kim, O., Jeon, H. O., & Kim, B. H. (2012). The relating factors of elder abuse among community-dwelling elderly with stroke. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing, 24, 466–476.

Kishimoto, Y., Terada, S., Takeda, N., Oshima, E., Honda, H., Yoshida, H., … Uchitomi, Y. (2013). Abuse of people with cognitive impairment by family caregivers in Japan (a cross-sectional study). Psychiatry Research, 209, 699–704. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.01.025

Lai, D. W. (2011). Abuse and neglect experienced by aging Chinese in Canada. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 23, 326–347.

Lee, H. Y., & Eaton, C. K. (2009). Financial abuse in elderly Korean immigrants: Mixed analysis of the role of culture on perception and help-seeking intention. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 52, 463–488.

Lee, M. (2009). A path analysis on elder abuse by family caregivers: Applying the ABCX model. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 1–9.

Lee, M., & Kolomer, S. R. (2005). Caregiver burden, dementia, and elder abuse in South Korea. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 17, 61–74.

Lee, Y. R., & Sung, K. T. (1997). Cultural differences in caregiving motivations for demented parents: Korean caregivers versus American caregivers. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 44, 115–127.

Lin, A. H. (1992). Study of filial piety in Confucian thought. Taipei, Taiwan: Wen Jin.

Moon, A., & Benton, D. (2000). Tolerance of elder abuse and attitudes toward third-party intervention among African American, Korean American and White elderly. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8, 283–304.

873

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.helpage.org/globalagewatch/

http://www.swd.gov.hk/doc/family/eld_abuse_rep.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.01.025

Moon, A., & Evans-Campbell, T. (1999). Awareness of formal and informal sources of help for victims of elder abuse among Korean American and non-Hispanic white elders in Los Angeles. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 11(3), 1–23.

Moon, A., Tomita, S. K., & Jung-Kamei, S. (2001). Elder mistreatment among four Asian American groups: An exploratory study on tolerance, victim blaming and attitudes toward third-party intervention. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 36, 153–169.

Moon, A., Williams, O., & Stein, P. (1993). Perceptions of elder abuse and help-seeking patterns among African-American, Caucasian American, and Korean-American elderly women. The Gerontologist, 33, 386–395.

Mouton, C. P., Rodabough, R. J., Rovi, S. L., Brzyski, R. G., & Katerndahl, D. A. (2010). Psychosocial effects of physical and verbal abuse in postmenopausal women. Annals of Family Medicine, 8, 206–213.

Nagpaul, K. (1998). Elder abuse among Asian Indians: Traditional versus modern perspectives. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 9, 77–92.

Nakanishi, M., Hoshishiba, Y., Iwama, N., Okada, T., Kato, E., & Takahashi, H. (2009). Impact of the elder abuse prevention and caregiver support law on system development among municipal governments in Japan. Health Policy, 90, 254–261.

Nakanishi, M., Nakashima, T., & Honda, T. (2010). Disparities in systems development for elder abuse prevention among municipalities in Japan: Implications for strategies to help municipalities develop community systems. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 400–404.

National Research Council. (2003). Elder mistreatment: Abuse, neglect, and exploitation in an aging America. Washington, DC: Author.

Neale, A. V., Hwalek, M., Sengstock, M. C., Scott, R. O., & Stahl, C. (1991). Validation of the Hwalek- Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 10, 417–429.

Ng, A. C. Y., Philips, D. R., & Lee, W. K. M. (2002). Persistence and challenges to filial piety and informal support of older persons in modern Chinese society: A case study in Tuen Mun Hong Kong. Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 135–153.

874

Download more at Learnclax.com

Ng, S. H., Loong, C. S. F., He, A. P., Liu, J. H., & Weatherall, A. (2000). Communication correlates of individualism and collectivism: Talk directed at one or more addressees in family conversations. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 19, 26–45.

Oh, J., Kim, H. S, Martins, D., & Kim, H. (2006). A study of elder abuse in Korea. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43, 203–214.

Phua, D. H., Ng, T. W., & Seow, E. (2008). Epidemiology of suspected elderly mistreatment in Singapore. Singapore Medical Journal, 49, 765–773.

Sasaki, M., Arai, Y., Kumamoto, K., Abe, K., Arai, A., & Mizuno, Y. (2007). Factors related to potentially harmful behaviors towards disabled older people by family caregivers in Japan. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 250–257.

Schofield, M. J., & Mishra, G. D. (2003). Validity of self-report screening scale for elder abuse: Women’s Health Australia Study. The Gerontologist, 43,110–120.

Sebastian, D., & Sekher, T. V. (2011). Extent and nature of elder abuse in Indian families: A study in Kerala. HelpAge India—Research and Development Journal, 17, 20–28.

Shah, G., Veedon, R., & Vasi, S. (1995). Elder abuse in India. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 6, 101–118.

Straus, M. A., (1996). Physical assaults by women partners: A major social problem. In M. R. Walsh (Ed.), Women, men and gender: Ongoing debates (pp. 210–221). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sung, K. T. (2001). Elder respect: Exploration of ideals and forms in East Asia. Journal of Aging Studies, 15, 13–25.

Tam, S., & Neysmith, S. (2006). Disrespect and isolation: Elder abuse in Chinese communities. Canadian Journal on Aging, 25, 141–151.

Tsai, H. H., Chen, M. H., & Tsai, Y. F. (2008). Perceptions of filial piety among Taiwanese university students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63, 284–290.

Tsukada, N., Saito, Y., & Tatara, T. (2001). Japanese older people’s perceptions of elder abuse. Journal of

875

Download more at Learnclax.com

Elder Abuse & Neglect, 13, 71–89.

Ueda, T. (2000). Inadequate care by family caregiver of frail elderly living at home. Japanese Journal of Public Health, 47, 264–274.

Wang, J. J. (2005). Psychological abuse behavior exhibited by caregivers in the care of the elderly and correlated factors in long-term care facilities in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Research, 13, 271–280.

Wang, J. J. (2006). Psychological abuse and its characteristic correlates among elderly Taiwanese. Archives of Gerontology Geriatrics, 42, 307–318.

Wang, J. J., Lin, J. N., & Lee, F. P. (2006). Psychologically abusive behavior by those caring for the elderly in a domestic context. Geriatric Nursing, 27, 284–291.

Wang, J. J., Lin, M. F, Tseng, H. F., & Chang, W.Y. (2009). Caregiver factors contributing to psychological elder abuse behavious in long-term-care facilities: A structural equation model approach, International Psychogeriatrics, 21, 314–320.

Wu, L., Chen, H., Hu, Y., Xiang, H., Yu, X., Zhang, T., & Cao, Z. (2012). Prevalence and associated factors of elder mistreatment in a rural community in People’s Republic of China: A cross sectional study. PLoS One, 7, 1–8.

Yamada, Y. (1999). A telephone counseling program for elder abuse in Japan. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 11, 105–112.

Yan, E., & Kwok, T. (2010). Abuse of older Chinese with dementia by their family caregivers: An inquiry into the role of caregiver burden. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 26, 527–535.

Yan, E., & Tang, C. (2001). Prevalence and psychological impact of Chinese elder abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1158–1174.

Yan, E., & Tang, C. (2003). Proclivity to elder abuse: A community study on Hong Kong Chinese. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 999–1017.

Yan, E., & Tang, C. (2004). Elder abuse by caregivers: A study of prevalence and risk factors in Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 269–277.

876

Download more at Learnclax.com

877

Download more at Learnclax.com

Section XIV Contemporary Issues in Victimology: Victims of Hate Crimes, Human Trafficking, and Terrorism

Cindy was living in rural China and going to school when she was offered the opportunity to work at a restaurant in Ghana that friends of her neighbors had opened. Cindy dropped out of school and went with the couple to Ghana. Instead of working in a restaurant, however, Cindy fell victim to a Chinese sex trafficking ring. She was taken to live in a brothel, and her passport and return ticket were taken from her. She was forced to engage in commercial prostitution and was beaten anytime she refused. The money she made from prostitution was taken from her by her traffickers, who told her that she owed money for her travel expenses and accommodations (U.S. Department of State, 2010).

What happened to Cindy is, unfortunately, probably more common than we realize. It is known as human trafficking—a contemporary issue in the field of victimology. It is a type of victimization in which a victim is targeted because of what he or she can provide in terms of services, work, or sex. Other types of victimization that we are becoming aware of involve people being targeted because of an offender’s hate or bias. Terrorism also often creates victims because of the desire to harm a particular group or person. This section deals with these emerging issues in victimology.

878

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victims of Hate Crimes

Some victims are targeted because of their qualities—not because of what they can provide in terms of services, work, or sex but because the offender wants to attack them out of hate or bias. Qualities that an offender may target are sexual orientation, race, or religion. When victims are targeted under these circumstances, they are classified as hate crime or bias crime victims.

What Is Hate Crime Victimization?

Beginning with the passage of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990), the attorney general is required to collect data on hate crimes perpetrated based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. This requirement was expanded via the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to include hate crimes based on disability. When Congress passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act (2009), crimes motivated by bias against gender and gender identity and crimes committed by and against juveniles were included in the hate crimes data collection efforts. To meet these mandates, the attorney general has charged the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with data collection (Harlow, 2005). In doing so, the FBI acquires data from law enforcement agencies about the crimes of murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, destruction of property, damage of property, and vandalism of property that are hate or bias motivated. Currently, the FBI defines hate crimes as any of the just-mentioned offenses or offenses that law enforcement agencies currently report on through their Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) or National Incident-Based Reporting System data collection programs that are perpetrated based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, gender, and gender identity (FBI, 2010). How do the police know, though, if a crime should be considered a hate crime? Obviously, a crime that is reported to the police is supposed to be included in the statistics they report to the FBI through the UCR data collection. It is up to the police agency, however, to determine if the incident will be classified as a hate crime. Law enforcement, then, has to use their judgment to classify incidents—it is not enough that a victim is part of a protected class (i.e., a racial or ethnic minority). To determine hate crime status, law enforcement uses victim and witness information as well as information from the investigation. Information they consider may include the following (Nolan, McDevitt, Cronin, & Farrell, 2004):

Hate speech the offender used Hate symbols left by the offender (e.g., a swastika painted on a synagogue) Timing of incident to occur on day of significance for victim’s or suspect’s group Previous history of hate crime perpetration by the suspect or suspect is a known member of organized hate group Previous history of hate crime incidents at or around location of current incident Absence of other obvious motives of victimization

We discuss the extent of hate crime victimization based on the data collected from the FBI shortly, but before we do, a discussion about how hate crime is defined in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is

879

Download more at Learnclax.com

warranted.

As you know, the NCVS asks individuals about their victimization experiences during the previous 6 months. Beginning in the July 2000 data collection, persons were asked in the incident report if they suspected that they were victimized because of one or more of their personal characteristics: race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and disability (Harlow, 2005). That question served as a hate crime screen question. If they answered affirmatively, they were also asked if they had any evidence that the incident was a crime of hate, bigotry, or prejudice. Evidence would include the offender used “derogatory language, the offender left hate symbols, or the police confirmed that a hate crime had taken place” (Harlow, 2005, p. 2). If they answered yes to a hate crime screen question and yes to a question regarding evidence of hate, bigotry, or prejudice motivation, then the incident was classified as a hate crime victimization.

Extent of Hate Crime Victimization

According to the statistics compiled by the FBI, in 2015, 7,173 people were the victims of hate crimes in the United States (FBI, 2015n). Similar to other victimization data, there are differences when comparing data from the UCR with data from the NCVS. Keep in mind that UCR statistics reflect official data compiled by the FBI based on law enforcement agencies, who must make an official determination that a crime they are made aware of is, in fact, a hate crime before reporting it to the FBI as such. The NCVS data rely on the victim’s assessment of the incident being motivated by bias. One of the key differences is the extent of hate crime victimizations in the NCVS as compared with the UCR. In 2012, there were 293,800 nonfatal hate crime victimizations in the Unites States according to the NCVS. Although the NCVS measures both victimizations reported to the police and those not reported, victims indicated that about 40% of these incidents were, in fact, reported to the police (M. Wilson, 2014).

Photo 14.1 On the night of October 6–7, 1998, Matthew Shepard was beaten, pistol-whipped, robbed, and tied to a tree by two men in Laramie, Wyoming. He died on October 12, 1998, from his injuries. At trial, it was revealed that he was targeted due to his sexual orientation. In 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crime Prevention Act was passed.

880

Download more at Learnclax.com

Gina Van Hoof. Reprinted with permission of the Matthew Shepard Foundation

Who Are Hate Crime Victims?

Individual Characteristics

One of the interesting findings from the NCVS survey data is that rates of hate crime victimization are similar across demographic groups. One difference that emerged in 2012, however, is that Hispanics experienced a higher rate of violent hate crime victimization than persons who are White or Black. Hate crime victimization rates do not vary according to educational attainment. There are, however, some characteristics associated with an increased hate crime victimization risk. Persons who are young (17 or younger, 18–24) have higher hate crime victimization rates than persons who are 25 to 34 and older age groups (M. Wilson, 2014).

Type of Hate Crime Victimization Experienced

Of the victimizations reported in the UCR, the most common motivation for the offense was the victim’s race, ethnicity, or ancestry. In fact, more than half (59%) of all hate crime victims were targeted for this characteristic. The next most common motivation was the victim’s religious beliefs (20%), followed by sexual orientation (18%), gender identity (2%) and disability (1%).

Within these categories, the FBI’s data further delineate the characteristics of victims for which they are targeted. In terms of racially motivated bias crimes, an overwhelming majority of victims, 52%, were targeted

881

Download more at Learnclax.com

because of an offender’s anti-Black bias. Nineteen percent of victims were targeted because of anti-White bias

on the part of the offender. See Table 14.1 for more details regarding victims targeted. Of the victims targeted for antireligious reasons, most were targeted because of anti-Jewish bias. In fact, 52% of victims of antireligious hate crime were victimized for this reason. As seen in Table 14.1, other victims are targeted for anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias, anti-Catholic bias, anti–Eastern Orthodox bias, Protestant bias, and biases against other religions. Victims targeted due to sexual-orientation bias were most commonly victimized as a result of anti–male homosexual bias (62%).

Table 14.1

882

Download more at Learnclax.com

883

Download more at Learnclax.com

Source: FBI (2015n).

Table 14.1 displays other common reasons victims were targeted. Slightly less than one-third of these victims were targeted due to anti-transgender bias, and 21% were targeted because of anti-physical disability bias.

NCVS data indicate that ethnicity was the most common motivation (51% of incidents) for hate crime victimizations. The second most common motivation victims reported for why they were targeted was their race (46%). The next most common reason reported for being a hate crime victim was because of their association with persons with certain characteristics. In 34% of incidents, this reason was identified. In 28% of incidents, a victim’s religion provoked the victimization. Gender was mentioned in about 1 in 4 hate crime victimizations, and about 1 in 8 hate crime victimizations were motivated by sexual orientation (M. Wilson, 2014).

Special Case: Sexual-Orientation-Bias-Motivated Hate Crime Victimization

Although the FBI’s UCR and NCVS data both include information about sexual-orientation-based victimization experiences, other efforts have been made to identify the extent to which persons are victimized due to their sexual orientation or gender identity as well as the effects this specific type of hate crime victimization has on victims. One of the major sources of information on this type of hate crime victimization is the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (2010), which collects data from a network of some 38 antiviolence organizations that “monitor, respond to, and work to end hate and domestic violence, HIV- related violence, pick-up crimes, rape, sexual assault, and other forms of violence that affect LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and queer) communities” (p. 1). Individuals who contact these antiviolence organizations and report victimizations will then be included in the NCAVP report of anti-LGBTQ hate violence. Based on this report, in 2015, there were 1,253 victims of anti-LGBTQ hate violence (Waters, Jindasurat, & Wolfe, 2016). There were 24 hate violence homicides of LGBTQ and HIV-affected people in 2015 according to the NCAVP report (Waters et al., 2016). Notice that both of these estimates are higher than what was found when examining hate crime statistics in the UCR. Other research using survey data estimates that about 20% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals have experienced a victimization based on their sexual orientation during their adult life (Herek, 2009). Read about the extent and types of victimization experienced by gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in Reading 27 in this section by Gregory Herek (2009). Also see Box 14.1 for an example of a real victim of an anti-LGBTQ attack.

Ripped From the Headlines

A man was run over by Joseph Caleca, a 55-year-old man, who was driving a pickup truck. Mr. Caleca yelled “anti-Muslim” comments to the man before hitting and running over him with his truck. Mr. Caleca was arraigned on second-degree attempted murder and first-degree assault charges that were charged as hate crimes. He was held without bail. Does this hate crime comport with the “typical” hate crime? Why or why not?

Source: Yan (2014).

Characteristics of Hate Crime Victimizations

884

Download more at Learnclax.com

Of the hate crime victimizations known to the police that occurred in 2015, 32% were crimes against the person. Of these, 41% were crimes of intimidation, 38% were simple assaults, and 20% were aggravated assaults. Only 18 murders and 13 rape hate crime offenses were reported to the police. Of the crimes against property, 72% were acts of destruction, damage, or vandalism (FBI, 2015n).

Findings from the NCVS also show that hate crimes were most commonly associated with violent victimizations. Rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault together accounted for 63% of the hate crime victimizations in 2012. Hate crime victimizations were more likely to be violent victimizations than were non– hate crime victimizations. More than half of all hate crime victimizations were simple assaults (M. Wilson, 2014).

Persons who indicated in the NCVS that they had experienced a hate crime victimization were asked if they told the police about the incident. About 40% of hate crime victimizations were reported to the police (M. Wilson, 2014). Research on hate crime victimization reporting indicates that minority victims are less likely than nonminority victims to report hate crime victimizations (Zaykowski, 2010). Overall reporting rates may be linked to the victim–offender relationship—about 4 in 10 violent hate crime victimizations were perpetrated by strangers (M. Wilson, 2014). Not all research has found that reporting is equally likely for hate crime victimizations and non–hate crime victimizations. When comparing hate crime victimizations based on sexual orientation to non–hate crime victimizations among individuals living in Sacramento, California, hate crimes were less likely to be reported to the police (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999). This lack of reporting may be due to the response that victims receive from the police. In the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs report, the majority of victims who reported to the police indicated that the police response was something other than courteous. Of those who indicated negative police behavior, 33% reported experiencing verbal abuse, 16% said the police used physical violence, and 8% said the police used slurs and biased language. Almost 40% of the individuals who reported information about the police said the police were hostile (Waters et al., 2016).

Risk Factors for Hate Crime Victimization

Obviously, given what hate crime victimizations are, certain groups are at risk due to their characteristics. It is, in fact, personal characteristics or what an offender perceives to be personal characteristics—race, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity—that motivate hate crime victimizations. For example, one study found that gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and people who have had a same-sex partner are 1.5 to 2 times more likely to experience violence as are people in the general population (A. L. Roberts, Austin, Corliss, Vandermorris, & Koenen, 2010). It also has been noted that for anti-LGBTQ hate crime victimizations, people may be targeted because offenders perceive that they are unlikely to notify the police due to the systemic discrimination they have faced (NCAVP, 2010).

Box 14.1 Tara’s Story of Experiencing Anti-LGBTQ Victimization

Tara, 24, White, queer, nontransgender woman

I was going to the community center like I did every week for work meetings, and this man that always stared at me and yelled that

885

Download more at Learnclax.com

he would “turn me straight” was there. After my meeting, I was walking to my car and the man followed me and raped me. The whole time he was talking about making me a straight girl like I should be. I called NCAVP after my nightmares about that night started coming back, and I would get panic attacks when I had to go to work. They gave me support and got me connected with a counselor that has really helped me to work on healing from this.

Source: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (2010).

Not all people who have characteristics covered in hate crime laws, however, are at risk of being victimized. Routine activities and lifestyles theories may be useful to understand why some people are victimized and others are not. According to this perspective, motivated offenders are ubiquitous and do not need to be explained (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978). Being a suitable target increases risk, though, as does a lack of capable guardianship. A person who has characteristics an offender “hates” is likely to activate an already motivated offender. For hate crimes, a motivated offender can simply see a person whom he or she perceives to have the characteristics the offender does not like. When this target lacks capable guardianship, a hate crime victimization is likely to occur.

In addition to individual risk factors, hate crime victimization may be a response to perceived threat— violations of territory or property, violations of what is sacred, and violations of status (Ehrlich, 1992). Following this threat explanation, economic competition by minorities has been proposed as a reason why racially and ethnically motivated hate crimes occur (Finn & McNeil, 1987). In addition, there may be community-level factors related to hate crime victimization. Lyons (2007), for instance, found that anti-Black hate crimes were more likely to occur in communities that were organized, whereas anti-White hate crimes occurred more frequently in disorganized communities. Accordingly, it may not be individual characteristics or routine activities per se that place individuals or groups at risk of hate crime victimization but, rather, underlying cultural or structural conditions.

Consequences of Hate Crime Victimization

We have discussed the innumerable consequences that come with many types of victimization, but the consequences of hate crime victimization deserve special consideration given that such victims are targeted because of characteristics they often cannot change. There is little doubt in victims’ minds that their experience was born of hate. Think about how hard this must be to digest and live with afterward—it may result in a person seeing the world as particularly hostile and unsafe. Further, such a victimization may be particularly difficult to forgive (West & Wiley-Cordone, 1999). Because of hate motivation, the community also faces unique consequences.

Consequences for Individuals

Hate crime victimization likely comes with a heavy price for victims. Remember that hate crime victimizations are more likely than non–hate crime victimizations to be violent. In addition, in 20% of hate crimes, victims report sustaining an injury (M. Wilson, 2014). In short, there are often physical consequences associated with hate crime victimization.

Along with these physical consequences, victims of hate crimes also commonly experience psychological

886

Download more at Learnclax.com

consequences. As noted, victims are often unlikely to be capable of changing the characteristic for which they were targeted. As such, they may fear revictimization and feel there is little they can do to prevent a subsequent attack. Fear may not be all that victims experience. Hate crime victimization has been linked to distress symptoms such as depression, stress, and anger (A. L. Roberts et al., 2010). For example, lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals who have experienced a bias crime victimization reported higher levels of fear of crime and perceived vulnerability and less belief in the benevolence of people compared with victims of nonbias crimes and nonvictims (Herek et al., 1999). For hate crime victimizations based on sexual orientation, another consequence is post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In fact, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and persons who have had same-sex partners who have been violently victimized are twice as likely to experience PTSD in response to the experience as are people in the general population (A. L. Roberts et al., 2010). Other research has demonstrated a link between bias-related victimization for gay, bisexual, and lesbian individuals and higher levels of psycho-affective problems such as depression, anxiety, anger, and post-traumatic stress symptoms (Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997). This heightened response to hate crime victimization for gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals may be due to the fact that their sexual orientation is an important part of their self-concept and also the reason they were victimized (Herek et al., 1999).

Consequences for the Community

When a hate crime victimization occurs, especially if it is made public, others in the community who share characteristics of the victim may become fearful that they will also become a target. This fear may cause individuals to change their behaviors and may limit their activities. To the extent that people identify with the victim, they may also experience secondary victimization whereby they suffer similar psychological consequences to those of the direct victim. The community may find that people are less likely to visit as tourists or to move there, and real estate values may plummet after publicized hate crime incidents (West & Wiley-Cordone, 1999).

Responses to Hate Crime Victimization

Legislation

It was not until the 1980s that hate crime victimization received widespread formal attention from the criminal justice system and the media. As special interest groups began documenting victimizations that they perceived to be motivated by hate or bias, a movement toward recognizing hate crimes as a specialized category of crime took hold. In part, this movement resulted in the passage of legislation that attached enhanced penalties to crimes motivated by hate and that mandated the collection of data.

The first federal law specifically addressing hate crimes, as previously mentioned, was the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which mandated the collection of data on hate crimes perpetrated based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. As noted, this requirement was expanded to include hate crimes based on disability via the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This law also directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to develop or amend federal sentencing guidelines to provide enhancement of at least three offense levels for those offenses determined by judges beyond a reasonable doubt to be hate crimes. But how

887

Download more at Learnclax.com

were hate crimes treated in federal court before 1990? There was no specific federal legislation that dealt with

hate crimes. Rather, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245, was used to hold people accountable for willfully injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to do so by force or threat of force, people because of race, color, religion, or national origin during the course of federally protected activities—such as when attending school, participating as a juror, participating in an activity or program administered by the state or local government, or as a patron of any public accommodation. Although it served to protect certain classes of people, if a federally protected activity was not being engaged in at the time of the offense, the federal government could not intervene unless another federal interest was involved. This limit was removed with the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act. This created a federal hate crimes law that eliminated the government’s need to prove that victims were participating in a federally protected activity. Instead, crimes in which the federal government would otherwise have jurisdiction are included (e.g., the offender traveled with the victim across state lines). There are other federal laws in place that serve to prevent bias-motivated crimes, such as the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, which prohibits damage to religious property because of the religious, racial, or ethnic characteristics of the property or the obstruction of or attempt to obstruct by force or threat of force a person exercising religious beliefs.

In addition to these pieces of federal legislation, states are also free to enact hate crime legislation to criminalize behavior that occurs within their borders. As recently as mid-2009, all but four states had hate crime legislation that included crimes based on individual characteristics (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2008b). See Table 14.2 for an example of California’s hate crime law provisions.

Table 14.2

Source: FindLaw (n.d.-b).

Criminal Justice System Response

The criminal justice system is also set up to address this special type of crime victimization. As mentioned, the police are required to record and report data on hate crimes that occur. Research on compliance with the Hate Crime Statistics Act is somewhat sobering. King (2007) reported that police compliance with the

888

Download more at Learnclax.com

requirements is less likely in jurisdictions that have greater populations of Black residents. This is particularly salient when considered in conjunction with the fact that racially motivated hate crimes are more likely to occur in these same areas. He further found that in the South, the correlation between the size of the Black population and police compliance with the reporting requirements of the Hate Crime Statistics Act was negative—in areas with high Black populations, adherence was low (King, 2007). Why do you think police are less likely to meet the requirements of federal reporting in these areas? What are the implications for these communities?

Also, most states have some type of hate crime legislation that specifically designates crimes motivated by hate as a special type of crime deserving of a special penalty. Remember, though, that even without hate crime laws, criminal behavior is criminal behavior, and a hate crime statute need not be in place for police to make an arrest when there is reason to do so. To address hate crimes, some police departments have specialty units. Boston was the first city, in 1978, to create a special unit whose mission was to respond to community disorders, including hate- or bias-motivated crimes. New York City founded a similar unit in 1980. Many other jurisdictions today have similar units designed to address hate crimes, which have produced positive impacts on hate crime (B. Levin & Amster, 2007).

Once a crime is identified as being bias motivated, the prosecutor makes the decision whether to charge it as a hate crime. Some research suggests that prosecutors use their discretion, as they do when making charging decisions in other cases, when making this important decision. In fact, research shows that prosecutors are likely to charge bias crimes only when they are clearly bias motivated and when evidence overtly shows this bias (Bell, 2002; Phillips, 2009). Those cases in which bias is but one motive are unlikely to be charged as bias crimes—only “clean” cases, in which bias is the singular motive, are likely to be charged as bias crimes by a prosecutor (Maroney, 1998). Thus, when you consider that police must initially determine whether a crime is a hate crime (and only after the victim has decided to report) and then the prosecutor must determine whether to charge it as a hate crime—but only after the first step has been taken by the police—it should make sense that few hate crime victimizations actually result in formal charges in the criminal justice system.

Even if a case is not formally charged, hate crime victims can receive assistance from other sources. Victims of hate crimes can access traditional services designed for crime victims. That is, they are eligible to receive victim compensation so long as they meet eligibility requirements, they can receive services from victim- witness assistance programs, they can agree to participate in victim–offender mediation or reconciliation programs, and they can exercise any rights granted to them in the jurisdiction in which they were victimized. Along with these traditional services, they can also seek assistance from special interest organizations and groups (e.g., Kansas City Anti-Violence Project).

889

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victims of Human Trafficking

Human trafficking has become a hotbed issue domestically and internationally, particularly in the past two decades. Interestingly, although media and governmental attention have grown dramatically over this time, human trafficking is not a new victimization; it has its roots in slavery. Throughout history, we see examples of various forms of slavery, and America was not immune to the practice. Even though laws were passed in the United States to abolish slavery in 1863, these laws did not specifically address the issue of recruiting people for prostitution in another country and did not end the selling or forcing of African Americans into labor to pay debts. In other words, although race-based slavery was condemned, other forms of enslavement and trafficking were under way and were not similarly abolished (Logan, Walker, & Hunt, 2009).

What Is Human Trafficking?

Trafficking was not a federal crime until 2000, although the behaviors that are now prohibited may have been criminalized in other statutes. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 defines human trafficking as

(1) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or (2) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

This definition is not the only one. The United Nations (2000) Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines trafficking as

the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other means of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. (Article 3, Use of Terms)

The type of human trafficking related to sexual exploitation is known as sex trafficking. The type of human trafficking used to exploit someone for labor is known as labor trafficking. Persons do not have to be transported across international borders to be trafficked. Trafficking can be done within a country’s borders. When this occurs, it is known as domestic human trafficking. When persons are transported into another country, it is called transnational human trafficking. Take note, however, that the actual transport of a person is not necessary for an incident to be considered human trafficking—you can become a victim of trafficking within your own home. If you were held against your will in your home and were made to perform sex acts on

890

Download more at Learnclax.com

persons who came to the house, you would be a victim of sex trafficking.

Let’s look at the different types of trafficking a little more closely. Sex trafficking occurs when a person is coerced, forced, or deceived into prostitution. If the initial decision to participate in prostitution was consensual, but the person is forced or coerced into continuing, then he or she is a victim of sex trafficking (U.S. Department of State, 2010). In this way, an initial consensual decision to engage in prostitution does not preclude a person from being considered a sex trafficking victim if that person wants to quit but is forced to continue. Persons can be forced to work in sex clubs, dance in strip clubs, work in massage parlors, or be otherwise enslaved or forced into other types of commercial sex work (e.g., street prostitution, pornography). Age is also a consideration when determining sex trafficking status. In the United States, if the victim is under the age of 18, there does not have to be force, fraud, or coercion for sex trafficking to occur. The victim simply being under the age of 18 and being recruited, harbored, transported, or obtained for the purpose of a commercial sex act is enough for sex trafficking to occur (Shared Hope International, 2011). Sex trafficking can also occur within debt bondage, another form of human trafficking discussed next.

Labor trafficking can be further divided into several types—bonded labor, forced labor, and involuntary domestic servitude. Bonded labor, also referred to as debt bondage, is the most common method of enslaving victims (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2011b). This type of labor trafficking occurs when a person is enslaved to work off a debt he or she owes when the terms or conditions of the debt were not previously known or properly defined or when the services the victim provides are not calculated in a reasonable fashion and “counted” toward the debt owed. The second type of labor trafficking is forced labor, which occurs when victims are forced to work under the threat of violence or punishment, their freedom is restricted, and some level of ownership over them is exercised (DHHS, 2011b). The third type of labor trafficking is involuntary domestic servitude. This type of trafficking involves victims who are forced to work as domestic workers. Often, these victims work in isolation on private property, which makes their situations difficult to detect because authorities may not be able to enter and inspect these locations (U.S. Department of State, 2010). Think back to Cindy’s story at the beginning of this section. What type of human trafficking did she experience? How do you know?

Extent of Human Trafficking

As you may imagine, it is quite difficult to know the true extent to which people are trafficked within the United States and internationally. Generally, it is widely accepted that most human trafficking goes undetected, so reliance on official data sources most likely grossly underestimates the extent of human trafficking. The reasons that most human trafficking remains undetected are many. First, human trafficking is, by its nature, underground and hidden (Schauer & Wheaton, 2006). It is a type of victimization that occurs out of sight of most people and, therefore, is difficult to detect. Second, many countries do not treat trafficking seriously, and in some countries, law enforcement and other officials actively participate in human trafficking. Third, most victims do not report their victimizations to authorities. Many victims are unable to report and others are unwilling to report. Victims are often taught to fear law enforcement and other groups that would be able to help them (U.S. Department of State, 2010). Other victims receive threats of further

891

Download more at Learnclax.com

harm if they report their victimizations to authorities. Fourth, victims are often a mobile population—they are frequently moved from one location to the next—and, thus, counting them is difficult at best (Schauer & Wheaton, 2006). Fifth, the definition of what constitutes human trafficking is not clear in every jurisdiction, despite formal definitions put forth by the United Nations (Gozdziak & Collett, 2005). Likewise, not all countries collect data about the number of human trafficking victims within their borders.

Despite these hindrances, there have been efforts to determine the extent to which humans are trafficked. The U.S. Department of State (2014) publishes the Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP Report), which provides information about trafficking throughout the world using information from U.S. embassies, government officials, nongovernmental and international organizations, reports, research trips to regions included in the report, and information submitted to the State Department’s e-mail address for the TIP Report. From this report, it is estimated that 12.3 million persons are in forced labor, bonded labor, and forced prostitution in the world, and as many as 2 million children are in the global commercial sex trade (U.S. Department of State, 2010). It is estimated that from 600,000 to 4 million persons each year are trafficked worldwide (McCabe & Manian, 2010). In 2015 alone, 77,823 victims were identified in the TIP Report. Although much of the attention surrounding human trafficking is on sex trafficking, according to the TIP Report, there are more people trafficked for the purposes of forced labor than for commercial sex (U.S. Department of State, 2016a). In fact, it is estimated that for every one person forced into prostitution, there are nine people forced into labor (U.S. Department of State, 2015). The TIP Report also provides information on prosecutions and convictions related to trafficking. In 2015, there were 18,930 prosecutions included in the TIP Report and 6,609 convictions (U.S. Department of State, 2016a).

Domestic trafficking within the United States also has been investigated. As part of the Trafficking of Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, biennial reporting on human trafficking is now required. In response to this requirement, the U.S. Department of Justice has supported the creation of the Human Trafficking Reporting System, which provides information on investigations opened by federally funded human trafficking task forces in the United States. Based on this data collection, from January 2008 to June 2010, there were 2,515 investigations opened by these agencies, 389 of which were confirmed to be human trafficking (527 total victims) (Banks & Kyckelhahn, 2011). The vast majority of these incidents (82%) were sex trafficking incidents. More recently, the UCR program has begun human trafficking data collection through the NIBRS and the Summary Reporting System (FBI, 2014b). These data reflect offenses known to state and local law enforcement agencies as well as arrest data for these entities. Not all states and local agencies participate. From this report, in 2014, there were 443 incidents of human trafficking known to the police, with 952 arrests made. A greater proportion of offenses known to the police and of the arrests were for commercial sex acts compared with involuntary servitude (FBI, 2014b).

Who Is Trafficked?

For the same reasons it is difficult to know the true extent to which human trafficking occurs, it is also difficult to know who the “typical” victim of trafficking is. As a result, the description of who is most likely to be a human trafficking victim is likely only as reliable as the data available. Nevertheless, it is estimated that

892

Download more at Learnclax.com

females make up 56% of all victims of human trafficking worldwide (U.S. Department of State, 2010). In the United States, males make up most of the confirmed human trafficking incidents reported by task forces. Females make up a larger percentage of victims of sex trafficking (94%) than of labor trafficking (69%) in the United States, as reported by task forces (Banks & Kyckelhahn, 2011). In terms of who is trafficked in the United States, data indicate that the majority are immigrants (Logan et al., 2009). Worldwide, about half of all victims of trafficking are under the age of 18 (McCabe & Manian, 2010). Trafficking appears to be more prevalent in some areas of the world than in others. In Asia and the Pacific, the prevalence of trafficking is estimated to be 3 persons per 1,000 inhabitants, compared with the worldwide estimate of 1.8 per 1,000 inhabitants (U.S. Department of State, 2010).

Russia supplies most of the women and girls for sex trafficking. This means that Russia is a popular source country for sex trafficking. Other former Soviet bloc countries are also popular source countries for the sex trafficking industry. The countries that receive victims of human trafficking are known as destination countries. Germany is the top destination country for sex trafficking of women and girls. The United States is the second most popular destination country for sex trafficking, with most victims coming from Asia, Mexico, and former Soviet bloc countries. Other popular destination countries are Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Greece, India, Thailand, and Australia (Schauer & Wheaton, 2006). Anyone can also become a victim of labor trafficking. Victims can be children or adults and women or men. Even so, women and children are more likely to become victims of labor trafficking than are others. Victims may work in legitimate jobs such as domestic, factory, or construction work, whereas others may be involved in illegal activities such as distributing drugs (DHHS, 2011b).

Risk Factors for Human Trafficking

Individual Risk Factors

One of the most pervasive factors placing persons at risk of being trafficked is living in extreme poverty. People living in some countries face little opportunity for gainful employment, and women in these countries especially face economic and social oppression (Schauer & Wheaton, 2006). Persons living in extreme poverty and/or those who are oppressed are vulnerable to accepting promises of work in other countries—work that sometimes turns into labor trafficking when they are forced into debt bondage upon arrival in the destination country. This desire for work may be the impetus for females willingly going with traffickers to other countries only to find that they owe their traffickers exorbitant amounts of money for falsified documents used to enter the country. They may also realize that the only work “available” to them is sex work (E. Miller, Decker, Silverman, & Raj, 2007). In the TIP Report, certain occupations are also identified as being particularly dangerous for trafficking such as working in agriculture, fishing and aquaculture, hospitality, and mining. Persons working in these fields may find themselves at risk for environmental harms, and their jobs often occur in remote locations. Further, they often are not covered by local labor laws, and governments do not provide sufficient oversight (U.S. Department of State, 2015).

Country Risk Factors

893

Download more at Learnclax.com

Not only are there factors that may place individuals at risk for being trafficked, either by making them suitable targets or by pushing them into choices that lead them into trafficking victimization, but characteristics of countries also can make trafficking more or less likely. Countries characterized by high levels of civil unrest and violence are more likely to have trafficking networks operating within them (Logan et al., 2009). Similarly, countries that provide little opportunity for social mobility and few economic opportunities are likely to have more victims of trafficking (DHHS, 2011b). In addition, some countries have greater levels of acceptance of trafficking and their governments do little to address this problem, even sometimes working to facilitate trafficking and not punishing traffickers (Logan et al., 2009). In countries where government officials and law enforcement are corrupt and easily bought off, traffickers are likely to pay off these officials. For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, victims have reported police officers actually participating in their transport and their traffickers giving “something” to the border police (Rathgeber, 2002). The role of women in many countries also contributes to their likelihood of being trafficked. Women who live in cultures that objectify and stigmatize them while at the same time barring them from legitimate employment opportunities may be more likely to be victims of trafficking than those who live in cultures where women are treated with more respect and allowed entry into legitimate employment (Schauer & Wheaton, 2006).

Consequences for Victims of Human Trafficking

There are obvious physical health consequences for persons who have been trafficked. They are often harmed physically while being held against their will. In addition, victims who are trafficked for labor are often forced to work long hours in deplorable conditions, which can take a toll on their bodies. These physical effects can be both immediate and long-lasting. Victims of labor trafficking may be exposed to dangerous working conditions and, as a result, may suffer health problems such as back pain, hearing loss, cardiovascular and respiratory problems, and limb amputations (DHHS, 2011b).

Health consequences also have been identified for victims of sex trafficking. In a study of women who had received services in Europe for sexual exploitation, 90% of the victims reported some type of sexual violence while they were trafficked, and 76% indicated they had been physically abused during their trafficking experience. In addition to experiencing violence, the majority of these 192 women and adolescent girls reported experiencing headaches, dizzy spells, back pain, memory difficulty, stomach pain, pelvic pain, and gynecological symptoms during the previous 2 weeks (Zimmerman et al., 2008). Other research on victims of sex trafficking has noted forced or coerced use of drugs or alcohol (Zimmerman et al., 2003).

In addition to these physical health consequences, the mental health outcomes of trafficking victims have been examined. Reported psychological effects of labor trafficking include shame, anxiety disorders, PTSD, phobias, panic attacks, and depression (DHHS, 2011b). Women and girls trafficked for sex exploitation reported high levels of depression, anxiety, hostility (Zimmerman et al., 2003, 2008), PTSD, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts (Zimmerman et al., 2003).

Response to Human Trafficking Victims

International Response

894

Download more at Learnclax.com

In 2000, the United Nations adopted the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (called the Palermo Protocol). This international protocol called for the criminalization of human trafficking and outlined how governments should respond to the problem of trafficking. Specifically, the Palermo Protocol specified that governments should include elements of prevention, criminal prosecution, and victim protection—the “3P” paradigm of governmental response (U.S. Department of State, 2010). Despite the Palermo Protocol being adopted more than 10 years ago, from 2010 to 2012, 15% of countries did not convict a trafficker (U.S. Department of State, 2015). In addition, in 2015 only 36 countries were rated in Tier 1 of the TIP Report, indicating that they are in full compliance with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act’s minimum standards (U.S. Department of State, 2016a). See Table 14.3 for a list of these countries.

895

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 14.3 Source: U.S. Department of State (2016a).

Victims who have traveled to foreign countries also have special needs tied to their immigration status.

896

Download more at Learnclax.com

According to the Palermo Protocol, governments should not simply deport human trafficking victims if they are found to be in countries illegally. Despite this mandate, in 2009 104 countries did not have laws, policies, or regulations to prevent such deportation (U.S. Department of State, 2010). So how do countries deal with victims of human trafficking who are in foreign countries? One response is repatriation of foreign victims, although this should be done only if it serves the victims’ best interests. It is possible that returning victims to their places of citizenship will put them back in the same context and conditions that led to their being trafficked originally, and some face violence or death upon return to their home countries (U.S. Department of State, 2010).

United States Governmental/Criminal Justice Response

The United States has recognized that trafficked persons who are non–U.S. citizens have special needs regarding immigration and citizenship. To address this issue, victims can become certified so they can receive the same benefits and services from federal and/or state programs generally provided to refugees (DHHS, 2011a). To become certified, victims of human trafficking must meet three criteria: (1) be a victim of a severe form of trafficking according to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000; (2) be willing to assist in the investigation and prosecution of trafficking cases (or be unable to because of physical or psychological trauma); and (3) have completed a bona fide application for a T visa or received continued presence from the Department of Homeland Security to be able to contribute to the prosecution of human traffickers. A T visa allows victims of human trafficking to become temporary residents of the United States. After 3 years, persons with T visas may be eligible for permanent resident status (DHHS, 2011a).

One way in which trafficking has been addressed in the United States is through the adoption of formal law enforcement task forces and investigative entities. For example, an FBI initiative to disrupt human trafficking in the United States and abroad began in 2004. The FBI works with more than 71 human trafficking task force groups throughout the United States. Since 2004 the FBI has doubled the number of open human trafficking investigations and quadrupled the number of prosecutions and convictions (FBI, n.d.-b). Research on trafficking task forces indicates that areas that have these task forces have higher detection rates and are more likely to succeed in prosecuting traffickers (A. Farrell, McDevitt, & Fahy, 2008). The FBI also employs victim specialists who work with victims of human trafficking to assist them with legal needs as well as other services such as child care, immigration issues, employment, education, and job training (FBI, n.d.-b).

Often, law enforcement officers must arrest victims for the crimes in which they are involved, such as prostitution. Even if doing so keeps the victim safe and frees him or her from his or her captor, this criminalization of the victim’s behavior can have serious consequences because it brings the victim into the formal criminal justice system. For example, arresting a victim may actually make him or her ineligible for some victim services, such as victim compensation. To remedy this situation, some states have passed laws that make minors immune to prosecution for prostitution—for example, there is a presumption that minors are coerced into committing prostitution by another person (Shared Hope International, 2011). Victims, as defined by U.S. law, do have the right not to be held in detention or to be charged with crimes in relation to the trafficking offense, so long as they are willing to cooperate with the criminal investigation and prosecution

897

Download more at Learnclax.com

of their trafficking offenders. If the victim is unwilling to assist in the formal criminal justice process, then he or she may not be protected from charges or deportation (Logan et al., 2009). The difficulties criminal justice system actors face in identifying trafficking and bring trafficking cases to justice are addressed in Reading 28 by Andrea J. Nichols and Erin C. Heil (2014) included in this section.

There has also been legislation passed designed to address some of the needs of victims of trafficking. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require countries who receive assistance from the United States to report on their efforts to combat trafficking. In addition, it created the Inter-agency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking; established initiatives to combat trafficking both worldwide and domestically; and provided protection and assistance for victims in other countries to be safely reintegrated, integrated, or resettled. It also expanded services for those who may be undocumented in the United States and provided grant money to fund victim services. In 2015, Congress again passed legislation affecting victims of trafficking. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 requires that any nonindigent entity who is convicted of an offense related to trafficking and also sexual abuse or sexual exploitation/abuse of children pay a $5,000 assessment. This assessment will then go to fund the newly created Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund that will be used to provide assistance for victims of trafficking and child pornography, to combat trafficking, and to develop and implement child abuse investigation and prosecution programs.

Victim Services

Along with the growing response to the problem of human trafficking, numerous resources for victims have been developed and instituted. Victims of trafficking often experience a higher level of distress than other victims because when they seek assistance or are discovered they often have few, if any, resources of their own. Despite this need, victims of trafficking have fewer resources available to them than do victims of other crimes (Logan et al., 2009).

One option that may be available for victims is to be taken to a protective shelter. However, there is not enough space for all victims to use this option. For example, in the United States, there are fewer than 100 beds in facilities that specialize in treating victims of sex trafficking who are under the age of 18 (Shared Hope International, 2011). Reports from other countries also show a shortage of open beds in safe houses. For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, women victims have slept in chairs at police stations while waiting to be questioned instead of being taken to a safe house for the night. It is also important to consider that female victims should be interviewed by female police officers who are specially trained in how to respond to victims of trafficking. In the United States and abroad, victims should also be offered support counselors or advocates if they testify in court (Rathgeber, 2002). As human trafficking continues to receive attention as a serious problem throughout the world, the resources available to victims will, hopefully, continue to expand to meet their unique needs.

Photo 14.2 The aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11.

898

Download more at Learnclax.com

899

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victims of Terrorism

Perhaps no victimization event in the past 20 years has impacted people in the United States more profoundly than the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001, in which almost 3,000 people lost their lives when planes were hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center, into the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004). An event so cataclysmic and profound, fortunately, does not happen very often. But people are impacted by terrorism throughout the world in less publicized incidents. This section discusses the extent to which terrorism victimization occurs, to whom it occurs, the impact it has, and how victims of terrorism can be assisted.

Extent of Terrorism Victimization

Outside Lahore High Court in GPO Chowk, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan, on January 10, 2008, a suicide bomber detonated an improvised explosive device strapped to his body as he approached a group of riot police. In this single incident, 17 police officers were killed, along with 8 civilians. Eighty other people were wounded, and at least six vehicles were destroyed (National Counterterrorism Center [NCTC], 2009). Despite its severity, you probably did not hear about it, given that it was but one of many terrorist attacks against noncombatants that occurred that year.

It is difficult to know to what extent people are victimized by terrorism throughout the world. Not all incidents are recorded or reported—many may occur in remote areas of the world. The most comprehensive data available on terrorism incidents in the world is reported by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is required by the U.S. State Department to compile statistical information on terrorism incidents—“the number of individuals … killed, injured, or kidnapped by each terrorist group during the preceding calendar year as reported in open source media” (NCTC, 2012, p. v). According to this report, over 11,774 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide in 2015. These attacks resulted in 35,320 persons being injured— indicating that multiple people were harmed in many of the incidents—in 92 countries (NCTC, 2016a). U.S. citizens were relatively safe from terrorism in 2015—19 citizens were killed, 22 were injured, and 0 were kidnapped worldwide (NCTC, 2016b).

Who Are Victims of Terrorism?

Of the 75,837 persons victimized by terrorism in 2015 (28,328 killed, 35,320 injured, 12,189 kidnapped or taken hostage), about a quarter were perpetrators of terrorism—that is they were killed during commission of the act. Although it is difficult to know exactly who the victims are in all cases, data indicate that private citizens and property are most commonly targeted (37% of targets), and police officers made up 18% of all those who were targeted. Other commonly targeted people are government workers—making up about 11% of terrorist victims (NCTC, 2016a).

Researchers examining data on terrorism collected from other sources have also attempted to identify the characteristics of persons most likely to be victims of terrorism. In a study of terrorism that occurred in

900

Download more at Learnclax.com

Uruguay, Northern Ireland, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Cyprus, it was found that most victims were ages 20 to 39, were males, and were members of security forces (Hewitt, 1988). Research on terrorism victims in Northern Ireland confirms this finding regarding males being the most likely victims (Fay, Morrissey, & Smyth, 1999). Other research examining Israeli civilians killed in Israel via acts of terror between September 1993 and the end of 2003 found that the majority of victims were male. Further, persons aged 17 to 24 composed 30% of fatalities attributed to terrorism in Israel even though they made up only 14% of the population (Feniger & Yuchtman-Yaar, 2010). In Israel, most of the fatalities were Jewish; this finding is contrary to the NCTC (2012) report, which found that, at least in 2012, Muslims were the largest group of victims in cases in which religious affiliation could be identified.

Characteristics of Terrorism Victimizations

In 2015, most terrorism incidents were perpetrated via bombings or explosions, with slightly less than one- quarter involving armed assaults (NCTC, 2016a). Terrorist attacks impact persons throughout the world, but some areas are disproportionately hit. Over half of all attacks occurred in just five countries in 2015 (NCTC, 2016a). Iraq alone experienced 2,418 attacks and 6,932 deaths—it was the country with the most terrorist attacks and deaths in 2015 (NCTC, 2016a). In comparison, there were just over 60 attacks in North America due to terrorism (Global Terrorism Database, 2016). See Table 14.4 for the breakdown of 2015 terrorism deaths for the top 10 countries.

901

Download more at Learnclax.com

Table 14.4 Source: U.S. Department of State (2016b).

Interestingly, when analysis of terrorism data is expanded across time from 1970 to 2006, a somewhat different picture emerges. Latin America was the region that experienced the greatest percentage of fatal and nonfatal attacks, followed by western Europe (LaFree, Morris, & Dugan, 2010). Moreover, data show that terrorism grew during the 1970s, with a peak in 1992 and another in 2006 (Dugan, LaFree, Cragin, & Kasupski, 2008).

Risk Factors for Terrorism Victimization

One of the scariest things about terrorism is its unpredictability. Although some terrorism is targeted at specific groups or individuals, other terrorist activities are targeted more generally at “enemy” groups. This type of terrorism appears to be indiscriminate, targeting anonymous individuals who belong or appear to belong to a group, but the precise identities of the individuals do not matter. Obviously, some people are more at risk of being victimized than others, given that they belong to what has been identified as an “enemy” group. In addition, the amount of time that people spend in public spaces has been linked to terrorism victimization risk, particularly for indiscriminate forms of terrorism (Feniger & Yuchtman-Yaar, 2010).

These factors make sense when considered from a routine activities theory perspective. Persons who are

902

Download more at Learnclax.com

suitable targets (i.e., deemed part of the “enemy” group) and who lack capable guardianship are at risk of being victims of terrorism when they come into contact in time and space with motivated offenders. Similarly, places that are suitable targets and are without capable guardianship are more likely to be targeted. As noted in the NCTC (2010) report, the United States has implemented strategies to track motivated offenders, harden targets, and create capable guardianship since 9/11.

Consequences of Terrorism on Victims

The loss of human life is inarguably the most tangible consequence of terrorism; however, terrorism has far- reaching impacts on victims and, as you will see, on those exposed to terrorism but not directly victimized. Along with physical injury, victims of terrorism are likely to be psychologically impacted by their experience. Basic assumptions about the world may change for victims. They may no longer believe that the world is a safe place where good things happen to good people; instead, they may realize that evil things can and do happen even to good people (Gonzales, Schofield, & Gillis, 2001). In addition to this impact on people’s worldview, survivors may suffer from PTSD, anxiety disorders (North et al., 1999), major depression, panic disorder, and agoraphobia (Gabriel et al., 2007).

Following the attacks in Mumbai, India, in November 2008 that killed 164 and injured at least 308 people, acute stress disorder was assessed in victims admitted to one of the public hospitals. Out of the 74 victims admitted to a public hospital, 30% were found to be suffering from acute stress disorder (Balasinorwala & Shah, 2009). Survivors of the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing also experienced negative consequences postdisaster. In a study of 50 of the survivors, 22% experienced bombing-related PTSD (Tucker et al., 2010). Persons who were injured in the March 11, 2004, terrorist attacks in Madrid had prevalence rates of PTSD in the 2 months after the attacks that were 40 times higher than expected given previous rates of PTSD in the Spanish adult population before the attacks (Gabriel et al., 2007).

Acts of terrorism also affect people who are not directly victimized. People may hear about the terrorism in the media, or they may know someone who was harmed. Think back to 9/11—it was difficult to turn the television on in the days and weeks that followed without seeing a news story or update about the events. This exposure, while informative, also could have been damaging (Slone & Shoshani, 2008). Indeed, research shows that persons not directly involved in terrorist attacks still may experience psychological trauma afterward. Research on Americans following the 9/11 terrorist attacks showed that 3 to 5 days after the event 44% of people surveyed experienced substantial stress reactions (e.g., repeated disturbed memories, thoughts, or dreams about what happened; difficulty concentrating) (Schuster et al., 2001). Further research investigating the impacts of 9/11 showed that almost 6% of persons surveyed reported PTSD symptoms 6 months after the attacks (R. C. Silver, Holman, McIntosh, Poulin, & Gil-Rivas, 2002). Terrorism also has indirect impacts on children. In a study that screened children after the Oklahoma City bombing, it was found that 34% of middle and high school students were worried about their own safety and the safety of their family 2 months later (Gurwitch, Pfefferbaum, & Leftwich, 2002). Another consequence of terrorism may be fear. To learn about how the media may influence people’s fear of terrorism, see Reading 29 included in this section by Ashely Marie Nellis and Joanne Savage (2012).

903

Download more at Learnclax.com

Persons who lose loved ones in terrorist attacks may be hit especially hard. A common response is the desire to take revenge on the attacker, although actually taking action along these lines is quite rare. More common is a feeling of vulnerability and fear that may lead to isolation, changing daily routines, installing alarms, refusing to be alone or to go out at night, or carrying weapons for safety. They may have “survivor’s guilt” or feel as though they should have somehow foreseen the attack or kept their loved one safe. They may suffer from a loss of appetite, difficulty sleeping, gastrointestinal problems, cardiovascular disease, anxiety, and depression (L. Miller, 2004).

Responses to Victims of Terrorism

Persons who are victimized by terrorism may access many of the same services available to other types of crime victims, but they may not view themselves in the same light as someone who is the victim of a more traditional crime. As you might imagine, they may not turn to the formal criminal justice system for assistance as might a person who has experienced, for example, a household robbery. Nonetheless, there is awareness that victims of terrorism have special needs and rights that deserve attention.

In the United States, by definition, terrorist acts are federal crimes (Reno, Marcus, Leary, & Turman, 2000). As such, the federal government has developed numerous resources for victims of terrorism. One set of resources centers on legislation. Following the Iran hostage crisis, two pieces of legislation were passed to provide a remedy to the victims. The Hostage Relief Act of 1980 provided victims, their spouses, and dependent children benefits such as compensation for medical costs, deferral of taxes and penalties, and reimbursement for educational and training costs. It did not, however, provide money to compensate for wages lost during captivity. To remedy this, then president Reagan signed into law the Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act (1986).

Other pieces of legislation have been passed in response to specific terrorism acts, such as the Aviation Security Improvement Act (1990); however, the most grand-sweeping pieces of legislation dealing with terrorism were passed in response to the 9/11 attacks. The Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act (2001) mandates that qualifying payments made to the families of victims of “qualified disasters” for disaster-related expenses are not taxable. Further, death benefits would not be counted as taxable income if the death was a result of the Oklahoma City bombing, the attacks on 9/11, or anthrax-related attacks between September 11, 2001, and January 1, 2002. Crime victim compensation was also extended to victims of 9/11 and their families through the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (2001). This act established a compensation fund for victims who were killed or physically harmed; they, their spouses, and/or their dependents may receive benefits from the fund. Awards vary for individuals and families (e.g., compensation based on loss of future earnings), and only economic losses that victims could be compensated for in their state in a tort claim are covered. In addition, a presumptive amount of noneconomic damages was set—$250,000 for each deceased person, plus $100,000 for a widowed spouse and for each dependent child. On average, each family was predicted to be awarded $1.85 million (R. Levin, 2002). Research on the victims of 9/11 and their families shows that a total of $8.7 billion in benefits has been provided to civilians killed or seriously injured in the 9/11 attacks and their families. Of this, about $6 million was funded through the Victims Compensation

904

Download more at Learnclax.com

Fund, with awards ranging from $250,000 to $7.1 million (Dixon & Stern, 2004). Other persons also received compensation, such as emergency responders and businesses, and insurance companies and charities also provided compensation to victims. Figure 14.1 shows the amounts that different groups of victims received in quantified benefit payments from different sources.

Beyond financial compensation, the Office for Victims of Crime has identified several recommendations for services and policies for victims of terrorism in the United States. Specifically, this agency recommends that

unnecessary delays in death notification should be avoided; release of victim remains and death notification should be handled in a sensitive manner; directly after a terrorism event, a “compassion center” should be established where victims and their families can go for information, crisis counseling, and privacy; mental health assessment and services should be provided; victim compensation and other services’ applications should be streamlined—services should be made available in a timely manner, paperwork should be minimized, and agencies should coordinate services; states should establish emergency funds that can be used quickly in cases of terrorism; citizens who are victimized outside the United States should be eligible for compensation and services; federal personnel who work with victims of terrorism should receive training on victims’ rights laws and services; the FBI should keep victims informed of the state of the investigation and events in the case, and identification of victims and access to victim contact information must be established and maintained; federal agencies should have a team that can be mobilized on-site to provide support to terrorism victims; prosecuting offices need to keep victims apprised of their cases and services while providing support; victims should be provided with a media liaison through the U.S. Department of Justice to help with media requests so they can avoid added trauma; and federal agencies that employ persons who may be targeted by terrorism should provide information about procedures for responding to employees and their families in the event of victimization (Reno et al., 2000).

Victims of terrorism in other countries are also afforded rights and protections. The Council of Europe’s Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts (2005, as cited in Kilchling, n.d.) outlines that timely compensation should be given to victims of terrorism and their close family for direct physical and psychological harm. Further, the European Union has provided that victims of terrorism and their family members be protected during criminal proceedings and be provided restitution. Victims of terrorism in Israel are also afforded access to compensation for property damage and bodily injuries. Family members of persons killed by terrorism can also be compensated (Kilchling, n.d.).

Although there are other contemporary issues in the field of victimology, human trafficking, hate crime victimization, and terrorism victimization are emerging areas of study that impact not just the United States but the global community as well. As these areas garner further attention, developing methodologies to

905

Download more at Learnclax.com

determine the true extent to which each type of victimization occurs should be at the forefront. Identifying victims is critical to developing policies and implementing services to assist them.

906

Download more at Learnclax.com

Summary

The two major types of human trafficking are sex trafficking and labor trafficking. Human trafficking can be domestic or transnational. Much like other forms of sexual victimization, sex trafficking considers the age of the victim. In the United States, persons under 18 do not have to be forced or coerced for their victimization to be considered sex trafficking. Labor trafficking includes bonded labor and debt bondage, which are the most common forms of trafficking. Depending on the cultural gender role of women, one country may be more susceptible to human trafficking than another. Government officials sometimes participate in trafficking, and many countries do not treat trafficking seriously; trafficking is often difficult to detect, and estimates of its extent likely underestimate the problem. The Trafficking in Persons Report provides estimates of the extent of human trafficking in the United States. Females are more likely to be victims of human trafficking than are men. Poverty is one of the most salient risk factors for human trafficking. Countries characterized by high levels of civil unrest and violence are more likely to have trafficking networks operating within them. Countries that do not have opportunities for upward social mobility are also more likely to have human trafficking problems. Victims of human trafficking experience not only physical health consequences but also mental health problems such as shame, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, phobias, panic attacks, and depression. As an international response to human trafficking, the “3P” paradigm—prevention, criminal prosecution, and victim protection—was developed. A critical issue with foreign victims of human trafficking is that returning them to their legal home countries could put them at risk for revictimization. Victims who meet certain criteria can become certified and obtain a T visa allowing them temporary resident status in the United States. Some states have laws of protection for victims who are arrested for the crimes they commit while being trafficked. There is a lack of adequate space in protective shelters for victims of human trafficking (e.g., the United States has fewer than 100 beds for victims under age 18 in facilities that specialize in treating human trafficking). When victims are targeted out of hate or bias related to race, perceived race, religion, or sexual orientation, it is considered a hate crime. Generally, there are differences across gender, race, and ethnic groups for types of persons who are victimized, but this is not the case with hate crime victims.

907

Download more at Learnclax.com

Hate crimes are sometimes committed due to the offender perceiving a threat from the victim. Because victims of hate crimes usually cannot change the characteristic for which they were targeted, there is a real fear of revictimization. If and when a hate crime is made public to the community, there may be some communal consequence, such as tourists deciding not to visit. The criminal justice system, specifically prosecutors, uses discretion when determining whether the crime committed was a hate crime. About 10,000 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide in 2011. In 2012, most of the incidents of terrorism were perpetrated via armed attacks, bombings, and kidnappings. Obviously, some individuals are more at risk of terrorism victimization than others, given that they belong to a group identified as an “enemy.” In addition, the amount of time people spend in public spaces has been linked to terrorism victimization risk, particularly for indiscriminate forms of terrorism. Along with physical injury, victims of terrorism are likely to be psychologically impacted by their experiences. Victims may experience post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, agoraphobia, and panic disorders. The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (2001) made it possible for victims of terrorism to be compensated for their losses. Victims of terrorism in other countries are also afforded rights and protections.

908

Download more at Learnclax.com

Discussion Questions

1. What are some country-level factors that place women at risk of experiencing human trafficking? How do women’s roles in their countries protect them or make them more likely to be trafficked?

2. What are some ways the government protects minors who are victims of human trafficking? 3. As it pertains to reporting hate crimes, why do you think the estimates from the Uniform Crime

Reports are so different from those of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs? 4. Why do you think some research shows minority victims as more likely to report their hate crimes than

nonminority victims? 5. Could it be argued that being a member of security forces puts one at greater risk for terrorism

victimization? Why or why not?

909

Download more at Learnclax.com

Key Terms

Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (2001) 587 anti-LGBTQ hate violence 573 Aviation Security Improvement Act (1990) 587 bias crime 570 bonded labor 579 certified 583 Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 577 debt bondage 579 destination country 581 domestic human trafficking 579 forced labor 579 hate crime 570 Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990) 570 Hostage Relief Act of 1980 587 involuntary domestic servitude 579 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 584 labor trafficking 579 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act (2009) 570 Palermo Protocol 582 repatriation 582 sex trafficking 579 source country 581 transnational human trafficking 579 T visa 583 Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act (1986) 587 Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act (2001) 587

910

Download more at Learnclax.com

Internet Resources

Hate Crimes in the United States: http://www.civilrights.org/hatecrimes/united-states

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights website provides detailed information about hate crimes in the United States. You can find information about the extent of hate crimes in general, but the website also provides statistics and descriptions about hate crimes against specific groups, such as the homeless, immigrants, children, and specific religious adherents. Links to other resources are also provided.

The Polaris Project: http://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking

This website provides information about what human trafficking is, survivor stories, policy, and resources. It also provides a resource center hotline that people can call to get information about human trafficking. Several campaigns and initiatives supported by Polaris are detailed.

“Terrorism”: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/terrorism.pdf

The Federal Emergency Management Agency website provides general information about terrorism, explosions, threats, and homeland security. There are links to emergency contacts for victims. The section on disaster survivors would be most helpful for those who have experienced terrorism victimization. It is clear from this website that the U.S. government is involved in homeland security and ensuring the public is protected.

2014 Hate Crime Statistics: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic- pages/incidentsandoffenses_final

The U.S. Department of Justice uses the Uniform Crime Reports to generate current statistics on the victims of hate crime (e.g., race, age, religious belief, sexual preference). The types of hate crime that occurred in 2014, as well as the statistical tables that depict those crimes, are available on this website. The types of offenders that typically commit hate crimes are also detailed.

U.S. Department of State: http://www.state.gov

This website provides detailed information about our country’s security as well as the security protocols of other countries with which the Unites States currently allies. It also includes information on counterterrorism, along with country reports on terrorism activities and responses. Go here for information about disputes, terrorism, and other international affairs that impact our security.

911

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.civilrights.org/hatecrimes/united-states

http://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/terrorism.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/incidentsandoffenses_final

http://www.state.gov

Reading /// 27

Herek’s (2009) study is important in that from it, national estimates of the extent of violence and stigma-related experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults were produced, giving us an idea about the true extent of this type of hate crime victimization. In addition, the differential experiences of stigma-related events are shown for gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women. These findings were produced from data on 662 self-identified gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons aged 18 and over. Individuals in the study were part of a larger existing panel of data, the Knowledge Networks panel, a group of individuals who have agreed to participate in online surveys. For the current study, a sample of people completed an online survey in which they were asked about their experiences of eight different forms of stigma they had encountered since the age of 18.

Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experiences Among Sexual Minority Adults in the United States: Prevalence Estimates From a National Probability Sample

Gregory M. Herek

SOURCE: Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence: Concerned with the Study and Treatment of Victims and Perpetrators of Physical and Sexual Violence, 24, 54–74.

In 1989, the National Institute of Mental Health convened an expert panel on antigay violence to review existing knowledge and identify research needs. The panel named collection of prevalence data as a top research priority and urged that such data be obtained from probability samples when possible (Herek & Berrill, 1990). Since then, data collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (e.g., 2005), the National Crime Victimization Survey (Harlow, 2005), and the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (e.g., 2005) have shown that criminal enactments of sexual stigma are widespread (Herek & Sims, 2007). However, prevalence data on criminal victimization among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are still fragmentary and derived almost entirely from convenience samples.

Berrill (1992) compiled data from 24 published and unpublished studies conducted between 1977 and 1991 by academic researchers and community-based organizations, all but 1 of them using convenience samples of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Across studies, a median of 9% of respondents reported having been the target of an aggravated assault (i.e., assault with a weapon) because of their sexual orientation; 17% reported simple physical assault (i.e., without a weapon); 19% reported vandalism of their personal property; 44% had been threatened with violence; 33% had been spat on; and 80% had been verbally harassed (Berrill, 1992). Most of the studies did not report data separately by respondents’ gender or sexual orientation.

More recently, in a study of 2,259 lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the greater Sacramento, California, area, 28% of gay men, 19% of lesbians, 27% of bisexual men, and 15% of bisexual women reported having experienced some type of criminal victimization since age 16 because of their sexual orientation (n = 898, 980, 191, and 190, respectively; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999). This includes respondents who reported experiencing a simple or aggravated assault (13% of gay men, 7% of lesbians, 11% of bisexual men, and 5% of bisexual women) or a sexual assault based on their sexual orientation (4% of gay men, 3% of lesbians, 7% of bisexual men, and 4% of bisexual women).

912

Download more at Learnclax.com

Other research has focused on particular age groups in sexual minority communities. In a sample of 1,248 young gay and bisexual men (M = 23 years, range = 18–27 years) recruited in three Southwestern U.S. cities, 5% reported they had experienced physical violence because of their sexual orientation during the previous 6 months (Huebner, Rebchook, & Kegeles, 2004). In a sample of 194 lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths (age range = 15–21 yrs) recruited from service agencies across the United States, 9% reported at least one aggravated assault based on their sexual orientation, 18% had experienced a simple assault, 22% had been sexually assaulted, and 44% had been threatened with attack (Pilkington & D’Augelli, 1995). In a study of sexual minority youths recruited through community-based organizations in New York City and its suburbs, D’Augelli and his colleagues found that 11% reported physical violence based on their sexual orientation, 9% reported sexual violence, and 78% reported verbal threats or harassment (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006). At the other end of the age continuum, D’Augelli and Grossman (2001) document the lifetime occurrence of hate crime victimization among older (< 59 years) lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults recruited from across the United States (n = 416). In that sample, 16% had been physically attacked at some time in their life, 7% had been sexually assaulted, 11% reported having had objects thrown at them, and 29% had been threatened with violence.

It is difficult to use these studies to derive an estimate of the population prevalence of hate crime victimization against U.S. sexual minorities because of variations in how they categorized crimes, the time frames within which they assessed victimization, and how they reported their data (e.g., some studies reported findings separately for men and women, or homosexuals and bisexuals, whereas others did not). Moreover, because nearly all of the surveys used convenience samples, the extent to which their results describe the entire U.S. gay, lesbian, and bisexual population cannot be determined.

Prevalence data collected in three studies with probability samples further confirm that hate crime victimization is widespread. In a 1989 San Francisco Examiner national telephone survey, 5% of gay men (n = 287) and 10% of lesbians (n = 113) reported having been physically abused or assaulted in the previous year because they were gay (Results of Poll, 1989). In a 2000 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) survey of 405 lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults residing in major U.S. population centers, 32% of respondents said they had been targeted for violence against their person or property because of their sexual orientation (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). In a probability sample of 912 Latino men who have sex with men, recruited from social venues in New York, Miami, and Los Angeles, 10% reported they had experienced violence as an adult because of their sexual orientation or femininity (Diaz, Ayala, Bein, Henne, & Marin, 2001). These pioneering surveys yielded valuable data but are nevertheless limited in the generalizability of their findings. Neither the San Francisco Examiner poll nor the KFF poll were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Few published details are available about the methodology of the Examiner survey, making it particularly difficult to evaluate. The KFF poll sampled respondents only in 15 U.S. cities, which may limit its generalizability, and the survey of Latino men focused on specific venues in only three cities.

The present article addresses a gap in current knowledge by reporting data on the prevalence of antigay violence and related experiences in a national probability sample of sexual minority adults. Violence against individuals because of their presumed sexual orientation is conceptualized here as a manifestation of sexual

913

Download more at Learnclax.com

stigma, that is, society’s negative regard for any nonheterosexual behavior, identity, relationship, or community (Herek, 2004, 2008). Sexual stigma is a cultural belief system through which homosexuality is denigrated, discredited, and socially constructed as invalid relative to heterosexuality (Herek, 2008; Herek, Chopp, & Strohl, 2007). As with other forms of stigma, sexual stigma is expressed through society’s institutions (e.g., through discriminatory laws and policies) and by its individual members. Individual enactments of stigma can range from personal ostracism to criminal attacks against people perceived to be homosexual or bisexual.

Sexual stigma has important consequences for sexual minority individuals. Whereas being the target of any violent crime can have negative psychological effects, victims of antigay violence are at heightened risk for psychological distress (Herek et al., 1999; Mills et al., 2004; see also McDevitt, Balboni, Garcia, & Gu, 2001). Hate crimes may have especially negative psychological sequelae because they attack a core aspect of the victim’s personal identity and community membership, components of the self that are particularly important to sexual minority individuals because of the stresses created by sexual stigma (Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 1990; Herek et al., 1999; Herek et al., 2007). In addition to stigma’s direct effects, sexual minority individuals’ awareness of its extent and their expectancies about when it will be enacted create a subjective sense of threat. This felt stigma (e.g., Scambler & Hopkins, 1986) can motivate them to engage in a variety of proactive behaviors aimed at shielding themselves from enacted stigma. Such strategies (e.g., concealing their sexual orientation) can protect them from directly experiencing enacted stigma but also restrict their opportunities for having normal social interactions and receiving social support (Herek, 2008).

Measures

The present data are based on a subset of questions from a larger questionnaire. Only the relevant variables are discussed here.

Enacted Stigma

Eight questions were posed about how often respondents had experienced different forms of enacted stigma since age 18 because someone perceived them to be lesbian or bisexual (female respondents) or gay or bisexual (male respondents). The response options were never, once, twice, and three or more times. The questions assessed experiences of enacted stigma within three general categories: criminal victimization, harassment and threats, and discrimination.

To assess criminal victimization, respondents were asked how often they had experienced a crime against their person (“You were hit, beaten, physically attacked, or sexually assaulted”) or property (“You were robbed, or your property was stolen, vandalized, or purposely damaged”) or an attempted crime (“Someone tried to attack you, rob you, or damage your property, but they didn’t succeed”) based on their sexual orientation. To assess harassment and threats, respondents were asked about their experiences with antigay threats (“Someone threatened you with violence”) and harassment (“Someone verbally insulted or abused you” and “Someone threw an object at you”). To assess discrimination, respondents were asked about their experience with sexual orientation discrimination in employment (“You were fired from your job or denied a job or promotion”) and housing (“You were prevented from moving into a house or apartment by a landlord or realtor”).

914

Download more at Learnclax.com

Felt Stigma

Felt stigma was assessed with three statements, each accompanied by a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Utilizing Web software capabilities, the item wording was customized by inserting respondents’ preferred term for characterizing their sexual orientation (gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, etc.); each respondent had selected this term earlier in the questionnaire. The three statements (as worded for respondents who indicated gay was their preferred self-identifying term) were (a) “Most people where I live think less of a person who is gay”; (b) “Most employers where I live will hire openly gay people if they are qualified for the job”; (c) “Most people where I live would not want someone who is openly gay to take care of their children.”

Demographic Data

The survey included a question about the respondents’ specific sexual orientation (bisexual or homosexual). Other demographic data—including respondents’ gender, age, race and ethnicity, and highest educational level completed—had been collected previously by Knowledge Networks. Design weights were calculated and assigned to each case to adjust for the fact that cases had unequal probability of selection.

Results

Sample Characteristics

The final sample consisted of 311 women (152 lesbians, 159 bisexuals) and 351 men (241 gay men, 110 bisexuals). When design weights were applied, the weighted sample was 14.6% lesbian (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.6%–18.2%), 34.8% gay male (CI = 28.9%–41.2%), 23.7% bisexual female (CI = 18.8%– 29.3%), and 26.9% bisexual male (CI = 19.1%–36.4%). Unless otherwise indicated, the weighted data are used hereafter.

The respondents’ mean age was 39 years (CI = 37.2–40.8). Gay men were significantly older (M = 45.3) than lesbians (M = 40.1), bisexual men (M = 36.6), and bisexual women (M = 31.8 years). In addition, lesbians were significantly older than bisexual women (for all statistically significant differences reported here, p > .05). The sample was 65.4% non-Hispanic White, 15.6% non-Hispanic Black, and 12.5% Hispanic, with the remaining 6.5% from other races or of mixed race or ethnicity. Compared with lesbians and bisexual women, significantly fewer bisexual men were non-Hispanic White (43.0%, compared with 74.4% of lesbians and 77.5% of bisexual women). Bisexual men were also substantially less likely than gay men (70.5%) to be non- Hispanic White, but the difference was not statistically significant. Bisexual men were more likely than other respondents to be Hispanic (20.6%) or non-Hispanic Black (28.6%), but the differences were not statistically significant. Most respondents had earned a bachelor’s degree (32.9%) or attended some college (31.4%). Only 7.3% did not have a high school diploma or equivalent. Compared with gay men and lesbians, bisexual men were significantly less likely to have a bachelor’s degree: 15.9% of bisexual men had a degree, compared with 46.4% of gay men and 40.9% of lesbians. A more detailed demographic description of the sample will be reported elsewhere.

915

Download more at Learnclax.com

Experiences With Enacted Stigma

As shown in the last column of Table 1, 13.1% of the sample reported having experienced violence against their person based on their sexual orientation at least once during their adult life, and 14.9% had experienced a property crime. Approximately 1 in 5 reported experiencing one or both types of crime, and this proportion increased to about 25% when attempted crimes were included. Overall, 12.5% of respondents reported having objects thrown at them because of their sexual orientation; 23.4% had been threatened with violence, and 49.2% had experienced verbal abuse. More than 1 respondent in 10 (11.2%) reported having experienced housing or employment discrimination because of her or his sexual orientation.

Table 1

Note: Table reports parameter estimates and 95% confidence intervals for proportion of respondents experiencing each form of enacted stigma at least once, using weighted data.

Across the sexual orientation groups, gay men reported the highest levels of enacted stigma. They were significantly more likely than others to report experiences of antigay violence (24.9%) and antigay property crimes (28.1%). More than one third of gay men (37.6%) reported experiencing one or both types of crimes, compared with 12.5% of lesbians, 10.7% of bisexual men, and 12.7% of bisexual women. As indicated by the overlapping CIs in Table 2, differences among the latter groups were too small to be considered reliable. Gay men were significantly more likely than bisexual men to report having had objects thrown at them (21.1% vs. 5.6%). They were significantly more likely than lesbians and bisexual women to have been threatened with violence (35.4% of gay men vs. 17.3% of lesbians and 14.1% of bisexual women), and significantly more likely than bisexual women to report verbal abuses because of their sexual orientation (63.0% vs. 34.3%). Employment and housing discrimination were significantly more likely among gay men and lesbians (reported

916

Download more at Learnclax.com

by 17.7% and 16.3%, respectively) than among bisexual men and women (3.7% and 6.8%, respectively).

Table 2

Note: Table reports weighted percentage of respondents (with 95% confidence intervals) in each response category, and weighted mean scores (with 95% confidence intervals) for combined felt stigma scale. Strongly agree and somewhat agree responses are combined into agree category; strongly disagree and disagree somewhat responses are combined into disagree category. In each item, the respondent’s preferred label for her or his own sexual orientation (e.g., “gay”) was substituted for [L/G/B].

As noted above, the groups differed significantly in age, race and ethnicity, and educational level, which might account for the observed difference on enacted stigma. To test this hypothesis, separate logistic regression equations were computed for each type of enacted stigma (violence, objects thrown, etc.) as well as for the combined categories of criminal victimization (comprising violence, property crime, and attempted crime) and harassment (comprising threats, objects thrown, and verbal abuse). In each equation, the dependent variable was dichotomized (ever experiencing that form of enacted stigma vs. never experiencing it). The independent variables were age, education, race and ethnicity (coded as non-Hispanic White vs. Hispanic or non-White), and sexual orientation (coded as gay male vs. other groups). In the equations for the combined categories of criminal victimization and harassment, the odds ratios (ORs) for sexual orientation were statistically significant, indicating gay men were significantly more likely to report experiencing both categories of enacted stigma, even when demographic differences are controlled. (For criminal victimization, OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.36–4.41; for harassment, OR = 2.10, CI = 1.23–3.60.) The same pattern was observed for all of the individual forms of enacted stigma except attempted crimes (for which none of the variables yielded a statistically significant OR).

917

Download more at Learnclax.com

A similar procedure was followed to assess whether lesbians’ and gay men’s greater likelihood of experiencing employment or housing discrimination was explained by group differences in age, education, and race. In this equation, sexual orientation was coded as homosexual versus bisexual. The OR for sexual orientation (3.29, CI = 1.58–6.85) was significant, indicating that the differences in discrimination were not due to demographic differences.

Felt Stigma

As shown in Table 2, substantial minorities of respondents expressed some degree of felt stigma. More than one third (34.6%) agreed (strongly or somewhat) that most people where they live think less of a sexual minority individual; 25.5% disagreed that most employers will hire qualified sexual minority individuals; and 40.6% agreed that most people would not want a sexual minority individual to care for their children. Overall, a majority of respondents (54.7%, CI = 47.1–62.1%) gave at least one response indicative of felt stigma. As indicated by the overlapping CIs in Table 2, there were few significant differences among the sexual orientation groups in their responses to the individual felt stigma items. The only exception is that gay men were significantly less likely than lesbians to perceive sexual stigma in hiring: 54.8% agreed that most employers in their area will hire a qualified sexual minority person, compared with 32.3% of lesbians who agreed with this statement.

Responses to the three statements were summed (with hiring question responses reversed) and divided by the number of items to create a felt stigma scale (α = .71, using unweighted data). Scores could range from 1 (low felt stigma) to 5 (high felt stigma). As shown in the first row of Table 2, gay men scored the lowest on the scale and lesbians the highest (Ms = 2.79 and 3.11, respectively), but differences among the sexual orientation groups were not statistically significant.

Association of Felt Stigma With Enacted Stigma

Felt stigma scores were higher among respondents who reported having experienced person or property crimes or attempted crimes based on their sexual orientation compared to those who had not (Ms = 3.2 vs. 2.8, respectively), those who had experienced verbal threats or harassment compared to those who had not (Ms = 3.0 vs. 2.8, respectively), and those who had experienced employment or housing discrimination compared to those who had not (Ms = 3.2 and 2.8, respectively). These differences were not statistically significant.

However, significant differences were observed on these variables within some sexual orientation groups. Lesbians who said they had experienced crimes or attempted crimes scored significantly higher on felt stigma compared with those who had not (Ms = 3.6 vs. 3.0, respectively). The difference was also significant among bisexual men (Ms = 3.6 vs. 2.6, respectively), but not gay men (Ms = 2.9 vs. 2.8) or bisexual women (Ms = 3.7 vs. 2.9). Felt stigma was significantly higher among lesbians who reported having experienced employment or housing discrimination (Ms = 3.7 vs. 3.0 among those who had not). The difference was also significant for bisexual men (Ms = 3.9 vs. 2.8), but not for gay men (Ms = 2.9 vs. 2.8) or bisexual women (Ms = 3.2 vs. 2.9).

Discussion

918

Download more at Learnclax.com

The present study yields the most reliable estimates to data of the prevalence of antigay victimization in the United States. The data indicate that approximately 20% of the U.S. sexual minority population has experienced a crime against person or property since age 18 based on their sexual orientation. With attempted crimes included, the proportion increases to roughly 25%. Harassment is considerably more widespread, with about half of sexual minority adults reporting verbal abuse at some time in their adult life as a consequence of their sexual orientation. More than 1 sexual minority adult in 10 has experienced housing or employment discrimination because of her or his sexual orientation.

The likelihood of experiencing victimization clearly is not uniform among sexual minorities. Gay men are at the greatest risk for person and property crimes. Approximately 38% of gay men in the present sample reported they had experienced one or both types of criminal victimization. Gay men also were more likely than lesbians and bisexuals to be harassed because of their sexual orientation. This pattern is consistent with previous findings that sexual minority men are at greater risk for antigay victimization than are sexual minority women (D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Herek et al., 1999). Several factors may account for this greater risk. Men are more likely than women to be victims of violent crime in general, especially crimes committed by strangers (Catalano & Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Most such crimes are perpetrated by heterosexually identified men, who tend to hold more hostile attitudes toward sexual minority males than toward sexual minority females (Herek, 2002a, 2002b). In addition, gay men may be more visible targets than sexual minority women and bisexual men because, for example, they may be more likely to frequent gay-oriented venues and the public spaces around them.

Lesbians and gay men were significantly more likely than bisexuals to report discrimination based on their sexual orientation. This pattern probably cannot be attributed to attitudinal differences among the agents of discrimination because heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexuals tend to be somewhat more negative than their attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Herek, 2002b). Instead, homosexual adults’ greater visibility probably makes them more vulnerable to discrimination in workplace and housing settings, compared with bisexuals. Additional data collected in the present study suggest that bisexual men and women are less likely than gay men and lesbians to disclose their sexual orientation to others in a variety of social contexts, including the workplace. In addition, to the extent that homosexual adults are more likely than bisexuals to cohabit with a same-sex partner (because many coupled bisexuals have a different-sex partner), the former are probably more readily labeled as gay by landlords and realtors and thus are more subject to discrimination.

As noted above, comparisons of prevalence estimates across previous studies are problematic because of differences in sampling strategies, question wording, time frames, and data-reporting conventions. Estimates of lifetime victimization from the present data are higher than those reported in some published studies (e.g., D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Herek et al., 1999) but lower than in others (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). The difference between the current study and the KFF survey may be due to the fact that the latter was conducted only with urban residents, who are more likely than nonurban residents to experience crime of all sorts (Herek & Sims, 2007). Differences between the present study and those conducted by D’Augelli and Grossman (2001) and Herek et al. (1999) may result from the latter’s use of convenience samples whose representativeness cannot be determined; the current data probably provide a more accurate estimate of the

919

Download more at Learnclax.com

extent of victimization experiences within the sexual minority population.

The current study’s estimates of the extent of felt stigma in the sexual minority population are another unique contribution. About 55% of respondents manifested some degree of felt stigma. It tended to be higher among respondents who had experienced enactments of stigma. For criminal victimization and employment discrimination, this pattern was mainly due to significant differences among lesbians and bisexual men who had experienced enacted stigma versus those who had not. Because the data reported here are retrospective and cross-sectional, the causal and temporal direction of these relationships, if any, cannot be determined. Experiencing enacted stigma is likely to increase an individual’s subjective sense of vulnerability related to her and his sexual orientation (Herek et al., 1999), which could result in a positive correlation between enacted and felt stigma. However, other explanations for the pattern are also plausible. For example, persons with high levels of felt stigma may have a heightened sensitivity to the occurrence of stigma enactments and consequently may be more likely than others to attribute ambiguous incidents to stigma. Previous research on the cognitive strategies used by sexual minority crime victims for assessing their attackers’ motives, however, suggests that relatively unambiguous cues (e.g., antigay verbal abuse) often accompany hate crimes based on sexual orientation (Herek, Cogan, & Gillis, 2002).

Even in the absence of additional surveys with probability samples, however, the present data have important policy implications. They demonstrate that the experience of violence and property crime is disturbingly widespread among sexual minority adults, especially gay men. Thus, they highlight the ongoing need for criminal justice programs to prevent and deter such crimes, and the need for victim services that will help to alleviate the physical, economic, social, and psychological consequences of such crimes (e.g., Herek et al., 1999; Herek & Sims, 2007).

In addition, the psychological toll of antigay hate crimes and harassment should be considered by mental health professionals and by researchers conducting studies of psychological distress and well-being in this population. Some research, for example, suggests that individuals who have engaged in homosexual behavior may be at greater risk than exclusively heterosexual adults for some forms of psychological distress (Herek & Garnets, 2007). Most studies, however, have not assessed how experiences of victimization and harassment might explain this pattern (for an exception, see Mays & Cochran, 2001). Given the association between antigay victimization and heightened psychological distress (Herek et al., 1999) and the present study’s finding that such victimization has been experienced by roughly one in eight lesbians and bisexuals, and nearly 4 gay men in 10, it seems likely that the associations observed in past research between sexual orientation and psychological problems are attributable, at least in part, to such victimization. Moreover, the fact that more than half of the respondents in the present study experienced some degree of felt stigma related to their sexual orientation further highlights the extent to which sexual minorities are subjected to stressors that heterosexuals do not experience (e.g., Meyer, 2003).

Ever since the Hate Crimes Statistic Act became law in 1990, marking the federal government’s first official recognition of the problem of violence and crime against people because of their sexual orientation, researchers have attempted to document the extent and prevalence of antigay victimization. The present study

920

Download more at Learnclax.com

makes an important contribution to this effort. Such data can assist law enforcement agencies, service providers, and sexual minority communities in alleviating and preventing the problems created by sexual stigma.

Discussion Questions

1. Describe the person who is most at risk of experiencing stigma-related victimization based on the findings presented in this article. Why do think this is the case?

2. Why do lesbians and bisexual men who have experienced crimes have higher levels of felt stigma compared with those who have not experienced crimes?

3. Do you think the effects of felt stigma are similar to the effects of enacted stigma? Why or why not? 4. How can these findings be used to impact policy or programs to reduce victimization?

References Berrill, K. (1992). Antigay violence and victimization in the United States: An overview. In G. Herek & K.

Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 19–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Catalano, S., & Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Criminal victimization, 2004. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv04.htm

D’Augelli, A., & Grossman, A. (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1008–1027.

D’Augelli, A., Grossman, A., & Starks, M. (2006). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and PTSD among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1462–1482.

Diaz, R., Ayala, G., Bein, E., Henne, J., & Marin, B. (2001). The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men: Findings from 3 U.S. cities. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 927–932.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Hate crime statistics 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Garnets, L., Herek, G., & Levy, B. (1990). Violence and victimization of lesbians and gay men: Mental health consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 366–383.

Harlow, C. (2005). Hate crimes reported by victims and police. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

921

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv04.htm

Justice. Retrieved July 4, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf

Herek, G. (2002a). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40–66.

Herek, G. (2002b). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264–274.

Herek, G. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6–24.

Herek, G. M. (2008). Understanding sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In D. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay and bisexual identities: The 54th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. New York: Springer.

Herek, G., & Berrill, K. (1990). Anti-gay violence and mental health: Setting an agenda for research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 414–423.

Herek, G., Chopp, R., & Strohl, D. (2007). Sexual stigma: Putting sexual minority health issues in context. In I. Meyer & M. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities: Public health perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations (pp. 171–208). New York: Springer.

Herek, G., Cogan, J., & Gillis, J. (2002). Victim experience in hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 319–339.

Herek, G., & Garnets, L. (2007). Sexual orientation and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 353–375.

Herek, G., Gillis, J., & Cogan, J. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945–951.

Herek, G., & Sims, C. (2007). Sexual orientation and violent victimization: Hate crimes and intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual males in the United States. In R. J. Wolitski, R. Stall, & R. O. Valdiserri (Eds.), Unequal opportunity: Health disparities among gay and bisexual men in the United States (pp. 35–71). New York: Oxford University Press.

922

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf

Huebner, D., Rebchook, G., & Kegeles, S. (2004). Experiences of harassment, discrimination, and physical violence among young gay and bisexual men. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1200–1203.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). Inside-out: A report on the experiences of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in America and the public’s view on issues and politics related to sexual orientation. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Retrieved November 14, 2001, from http://www.kff.org

Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869–1876.

McDevitt, J., Balboni, J., Garcia, L., & Gu, J. (2001). Consequences for victims: A comparison of bias- and non-bias-motivated assaults. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 697–713.

Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.

Mills, T., Paul, J., Stall, R., Pollack, L., Canchola, J., Chang, Y., Moskowitz, J., & Catania, J. (2004). Distress and depression in men who have sex with men: The urban men’s health study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 278–285.

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. (2005). Anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender violence in 2004. New York: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.ncavp.org/

Pilkington, N. W., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 34–56.

Results of poll. (1989, June 6). San Francisco Examiner, p. A-19.

Scambler, G., & Hopkins, A. (1986). Being epileptic: Coming to terms with stigma. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8, 26–43.

923

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.kff.org

http://www.ncavp.org/

Reading /// 28

Estimates of sex trafficking are difficult to generate because many cases go undetected. To better facilitate arrest of offenders and to get victims the services they need, cases need to be identified. Thus, it is imperative that the challenges to identifying trafficking are understood. Also important to understand are the reasons why prosecution is difficult, even when cases do come to the attention of authorities. Andrea J. Nichols and Erin C. Heil (2014) interviewed 12 key individuals and held two focus groups of those working in various positions connected to sex trafficking to glean in-depth information about sex trafficking in the Midwest United States.

Challenges to Identifying and Prosecuting Sex Trafficking Cases in the Midwest United States

Andrea J. Nichols and Erin C. Heil

SOURCE: Nichols, A. J., & Heil, E. C. (2014). Challenges to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases in the Midwest United States. Feminist Criminology, 1–29.

Introduction

The criminal justice system and social service organizations have increased attention to and resources allocated toward sex trafficking in the United States. These relatively new advancements warrant further understandings of the dynamics that benefit and challenge law enforcement, victim services, and prosecution to better identify, investigate, and prosecute sex trafficking cases and to better serve survivors. Yet, such understandings are limited in the current academic discourse. Furthermore, the extant literature is unclear about how limitations to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking impact perceptions of prevalence. Prevalence arguments are largely based upon data taken from police reports, victims, victim services, and prosecuted cases of sex trafficking and are wrought with operational, definitional, and methodological challenges (Brennan, 2005; Clawson, Layne, & Small, 2006; Farrell et al., 2012; Goodey, 2008; Rand, 2009; Weitzer, 2010). Moreover, such arguments are often removed from issues specifically impacting prosecution. In fact, very few studies emphasize challenges to prosecuting sex trafficking cases and the consequent impact on the number of prosecuted cases (Clawson, Dutch, Lopez, & Tiapula, 2008; Farrell et al., 2012; Reid, 2010). In addition, the extant literature in the United States largely examines dynamics in southern/Border

States;1 research explicitly investigating sex trafficking in Midwestern cities is limited (Raphael, Reichert, & Powers, 2010; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Smith, Vardaman, & Snow, 2009; Williamson & Prior, 2009; J. Wilson & Dalton, 2008). The current study works to expand the knowledge base on sex trafficking by uncovering the dynamics that are central to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases through inductive analysis of 12 in-depth interviews and two focus groups with community-based response members in the justice system and social services in St. Louis, Missouri. The purpose of this study is to examine the potential problems associated with identification of sex trafficking victims and the challenges to prosecution specific to a Midwestern city in the United States.

Sex Trafficking Prevalence and Victim Identification

As awareness of the existence of sex trafficking in the United States has increased, so has research in the field.

924

Download more at Learnclax.com

Central to this discussion are the issues of victim identification and the general prevalence of trafficking (Busch-Armendariz, Nsonwu, Cook Heffron, Garza, & Hernandez, 2009; Farrell et al., 2012; Goodey, 2008; Hepburn & Simon, 2010; Hopper, 2004; Kotrla, 2010; Rand, 2009; Reid, 2010; Stransky & Finkelhor, 2008; Troshynski & Blank, 2008; Weitzer, 2010). The extant trafficking literature in the United States reports wide variations in trafficking estimates, which are often reflective of a single-source data collection bias. For example, the Department of Justice reported that “federally funded task forces opened 2,515 suspected incidents of human trafficking for investigation between January 2008 and June 2010,” 80% of which were identified as sex trafficking cases (Banks & Kyckelhahn, 2011, p. 1). This averages to approximately 1,000 federally investigated incidents per year. Similarly, Kyckelhahn, Beck, and Cohen (2009) found in the Human Trafficking Reporting System that 1,020 alleged incidents of sex trafficking took place between 2007 and 2008 in the United States. Yet, the Department of Justice estimates that since 2001, there have been approximately 100,000 to 150,000 victims of sex trafficking in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). Moreover, the advocacy-based organization, Tolerance Equality Awareness Movement (2011), cites that since the beginning of the 21st century, nearly a million women and children have been sex-trafficked into the United States. Thus, there is some discrepancy in estimates of prevalence on a national level (Banks & Kyckelhahn, 2011; Clawson, Layne, & Small, 2006; Farrell et al., 2012; Kyckelhahn et al., 2009; Rand, 2009; U.S. Department of Justice, 2006; Weitzer, 2010).

Beyond the national estimates, local advocates and law enforcement generate their own statistics to either verify or negate the existence of trafficking in their own communities. For example, in St. Louis, the city examined in this article, the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (2011) recorded 64 hotline calls of which only 24, based on legal indicators, were referenced as potential trafficking situations. Between 2006 and 2011, there were just 24 individuals identified and confirmed by the legal system as victims of human trafficking in St. Louis, yet other research ranks St. Louis as number 18 on the list of “the most intense [top 20] trafficking jurisdictions in the country” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006, p. 35). Thus, there is no real consensus as to the prevalence of sex trafficking in the United States, let alone in a single community such as St. Louis. The literature reveals that the variation in estimates is expected due to the methodological challenges related to conducting research on such a vulnerable and hidden population (Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Farrell et al., 2012; Goodey, 2008; Kotrla, 2010; Rand, 2009; Reid, 2010; Stransky & Finkelhor, 2008; Troshynski & Blank, 2008). Among the arguments indicating why there exists an inability to find “truth” in the numbers, the following themes emerge: police identification and victim reporting issues, trafficking techniques, and prosecutorial challenges. These themes are detailed below.

Challenges to Identification

Police Identification and Victim Reporting

Because police are many times the first-responders to a trafficking situation, many researchers use police reports to generate numbers of human trafficking in a particular community. However, as Tyldum and Brunovskis (2005) argue, these data should be approached with caution:

925

Download more at Learnclax.com

Cases that are registered by law enforcement are different from all other cases of trafficking because they actually were discovered, and taken seriously by the police. The cases identified are likely to be influenced by … the ability of police and law enforcement agents to recognize trafficking when confronted with it. (Tyldum & Brunovskis, 2005, p. 24)

Yet, researchers have found that police may be limited in their knowledge of trafficking, as well as their ability to identify and respond to it (Tyldum & Brunovskis, 2005). For example, D. Wilson, Walsh, and Kleuber (2006) found in 163 police departments across the United States that only 12% of police officers believed trafficking was a significant issue in their departments, 92% had not received any training in human trafficking, and 98% did not have specific policies in place to address trafficking. Similarly, Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahy (2008) found that nearly three quarters of local, state, and national law enforcement believed trafficking was non-existent or rare in their jurisdictions. Ostensibly, police recognition of trafficking is important in addressing the problem. However, the justice system largely places responsibility for police identification and reporting of trafficking on the victims themselves (Ugarte, Zarate, & Farley, 2003).

Yet, victims may not want to report their victimization and experiences to police—or to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—for a variety of reasons (Adams, 2011). In Florida, Heil (2012) observed that victims experienced physical and psychological abuses from their traffickers, which affected their willingness to report. Reid (2010) found in a southern U.S. city that adolescent trafficking victims did not understand their victimization, maintained “trauma-bonds” with their traffickers, held fear of the trafficker, and thus did not wish to report it. Researchers in Texas and Florida found fear of deportation deterred victims from disclosing to police (Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Heil, 2012). In general, victims are reluctant to seek assistance, possibly because they believe “that social service providers will not take their claims seriously, that the police will charge them for some offense, or that the authorities are unable to protect them from traffickers’ reprisals” (Hodge, 2008, p. 144). As Tyldum and Brunovskis (2005) noted, “The probability of being identified by the police will depend on how the victims themselves behave in contact with representatives of law enforcement” (p. 25). Issues such as police training in identifying trafficking and victims’ assessment of the potential for negative ramifications from traffickers and law enforcement must be taken into serious consideration when relying on police data to generate statistics on human trafficking, as these data only reflect reported cases. Furthermore, the way trafficking is defined impacts police reporting and identification as well.

Defining Trafficking and Misreporting

Another related challenge identified in the criminological research is the way sex trafficking is defined (Hughes, Chon, & Ellerman, 2007; Rand, 2009; Raphael et al., 2010; Reid, 2010). According to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, a severe form of trafficking is defined as

a commercial sex act induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. (TVPA, Section 103, 8a and b)

926

Download more at Learnclax.com

This definition is clear in the exploitative and victimizing nature of trafficking (see Farrell et al., 2012). However, there are some definitional challenges associated with TVPA in the way it is operationalized and translated into practice. For example, some researchers, as well as law enforcement, read this definition as victims having the status of “illegal immigrant,” or conflate sex trafficking with smuggling, migration, or otherwise crossing borders (Kara, 2010; Outshoorn, 2005; Weitzer, 2010). In such cases, only international victims are counted as victims of sex trafficking. This operationalization of trafficking completely ignores the number of domestic victims, such as runaways, who are trafficked throughout the United States without crossing international borders (Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004). Moreover, Farrell et al. (2012) delineated, “State anti-trafficking laws differ widely in both the definition of what actions constitute a human trafficking crime and the focus of the state response to the problem.” Furthermore, J. Wilson and Dalton (2008) found variations in the ways police defined and responded to sex trafficking from city to city, even within the same state.

As a result of inconsistent definitions of sex trafficking, law enforcement may also misidentify victims as criminals (Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004; Rand, 2009; Raphael et al., 2010). As noted by Hopper (2004), many trafficking cases are handled as crimes of human smuggling, causing victims to be misidentified as illegal immigrants. This in turn may lead to the deportation of victims before the trafficking situation has been identified (Hepburn & Simon, 2010). Furthermore, Raphael et al. (2010) found domestic trafficking victims were misidentified as prostitutes in Chicago. Similarly, Heil (2012) observed that trafficking victims over the age of 18 were misidentified by police as prostitutes in Florida. As their activities were criminalized under the charge of prostitution, and because of the incorrect assumption of their voluntary engagement in sex work, their victimization was “not deemed worthy of federal prosecution” as human trafficking cases (Heil, 2012, p. 57). Thus, the data reported by law enforcement are often under the auspices of misidentification and mislabeling, which leads to underrepresentation in victim estimates (Farrell et al., 2012; Heil, 2012; Rand, 2009; Raphael et al., 2010). Because of the issues associated with data collected by law enforcement, researchers that use these data to analyze the prevalence of sex trafficking are likely to misrepresent the entire spectrum of trafficking in the observed community.

Trafficking Techniques

Aside from the issues with police recognition, investigation, and reporting, it is important to note that traffickers’ techniques work to prevent detection and contact with police and social service providers in the first place, interfering with initial identification (Brennan, 2005; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Tyldum & Brunovskis, 2005). Traffickers use techniques to keep their victims and activities relatively hidden, considering trafficking involves illegal activity, and large profit margins are at stake (Ekberg, 2004; Farrell et al., 2012; Heil & Nichols, 2013; Kotrla, 2010). For example, Davis (2006) stated that traffickers keep their victims constantly mobile to prevent getting caught. Other researchers have also noted the use of interstate circuits to move victims from city to city to prevent identification (Smith et al., 2009; Williamson & Prior, 2009). Furthermore, researchers have found traffickers’ use of the Internet contributes to surreptitious sex trafficking solicitation (Farrell et al., 2012; Kotrla, 2010; Kunze, 2010; Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2009). Ugarte et al. (2003) found sex trafficking covertly occurred in massage parlors, strip clubs, escort agencies, in cars or motels,

927

Download more at Learnclax.com

or in the field tents of migrant workers. Similarly, Heil (2012) found trafficked prostitution taking place in hidden brothels, make-shift bars, and the basements of the wealthy elite throughout southern Florida. Busch- Armendariz et al. (2009) indicated that in Texas, traffickers used “hidden venues” such as spas and clubs. Furthermore, Farrell et al. (2012) noted trafficking occurred primarily in residences and also through use of the Internet. When both prostitution and solicitation occur indoors as opposed to in the street, or through relatively hidden avenues and techniques, it is more difficult to identify. Moreover, traffickers look for victims who appear vulnerable or homeless, or runaways who are less likely to be looked for (Albanese, 2007; Busch- Armendariz et al., 2009; Kotrla, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). Prior research also finds traffickers use coercion to keep their victims hidden. For example, Busch-Armendariz et al. (2009) found that in Texas, traffickers used threats of physical violence to victims and their families, as well as psychological coercion associated with the constant fear of deportation. Similarly, in Florida, Heil (2012) also found traffickers’ threats to family members prevented victims from seeking or accepting assistance or reporting their traffickers. Moreover, traffickers may manipulate victims through promises of love and security, where victims themselves keep their activities hidden due to “trauma-bonds” or love for their traffickers, who may have initially posed as boyfriends (Lloyd, 2012; Smith et al., 2009). In sum, trafficking operations work in ways that prevent victims from being identified as trafficking victims.

Challenges to Prosecution

An emerging body of research also reveals challenges specifically related to federal prosecution that may potentially skew estimates of sex trafficking (Farrell et al., 2012; Reid, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). These challenges primarily include local investigation error, time constraints, lack of victim-centered protocols and resources, and lack of organizational support. For example, Farrell et al. (2012) found that

a common complaint stated by federal prosecutors is that they are not receiving “good” referrals, whether it be because local law enforcement is referring cases with weak evidence and few witnesses … or because local law enforcement is botching the initial investigation which leaves prosecutors little evidence to work with. (p. 200)

If federal prosecutors are unable to assist local police with the collection of evidence at the initial stage of the investigation, crucial material could be missed, thereby forcing prosecutors to not pursue the case.

In addition, even if the case has enough evidence to be brought forth for prosecution, it may take up to 2 years to prosecute the case. There exists a real challenge in not only maintaining victim participation throughout the entire prosecution process but also preserving victims’ credibility, as their testimony may change (Farrell et al., 2012; Reid, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). Farrell et al. (2012) found that “without victim and witness cooperation and testimony, almost all of the federal prosecutors interviewed stated that they would be unable to continue with the case” (p. 202). Due to the time constraints associated with a trafficking case, the victim may become frustrated with the process or may simply disappear. Moreover, Hepburn and Simon (2010) found U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at times deported victims, causing problems both for the

928

Download more at Learnclax.com

victims who were wrongly deported, and for prosecution due to loss of witnesses and victim testimony. Without a victim or victim testimony, prosecutors have a much more difficult task in persuading a jury that trafficking has occurred (Farrell et al., 2012; Reid, 2010).

Researchers have further emphasized the importance of survivor-centered processes involved in prosecution. For example, Smith et al. (2009) stated,

Traumatized children … typically require a lengthy amount of time before they will disclose the facts of their victimization and only if approached with advanced interview techniques to help them with this disclosure. For these reasons, it is critical in cases of domestic minor sex trafficking that law enforcement pursue innovative or alternative investigation to corroborate the victim’s allegations. Currently, law enforcement agencies typically are not trained in alternative investigative approaches and/or are not provided with adequate resources to develop and initiate these alternative techniques. (p. vi)

Moreover, Smith et al. (2009) noted, “Prosecution of the traffickers is too frequently based solely on the victim’s cooperation and testimony. This approach places the burden on the victim rather than on the investigators.” Furthermore, Reid (2010) noted victims were often not willing to testify against their traffickers, largely due to lack of victim protection and victim-centered processes. Similarly, Smith et al. (2009) indicated the importance of victim services; they found such services were mutually beneficial to prosecution and victims, as witnesses were more likely to be available and to cooperate, and gain the services that they needed.

Beyond weak evidence and victim cooperation over time, federal prosecutors have noted that within the federal law, there is pressure to prove all three elements of force, fraud, and coercion, even though the law specifically states that only one of the three elements is needed for prosecution. Farrell et al. (2012) found that “prosecutors generally realize that the law does not actually require all three elements, but … they want to have all three elements to ensure that the case isn’t overturned on appeal” (p. 204). If all three elements are present, there is clear evidence of criminal intent, which makes for a more promising outlook for a successful prosecution. Without all three elements clearly represented, many prosecutors choose not to pursue the case (Farrell et al., 2012). Given the challenges presented specifically to federal prosecutors, data derived from federal prosecutions, as well as use of prosecution rates to measure prevalence, must be met with caution, for potential trafficking cases may be dropped due to lack of evidence or witness cooperation, or loss of key witnesses. Very few studies explicitly examine prosecution, thus the knowledge base is limited in this area (Farrell et al., 2012; Hepburn & Simon, 2010; Reid, 2010; Smith et al., 2009).

Overall, when discussing the prevalence of sex trafficking on a national scale or at the local level, researchers must be cautious in relying on a single source of information. Police data are dependent on training, charging decisions, and victims’ appraisal of the negative consequences associated with reporting to or cooperating with law enforcement. Furthermore, traffickers work to keep victims hidden, impeding initial identification. Estimating prevalence based upon prosecuted cases is problematic because of the challenges associated with prosecution and dropped cases.

929

Download more at Learnclax.com

The current study works to address two knowledge gaps in the extant research. First, in addition to the issues with victim reporting, police misreporting, or failing to identify trafficking, challenges to prosecution are also important as they impact prosecution rates and consequent perceptions of sex trafficking prevalence. Yet, the research examining challenges to prosecution outside of initial identification are quite limited in the current academic discourse (Farrell et al., 2012; Goodey, 2008; Reid, 2010). Thus, researching challenges to prosecution provides an opportunity to further examine barriers that may impact the numbers of prosecuted sex trafficking cases. Research uncovering techniques assisting prosecution endeavors are also lacking (Farrell et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2009). Consequently, examining dynamics that support successful prosecution offer an important contribution as well. Second, there is also a geographic gap in the literature, as the extant research largely involves southern and/or U.S. Border States, particularly Texas and Florida, or represents trafficking outside of the United States (Albanese, 2007; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Clawson, Dutch, & Cummings, 2006; Ekberg, 2004; Goodey, 2008; Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004; Hughes et al., 2007; Kennedy, Klein, Bristowe, Cooper, & Yuille, 2007; Liu, 2012; Reid, 2010; Schauer & Wheaton, 2006; Smith, 2008; Troshynski & Blank, 2008; Ugarte et al., 2003). The literature specifically examining trafficking in the Midwest United States is limited, and it is unclear whether the same dynamics impacting identification and reporting found in the extant research apply in Midwestern cities (Raphael et al., 2010; Williamson & Prior, 2009; J. Wilson & Dalton, 2008). For example, Raphael et al. (2010) emphasized the role of traffickers’ coercion of women and girls in Chicago. J. Wilson and Dalton (2008) focused on minor victims’ psychological trauma and need for social services in Ohio. Williamson and Prior (2009) highlighted minor victims’ experiences with violence, HIV, substance abuse, home and street life, and experiences with social systems in Ohio. Thus, the extant research that does examine areas in the Midwest is limited in its focus specifically on identification and prosecution of sex trafficking cases, as it emphasizes other important issues. This article examines challenges related to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases in a Midwestern city to expand the limited body of work examining the Midwest United States.

Method

The gaps in the extant literature informed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What barriers to identification do anti-trafficking stakeholders report? Research Question 2: What challenges to prosecution do anti-trafficking stakeholders report?

The first research question works to replicate prior studies, to see if findings in a Midwestern city are similar to findings that largely represent cities in southern/U.S. Border States. The second research question works to address a gap in the research literature, as the current body of knowledge is limited in examining barriers to prosecution.

Sample

St. Louis was chosen as a study site because it has been identified as a likely spot for trafficking and transport (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). The city is susceptible to trafficking based on a number of risk factors, including a large number of runaways, a growing immigrant population, a thriving sex trade industry, and

930

Download more at Learnclax.com

geographic location. First, St. Louis houses an international airport, and is at the center of major cross country interstates, making the transportation and subsequent disappearance of victims less complicated for traffickers (The Covering House, 2013). Furthermore, St. Louis has also been identified as the top city in the nation for strip clubs per-capita; strip clubs have been found to be an underground venue for trafficking (Proud, 2013). In addition, St. Louis is one of relatively few cities, 42 in all, with an anti-trafficking task force and local coalition composed of various community partners in the justice system and social services (Moossy, 2009). This study draws from in-depth interviews and two focus groups with 12 total participants, including a federal prosecutor (n = 1), police (n = 3), legal services attorneys and advocates (n = 5), and social service providers (n = 3). The sample was derived from a small member-list of anti-trafficking organizations in St. Louis in 2011. In total, representatives from five organizations took part in the study, including the St. Louis Police Department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Covering House, the International Institute, and Legal Services of Eastern Missouri. One organization declined participation, as their program was developing and not operational at the time of this study. Another organization was not chosen for participation, as the participants largely emphasized community awareness and did not work directly with trafficking victims or cases. Consequently, the sample size was small (N = 12), as there were relatively few individuals in St. Louis who were identified as directly working with trafficking cases or victims. Individuals were chosen for the sample because of their direct and in-depth involvement with trafficking victims and cases. The federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office was the prosecutor for the Eastern District of Missouri. The respondents from the police department included members of the anti-trafficking task force—a lieutenant, sergeant, and assistant director of the Division on Sex Crimes. The legal services attorneys and advocates who worked with trafficking cases all worked at the same organization to provide legal services to victims, and were included in the sample because of their direct involvement with victims. Last, members of the non-profit victim service organizations, the Covering House, and the International Institute, were asked to participate in this study due to their work with survivors of sex trafficking regardless of whether the cases received legal or prosecutorial attention. These were the only social service organizations in St. Louis that worked explicitly with sex trafficking victims, and they were chosen specifically for that reason. Participants were recruited by contacting the organizations’ directors, and individually contacting each potential respondent.

Data Collection

Face-to-face interviews and focus groups were conducted with 12 subjects at various times over a 3-month period. Interviews and focus groups took place either at respondents’ offices or at a convenient coffee shop. Each interview lasted 45 min to 1 hr. The interviews were conducted in a conversational manner, letting the subject steer the discussion to what she or he found problematic in identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking in St. Louis. An interview guide was developed based upon themes found in the first few interviews, but other themes and threads were allowed to be addressed within the interviews. The recorded interviews were transcribed word-for-word, and were re-checked for accuracy by two members of the research team.

Data Analysis

Inductive analysis of the transcribed interviews involved both selective coding based upon the research design and open coding (Adler & Adler, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Open coding first involved low-inference

931

Download more at Learnclax.com

labeling of phenomena found in the transcripts by hand. Then recurring patterns and themes found through the initial coding process were identified and labeled as core categories. The selective coding of the data reflected the research questions, centering on challenges to identification and prosecution, which were also labeled as core categories. Following initial selective and open coding of the transcripts, separate data files of merged narrative accounts for each core category were created (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The merged narrative accounts of core categories were then further coded to identify themes within the core categories. Taxonomic analysis was then used to create subcategories of themes within the core categories, reflecting “types” of challenges with identification, and “types” of challenges to prosecution (Spradley, 1980). The coding was re-checked by the two members of the research team to establish reliability. In the current article, the core categories and their associated themes specifically related to identification and prosecution are examined.

Results

Challenges to Identification

Online solicitation.

The research findings indicated that a number of trafficking cases brought forward for prosecution involved online solicitation. Social service providers also noted online solicitation occurred in the cases they worked with that did not involve prosecution. A majority of respondents delineated that traffickers used commonly visited websites with classified ads to advertise for prostitution. In a typical example, a social service provider described the way a victim she worked with was trafficked using the Internet:

The mother that I just had the phone call from, her daughter was 13 years old. And I think it was like it was the end of last year, December, I got a call from her, and her daughter had been trafficked for about 9 months up and down [Interstate] 270. And the woman who was trafficking her was using the Backpage to sell her …

Respondents further elaborated on the ways in which traffickers embedded messages in their advertisements. While they did not usually directly advertise an exchange of sex for money, traffickers used language stating that the women and girls pictured in the advertisements wanted to have sex, and used codes for the expected payment of sexual services. Moreover, respondents indicated use of specialized codes specifically for underage girls. For example, a social services provider stated,

And there are certain code things that they put in those things like “young” “new” “fresh to the scene” “cheerleader” “princess” they use kind of these younger terms as code. And then they also price it out. They won’t say 80 dollars, they’ll say 80 hugs, 80 stars, 80 hearts—and that’s the code.

In addition to social service providers’ discussions of Internet solicitation, the federal prosecutor who participated in the current study also described traffickers’ use of the Internet. As an example of entrée into

932

Download more at Learnclax.com

online solicitation, a federal prosecutor delineated that in a recently prosecuted case of domestic trafficking,

the trafficker found a victim in vulnerable circumstances, and she shortly became a trafficking victim:

In this instance, there was not much evidence of physical violence, but certainly other forms of manipulation and coercion knowing that our victim was pretty much on the street in pajamas when they picked her up. Invited her back to their house, and within a few days they had put her on the internet and advertised her services for prostitution. They ended up here in St. Louis because they ran a circuit between Minneapolis and lots of other cities in the Midwest, and St. Louis is a common destination on the circuit—and through a bunch of other things that I really can’t get into—we ended up catching them here.

Respondents in the current study indicated victims entered into a trafficking situation when pimps found them in vulnerable circumstances. The present study also found that following an initial encounter with a pimp, some victims were soon advertised on the Internet.

Interstate movement.

Moreover, as in two of the cases described above, the respondents also illustrated traffickers’ use of “circuits,” or interstate movement of trafficking victims. In many of the cases that were discussed in the interviews, traffickers not only used the Internet for solicitation but also moved victims from city to city to avoid getting caught or attracting too much attention. Thus, solicitations for the same victim would appear in multiple cities at different points in time, following what social service providers and the federal prosecutor described as “running the circuit.” Interstate movement was described as a concern by the police, the federal prosecutor, social service providers, legal advocates, and attorneys as it was seen as a challenge to identify, charge, and prosecute in such cases. For example, the federal prosecutor described another case involving such interstate movement of two underage girls, where the trafficker was caught by chance due to a traffic violation:

Another case that I had with another young male pimp, he was going from Illinois down to Memphis, and he had two girls with him—they were sisters. One sister had worked for him as a prostitute already in Illinois. The younger sister had not; it was not the younger sister’s intention to be involved. I don’t know, I think the defendant had a different idea, but they were headed down to Memphis and I believe that he would have done whatever he could to try to persuade them to stay with him for a long time. He got caught and that was a happenstance case. High speed chase on I-55, on a traffic stop, and it kind of just, “ohh what are you three doing? Ohh it’s plausible they’re just going on a road trip,” and then they do a little bit of checking, “ohh there’s a missing person’s report for the girls. I guess you’re not just going on a road trip!”

This indicates that, had it not been for a random stop for a traffic violation, the trafficker would not have been caught or prosecuted, and the survivors would not have been offered services. In such cases, where traffickers are constantly moving the victims, it is difficult to track them. Arrest and consequent charges while on the

933

Download more at Learnclax.com

road were described as rare by the research participants. In addition to interstate movement, keeping trafficking indoors was also a technique used to prevent identification of sex trafficking.

Keeping it inside.

The victims were moved from city to city to avoid getting caught, and according to the research participants, prostitution largely occurred in trucks, hotels, residences, or private parties. A social services provider described a training seminar she did for hotel workers, in which she showed the advertisements of girls, and backgrounds in the pictures suggesting hotel settings:

But I actually saved some print, some um, screen shots of some of these girls. I think—first of all, you can tell that the pictures were taken in hotels because the hotel bedspreads, you know that paisley polyester look, or that light that’s on the wall that kind of comes out like this, you know. You can see those things in there, which also made it very interesting when I presented that to the Millennium Hotel. I mean, they recognized it right away. They were like “yup, that’s hotels.” You know, they could see it.

Ostensibly, in hotels, the indoor nature of trafficking makes it difficult to find. In addition to hotel rooms, private parties and truck stops were also described as venues for sex trafficking in the Midwest. The relatively insular trucking community may also work to impede identification of trafficking victims. In some cases, women were also kept hidden through coercion and surveillance. A social service provider described such a case with a survivor she’d worked with, who was largely trafficked at private parties:

Where, there’s a whole other side of this, and this was [Sherri’s] world, where it was, for the lack of better word, had higher clientele. She would be taken to parties, you know. She wasn’t made to walk the streets. And someone said, “while you were there, why didn’t you tell someone or run?” Besides the whole fear and manipulation and that sort of thing, she said “who do you tell?” she said, “when the clients that are there are attorneys and judges.” And so I think there is a whole other part of this and people view those, I don’t think people view those girls as really victims because, you know, they are made to service a whole different group of men as opposed to … I mean, she wasn’t allowed to leave. She wasn’t allowed to, you know, make phone calls or have access. She was held up in a place, but it had alarms—it had high fences with alarms. And so, just because they look different, where they’re made to service people—these men are a higher clientele, so to speak—I think people view that as, well, maybe “you want to be there” kind of thing.

Thus, coercion was used in some cases to control victims’ ability to leave through the use of alarms, gated residences, and the inability to access phones. Furthermore, clientele with higher social status may be associated with labels that impede identification as well.

Barriers to detection, such as online solicitation, hidden venues, coercion, and interstate movement, may impact identification and reporting. Yet, the identification of sex trafficking is not just an effect of trafficker-

934

Download more at Learnclax.com

techniques; it is also impacted by challenges within the justice system.

Defining trafficking and misreporting.

The research findings in the current study indicated that limitations to police investigations led to misreporting. For example, a police lieutenant indicated that the way crimes are reported and investigated misrepresented trafficking; he stated, “and we talked about UCR, Uniform Crime Reporting, identification and all of that, as probably the biggest problem.” He described how a crime reported as a rape might actually occur in a trafficking case but was reported as a rape and not as trafficking. A police sergeant elaborated further,

We are at 80 something rapes just here in St. Louis alone [about 5 months into the year]. A lot of those sometimes involve prostitutes, and there may even be some human trafficking involved in those cases, but you see, where they stop at, is at that state of sexual assault, or forcible rape, or whatever the charge is on the sex side of it. It doesn’t elevate to that human trafficking if that’s not what we’re looking at, if the victim is not coming forward.

Thus, by the sergeant’s admission, cases involving rape and prostitution will not commonly be investigated further to see if trafficking is involved. This was pointed out as a challenge to reporting that was in need of change by both police and social service providers in the focus groups.

Importantly, legal advocates and attorneys in legal services in the current study also indicated that co- occurrence of sex trafficking with domestic violence appeared in cases they worked with. Yet, police did not identify or investigate sex trafficking that co-occurred with domestic violence, indicating a challenge to reporting and identifying sex trafficking in such circumstances. In fact, some police may not make a report at all, according to legal services attorneys and advocates who worked on such cases:

We’ve had that experience; I’ve had that experience with a client. They responded to a 9-1-1 call, but because she didn’t tell them to jail him, they didn’t even file a report. And all of that is contrary to their own policy—he should have been taken into custody, but they didn’t. And they should have filed an incident report and they didn’t.

This dynamic indicates problems with some police officers reporting an incident at all, which impedes identification, arrest, charges, and prosecution of both trafficking and domestic violence. The current study found issues with identification of trafficking among individual officers in such circumstances, who did not investigate further to identify the trafficking situation co-occurring with domestic violence. Social service providers, legal advocates, and attorneys stated co-occurring domestic violence and prostitution equated trafficking. Yet, both groups described some officers’ lack of investigation and reporting in this area.

Prosecutors, victim advocates, and attorneys described reporting issues—non-reporting or reporting as another crime, such as rape or prostitution, domestic violence, or illegal status as opposed to trafficking—as

935

Download more at Learnclax.com

challenges to identification. They worked with victims who were identified largely due to happenstance or victims who requested assistance. The research findings indicated that if these cases involving co-occurring crimes were investigated for trafficking and reported properly, the number of victims legal and social services worked with would be definitively higher.

Challenges to Prosecution

The leaky pipeline.

Even the cases that were identified and reported as trafficking cases were not always prosecuted as trafficking cases, resulting in what respondents called the “leaky pipeline.” First, a majority of respondents in various organizational contexts indicated that it may be easier for a prosecutor to win a case on a lesser offense. For example, a social service provider stated,

So, that’s the other thing in the data is, we’ve actually developed a new way of looking at the data. We call it the leaky pipe line. So you have coming into the pipe line, you have a number of people that are suspected as trafficking victims and then at the end, you have the ones that actually get characterized as a trafficking victim, but then some kind of fall out, you know, for various reasons … But prosecution, you know, the US Attorney’s office can say “I believe they’re a victim of human trafficking, but I’m gonna have a hard time proving that in court, but I can prove this charge over here, I’m gonna go this route.”

Consequently, this dynamic impacts the lowered appearance of prevalence in prosecuted cases of sex trafficking. Prosecutors sought a charge they felt confident they could win. In addition to prosecutors’ decision making, victims may also choose an easier route themselves. A legal advocate gave a common response:

Sometimes, particularly with foreign nationals, they’ve decided—that they may not try to go for the trafficking designation and instead go for a U-visa, which is they are a victim of crime. And frankly, sometimes that’s easier than going the trafficking route, but the benefits are not the same. So, there are all of these decisions that both victims and law enforcement will make.

Furthermore, in another case involving both domestic violence and sex trafficking, legal services attorneys and victim advocates indicated prosecution for crimes was at times superseded by ICE, where reports and prosecutions were not followed through with, as the trafficker was simply deported:

Or if the abuser is undocumented and they take him into custody and call ICE and just skip the whole procedure of prosecuting him for domestic violence. So then it’s hard to get a certificate or certification because they don’t have a report filed. No one ever prosecuted it. They just moved on.

Thus, the goals of ICE at times conflicted with the goals of victims and of prosecution efforts. Another challenge to prosecution in the justice system was victims’ willingness to come forward to report and to testify.

936

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victim testimony.

Due to trauma, fear, coercion, and other factors, respondents reported that the victims they worked with did not always want to initially cooperate with prosecution. Furthermore, victims may not be aware that they are trafficking victims because of such circumstances. Victims may be unaware of what trafficking is; for example, a social services provider stated, “Well and the other thing, the victim isn’t gonna say ‘I’m a victim of human trafficking’ … I mean they are not even going to know what that means.” Furthermore, a legal advocate elaborated,

The other thing we alert people to is that, it’s typical for a trafficking victim not to realize that they are a trafficking victim. Sometimes they just think they were stupid and so, they got themselves into this mess, or they should have known better, this kind of thing. They think they’re in rough circumstances, but they don’t even realize that it is criminal circumstances. And they also believe what their trafficker tells them about how the police will arrest them. That’s always a big feature.

Social service providers further indicated that as trust developed between legal representatives and survivors, the stories would come out, and a final report may look very different from an initial report. A typical response, provided by a legal services attorney, was

I think probably one of the biggest challenges is that many victims of human trafficking are simply not willing or comfortable opening up and telling their full story in the beginning…. Because we have been working with foreign nationals, of course there is the whole immigration legal assistance that comes into play, and one of the immigration legal representatives who works with us said that she had a client who, she worked on a t-visa applicant application for I think a year. And she said the difference in the first statement and the final statement—it was just so much more filled out, so much more complete, and so much clearer that it was trafficking. But when she first started talking to this woman, interviewing her, she just, not only didn’t feel safe telling this story, but when people are highly traumatized, their minds are all jumbled up. They can’t sort it out. It’s like this big sort of jigsaw puzzle that they don’t even in their own mind have a logical sequence of events, so they can’t tell that story. So, I think that that is one of the biggest challenges with the law and the service; we can’t serve them with our grant funds until they are declared a victim of human trafficking. But it may take a year to get all of the information, so that you know that they are. And in that process you can lose them.

The federal prosecutor indicated the same sentiment. For example, one respondent stated,

I would say … well first of all, these cases come in one of two ways. We’ve got potential traffickers or we’ve got potential victims. It’s very rare that anyone is going to be completely honest about what’s going on, at first. So from a legal standpoint it can become very difficult because we almost have to assume that most victims are going to lie to us at first, because they’re scared, or they’re here illegally and they’ve been

937

Download more at Learnclax.com

told they’re going to be deported, or something is going to happen to their family members somewhere else, or locally, or they think they’re going to be prosecuted as a co-conspirator. So there’s all kinds of

motivations for them to lie, and that, of course, creates legal issues for me down the line; because if I have to put somebody on the stand who has made a prior inconsistent statement, then that makes them ripe for fertile cross examination, “well you had a chance to tell your story, and you lied didn’t you?” A defense lawyer, you know, might say, and that’s perfectly legitimate cross-examination, but, I of course should be able to explain through my witnesses through an expert why they might not be honest.

A legal services advocate also stated the importance of law enforcement listening to victims, and giving them time to tell their story:

For the most part, I think all of our clients have been willing to talk to law enforcement. Some people are, they have to get to a point psychologically where they can even talk about their experience. So I think that is a challenge that we see, but once they are able to talk about their experience and feel safe talking about it, I think our experience has been that folks are more than willing to talk to law enforcement. And the challenge was trying to get law enforcement to hear them.

Another social service provider indicated the significance of when investigators were not sufficiently in tune with victims’ needs:

So if the investigation takes 18 months, we may get there, but if, I mean we’ve had some people, not anybody in this room, some investigators actually at the federal level. We had one investigator who no longer works trafficking cases, but this was somebody who, the moment there was an inconsistency, the statement was “oh well, they’re lying. It’s not human trafficking.” And we’re going- ewwwwegh … I don’t think so.

A police lieutenant stated the importance of educating investigators and officers about the reasons why survivors may change their stories, not tell their complete stories, add to their stories later, or offer inconsistent statements. Furthermore, in a focus group discussion, he indicated how important a survivor- defined approach is to identification and victim cooperation:

But the trick is the education of those the guys [police] to recognize it more from a victim-centered approach as opposed to “she’s just a prostitute.” If you want her to cooperate or that person to cooperate, then I mean, you have to start right from the beginning and do it—start right.

He elaborated on how the presence of an advocate, or the image of a plainclothes cop as opposed to a uniformed officer, can impact victims’ willingness to disclose:

938

Download more at Learnclax.com

Well, and its tagging on what you [social service provider] said about that perception of, and that’s why we are in plain clothes instead of that uniform thing hovering over her, you know, Big 250 lb. officer and “what’s your name? was it a man?” where if you sit back a little bit and have a friend there or an advocate sitting there, we just figured out over years and years and years, we get a little better response, little better approach and that kind of stuff.

Thus, victim testimony was sometimes a barrier or issue in prosecuting cases of trafficking. Police in this study, who were all in leadership positions, were working to address the issue through promoting a survivor- defined approach through police training and collaborating with advocates and social services.

Furthermore, the statute of limitations for trafficking cases was associated with issues of victim testimony. Time may pass between the time a survivor is able to escape and their willingness or ability to come forward to the justice system with information about trafficking. For example, a legal services attorney described a case in which the victim was impeded from coming forward until after the statute of limitations expired:

I guess one of the challenges we have seen with a couple of these cases is that the victims may not come —if the victims are not identified by law enforcement, they may not come to us for years after the trafficking happened. It makes it a lot more difficult. We had one person that we worked with who had been trafficked, again by a family member, and was able to escape the situation but got into a domestic violence situation. And then wasn’t able to get to us until she escaped the domestic violence. And even when she came to us, she was still dealing with that because she had children with the abuser. So it was tough, and we tried to work with FBI on it. They said that they couldn’t prosecute because so much time had passed and she had initially gone through another state and all of the evidence would have been in that state, and so much time had passed that they couldn’t gather evidence about it. They didn’t know where he was. I mean that’s a big problem, is that it takes time before the victim feels safe to talk about what happened to him or her.

Other legal services attorneys described the statute of limitations as a barrier to prosecuting sex trafficking cases as well. In Missouri, the statute of limitations for a non-minor is 10 years, although there is no statute of limitations if the trafficking occurred when the survivor was a minor.

Discussion

The findings in this Midwestern city both paralleled and differed from the extant research examining challenges to identification and prosecution of sex trafficking. First, the research findings related to identification—reporting issues, Internet solicitation, interstate movement, and hidden trafficking venues— generally paralleled findings largely representing cities in southern/U.S. Border States, indicating that such dynamics of trafficking are not only southern/border issues but are a part of trafficking enterprises in the Midwest United States as well (Albanese, 2007; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Clawson, Dutch, & Cummings, 2006; Heil, 2012; Reid, 2010; Schauer & Wheaton, 2006; Smith, 2008; Ugarte et al., 2003).

939

Download more at Learnclax.com

Moreover, the present study suggested that both Internet solicitation and interstate movement may be of particular concern warranting further examination in the Midwest, as the few studies that do examine the Midwest also find these dynamics (Smith et al., 2009; Williamson & Prior, 2009). Furthermore, the current study expanded upon the extant research related to police misreporting trafficking as co-occurring crimes emphasizing rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence as areas in need of further investigation. In addition, the findings expand upon settings trafficking may be identified in. Second, the findings supported and expanded the limited body of work examining prosecution in trafficking cases, including conflicting interests with ICE, challenges associated with victims’ testimony, the need for victim-centric approaches to prosecution, uncovering problems with the statute of limitations, and delineating challenges gathering sufficient evidence from local law enforcement. These themes are detailed in the following subsections.

Trafficking Techniques and Identification

Consistent with prior research, the current study found traffickers used indoor venues, Internet solicitation, interstate movement, and coercion to keep victims hidden (Albanese, 2007; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Ekberg, 2004; Kotrla, 2010). Findings in the present study indicated that victims were not taking part in street prostitution; rather, victims met with clients largely in indoor situations—in hotels, trucks, and private parties—and were often advertised on the Internet. As sex trafficking is not as openly conducted, it is difficult to identify. At the same time, police leadership noted that prostitution was not typically investigated for the possibility of sex trafficking, impeding potential identification of trafficking among street prostitutes as well. Thus, while indoor trafficking is difficult to identify because it is relatively hidden, trafficking occurring more openly, such as in street prostitution, may be unidentified due to lack of investigation and reporting. Further research is needed to examine sex trafficking co-occurring with prostitution in St. Louis and in other

Midwestern cities.2

Traffickers’ use of Internet advertisements as a means for soliciting clients was found in the present research. This parallels prior research finding use of the Internet as a trafficking tool (Ekberg, 2004; Farrell et al., 2012; Hodge, 2008; Hughes, 2000; Kotrla, 2010; Kunze, 2010; Smith, 2008). For example, Reid (2010) stated in the southern United States that trafficking occurred primarily indoors, facilitated by the Internet. Smith et al. (2009) found in examining 10 U.S. cities, that all of them evidenced trafficking on the Internet. Williamson and Prior (2009) also found that victims in Ohio were commonly advertised on the Internet. The results of the current study support such work, and contribute to the small but growing body of work on trafficking in the Midwest (Raphael et al., 2010; Williamson & Prior, 2009; J. Wilson & Dalton, 2008). As the current study and a study in Ohio show the Internet as a common means for trafficking, this suggests Internet solicitation may potentially be of particular concern in the Midwest.

Furthermore, the current study found interstate movement was used by traffickers throughout the Midwest to avoid identification. If sex trafficking victims are constantly being moved, it makes identification difficult. Williamson and Prior (2009) found use of interstate circuits in the Midwest as well. As the current study also found this trend, it adds to the growing literature in the technique of using interstate circuits, and suggests this technique may potentially reflect a pattern in the Midwest (Smith et al., 2009; Williamson & Prior,

940

Download more at Learnclax.com

2009). This could have implications for interstate and highway patrols in terms of training related to identification; more research is needed in this area.

While the extant academic literature finds truck stops, strip clubs, and make-shift brothels are venues for trafficking, such research does not emphasize the role of hotels or private parties in concealing trafficking. The available literature in this area largely comes from practitioners, local officials, and media reports. For example, Aslanian (2013) stated, “According to the Minneapolis police, all but one of the child sex trafficking cases charged in Minneapolis in 2012 involved the use of hotels, and those hotels helped provide evidence for conviction.” Furthermore, the organization End Child Prostitution and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes emphasizes the role of hotels in the sex trafficking of children, and conducts trainings for hotels to identify potential trafficking situations (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes [ECPAT], 2013). Research indicating private parties as sites for sex trafficking is not generally reported in prior research, and warrants additional examination. Further research in this area is needed to develop understandings of the roles of venues, such as hotels and private parties, in order to develop protocols to identify, report, and investigate trafficking situations in such settings.

Defining Trafficking and Misreporting

In addition to identifying victims, police must be able to differentiate between cases such as rape, domestic violence, sexual assault, immigration, prostitution, and sex trafficking cases. In particular, police may need to further investigate such crimes to determine if trafficking is co-occurring, as the current study suggests sex trafficking cases may be reported and consequently prosecuted as another crime. In fact, the findings of the current study implicated co-occurrence of crimes and failure to investigate as a potentially significant barrier to identification and misrepresentation in reporting. Such findings both support and expand prior research. For example, in a National Institute of Justice (NIJ)–sponsored study, Clawson, Dutch, and Cummings (2006) found that nearly a third of trafficking cases were identified in response to calls for other co-occurring crimes or by happenstance. Furthermore, Bales and Lize (2005) noted, “Trafficking victims often have contact with local law enforcement authorities, but because local law enforcement agents lack sufficient training, they fail to notice the victims or take appropriate action to bring them to safety.” Prior research finds misidentifying and misreporting trafficking as illegal immigration and prostitution, but the current academic discourse does not generally focus on domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault as crimes trafficking may be misreported as (Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004; Raphael et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2009). Prior research indicates the gap in identification of trafficking co-occurring with domestic violence may be of concern, as trafficking could be seen as an extension of domestic violence (Kennedy et al., 2007; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Reid, 2010). For example, Raphael and Shapiro (2004) found 20% of 222 prostituted women in Chicago were pimped by boyfriends. Furthermore, Kennedy et al. (2007) found 16% of 54 trafficking victims were pimped out by boyfriends or those they had an emotional bond with. While prior research uncovers the relationship between domestic violence and prostitution or trafficking, the academic discourse does not generally examine this dynamic in the context of police misreporting, or failing to further investigate such cases to identify sex trafficking victimization. There currently exists a gap in the research literature related to cases identified and reported as rape or sexual assault cases that may also involve trafficking, and according to respondents in this

941

Download more at Learnclax.com

study, this is particularly the case with rape or sexual assault involving prostitutes. In fact, in this study, various actors in the justice system and social services indicated police training in identifying trafficking alongside a co-occurring crime as a priority area in need of improvement.

Prosecutorial Challenges

There were multiple challenges related to the prosecution of sex trafficking, beginning with identification of such cases, and occurring throughout the prosecution process. Related to the section above, police misreporting led to prosecuting on a charge other than trafficking. The findings in this study indicated cases were prosecuted as immigration and prostitution cases as opposed to trafficking cases, and they also were being prosecuted as rape or other sex crimes resulting in a “leaky pipeline” of “missing” sex trafficking cases. Furthermore, when such misreporting occurs, there is a failure of local law enforcement to gather necessary evidence. If trafficking is not the crime they are investigating, the collection of evidence necessary to prove force, fraud, and coercion is limited. This supports the work of Farrell et al. (2012), who indicated that in order to gain a successful prosecution, these three elements must be proven, and evidence from the time of initial identification and reporting by law enforcement is important and can present challenges to prosecution.

Only one study specifically examines the role of U.S. ICE in its relationship to prosecuted cases of sex trafficking. Hepburn and Simon (2010) found that the goals of U.S. ICE at times conflicted with those of TVPA. They found that in one case, ICE deported 23 trafficking victims, problematizing federal prosecution of a trafficking case through loss of key witnesses—the victims. The present study supports Hepburn and Simon’s research findings, also suggesting deportation of traffickers by ICE as an impediment to prosecution.

Furthermore, the current study supports and adds to the limited body of research on victim reporting and testimony in sex trafficking cases. The findings were similar to those of other authors, in that victims may be unwilling to report their victimization and experiences to authorities (Adams, 2011; Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004; Smith et al., 2009; Ugarte et al., 2003). The current study supports this research, and also contributes to the research in finding such dynamics were also present in a Midwestern city. The findings in this article not only implicate reluctance to disclose victimization due to fear of legal sanctions, deportation, and victim trauma but also found that the statute of limitations had an impact on victim testimony. The emotional state of victims may present a challenge to their ability to disclose, and to disclose a complete and consistent overview of their experiences as well. The current study also emphasized the importance of victim-centric approaches to law enforcement and prosecution, and the need for expanded advocacy. In addition, findings indicated that both prosecutors and victims may seek an easier charge, which is not generally presented in prior research. Yet, such findings complement the small but growing body of work in the area of prosecutorial challenges (see Farrell et al., 2012). The research findings highlight specific challenges that underscore the number of prosecuted cases of trafficking, and offer implications for both identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases, and better assisting and supporting survivors.

Implications

Social Service Provider Training

942

Download more at Learnclax.com

Training of social service providers in the identification of sex trafficking with co-occurring crimes is justified by the research findings. First, domestic violence service providers should be informed and trained in identifying sex trafficking that may co-occur with domestic violence. The research relating domestic violence to sex trafficking is limited; however, a body of work examines situations in which forced or coerced prostitution may be an extension of domestic violence (Raphael et al., 2010; Reid, 2011). This link should be labeled as trafficking because of the coercive nature of prostitution in such circumstances, consistent with TVPA. Macy and Graham (2012) suggested domestic violence service providers should receive training in order to better identify and handle trafficking cases, as trafficking victims may seek out domestic violence shelters. The current study supports this notion, and also suggests that it is important for those working with domestic violence to understand the legal definitions of trafficking and the labeling of the domestic violence- prostitution link as sex trafficking. Advocates and social workers who work with survivors of domestic violence in shelters, outreach, transitional housing, health care, police departments, and the courts should receive this training. Advocates and social workers could then potentially recommend a trafficking charge, or potentially a T or U visa, as a tool to assist the survivors they work with if they determined it served the best interests of their clients.

Individuals working in sexual assault and rape crisis centers, as well as those in health care settings, should receive training in identifying sex trafficking co-occurring with rape or sexual assault, particularly in situations where the victim is involved in prostitution or the sex industry, as they may be at higher risk of being involved in a trafficking situation, according to respondents in this study (also see Macy & Graham, 2012). Education and training involving trafficking co-occurring with domestic violence, rape, or sexual assault is something that could be easily added to State Coalition training, such as the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, as well as local coalitions and individual organizations’ education and training sessions. When cases are identified as sex trafficking cases, they will be more likely to be prosecuted and handled as sex trafficking cases, and victims can access the services they may need.

Police Training

If the justice system does not work to identify sex trafficking, then the system fails to provide recourse to sex trafficking survivors for their victimization. Ugarte et al. (2003) delineated that the current structure of U.S. trafficking laws largely places responsibility upon victims to come forward and to prove that their cases involve trafficking. Given survivors’ reluctance to disclose to authorities, police training is important in identifying and responding to such cases. Ekberg (2004) noted, “The effective enforcement of the Law is ultimately determined by the attitude of the leadership within the local police forces, as well as that of the individual police officer.” In Florida, Reid (2010) also found that training of officers impacted identification of trafficking, and the number of leads for investigations increased. Importantly, the present research indicates that police investigations should also allow for the possibility of trafficking co-occurring with domestic violence, prostitution, rape and sexual assault, and illegal immigration. Police awareness of this issue and the development of investigative procedures may facilitate identification of trafficking in such cases. If police investigate domestic violence, rape, prostitution, and sexual assault in more depth, according to participants in this study, they are more likely to identify trafficking situations.

943

Download more at Learnclax.com

Cross-Training

Some researchers suggest cross-training in one another’s areas to improve outcomes for victims in community- based approaches (Macy, Giattina, Parish, & Crosby, 2010; Nichols, 2011; Zweig & Burt, 2007). For example, Zweig and Burt (2007) found that when law enforcement took part in cross-training in collaboration with domestic violence victim advocates, the result was increased arrest of perpetrators, better evidence collection, and more convictions. Konradi (2007, p. 178) found cross-training with rape crisis centers, prosecutors, and police assisted partners in reaching their goals, and also resulted in processes and practices that benefitted victims. While these examples involve cross-training in domestic violence and rape cases, respectively, the current study suggests cross-training in sex trafficking cases as well. For example, if ICE participated in trainings with prosecutors, attorneys, and advocates, they may better understand the importance of keeping key witnesses and protecting victims as opposed to enforcing illegal immigration. Moreover, collaboration between local police, state attorneys, and federal prosecutors could lead to better evidence collection and reporting practices. Similarly, police leadership in this study, who collaborated with advocates and social service providers, were better educated in victim-centric approaches. This supports the idea of a community-based response structure partnering advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement. In fact, respondents in the present research indicated that cases working collaboratively with community partners aided in both prosecution and identification of sex trafficking victims. In addition, partnering various stakeholders in the justice system and social services was described as beneficial, and in need of expansion.

The Survivor-Centered Approach

The results of this study indicate that a survivor-centered approach beginning with identification and investigation can mutually benefit victims, law enforcement, and prosecution endeavors. A finding of this study suggests that this approach can benefit prosecution while simultaneously helping victims become less fearful of law enforcement, and addressing their needs. Survivor-defined approaches include providing resources and information to support victims’ needs, emphasizing their safety and general sense of well-being, and valuing survivors’ input through collaborative decision making (Konradi, 2007; Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012; Nichols, 2013a, 2013b). A growing body of work finds survivor-defined approaches are successful in the prosecution process with domestic violence and rape cases (Bennett & Goodman, 2010; Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Konradi, 2007; Martin, 2005; Nichols, 2011, 2013a, 2013b). Such approaches may hold positive outcomes in trafficking cases as well. There is a very limited body of work emphasizing such approaches with trafficking victims. For example, Smith et al. (2009) noted the importance of providing resources for victims, which benefitted both victims as well as prosecution endeavors. Reid (2010) also noted victims were often not willing to testify against their traffickers, largely due to lack of victim protection and victim-centered processes. Similarly, Reid related a lack of victim-centered protocols to low prosecution rates in the southern United States. Furthermore, Smith et al. (2009) indicated that victim-centered policies, including resources, were central to victim cooperation in prosecuted trafficking cases. The current study adds to this growing body of work, finding that the presence of an advocate, as well as a plainclothes cop, can allow victims to feel more comfortable in reporting their victimization and participating in an investigation. This suggests that expansion

944

Download more at Learnclax.com

of advocacy and social services in trafficking situations, beginning with an investigation, is warranted. Advocacy throughout the prosecution process is also recommended, as respondents in the present study indicated that survivors may be more cooperative in prosecuting sex trafficking cases when survivor-centered approaches are used, which can simultaneously benefit both victims and prosecutorial efforts. More research is needed to understand the role of survivors’ input and empowerment in the prosecution process, and its impact on outcomes.

Policy Implications

Moreover, given the trauma that victims undergo due to the psychological and physical abuses associated with their trafficking experiences—and their concerns about safety, deportation, and other issues—getting the confidence to come forward with their experiences as sex trafficking victims may not manifest until years after escape. Thus, the statute of limitations on sex trafficking cases should be reconsidered as well to support victim-centered policy. Currently, in Missouri, there is no statute of limitations if the incident occurred when the victim was a child, but those who were victimized over the age of 18 years are negatively impacted by the statute of limitations.

In the present study, prosecution was undermined at times by ICE, who respondents indicated may deport perpetrators with no other legal consequences. Higher level policy and protocols are needed to address issues that occur when jurisdictions overlap, to support prosecution, to protect victims, and to provide victims with recourse through the justice system. Prosecution of sex trafficking should supersede deportation of traffickers, as well as victims, due to illegal immigration.

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

The authors wish to note that the cases represented in this study reflect the experiences of individuals who worked with sex trafficking victims who were either identified by social service providers or members of the justice system, or who sought assistance. Those who receive assistance may not represent the general population of trafficked victims. Furthermore, issues that remain contentious sources of debate, such as victims’ relative agency and victimization, were not examined in this study, as the authors wished to explicitly examine identification and prosecution challenges from the perspective of anti-trafficking stakeholders (Ekberg, 2004; Hughes, 2007; Liu, 2012; Weitzer, 2010). In addition, individuals who are first-responders to identifying trafficking—such as advocates and social workers in child protective services, domestic violence services, rape crisis centers, health care settings, those providing services to prostitutes, as well as police officers on-the-ground—were not included in the study. The current research suggests examining the practices of such groups is an important area in need of further research. Furthermore, sex trafficking victims may feel forced into testifying against their traffickers in exchange for social and legal services (e.g., visas, dropping of prostitution charges, etc.). There may be a real element of legal coercion and exploitation that survivors experience that warrants further examination. Moreover, the goal of victims may not be prosecution. Further research is needed to examine survivors’ perceptions and experiences in the prosecution process.

The current study examines one Midwestern city, thus the research findings may not represent dynamics of

945

Download more at Learnclax.com

identification and prosecution in other cities. The results of this study aimed to contribute to the knowledge base on identification and prosecution in the Midwest United States; results may inform policy and practice in other areas with similar contextual concerns and dynamics.

Conclusion

This study worked to add to the current body of knowledge examining challenges to identification and prosecution of sex trafficking, and to address a regional gap in the literature by focusing on a Midwestern U.S. city. The research findings highlighted specific challenges that underscore the number of identified and prosecuted cases of sex trafficking, and offered recommendations for both identification and prosecution among social service providers and in the criminal justice system. The current study provided replication of prior research indicating that patterns of Internet solicitation, interstate movement, and indoor prostitution are not just issues in southern and/or Border States in the U.S. but are also found in the Midwest, adding to the emerging body of work examining sex trafficking in the Midwest (Raphael et al., 2010; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Williamson & Prior, 2009; J. Wilson & Dalton, 2008). The present study also highlighted issues with police investigation and reporting involving prostitution, domestic violence, illegal immigration, and rape and sexual assault. Furthermore, the importance of victim-centered policy and protocols, such as in the case of the statute of limitations, overlapping jurisdictions, and access to advocacy, were also emphasized. The purpose of this study was not to lay numerical claims to prevalence of trafficking in the St. Louis area but to examine and reveal barriers to prosecution and challenges to identification in a Midwestern city that impact the number of reported and prosecuted cases of sex trafficking.

Discussion Questions

1. What are some of the challenges the authors find to identifying sex trafficking? 2. Why might victims be reluctant to testify against their trafficker? 3. How can trafficking be combatted domestically? 4. Is there anything unique about the Midwest that would make trafficking harder (or easier) to identify

and/or prosecute? Explain. 5. How can the findings be used to inform policy and practice?

Notes

1. In the context of trafficking research in the United States, much of the literature reflects Florida and Texas. Our use of the term “Southern and/or Border States” largely reflects findings in Florida and Texas.

2. The authors hold the position that prostitution can take the form of sex work or sex trafficking, depending on the agency of the individual.

References Adams, C. (2011). Re-trafficked victims: How a human rights approach can stop the cycle of re-victimization

of sex trafficking victims. George Washington International Law Review, 43, 201–234.

946

Download more at Learnclax.com

Adler, P., & Adler, P. (2008). The four faces of ethnography. The Sociological Quarterly, 49, 1–30.

Albanese, J. (2007). Commercial sexual exploitation of children: What do we know and what do we do about it? (NCJ Special Report). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/215733.pdf

Aslanian, S. (2013, January 8). Police enlist hotels in fight against sex trafficking. Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved from http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/01/08/crime/hotel-sex-trafficking

Bales, K., & Lize, S. (2005). Trafficking in persons in the United States (Final Report, NCJ 211980). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Banks, D., & Kyckelhahn, T. (2011). Characteristics of suspected human trafficking incidents-2005–2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available from www.bjs.gov

Bennett, L., & Goodman, L. (2010). Through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence: The relationship between empowerment in the court system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 481–502.

Brennan, D. (2005). Methodological challenges in research with trafficked persons: Tales from the field. International Migration, 43, 35–54.

Busch-Armendariz, N., Nsonwu, M., Cook Heffron, L., Garza, J., & Hernandez, M. (2009). Understanding human trafficking: Development of typologies of traffickers. Austin: Center for Social Work Research School of Social Work, Institute on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, University of Texas at Austin.

Clawson, H., Dutch, N., & Cummings, M. (2006). Law enforcement response to human trafficking and implications for victims: Current practices and lessons learned. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

Clawson, H. J., Dutch, N., Lopez, S., & Tiapula, S. (2008). Prosecuting human trafficking cases: Lessons learned and promising practices. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

Clawson, H., Layne, M., & Small, K. (2006). Estimating human trafficking into the U.S. development of a methodology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.

947

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/215733.pdf

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/01/08/crime/hotel-sex-trafficking

http://www.bjs.gov

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

The Covering House. (2013). Sex trafficking in the U.S. Retrieved from www.thecoveringhouse.org

Davis, K. (2006). Human trafficking as modern day slavery in Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.ccv.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/04/Ohio-Report-on-Trafficking.pdf

Ekberg, G. (2004). The Swedish law that prohibits the purchase of sexual services: Best practices for prevention of prostitution and trafficking in human beings. Violence Against Women, 10, 1187–1218.

End Child Prostitution and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes. (2013). ECPAT-USA hospitality training. Retrieved from http://ecpatusa.org/wp/what-we-do/travel-and-tourism-industry/ecpat-usa- hospitality-training/

Farrell, A., McDevitt, J., & Fahy, S. (2008). Understanding and improving law enforcement responses to human trafficking: Final report. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d10015802

Farrell, A., McDevitt, J., Pfeffer, R., Fahy, S., Owens, C., Dank, M., & Adams, W. (2012). Identifying challenges to improve the investigation and prosecution of state and local human trafficking cases. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.

Goodey, J. (2008). Human trafficking: Sketchy data and policy responses. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8, 421–442.

Goodman, L. A., & Epstein, D. (2008). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Heil, E. (2012). Sex slaves and serfs: The dynamics of human trafficking in a small Florida town. Boulder, CO: First Forum Press.

Heil, E., & Nichols, A. (2013, November). Targeted policing and the eradication of sex trafficking in the United States. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

948

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.thecoveringhouse.org

http://www.ccv.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Ohio-Report-on-Trafficking.pdf

http://ecpatusa.org/wp/what-we-do/travel-and-tourism-industry/ecpat-usa-hospitality-training/

http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d10015802

Hepburn, S., & Simon, R. (2010). Hidden in plain sight: Human trafficking in the United States. Gender Issues, 27, 1–26.

Hodge, D. (2008). Sex trafficking in the United States: A domestic problem with transnational dimensions. Social Work, 53, 143–152.

Hopper, E. K. (2004). Underidentification of human trafficking victims in the United States. Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation, 5, 125–136.

Hughes, D. (2000). The “Natasha” trade: The transnational shadow market of trafficking in women. Journal of International Affairs, 53, 625–651.

Hughes, D. (2007). Enslaved in the USA. Retrieved from http://article.nationalreview.com/? q=ZDU0OGNlMDcwM2JmYjk0N2M0OTU4NGVlMTBlMmEyMjI

Hughes, D., Chon, K., & Ellerman, D. (2007). Modern-day comfort women: The U.S. military, transnational crime, and the trafficking of women. Violence Against Women, 13, 901–922.

Kara, S. (2010). Sex trafficking: Inside the business of modern slavery. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Kennedy, M. A., Klein, C., Bristowe, J., Cooper, B., & Yuille, J. (2007). Routes of recruitment: Pimp’s techniques and other circumstances that lead to street prostitution. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 15, 1–19.

Konradi, A. (2007). Taking the stand: Rape survivors and the prosecution of rapists. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.

Kotrla, K. (2010). Domestic minor sex trafficking in the United States. Social Work, 55, 181–187.

Kulkarni, S., Bell, H., & Rhodes, D. (2012). Back to basics. Violence Against Women, 18, 85–101.

Kunze, E. (2010). Sex trafficking via the internet: How international agreements address the problem and fail to go far enough. Journal of High Technology Law, 10, 241–289.

949

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDU0OGNlMDcwM2JmYjk0N2M0OTU4NGVlMTBlMmEyMjI

Kyckelhahn, T., Beck, A. J., & Cohen, T. H. (2009). Characteristics of suspected human trafficking incidents. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cshti08.pdf

Liu, M. (2012). Chinese migrant women in the sex industry: Exploring their paths to prostitution. Feminist Criminology, 7, 327–349.

Lloyd, R. (2012). Girls like us: Fighting for a world where girls are not for sale. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Macy, R., Giattina, M., Parish, S., & Crosby, C. (2010). Domestic violence and sexual assault services: Historical concerns and contemporary challenges. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 3–32.

Macy, R., & Graham, L. (2012). Identifying domestic and international sex-trafficking victims during human service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13, 59–76.

Martin, P. Y. (2005). Rape work: Victims gender and emotions in organizational context. New York, NY: Routledge.

Moossy, R. (2009). Sex trafficking: Identifying cases and victims (National Institute of Justice Journal No. 262). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

National Human Trafficking Resource Center. (2011). National human trafficking resource center data breakdown (Missouri State Report). Retrieved from http://www.polarisproject.org/state-map/missouri

Nichols, A. J. (2011). Gendered organizations: Challenges for domestic violence victim advocates and feminist advocacy. Feminist Criminology, 6, 111–131.

Nichols, A. J. (2013a). Meaning-making and domestic violence victim advocacy: An examination of feminist identities, ideologies, and practices. Feminist Criminology, 8, 177–201.

Nichols, A. J. (2013b). Survivor-defined practices to mitigate revictimization of battered women in the protective order process. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1403–1423.

Outshoorn, J. (2005). The political debates on prostitution and trafficking of women. Social Politics, 12, 141–155.

950

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cshti08.pdf

http://www.polarisproject.org/state-map/missouri

Proud, K. (2013, June 13). St. Louis named the “most sinful city in America.” National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-named-most-sinful-city-america

Rand, A. (2009). It can’t happen in my backyard: The commercial sexual exploitation of girls in the United States. Child & Youth Services, 3, 138–156.

Raphael, J., Reichert, J., & Powers, M. (2010). Pimp control and violence: Domestic sex trafficking of Chicago women and girls. Women & Criminal Justice, 20, 89–104.

Raphael, J., & Shapiro, D. (2004). Violence in indoor and outdoor prostitution venues. Violence Against Women, 10, 126–139.

Reid, J. A. (2010). Door wide shut: Barriers to the successful delivery of victim services for domestically trafficked minors in a southern US metropolitan area. Women & Criminal Justice, 20, 147–166.

Reid, J. A. (2011, November). Battered into prostitution: From intimate partner violence into sex trafficking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

Schauer, E., & Wheaton, E. (2006). Sex trafficking into the United States: A literature review. Criminal Justice Review, 31, 146–169.

Smith, L. (2008, July). Keynote address. Delivered at Catholic Charities Anti-Human Trafficking Training, San Antonio, TX.

Smith, L., Vardaman, S. H, & Snow, M. (2009). The national report on DMST. Vancouver, WA: Shared Hope International.

Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Stransky, M., & Finkelhor, D. (2008). How many juveniles are involved in prostitution in the U.S.? Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/prostitution/Juvenile_Prostitution_fact-sheet.pdf

Tolerance Equality Awareness Movement. (2011). Sex trafficking facts and figures. The world revolution and protection project. Available from www.teamwmi.org

951

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-named-most-sinful-city-america

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/prostitution/Juvenile_Prostitution_fact-sheet.pdf

http://www.teamwmi.org

Trafficking Victims Violence Protection Act of 2000, PL 106–386, Statutes at Large, 114(2000): 1464.

Troshynski, E. I., & Blank, J. K. (2008). Sex trafficking: An exploratory study and interviewing traffickers. Trends in Organized Crime, 11, 30–41.

Tyldum, G., & Brunovskis, A. (2005). Describing the unobserved: Methodological challenges in empirical studies on human trafficking. International Migration, 43, 17–34.

Ugarte, M., Zarate, L., & Farley, M. (2003). Prostitution and trafficking of women and children from Mexico to the United States. Journal of Trauma Practice, 2, 147–165.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2006). Report on activities to combat human trafficking fiscal years 2001–2005. Retrieved from http://www.ansarilawfirm.com/docs/DOJ-Report-on-Activities-to-Combat- HumanTrafficking.pdf

Weitzer, R. (2010). The movement to criminalize sex work in the United States. Journal of Law and Society, 37, 61–84.

Williamson, C., & Prior, M. (2009). Domestic minor sex trafficking: A network of underground players in the Midwest. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 2, 46–61.

Wilson, D., Walsh, W., & Kleuber, S. (2006). Trafficking in human beings: Training and services among US law enforcement agencies. Police Practice & Research, 7, 149–160.

Wilson, J., & Dalton, E. (2008). Human trafficking in the heartland: Variation in law enforcement awareness and response. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 296–313.

Zweig, J., & Burt, M. (2007). Predicting women’s perceptions of domestic violence and sexual assault agency helpfulness: What matters to program clients? Violence Against Women, 13, 1149–1178.

952

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ansarilawfirm.com/docs/DOJ-Report-on-Activities-to-Combat-HumanTrafficking.pdf

Reading /// 29

Fear of a specific type of crime is examined in this article by Ashley Marie Nellis and Joanne Savage (2012). They incorporate media consumption in their models in trying to explain why some people are more fearful of experiencing terrorism and are more worried about their loved ones falling victims to this type of crime. Although some of their findings are consistent with the fear of crime literature in general, they find that how much a person pays attention to the news and how credible a person finds the news to be do not play a role in fear of terrorism. Instead, exposure to terrorism-related news is critical for understanding such fears.

Does Watching the News Affect Fear of Terrorism?: The Importance of Media Exposure on Terrorism Fear

Ashley Marie Nellis and Joanne Savage

SOURCE: Nellis, A. M., & Savage, J. (2012). Does watching the news affect fear of terrorism? The importance of media exposure on terrorism fear. Crime & Delinquency, 58(5), 748–768.

Americans have been afraid of crime for a long time. Data from Uniform Crime Reports indicate that reported crime surged in the 1960s and that rates of violent crime in cities across the United States varied at a high level for many decades until the recent “crime drop.”

More recently, however, Americans are afraid of terrorism. Gallup polls suggest that about one in three people worry that they or a family member will be a victim of terrorism (Carlson, 2004). Fear of terrorism can have a variety of consequences such as negative economic impacts from reduced air travel and tourism; individual psychosocial problems such as depression, anxiety, and insomnia (Bleich, Gelkopf, & Solomon, 2003); and public support for antiterrorism policies that encroach on civil liberties (Huddy, Feldman, Taber, & Lahav, 2005). The federal government, which has dedicated multiple agencies to thwarting future terrorist attacks, often promotes antiterrorism policies in the alleged interest of reducing the public fear of terrorism. It is therefore essential to accurately gauge public fear levels through comprehensive research dedicated to the subject. The present study aims to accomplish this.

Media Exposure and Fear

Research suggests that the media figure prominently in fear of crime (see Eschholz, 1997; Hale, 1996, for a review) and perceptions of risk (Chiricos et al., 1997; Liu, Huang, & Brown, 1998; Slovic, Fischhoff, Lichtenstein, & Roe, 1981). Of particular interest are two general approaches to the relationship between media consumption and fear. First, the cultivation hypothesis, from communications studies, suggests that frequency of media consumption, which overemphasizes violence and other extreme events, leads viewers to a distorted worldview reflective of television rather than reality (Gerbner, 1969). This distortion may include an inordinate fear of crime. Researchers have operationalized and examined this relationship in many ways over the past several decades, with particular interest in the impact of exposure to local news versus national news (Chiricos, Padgett, & Gertz, 2000; Gross & Aday, 2003; Romer, Jamieson, & Aday, 2003), and crime dramas and entertainment news (Eschholz, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2003; Eschholz, Mallard, & Flynn, 2004).

The cultivation perspective has been heavily criticized for model misspecification. Doob and Macdonald

953

Download more at Learnclax.com

(1979) speculated that area crime rates influence media-related crime fears, and their inclusion of actual crime rates in viewers’ areas demonstrated that actual victimization risk and crime experiences did indeed influence the impact of media exposure on fear of crime. Those who lived in higher crime areas were more fearful than those who did not. Gerbner and his colleagues subsequently modified their cultivation hypothesis to suggest that resonance of the news should mediate the effects of overall exposure (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signiorelli, 1980). Studies continue to test the effects of frequency and resonance of news exposure on fear of crime and find support for both (e.g., Chiricos et al., 2000).

Others have suggested that media effects might be limited to those who actually pay attention when they watch the news. Using telephone survey data of 1,188 adults around the country, O’Keefe (1984) measured the impact of attention to crime news on fear of crime and found some support for the notion that attention to television news was related to feeling less safe walking alone in one’s neighborhood at night, worrying about being burglarized, and worrying about being a victim of personal assault. O’Keefe and Reid-Nash (1987) tested whether paying greater attention to the news would increase the effect of media exposure using a two- wave panel design and established that paying attention to the news actually increased crime fear levels.

More recently, Sotirovic (2001) found that attention to media content limited to politics, the economy, and social issues (locally and/or nationally) leads to greater support for preventive crime policies than exposure and attention to simple infotainment-style news, which is more closely associated with fear of crime and support for more punitive crime policies.

Finally, several researchers (e.g., Chiricos et al., 2000; Koomen, Visser, & Stapel, 2000; O’Keefe, 1984; Potter, 1986; Rubin, Perse, & Taylor, 1988; Sparks, 1992) suggest that perceived realism of content or credibility is likely to affect fear of crime, but empirical support is limited. O’Keefe (1984) found that perceived realism of news had an impact on fear of crime for both television and newspaper media. Chiricos et al. (2000) proposed that the effects of exposure to the news media might be mitigated if an individual is skeptical about the credibility of the account presented, but their data did not support this hypothesis. Because there have been so few studies, a lack of consensus about the relationship between news credibility and fear of crime remains.

It is reasonable to assume that the media play an even greater role in fear of terrorism. One reason is that although crime is present within many communities, and individuals have other sources of local crime information besides the media, terrorism is a very rare phenomenon that does not occur in most neighborhoods. Most Americans must rely exclusively on the media for terrorism-related information.

Fear of terrorism has not been studied extensively. Slone (2000) conducted an experimental study of the effects of media images on 237 viewers in a controlled environment to test her hypothesis that heightened anxiety levels would be experienced among those exposed to terrorist threats shown through the media. Her findings suggest that such images do raise anxiety levels, and also that anger and fear are significantly related to risk estimates and policy preferences.

Rubin et al. (2003) examined cultivation effects of television exposure on fear of terrorism and whether

954

Download more at Learnclax.com

individual-level differences (i.e., locus of control, victimization experience, and gender) could explain the relationship between media consumption and fear of terrorism. Results indicated that the effect of overall television exposure and terrorism-related television exposure had no effect on fear of terrorism; however, motivation for viewing was significantly related to fear of terrorism. The findings suggest that those who intentionally watch terrorism-related news reports are more fearful and feel less safe from terrorist activity. In addition, crime victims are more fearful of terrorism.

In the present article, we will examine perceived risk and fear of terrorism using fear of crime findings to guide our study. We will test whether common correlates of fear of crime, including frequency of exposure to TV news, “resonance” (victimization), attention paid to terrorism news, and perceived credibility of terrorism news are associated with elevated fear and perceived risk of terrorism. We will also test Warr’s (2000) claims that fear for self differs from fear for others.

Method

Data Collection and Sample

A telephone survey, designed to test the impact of media consumption on perceived risk and fear of terrorism, was conducted in March and April of 2006. A total of 532 interviews were obtained from adults (18 years and older) living in the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) of New York City and Washington, D.C. These areas were selected because we wished to achieve adequate variability in our measures of the resonance of terrorism-related news; these areas were the sites of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Generalizability of findings to other parts of the country cannot be assumed and results should be interpreted with this in mind. A random sample from these two areas was provided by Survey Sampling, Inc., and within- household randomization was obtained using the “Last Birthday Method.” Interviewers asked to speak with someone in the household, 18 years of age or older, who most recently had a birthday. This helps to reduce the age and gender bias often inherent in telephone survey research (Bourque & Fielder, 2003). Interviews took approximately 15 min.

Dependent Variables

Four dependent variables are used in this analysis: fear for oneself, fear for a family member, perceived risk to oneself, and perceived risk to someone whom the respondent knows.

Research on fear of victimization has been criticized for its lack of attention to details about offense specificity when measuring crime fears (Ferraro, 1995), an inability to reach consensus about what is measured by using the term fear (Williams, McShane, & Akers, 2000), failure to distinguish fear from perceived risk (Chadee, Austen, & Ditton, 2007; Ferraro, 1995; Jackson, 2006; Rountree & Land, 1996; Warr & Stafford, 1983), and by a failure to mention whom respondents are fearful for (i.e., themselves or a family member; Snedker, 2006; Warr, 1992; Warr & Ellison, 2000).

Considerable discussion surrounds the topic of defining fear. Some point out the absence of the word fear in many surveys on fear of crime, instead opting to use the term worry. They argue that what is really being

955

Download more at Learnclax.com

measured, then, is worry about crime rather than fear about crime. Warr and Ellison (2000) addressed this

issue and argued that use of the word fear in questions on the topic would be more likely to tap one’s sense of an immediate threat rather than one’s anxiety about future victimizations that could occur in the future. As it is the latter that most researchers are attempting to measure, they use the term worry in questions to measure fear. For this reason, and to be consistent with prior research, we also use the term worry to measure fear.

More recently, authors have emphasized the importance of identifying the target of one’s fear. In an essay about future avenues for crime research, Warr (2000) made the following observation:

One of the strongest indictments that can be leveled against research on fear of crime is the continuing failure of investigators to collect systematic data on altruistic fear, or even to recognize its existence. It is entirely possible that altruistic fear is as prevalent as personal fear (perhaps more so) and has consequences that are distinct from or amplify those arising from personal fear. (p. 456)

In most studies in the fear of crime field, either no fear target is mentioned or multiple fear targets are combined producing a double-barreled question. For instance, a typical question begins with “How much do you worry that …” but does not articulate whose safety one is worrying about. One might expect that respondents fear more for a family member than for themselves or vice versa, but the questions do not allow for such important distinctions to emerge.

Alternatively, researchers combine measures of fear for one’s own safety with fear for another’s safety. For example, Huddy, Feldman, Capelos, and Provost (2002) asked survey respondents, “How worried are you that you yourself or someone in your immediate family might receive a letter in the mail at home or at work contaminated with the anthrax bacteria?” The structure of this question does not allow a complete understanding of fear as the degree to which respondents consider themselves or others in their answer is unknown.

We structured our questions with all of these concerns in mind. Fear for self was measured by the question, “How worried are you that you will be the victim of a terrorist attack?” and respondents offered a score of 1 through 10 (mean = 3.82, SD = 2.56). To measure fear for family we asked, “How worried are you that a family member will be the victim of a terrorist attack?” Again, respondents gave a score of 1 through 10 (mean = 4.48, SD = 2.84).

Perceived risk to self is an index consisting of five items. We subjected the index to principal components analysis; all items loaded on the first factor (eigenvalue = 74.395). The alpha coefficient of reliability was .91 and the mean score was 17.31 with a SD of 12.81.

Perceived risk to others is also an index and consists of five items. This index was also subjected to principal components analysis and all items loaded on the first factor (eigenvalue = 75.79). The alpha coefficient for reliability was .92, the mean score was 21.69, and the SD was 12.95.

956

Download more at Learnclax.com

Independent Variables

Exposure to TV News

Exposure to TV news was measured by adding the responses to two questions. First, respondents were asked to report the number of hours in the past 2 weeks that they watched the local news. The mean number of hours on the local news scale was 9.12 (SD = 11.98) over the previous 2-week period with a range from 0 to 140 hours. Respondents were then asked how many hours they watched the national news in the past 2 weeks. The average number of hours watched on the national news scale was 7.27 (SD = 29.35) with a range from 0 to 84 hr. Finally, scores on these two variables were summed to create an overall TV news variable. The alpha coefficient for this scale was .69.

Victimization

Victimization is used as an indicator of the resonance perspective and is included because some research suggests that victims experience heightened fear (Chiricos et al., 1997; Gross & Aday, 2003). The measure was created by summing responses for direct victimization and indirect victimization. Direct victimization was measured simply by asking respondents whether they had ever been victims of terrorist attack either in the United States or abroad. The measure reflects the perception by the participant that he or she has already been a victim of terrorism. Although it might seem that few individuals would see themselves as victims of terrorism, in fact 13% of the participants responded “Yes” to this question. We attribute this to the fact that the sample is taken from New York and Washington areas—where the September 2001 terrorist attacks took place.

Indirect victimization was measured using one question: “Has anyone you know ever been the victim of terrorist attacks either here or abroad?” Forty-four percent of the sample answered “Yes” to this question. Again, this is probably because of the locations from which the sample was drawn. In addition, 83% of victims also categorized themselves as indirect victims. Scores from these two items were added to create an overall victimization score that ranged from 0 (never victimized and does not know anyone who was ever victimized) to 2 (victimized and knows someone who has been victimized).

In accordance with standard procedures in fear of crime research, we also controlled for perceived risk of terrorism in our models of terrorism fear and for fear of terrorism in our models of terrorism risk.

Results

Descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 1. Possible scores for the two measures of fear of terrorism ranged from 1 (not worried at all) to 10 (extremely worried). Respondents reported greater fear for family members than for themselves. The mean score of fear for a family member was 4.48 and the mean fear for oneself was 3.82.

Table 1

957

Download more at Learnclax.com

Perceived risk to oneself was measured by adding the scores from five separate questions concerning risk of specific terrorist events. The resulting index reported risk scores from 1 (very unlikely to occur) to 46 (extremely likely to occur). As noted above, the average estimate of perceived risk was 21.69 when asked about someone the respondent knew and 17.31 when asked about personal risk of terrorism victimization. Therefore, respondents believed that others were at greater risk of terrorism than they personally were.

The alpha coefficient for this scale was .438, the mean was 0.57, and the SD was .679.

Attention to Terrorism-Related News

Attention paid to terrorism-related news was measured by asking respondents one question: “When people hear of terrorism-related news, they watch and read it with varying amounts of interest and attention. Please tell me how much attention you pay to terrorism-related stories in the news using the options I offer.” Response options were as follows: (a) I avoid terrorism-related stories in the news, (b) I pay some attention to terrorism-related stories in the news, or (c) I pay careful attention to terrorism-related stories in the news. Thus, a higher value is indicative of the participant paying greater attention to terrorism-related news (M = 2.50, SD = 0.537).

Credibility of Terrorism-Related News

To measure credibility, respondents were asked to report their level of agreement (strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree) with two statements about terrorism-related news content. The first statement was, “I have doubts about some of the threats of terrorism reported in the news.” The

958

Download more at Learnclax.com

second statement was, “I think that many terrorism-related stories are untrue.” The values of the two items were reverse-coded and summed to create the score on this measure ranging from 2 to 8. Higher numbers on this scale indicate that the participant believes the media to be more credible (M = 4.82, SD = 1.54).

Control Variables

Control variables used in this study parallel those in fear of crime research. Previous research suggests that sex, race, and age are associated with fear of crime. If these factors are associated with fear of terrorism, and if they are also associated with media exposure and characteristics of consumption of media, our estimates of the effects of such exposure on fear of terrorism could be biased. Therefore, controls for self-reported age, race (1 = White, 0 = non-White), sex (1 = female, 0 = male), income (1 = less than US$20,000 to 4 = more than US$100,000) and education (1 = grade school or some high school, 5 = graduate or professional school) were included in the models.

There was significant variability in exposure to television news that ranged from 0 hr to 168 hr watched in the past 2 weeks, with the average participant stating that he or she watched 16 hr of television news in the past 2 weeks. Participants also indicated that they paid fairly close attention to the news; the average score on the Attention Scale was 2.5 out of 3 (somewhere between “some attention” to “careful attention”). Finally, respondents considered the media to be fairly credible. Possible scores ranged from 1 (indicating no perceived credibility) to 7 (corresponding to the highest degree of credibility); the average score among respondents was 3.82.

Regression Analysis

Ordinary least squares regression models, estimating the associations between perceived risk of terrorism, overall television news consumption, victimization experience, attention, and credibility measures are presented.

Fear of Terrorism

Table 2 displays the findings for the two measures of fear terrorism. We found a positive and statistically significant relationship between number of hours spent watching television news and fear that a family member might be victimized by a terrorist attack. The relationship between exposure to TV news and fear for self, however, was not statistically significant.

Table 2

959

Download more at Learnclax.com

NOTE: OLS = ordinary least squares.

** p < .01.

Turning to tests of resonance, attention, and credibility, findings suggest that fear for oneself and fear for family were higher among self-reported victims of terrorism. Individuals who pay closer attention to terrorism-related news are not significantly more worried about terrorism (for self or for family) and those who are less skeptical of terrorism-related news are not more afraid of terrorism.

When we tested interaction effects (not shown), we found that victimization did not amplify or attenuate the effects of television news on fears for oneself or a family member. Paying more or less attention to television news does not mitigate the effects of overall exposure to it. Finally, credibility did not mediate the relationship between overall exposure to TV news and fear, either.

Turning to the control variables, age was inversely associated with fear of terrorism and was statistically significantly associated with fear for self (but not for family). Older people in our sample were not as afraid for

960

Download more at Learnclax.com

themselves as younger people were. Females also report greater fear of terrorism than do males (for both self and family), and minorities report statistically significantly greater fear for themselves and their families than Whites. Income and education are not statistically significant predictors of fear. Perceived risk of terrorism was the strongest predictor of fear of terrorism.

Perceived Risk of Terrorism

Table 3 shows that exposure to TV news was positively and significantly associated with increased personal perceived risk of terrorism. Perceived risk of terrorism to others was also significantly related to exposure to TV news. Self-reported terrorism victims reported significantly higher perceived risk, supporting the resonance perspective. However, our tests of interaction effects (not displayed) suggest that the experience of victimization did not enhance or mitigate the effects of television news. Similar to the fear models, measures of attention to and credibility of terrorism news were not related to perceived risk nor did they mediate the effects of exposure to TV news.

Table 3

961

Download more at Learnclax.com

NOTE: OLS = ordinary least squares.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

Like studies of fear of crime, we find that perceived risk of terrorism is significantly higher for females. In our data, age is not a significant predictor of perceived risk of terrorism. In these data, Whites perceived the risk of being a victim of terrorism to be significantly lower than non-Whites. Education and income were not significantly associated with perceived risk of terrorism, even though they were significantly related at the bivariate level.

Discussion

The findings from the present study are consistent in several ways with the fear of crime literature but depart from typical fear of crime findings in important ways, too. First, females report greater fear of terrorism and judge the risk of terrorism to be significantly higher than males do. This is consistent with the findings for fear of crime, but it contradicts the interpretation that women fear crime more than men due to their fear of sexual assault (because terrorism is less likely to be interpreted this way). Warr and Ellison (2000) suggested that women may fear for their children more than men do; it is possible that women were including their fear for their children’s safety in their estimates. Unfortunately, these data do not allow us to explore this possibility.

Also similar to findings from fear of crime studies, older participants were less worried about terrorism (for themselves but not their families) but did not perceive the risk of future attacks to be lower than younger participants (Ferraro, 1995; Ferraro & LaGrange, 1992; Rountree & Land, 1996). Others have found that fear estimates are often different from risk estimates and at times may not make rational sense (Slovic, 1988). It could be that older people have longer life context for comparison and are better able to recognize the rarity of events than younger people are.

Race was significantly related to terrorism fear and risk; Whites rated the likelihood of a future terrorist attack to be significantly lower than minorities, and were less fearful of an attack, controlling for other factors in the models. This is consistent with findings elsewhere (Ferraro, 1995; O’Keefe, 1984). Minorities routinely express greater fear of crime than nonminorities; Chiricos et al. (1997) warned that neighborhood context (specifically, whether a neighborhood is diverse or homogeneous) may explain much of the difference in fear by race.

Finally, similar to some fear of crime findings, victimization predicted perceived risk of terrorism and fear of terrorism. It appears that respondents with closer personal experiences related to the attacks experience greater resonance with TV news though we failed to find interaction effects. This finding lends partial support to the resonance perspective.

Turning to the variables of interest for our hypothesis tests, overall exposure to TV news was associated with

962

Download more at Learnclax.com

three of our four dependent variables. Frequency of exposure was associated with greater fear for one’s family, greater personal perceived risk of terrorism, and greater risk of terrorism to others. Therefore, we find some support for the cultivation hypothesis as well. The failure to find a significant effect of TV news exposure on fear for self may be due, in part, to our conservative approach to model specification. We controlled for perceived risk of terrorism in the model; in models without this control, exposure to TV news is positively and significantly associated with fear of terrorism for self and others.

Paying greater attention to the news does not appear to affect terrorism fears or perceived risk of terrorism; we did not find additive or interactive effects in any of our multivariate models, though they were associated at the bivariate level for three of the four dependent variables. In addition, perceived credibility was not significantly related to fear of terrorism or perceived risk of terrorism. Here, too, we failed to observe either additive or interactive effects.

A major limitation of our study is the inability to determine temporal order using a cross-sectional survey. Although the regression findings are consistent with a picture where perceived risk of terrorism predicts fear, and exposure to TV news predicts risk, it is possible that the causal ordering diverges from this model. For example, a person who is worried about terrorism may be more likely to tune in to watch TV news. We did control for a series of personal factors that might be related to fear in hopes of reducing this likelihood (age, sex, race, education, income, victimization experience, attention paid to the news, and perceived credibility of the news), but because we do not have longitudinal data, we cannot be certain of the direction of the effects in our models.

Because fear of crime has a number of undesirable effects of its own—for example, increased support for punitive policies—it is important to monitor its causes. If the media are merely conveying an accurate depiction of terrorist activity, and individuals are using rational calculation to estimate risk of terrorist attacks, then the positive relationship between TV news exposure and perceived risk and fear is an understandable outcome. If, however, the media are sensationalizing or exaggerating terrorism stories, this may be heightening the perceptions of risk and fear in the population as a whole. There are serious policy implications that could stem from this; if objective conditions are inflated by media hype that lead to elevated fears among viewers, there exists a risk of those viewers endorsing support for overly punitive policies and restrictions on civil liberties that might not otherwise be supported. There is also the risk of anxiety or unnecessary protective measures that reduce quality of life.

As Warr (2000) pointed out, however, “Fear has beneficial as well as deleterious consequences … individuals can be too unafraid as well as too afraid” (p. 453). He argued that efforts to manage the public’s fear should be dropped if “public perceptions of risk are accurate and existing levels of fear are justified” (p. 462). If there is objective risk, people need to take measures to protect themselves. Warr sees three models of fear of crime where the public may be too unafraid, too afraid, or approximately afraid enough to protect themselves from crime. However, there are other factors that are likely to be considered by policy makers. First is the actual response to the fear. Even if fear of crime or terrorism is justified, if it causes epidemic problems among individuals or across places that inordinately diminish quality of life or the ability of the government to

963

Download more at Learnclax.com

govern, policy makers are likely to take measures to reduce it. Law enforcement agencies may be reluctant to release information about terror plots to “protect” the public and control public fear. Second, even if information coming through the media causes fear, first amendment protections for freedom of the press have to be respected and many follow the credo that the public has a right to know regardless of the outcome. In this study, we found that perceived risk is associated with fear and that exposure to TV news is associated with perceived risk. Among the variables that were significantly associated with perceived risk in this study, exposure to TV news is the only one amenable to control by policy makers, so if they desire to manipulate the public’s fear, it would be tempting to manipulate news about terrorism. Thus, the “ethical complexities” (p. 453) for controlling fear, referred to by Warr (2000), are further bedeviled by the conflicting interests of the media, who, in the United States, make a greater profit when people watch the news, and the government, who have reasons for wanting to maintain fear but also to reduce it.

Discussion Questions

1. How is fear of crime typically measured? Do you think the way that fear of terrorism is measured in this study is adequate? Why or why not?

2. What is the cultivation hypothesis? Did the authors find support for it? What does this finding mean for prevention or intervention?

3. Why do you think the authors did not find support for the finding that people who pay greater attention to the news are more fearful of terrorism or have greater perceived risk?

4. What factors are associated with fear of terrorism for oneself? For others? Why are there differences? 5. Are there benefits to having a fear of terrorism? If so, what are they?

Note

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The present research was funded, in part, by two START fellowships from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

References Bleich, A., Gelkopf, M., & Solomon, Z. (2003). Exposure to terrorism, stress-related mental health

symptoms, and coping behaviors among a nationally representative sample in Israel. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 612–620.

Bourque, L., & Fielder, E. P. (2003). The survey kit 2: How to conduct telephone surveys (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Carlson, D. K. (2004). Terrorism fears not partisan: War’s progress is. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.

964

Download more at Learnclax.com

Chadee, D., Austen, L., & Ditton, J. (2007). The relationship between likelihood and fear of criminal victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 133–153.

Chiricos, T., Eschholz, S., & Gertz, M. (1997). Crime, news, and fear of crime: Toward an identification of audience effects. Social Problems, 44, 342–357.

Chiricos, T., Padgett, K., & Gertz, M. (2000). Fear, TV news, and the reality of crime. Criminology, 38, 755–785.

Doob, A., & Macdonald, G. E. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 170–179.

Eschholz, S. (1997). The media and fear of crime: A survey of the research. Journal of Law & Public Policy, 9, 37–59.

Eschholz, S., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2003). Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits, and the mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems, 50, 395–415.

Eschholz, S., Mallard, M., & Flynn, S. (2004). Images of prime time justice: A content analysis of NYPD Blue and Law and Order. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10, 161–180.

Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ferraro, K. F., & LaGrange, R. L. (1992). Are older people most afraid of crime? Reconsidering age differences in fear of victimization. Journal of Gerontology, 47, S233–S244.

Gerbner, G. (1969). Toward cultural indicators: The analysis of mass mediated message systems. AV Communication Review, 17, 137–148.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signiorelli, N. (1980). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gross, K., & Aday, S. (2003). The scary world in your living room and neighborhood: Using local broadcast news, neighborhood crime rates, and personal experience to test agenda setting and cultivation. Journal of

965

Download more at Learnclax.com

Communication, 53, 411–426.

Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology, 4, 79–150.

Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Capelos, T., & Provost, C. (2002). The consequences of terrorism: Disentangling the effects of personal and national threat. Political Psychology, 23, 485–509.

Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 593–608.

Jackson, J. (2006). Introducing fear of crime to risk research. Risk Analysis, 26, 253–264.

Koomen, W., Visser, M., & Stapel, D. (2000). The credibility of newspapers and fear of crime. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 921–934.

Liu, S., Huang, J.-C., & Brown, G. (1998). Information and risk perception: A dynamic adjustment process. Risk Analysis, 18, 689–699.

O’Keefe, G. J. (1984). Public views on crime: Television exposure and media credibility. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 8 (pp. 514–535). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

O’Keefe, G. J., & Reid-Nash, K. (1987). Crime news and real-world blues: The effects of the media on social reality. Communication Research, 14, 147–163.

Potter, W. J. (1986). Perceived reality and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 159–174.

Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication, 53, 88–104.

Rountree, P. W., & Land, K. C. (1996). Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces, 74, 1353–1376.

Rubin, A. M., Haridakis, P., Hullman, G., Sun, S., Chikombero, P. M., & Pornsakulvanich, V. (2003). Television exposure not predictive of terrorism fear. Newspaper Research Journal, 24, 128–145.

966

Download more at Learnclax.com

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Taylor, D. S. (1988). A methodological examination of cultivation. Communication Research, 15, 107–134.

Slone, M. (2000). Responses to media coverage of terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44, 508–522.

Slovic, P. (1988). Risk perception. In C. C. Travis (Ed.), Contemporary issues in risk analysis: Carcinogen risk assessment (Vol. 3, pp. 171–181). New York: Plenum.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., & Roe, F. J. C. (1981). Perceived risk, psychological factors, and social implications (and discussion). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 376, 17–34.

Snedker, K. A. (2006). Altruistic and vicarious forms of fear of crime: Fear for others and gendered social roles. Sociological Forum, 21, 163–195.

Sotirovic, M. (2001). Affective and cognitive processes as mediators of media influences on crime-policy preferences. Mass Communications and Society, 4, 311–329.

Sparks, R. (1992). Television and the drama of crime: Moral tales and the place of crime in public life. Milton Keyes, UK: Open University Press.

Warr, M. (1992). Altruistic fear of victimization in households. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 723–736.

Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal justice: Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (Vol. 4, pp. 451–489). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Warr, M., & Ellison, C. G. (2000). Rethinking social reactions to crime: Personal and altruistic fear in family households. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 551.

Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1983). Fear of victimization: A look at the proximate causes. Social Forces, 61, 1033–1043.

Williams, F. P., McShane, M. D., & Akers, R. L. (2000). Worry about victimization: An alternative and reliable measure for fear of crime [Electronic Version]. Western Criminology Review, 2. Retrieved from http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v2n2/williams.html

967

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v2n2/williams.html

968

Download more at Learnclax.com

Glossary

abandonment: When an elderly person is left by the caregiver in charge of him or her

account hijacking: Taking over someone else’s existing account without consent

acute battering phase: The second phase in the cycle of violence, in which the abuser engages in major and often serious physically assaultive behavior

age-graded theory of adult social bonds: Proposes that marriage and employment can help one desist from criminal behavior

Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (2001): Compensation for victims of 9/11 who were killed or injured and their families

Anti-Car Theft Act (1992): Made carjacking a federal offense and provided funding to link motor vehicle databases

Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996: Upgraded state motor vehicle departments’ databases to help identify stolen cars

anti-LGBTQ hate violence: Violence committed against people because of their sexual orientation or identity

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1996): Required restitution for violent crimes and increased funds available to victims of terrorism

anxiety: An affective disorder or state often experienced as irrational and excessive fear and worry, which may be coupled with feelings of tension and restlessness, vigilance, irritability, and difficulty concentrating

Aviation Security Improvement Act (1990): Legislation passed in response to terrorism

avoidance behaviors: Restrictions that people place on their own behaviors to protect themselves from harm

baseless allegations: There is not enough evidence to prove an assault occurred

behavioral self-blame: When a person believes she or he did something to cause victimization

behavioral strategies: Actions workers can take to reduce their chances of victimization

Benjamin Mendelsohn: Father of victimology; coined the term victimology in the mid-1940s

bereavement: The state of being sad after an individual you have cared for has passed away

bereavement centers:

969

Download more at Learnclax.com

Designed to assist homicide survivors with their loss; some provide financial, social, and legal support bias crime:

A crime committed against a person because of characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation

bonded labor: Person is enslaved to work off a debt when the conditions of the debt were not previously known

bounding: Giving a time frame to reference in order to aid recall

bullying: Intentional infliction of injury repeatedly over time by a more powerful perpetrator over a less powerful victim

burglary: Entering a structure unlawfully to commit a felony or theft

CAN-SPAM Act of 2003: Made sending spam e-mail a crime in certain circumstances

capable guardianship: Means by which a person or target can be effectively guarded to prevent a victimization from occurring

carjacking: The taking of an occupied vehicle by an armed offender

castle doctrine: No duty to retreat prior to using force in self-defense if event occurs within or on an individual’s private property

certified: Allows victims of human trafficking access to the same services usually given to refugees

characterological self-blame: Person ascribes blame to a nonmodifiable source, such as one’s character

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974): Provided definitions for child abuse and neglect and established mandatory reporting laws

child sexual abuse: Unwanted or forced sexual contact with a child, engaging children in sex work, or exposing children to sexually explicit material

Child Victims’ Bill of Rights (1990): Gave victims’ rights to children who were victims and witnesses

Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996: Prevents damaging religious buildings and preventing people from practicing their religious beliefs through threats or force

civil litigation: Victims may sue their offenders in civil court to recoup costs and to compensate for emotional harm

civil rights movement: Advocated against racism and discrimination, noting that all Americans have rights that are protected

970

Download more at Learnclax.com

by the U.S. Constitution classification:

Inmates are assessed and placed in appropriate institutions based on needs and characteristics Code of Hammurabi:

Early Babylonian code that emphasized the restoration of equity between the offender and the victim “code of the streets”:

Respect is seen as a commodity that must be maintained, even through violence coerced sexual contact:

The offender uses psychological or emotional coercion to touch, grope, rub, pet, lick, or suck the breasts, lips, or genitals of the victim

cohabitation: Couples live together but are not married

compounding vulnerability: Those with the highest levels of underlying propensity for victimization will be at risk for future victimization because of state dependence processes

Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS): Measurement tool used to gauge levels and use of various conflict tactics in intimate relationships

conjugal visits: Visits on prison grounds that allow married inmates to spend private time with their spouses

control-balance theory: The amount of control one possesses over others and the amount of control to which one is subject; the ratio of control influences the risk of engaging in deviant behavior

control deficit: When the amount of control a person exercises is outweighed by the control he or she is subject to

control ratio: Control surplus and control deficit considered together

control surplus: When the control one has exceeds the amount of control one is subject to

costs of victimization: Mental, physical, and monetary loss that victims of crime incur

court watch program: System in place in courts where trained court monitors observe judicial behavior regarding adherence to best practices involving protective orders

Crime Control Act (1990): Created a federal bill of rights for victims

Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW): Formally called the British Crime Survey, the CSEW asks persons about victimization during the previous 12 months; results provide a picture of the extent and characteristics of victimization in England and Wales

crime switching:

971

Download more at Learnclax.com

The type of incident a person is likely to experience after an initial victimization Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998:

Required that statistics on disabled victims of crime be collected through the National Crime Victimization Survey

criminal homicide: The purposeful, knowing, reckless, or negligent killing of one human being by another

criminal intent incidents: Offender has no real relationship to the business where the crime occurs

cross-border victim: A person who experiences a crime victimization in a country other than the one in which he or she lives

customer/client incidents: A person with a legitimate reason for being at a business becomes violent while at that business

cyberbullying: Bullying over the Internet, by cell phone, or through another form of digital technology

cycle of violence: A common pattern of abuse that involves different phases: tension building phase, acute battering phase, and honeymoon phase; first developed by Lenore Walker in 1979

dark figure of crime: Crime that is not reported to the police

death or casualty notification: The process by which family members of the deceased are notified of their loved one’s passing

debt bondage: Person is enslaved to work off a debt when the conditions of the debt were not previously known

Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power: A UN declaration that created a basic standard for how victims of crime should be treated

defensive behaviors: Behaviors to guard against victimization, such as purchasing a weapon

deinstitutionalization: Closing of institutions for mentally disordered people

delayed repeat victimization: Repeat victimization incident that occurs more than 30 days after the initial incident

deliberate indifference: Prison officials know inmates’ health or safety are at risk but disregard those risks

deliberation: The act was planned after careful thought

delinquent peers: People involved in delinquency with whom a person spends time; having such peers increases one’s likelihood of victimization

dependency-stress model: Theory that disabled children are more dependent on caregivers, which causes more stress that can lead

972

Download more at Learnclax.com

to abuse dependency theory:

As the dependence of the elderly increases, their rates of abuse and neglect increase depression:

A mood disorder characterized by sleep disturbances, changes in eating habits, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, and irritability; symptoms interfere with a person’s everyday life

deprivation: The depriving nature of the prison environment affects inmates’ adaptation to prison

destination country: A country that receives victims of human trafficking

developmental disability: Serious, chronic impairment of major activities such as self-care, language, learning, mobility, and capacity for independent living

direct bullying: Physical and verbal actions performed in the presence of the victim

direct costs: Monies and the value of goods and services taken as a result of identity theft

direct property losses: When victims’ possessions are taken or damaged

diversion: Offender not formally charged if she or he completes required programs

domestic human trafficking: Trafficking that occurs within a country’s borders

drug- or alcohol-facilitated rape: Victim is given drugs or alcohol without his or her knowledge or consent and then raped while under the influence

dual arrest: An arrest in which both the offender and the victim are arrested

dumpster dive: Going through trash to find papers with personal identifying information

economic costs: Financial costs associated with victimization

eldercide: Murder of a victim who is 65 years or older

Elder Justice Act (2010): Provided funding for Adult Protective Services and for the prevention and detection of elder abuse

emotional abuse: Behavior such as yelling at or verbally degrading a partner or child; can also take the form of belittling, shaming, humiliating, ignoring, rejecting, or limiting physical contact

emotional or psychological elder abuse:

973

Download more at Learnclax.com

Causing emotional pain by ridiculing, demeaning, humiliating, etc., an elderly person environmental design:

Making the workplace more secure and less of a target for crime excusable homicide:

killings that are either unintentional or accidental, whereby guilt is not a factor express malice:

A deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a human being false allegations:

Report of a sexual assault that did not happen family or community group conferencing:

Victim, offender, family, friends, and supporters talk about the impact and consequences of a crime family structure:

Household style or shape Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA):

Passed in 1984 and last reauthorized in 2015, created national domestic violence hotline, provides direct services to victims and their families, and funds domestic violence prevention programs

fatality review: Community-based program that seeks to review the circumstances of the homicide to better understand the cause of death

fear of crime: An emotional response to being afraid of being victimized

felony murder: The often unintentional killing during the commission of another felony

femicide: The killing of females by males because they are female

filicide: The killing of a child by a parent or a caretaker

financial exploitation: Illegal or improper use of an elderly person’s property, assets, or funds

first-degree murder: Murder committed with deliberate premeditation and malice

forced labor: Victims are held and forced to work under threat of violence or punishment

forceful physical strategies: Physical resistance by the victim against the offender, such as shoving, biting, hitting, etc.

forceful verbal strategies: Verbal attempts to scare the offender or attract the attention of others

forcible rape: Offender uses or threatens to use force to achieve penetration

gender-based violence:

974

Download more at Learnclax.com

Women and girls are at risk of violence because of their sex general theory of crime:

Proposes that a person with low self-control will engage in crime if given the opportunity gene x environment interaction:

Genes interact with environmental features to shape behavior guardian ad litem (GAL):

A person who represents the best interests of a child in court Gun-Free Schools Act (2004):

Mandates that schools receiving federal funding must suspend for at least 1 year any student who brings a gun to school

Handbook on Justice: Created by the UN, the handbook is used to help guide the creation of victim service programs and aids in establishing policies for those who work in the justice system who come into contact with victims

Hans von Hentig: Developed a victim typology based on characteristics of the victim that increase risk of victimization

hate crime: A crime committed against a person because of characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation

Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990): Requires that the attorney general collect statistics on hate crimes

hierarchy rule: If more than one Part I offense occurs in the same incident report, only the most serious offense will be counted in the reporting process

home invasion: Burglary of a residence in which the offender uses force against the residents

homicide: The killing of one human being by another

homicide-suicide: Characterized by the perpetrator killing himself after murdering his intimate partner

homicide survivors: People whose loved ones have been murdered

honeymoon phase: The third phase in the cycle of violence, in which the abuser is calm and loving and most probably begging his partner for forgiveness

honor killing: Homicide that is perpetrated by male against female to ensure that honor is maintained

Hostage Relief Act of 1980: Provided funding to help hostage victims, their spouses, and their children

hostile work environment sexual harassment: Sexual harassment that occurs when sex-related behavior creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive

975

Download more at Learnclax.com

working environment or interferes with a person’s performance at work hot spots:

Areas that are crime prone identity theft:

Using another’s personal identity information to commit fraud Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (1998):

Made identity theft a federal offense Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (2004):

Created the crime of aggravated identity theft for identity theft associated with certain felonies Identity Theft Supplement (ITS):

Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey in which data on extent of account hijacking and use and misuse of personal information was collected

implied/constructive malice: When death occurs due to negligence rather than intent

importation: Characteristics inmates bring with them to prison that affect their adaptation to prison

incapacitated rape: Rape occurs when victim is unable to consent because of being unconscious, drugged, or otherwise incapacitated

incident report: Detailed questions about a victimization experience

incivilities: Low-level breaches of community standards that show that conventionally accepted norms and values have eroded in an area

indirect bullying: Subtle actions such as isolating, excluding, and making obscene gestures; often called social bullying

indirect costs: Legal bills, bounced checks, and other costs associated with identity theft

indirect or secondary victimization: Experiencing victimization secondhand through witnessing or hearing about victimization directly impacting a family member or friend; people often suffer psychological consequences similar to the victim’s

infanticide: Homicide in which the victim is under 1 year of age

injury: A negative health outcome of intimate partner violence

International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS): Survey where respondents are asked to self-report about 10 different types of victimization; conducted from 1989 through 2004–2005 in various years and in more than 78 countries

International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD):

976

Download more at Learnclax.com

Three waves of data—the first in 1990–1991, the second in 2006–2008, and the third completed in 2014—where juveniles in seventh, eighth, and ninth grades self-report about delinquency in countries primarily in Europe

international victimization studies: Use randomized samples from several countries, representative from populations from which drawn

International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT): Located in Tilburg University in the Netherlands, the institute engages in comparative research with the sole focus on the study and advancement of victimology

International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS): Initiated in 1997, the IVAWS is used to assess violence against women by their male partners; 11 countries have participated in the survey

intimate partner: A husband or wife, an ex-husband or ex-wife, a boyfriend or girlfriend, or a dating partner

intimate partner homicide: A homicide involving spouses, ex-spouses, persons in current or de facto relationships, boyfriends or girlfriends, or partners in same-sex relationships

intimate terrorism: Severe, persistent, and frequent abuse within intimate relationships that tends to escalate over time

involuntary domestic servitude: Victims are forced to work as domestic workers

involuntary/negligent manslaughter: Death resulting from gross negligence (ignoring the possible danger or potential harm to other people)

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (1990): Requires schools to publish an annual crime report, report warnings of threats, and protect the rights of victims and offenders in cases handled on campus

Justice for All Act (2004): Enforced victims’ rights and provided funds to test the backlog of rape kits

Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015: Requires that nonindigent entities convicted of offenses related to trafficking and sexual abuse or sexual exploitation/abuse of children pay a $5,000 assessment

justifiable homicide: Homicide that is judged to be acceptable because it occurs in defense of a life or property

labor trafficking: Human trafficking with the goal of exploiting someone for labor

learned helplessness: Victims believe they are unable to change the situation and stop trying to resist

lex talionis: An eye for an eye

life-course perspective: Examines the development of and desistance from offending and other behaviors over time

977

Download more at Learnclax.com

local victimization studies: Surveys restricted to the population of a specific region or city

Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program: Receives complaints about elderly mistreatment in long-term care facilities

lost productivity: Being unable to work, go to school, or complete everyday tasks because of being victimized

mandatory arrest policies: Require arrest by police officers when there is probable cause that a crime was committed and enough evidence exists for an arrest

mandatory reporting law: Requires certain professionals, such as doctors, to report suspected cases of child abuse

manslaughter: The degree of responsibility is less than for murder; however, it is still an unlawful killing

mass murder: The killing of four or more victims in one location in one incident

Marvin Wolfgang: Used Philadelphia homicide data to conduct the first empirical investigation of victim precipitation

matricide: The killing of one’s mother

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act (2009): Included gender-based hate crimes and hate crimes by and against juveniles in data collection

Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law: In Germany, consists of department of criminal law and criminology, both active in conducting research and promoting victimological research

medical care costs: Costs associated with treating victims of crime

Menachem Amir: Studied victim provocation in rapes

mental health care costs: Psychiatric care required as a result of being victimized

Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment: Conducted in 1984 by Lawrence Sherman and Richard Berk to examine the deterrent effect of arrest on domestic violence perpetrators

misdemeanor: A crime that usually is less serious than a felony and carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD): Organization that assists homicide survivors; it generally focuses on drunk driving but also provides materials regarding bereavement, finances, and the legal rights of victims and their families

motivated offenders: People who will commit crime if given an opportunity

978

Download more at Learnclax.com

motor vehicle theft: The unlawful taking of another’s vehicle

Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (1984): Required manufacturers to put identification numbers on car parts to make them easier to trace when stolen

Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act of 1994: Developed a voluntary, national motor vehicle theft prevention program

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS): Annual analysis of data on child abuse reports submitted to child protective services

National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV): A nationally representative study of sexual victimization among college women, conducted in 1997

National Crime Survey: First ever government-sponsored victimization survey; relied on victims to recall their own victimization experiences

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS): National survey of households that is used to generate annual estimates of victimization in the United States

National Elder Abuse Incidence Study: Measured the incidence of mistreatment of people over age 60 in domestic settings

National Incidence Study (NIS): Report on cases investigated by child protective services and cases identified by professionals in the community

National Inmate Survey: Self-report survey on inmates’ rates of victimization

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): A nationally representative survey of 16,507 individuals designed to measure intimate partner violence, stalking, and sexual violence

National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project: Self-report survey of elderly people about their experiences of abuse

National Study of Drug or Alcohol Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A national study of three types of rape

National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC): Survey of youth in state and private correctional facilities

national victimization studies: Use representative, random samples from one country

National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS): Telephone survey of 8,000 men and 8,000 women about violence they have experienced

near-repeat victimization: A victimization that occurs near a place that was recently victimized

negative state dependence:

979

Download more at Learnclax.com

Explanation for recurring victimization that states that low-risk persons experience negative state dependence

neglect: When a child’s basic needs are not met; also, when someone with the responsibility of caring for an elderly person fails to fulfill their caretaking obligations

neighborhood context: Features of neighborhoods that impact risk for victimization

New Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003: Enacted provisions to prevent identity theft and help victims

no-drop prosecution: The victim is not able to drop the charges against the offender and the prosecutor’s discretion in deciding to charge is curtailed

noncontact sexual abuse: Forms of sexual victimization that do not involve touching or penetration; includes verbal and visual abuse

nonforceful physical strategies: Nonforceful physical attempts to stop an assault, such as trying to escape the attack by running away

nonforceful verbal strategies: Nonaggressive attempts to get the offender to stop, such as talking to or pleading with the offender

notification: The right of victims to be kept apprised of key events in their cases

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): Federal agency in the U.S. Department of Labor that provides guidelines for workplace health and safety

Older Americans Act (1965): Protected the rights of and provided funding for the elderly

organizational and administrative controls: Strategies that administrators and agencies can implement to reduce the risk of workplace victimization in their organizations

Palermo Protocol: Criminalized human trafficking and established procedures for government response

parity hypothesis: The idea that, to stop an incident, the victim’s level of self-protection should match the offender’s level of attack

parricide: The murder of one’s parent

participation and consultation: Rights given to victims to encourage participation in the criminal justice system; also provide victims the right to discuss their cases with the prosecutor and/or judge before key decisions are made

patriarchy:

980

Download more at Learnclax.com

A form of social organization in which the man is dominant and is allowed to control women and children

patricide: The killing of one’s father

peacemaking circle: Gathering of victim, offender, community members, and sometimes criminal justice officials to promote healing

perceived risk: The perceived likelihood that a person will be victimized

permissive arrest policies: Policies that do not mandate or presume that an arrest will be made by law enforcement when warranted; allow police to use their discretion

personal relationship incidents: Perpetrator has a relationship with the victim and targets him or her while at work

phishing: Use of fake websites and e-mails to trick people into providing personal information

physical abuse: Injury or physical harm of another person, such as a child

physical bullying: Hitting, punching, shoving, or other physical forms of violence

physical elder abuse: Nonaccidental harm of an elderly person causing pain, injury, or impairment

physical incivilities: Disorderly physical surroundings in an area

physical injury: Physical harm suffered that may include bruises, soreness, scratches, cuts, broken bones, contracted diseases, and stab or gunshot wounds

physical violence: Includes hitting, slapping, kicking, punching, choking, and throwing objects at another person

polyvictimization: When a person, usually in childhood or during the same developmental time period, experiences multiple forms of victimization

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): Psychiatric anxiety disorder caused by experiencing traumatic events such as war, violence, etc.

power: A person’s ability to impose his or her will on another person

power of attorney abuse: Misusing access to an elderly person’s money

premeditation: The act was considered beforehand

981

Download more at Learnclax.com

presumptive arrest policies: Arrest policies that presume an arrest will be made when probable cause exists to do so

principle of homogamy: People who share characteristics of offenders are more at risk of victimization, given that they are more likely to come into contact with offenders

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003: Requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to analyze incidence and effects of prison rape

pro-arrest policies: Require arrests in specific situations in which certain criteria are met

protective behaviors: Behaviors that people engage in to guard against victimization, such as installing security cameras in their home

protective custody: Secure inmate housing in which inmates are separated from others

protective order: Order secured to keep one person away from another

quid pro quo sexual harassment: Sexual harassment that occurs when employment-related outcomes hinge on compliance with request for sexual favors

rape: Nonconsensual contact between the penis and the vulva or anus, or penetration of the vulva or anus, or contact between the mouth and penis, vulva, or anus, or penetration of another person’s genital or anal opening with a finger, hand, or object, accompanied by force or threat of force

rape shield laws: Prohibit the defense from using the victim’s sexual history in court

recurring victimization: When a person or place is victimized more than once in any way

repatriation: Returning trafficking victims to their native countries

repeat victimization: When a person is victimized more than once in the same way

reporting: Disclosing the victimization to the police

residential mobility: The percentage of persons 5 years and older living in a different house from 5 years before

resistance strategy: Something the victim does to try to stop or prevent an attack

response latency: The time it takes a person to respond; in sexual victimization research, investigators have examined the response latency of victims to see how quickly they identify a scenario as risky

982

Download more at Learnclax.com

restitution: Money or services paid to victims of crimes by the offenders

restorative justice: A movement recognizing that crime is a harm caused not just to the state but to the victim and his or her community; seeks to use all entities in response to crime and allows for input from the offender, the victim, and community members harmed by the offense in making a determination of how to repair the harm caused by the offender

retribution: A criminal is punished because he or she deserved it, and the punishment is equal to the harm caused

revictimization: When a person is victimized more than once over the course of the life span

right to a speedy trial: Victims’ interests are considered when judges rule on postponement of trial dates

right to protection: Safety measures provided to victims

risk heterogeneity (“flag” explanation): Characteristics about a person that, if left unchanged, place him or her at greater risk of being victimized repeatedly

risky lifestyles: Engaging in risky behaviors that expose people to situations likely to increase their victimization risk

routine activities and lifestyles theories: A person’s routine activities and lifestyle place him or her at risk of being victimized. Risk is highest when motivated offenders, lack of capable guardianship, and suitable targets coalesce in time and space.

safe haven laws: Allow mothers or caregivers in crisis to leave their babies at designated locations anonymously without risk of punishment

school victimization: Victimization of students on school grounds, buildings, buses, or at school events or functions

screen questions: Used to cue respondents or jog their memories as to whether they experienced any of seven types of criminal victimization in the previous 6 months

screening: Questions asked by a medical professional to determine if a victimization occurred, identifying victims in order to provide them service referrals

secondary victimization: See Indirect or secondary victimization

second-degree murder: Murder committed with malice but without premeditation and deliberation

self-blame: Victims believe they are responsible for their own victimization

983

Download more at Learnclax.com

self-esteem: Beliefs and emotions about a person’s own self-worth or value

self-neglect: When an elderly person fails to care for or adequately protect himself or herself

self-protective action: Something the victim does to try to stop or prevent an attack; generally classified into one of four types: forceful physical, nonforceful physical, forceful verbal, or nonforceful verbal

self-worth: A person’s own perception of his or her worth or value

sentencing circle: Gathering of victim, offender, community members, and sometimes criminal justice officials to determine the offender’s sentence

serial murder: According to U.S. federal law, a series of three or more killings, with at least one occurring in the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors

series victimizations: Incidents that occur in which respondents cannot distinguish enough identifying details or even recall each incident

sex crime units: Special units within police departments trained to examine victims and collect evidence in sexual assault cases

sex trafficking: Human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation

Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting Act (2013): Ensures collecting and processing of DNA by law enforcement is done in a timely fashion and in accordance with established protocols and practices; provides for auditing of samples of sexual assault evidence awaiting testing

sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE): Registered nurses specially trained in examining victims of sexual assault and collecting forensic evidence

sexual assault response team (SART): Coordinate medical and criminal justice responses to rape and sexual assault victims

sexual coercion: Offender manipulates victim to engage in unwanted sex

sexual elder abuse: Sexual contact with an elderly person without his or her consent

Sexual Experiences Survey (SES): Widespread measurement tool developed by Koss that measures rape, sexual coercion, and sexual contact

sexual victimization:

984

Download more at Learnclax.com

Encompasses any type of victimization involving sexual behavior perpetrated against an individual sexual violence:

Includes unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, and rape shaken baby syndrome:

Brain hemorrhages, skull fractures, and retinal hemorrhages caused by shaking shoulder surfing:

When offenders get information such as credit card numbers by watching or listening to someone enter them

situational couple violence: When conflict gets out of control and results in violence; also called common couple violence

skimming: Using devices to extract personal information from ATM machines

social distance: Feelings people have about others with whom they spend time

social incivilities: Disruptive social behaviors in an area

social interactionist perspective: Proposes that distressed individuals behave aggressively, which then elicits an aggressive response from others

social learning: People learn behavior by observing others engaging in it and by having their own behavior reinforced

source country: A country that supplies trafficking victims

specialized victimization studies: Studies focusing on a specific type of victimization

spousal or marital privilege laws: Provide an exception that victims may not have to testify against their abusers if they are legally married to them

spree murder: The killing of multiple victims at two or more separate locations but with no cooling off period in between; each event is emotionally connected

spyware: Software that surreptitiously collects information from unsuspecting people’s computers

stand-your-ground laws: Laws that allow individuals to use force in self-defense without requiring they retreat from their location first

state dependence or event dependence (“boost” explanation): The way a victim and offender respond to an incidence of victimization affects their likelihood of being involved in future victimization

statutory rape:

985

Download more at Learnclax.com

When a person below the age of consent has sex Stephen Schafer:

Argued that victims have a functional responsibility not to provoke others into victimizing or harming them and that they also should actively attempt to prevent that from occurring

structural density: The percentage of units in structures of five or more units

subintentional homicide: The victim facilitates her or his own death by using poor judgment, placing himself or herself at risk, living a risky lifestyle, or using alcohol or drugs

suitable targets: Victims chosen by offenders based on their attractiveness in the situation/crime

symptomology: Exhibiting symptoms of a mental disorder

system costs: Costs paid by society in response to victimization (e.g., law enforcement, insurance costs)

target hardening: Making it more difficult for an offender to attack a certain target

tension-building phase: The first phase in the cycle of violence, in which positive and charming behavior on the part of the abuser lasts until pressures and more serious events generate tension

theft: The taking of another person’s property

theory of low self-control: Proposes that people who have low self-control are more likely to be involved in crime and delinquency

time course: How quickly a subsequent victimization occurs in relation to an initial victimization event

tonic immobility: Being physically unable to respond during a traumatic event, such as rape

transnational human trafficking: When victims are transported from one country to another

T visa: Allows victims of human trafficking to become temporary citizens of the United States

unfounded: Assault is determined to be untrue or a case lacks evidence to move forward

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR): Annual reports of the amount of crime reported to or known by the police in a year

unwanted sexual contact: Person is touched in an erogenous zone, but it does not involve attempted or completed penetration

unwanted sexual contact with force: Person is touched in an erogenous zone, but not penetrated, through use or threat of force

986

Download more at Learnclax.com

verbal abuse: Offender makes offensive sexual comments or noises to victim

verbal bullying: Direct name calling and threatening

vicarious victimization: The effect one person’s victimization has on others

victim compensation: The right of victims to have monies that they lost due to victimization repaid to them by the state

victim facilitation: When a victim unintentionally makes it easier for an offender to commit a crime

victim impact statement (VIS): Statement made to the court by the victim or his or her family about the harm caused and the desired sentence for the offender

victimization salience: Explanation for recurring victimization that posits state dependence processes will be most salient among those with the lowest underlying risks

victimization theory: Generally, a set of testable propositions designed to explain why a person is victimized

victim–offender mediation programs: Sessions led by a third party in which the victim and offender meet face-to-face to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement as to what should happen to the offender—often through the development of a restitution plan

victimology: The scientific study of victims and victimization

victim precipitation: The extent to which a victim is responsible for his or her own victimization

victim proneness: Victims are likely to experience the same type of victimization following an initial victimization if they are victimized a subsequent time (e.g., a victim is raped and then is raped again a month later)

victim provocation: When a person does something that incites another person to commit an illegal act

Victims Bill of Rights (Canada): Passed in 2014, provides federal statutory rights for victims in Canada for the first time; victims provided rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution

Victims of Crime Act (1984): Created the Office for Victims of Crime and provided funds for victim compensation

Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act (1986): Provided money to compensate for wages lost during captivity

Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act (2001): Payments made to victims of qualifying disasters and death benefits for those lost in terrorist acts such

987

Download more at Learnclax.com

as 9/11 cannot be taxed victims’ rights:

Rights given to victims to enhance their privacy, protection, and participation Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (1990):

Guaranteed victims the right to restitution Victims’ Rights Clarification Act (1997):

Allowed victims to make impact statements and attend their offenders’ trials victims’ rights movement:

Movement centered on giving victims a voice in the criminal justice system and providing them rights Victim Support (UK):

Covers England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; national charity that offers free and confidential services to victims and witnesses

Victim Support Europe: The parent network for all victim support organizations in Europe

victim/witness assistance programs (VWAPs): Provide aid to victims during the investigation and criminal justice process

Victim Witness Protection Act (1982): Developed and implemented guidelines for how officials respond to victims and witnesses

violence: The intentional physical harm of another person

Violence Against Women Act (1994): Gave money to programs for prevention and treatment of female victims

Violence Against Women Act (2000): Provided funding for rape prevention and education and domestic violence victims and included Internet stalking as a crime

Violence Against Women Act (2013): Prohibits survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault from being evicted from federally subsidized housing programs; requires institutions of higher learning to record dating violence incidents, to implement prevention programs, and to provide resources to victims

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994): Increased funds for victim compensation and created the national sex offender registry

visual abuse: Victim is forced to view sexual acts, pictures, and/or videos

voluntary manslaughter: The intentional infliction of injury that is likely to and actually does cause death

women’s movement: Recognized the need for female victims of crime to receive special attention and help due to the fact that victimizations such as sexual assault and domestic violence are byproducts of sexism, traditional sex roles, emphasis on traditional family values, and the economic subjugation of women

worker-on-worker incidents:

988

Download more at Learnclax.com

When a current or former employee attacks another employee workplace victimization:

Victimization that occurs while a person is on duty at work World Society of Victimology (WSV):

Organization that holds a symposium every 3 years that advances research, services, and awareness for victims

zero-tolerance policies: Specific, established punishments for students involved in fighting, violence, or bringing weapons to school

989

Download more at Learnclax.com

References

Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 118–128.

Academic Council on the United Nations System. (2013). Femicide: A global issue that demands action. Retrieved from http://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/Co- publications/Femicide_A%20Gobal%20Issue%20that%20demands%20Action.pdf

Addington, L. A. (2013). Who you calling old? Measuring “elderly” and what it means for homicide research. Homicide studies, 17, 134–153.

Administration on Aging. (2012). National ombudsman reporting system data tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging. Retrieved from http://www.aoa.gov/aoa_programs/elder_rights/Ombudsman/National_State_Data/index.aspx

Advocates for Human Rights. (2010). The advocates for human rights: 2010 annual report. Retrieved from http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/uploads/advocates_2010annualreport_web.pdf

Afifi, T. O., & Brownridge, D. A. (2008). Physical abuse of children born to adolescent mothers: The continuation of the relationship into adult motherhood and the role of identity. In T. I. Richardson & M. V. Williams (Eds.), Child abuse and violence (pp. 19–42). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Ahrens, C. E., Cabral, G., & Abeling, S. (2009). Healing or hurtful: Sexual assault survivors’ interpretations of social reactions from support providers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 81–94.

Aisenberg, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2008). Community violence in context: Risk and resilience in children and families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 296–315.

Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Aldrich, H., & Kallivayalil, D. (2013). The impact of homicide on survivors and clinicians. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 18, 362–377.

Allen, M. (2007). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) communities and domestic violence: Information

990

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/Co-publications/Femicide_A%20Gobal%20Issue%20that%20demands%20Action.pdf

http://www.aoa.gov/aoa_programs/elder_rights/Ombudsman/National_State_Data/index.aspx

http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/uploads/advocates_2010annualreport_web.pdf

and resources. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_files_VAWnet/NRC_LGBTDV-Full.pdf

Allen, N. H. (1980). Homicide: Perspectives on prevention. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press.

Allwood, M. A., & Widom, C. S. (2013). Child abuse and neglect, developmental role attainment, and adult arrests. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 551–578.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Resnick, H. S. (1991). Homicide as a risk factor for PTSD among surviving family members. Behavior Modification, 15, 545–559.

Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Veronen, L. J. (1989). Family survivors of homicide victims: A behavioral analysis. The Behavior Therapist, 12, 75–79.

Angel, C. (2005). Crime victims meet their offenders: Testing the impact of restorative justice on victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Applebaum, D. R., & Burns, G. L. (1991). Unexpected childhood death: Posttraumatic stress disorder in surviving siblings and parents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 114–120.

Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P., & Monahan, J. (2000). Violence and delusions: Data from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 566–572.

Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scale: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1263–1289.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

Arseneault, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Taylor, P. J., & Silva, P. A. (2000). Mental disorders and violence in the total birth cohort: Results from the Dunedin study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 979–986.

991

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_files_VAWnet/NRC_LGBTDV-Full.pdf

Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problems in young children: A nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics, 118, 130–138.

Azrael, D., Braga, A. A., & O’Brien, M. E. (2013). Developing the capacity to understand and prevent homicide: An evaluation of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health.

Bachman, R. (1994). Violence and theft in the workplace. In Crime data brief: National crime victimization survey (p. 1). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/thefwork.pdf

Bachman, R., & Meloy, M. L. (2008). The epidemiology of violence against the elderly: Implications for primary and secondary prevention. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 186–197.

Badgley, R. F., Allard, H. A., McCormick, N., Proudfoot, P. M., Fortin, D., Ogilvie, D., Sutherland, S. (1984). Sexual offences against children. Catalogue no. J2–50/1984E. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Supply and Services.

Baladerian, N. J. (1991). Sexual abuse of people with developmental disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, 9, 323–335.

Balasinorwala, V. P., & Shah, N. (2009). Acute stress disorder in victims after terror attacks in Mumbai, India. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195, 462.

Bandes, S. (1999). Victim standing. Utah Law Review, 2, 331–348.

Banks, D., & Kyckelhahn, T. (2011). Characteristics of suspected human trafficking incidents, 2008–2010 (Report No. NCJ 233732). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice.

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463–481.

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2007). Rape prevention through bystander education: Final report to NIJ for grant 2002-WG-BX-0009. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208701.pdf

992

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/thefwork.pdf

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208701.pdf

Banyard, V. L., Williams, L. M., & Siegel, J. A. (2001). The long-term mental health consequences of child sexual abuse: An exploratory study of the impact of multiple traumas in a sample of women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 697–715.

Barberet, B., Fisher, B. S., & Taylor, H. (2004). University student safety in the East Midlands. London, England: Home Office.

Barnes, J. C., & Beaver, K. M. (2012). Extending research on the victim-offender overlap: Evidence from a genetically informative analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–23. Online first doi:10.1177/0886260512441259

Barnett, O. W., & LaViolette, A. D. (1993). It could happen to anyone: Why battered women stay. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Barrett, K. A., O’Day, B., Roche, A., & Carlson, B. L. (2009). Intimate partner violence, health status, and health care access among women with disabilities. Women’s Health Issues, 19, 94–100.

Barton, G., & Vevea, B. (2010, July 10). 2 court systems didn’t make link to Milwaukee assault suspect: Restraining orders not reviewed for criminal conduct. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/98177914.html

Baskin, D. R., Sommers, I., & Steadman, H. J. (1991). Assessing the impact of psychiatric impairment on prison violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 271–280.

Bassett, L. (2014, June 25). NRA fights for convicted stalkers’ gun rights. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/nra-stalkers-_n_5530097.html

Basu, K. (2014, January 30). Laws to help Md. crime victims take effect Tuesday. Retrieved from http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/local/laws-to-help-md-crime-victims-take-effect- tuesday/article_883b9c33-1b54-5cae-ac77-58639e311187.html

Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M., & Rose, K. (2009). Stalking victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Baum, K., & Klaus, P. (2005). Violent victimization of college students, 1995–2002 (NCJ Report No. 206836). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

993

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/98177914.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/nra-stalkers-_n_5530097.html

http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/local/laws-to-help-md-crime-victims-take-effect-tuesday/article_883b9c33-1b54-5cae-ac77-58639e311187.html

Baum, R., & Moore, K. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender domestic violence in 2001. New York, NY: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

Bayliss, K., & Chang, D. (2013, November 5). Man shoots, kills 2 armed robbers: Police. Retrieved from http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/2-Shot-Killed-in-Attempted-Robbery-230539261.html

Beaver, K. M., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., & Cooper, J. A. (2009). The biosocial underpinnings to adolescent victimization: Results from a longitudinal sample of twins. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 223–238.

Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., Daigle, L. E., Swatt, M. L., & Gibson, C. L. (2007). Evidence of a gene X environment interaction in the creation of victimization: Results from a longitudinal sample of adolescents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 620–645.

Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., Walsh, A., Vaughn, M. G., Boisvert, D., & Vaske, J. (2007). A gene x gene interaction between DRD2 and DRD4 is associated with conduct disorder and antisocial behavior in males. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 30.

Beck, A. J., Berzofsky, M., Caspar, R., & Krebs, C. (2013). Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported by inmates, 2011–12 (Report No. NCJ 241399). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2010). Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported by inmates, 2008–09. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Guerino, P. (2010). Special report: Sexual victimization in juvenile facilities reported by youth, 2008–09. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

Beitchman, J. H., Zucker, K. J., Hood, J. E., da Costa, G. A., Akman, D., & Cassavia, E. (1992). A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 101–118.

Bell, J. (2002). Policing hatred: Law enforcement, civil rights, and hate crime. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Benjamin, J., Li, L., Patterson, C., Greenberg, B. D., Murphy, D. L., & Hamer, D. H. (1996). Population

994

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/2-Shot-Killed-in-Attempted-Robbery-230539261.html

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

and familial association between D4 dopamine receptor gene and measures of novelty seeking. Nature Genetics, 12, 81–84.

Bennett, J. (2010, October 4). From lockers to lockup: School bullying in the digital age can have tragic consequences. But should it be a crime? Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/04/phoebe-prince-should-bullying-be-a-crime.html?GT1=43002

Bennett, K. J. (2003). Legal and social issues surrounding closed-circuit television of child victims and witnesses. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 8, 233–271.

Ben Roethlisberger’s bad play: Police reports detail NFL quarterback’s unseemly night in Georgia. (2010, April 15). The Smoking Gun. Retrieved from http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/ben- roethlisbergers-bad-play

Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., DeMaris, A., & Van Wyk, J. (2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 207–235.

Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 641–658.

Bernasco, W. (2008). Them again? Same-offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 411–431.

Berg, M. T., & Loeber, R. (2012). Examining the neighborhood context of the violent offending- victimization relationship: A prospective investigation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27, 427–451.

Berg, M. T., Stewart, E. A., Schreck, C. J., & Simons, R. L. (2012). The victim–offender overlap in context: Examining the role of neighborhood street culture. Criminology, 50, 359–390.

Berg, S. (2009). Identity theft causes, correlates, and factors: A content analysis. In F. Schmalleger & M. Pittaro (Eds.), Crimes of the Internet (pp. 225–250). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Berios, D. C., & Grady, D. (1991). Domestic violence: Risk factors and outcomes. Western Journal of Medicine, 155, 133–135.

995

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/04/phoebe-prince-should-bullying-be-a-crime.html?GT1=43002

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/ben-roethlisbergers-bad-play

Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.

Blaauw, E., Winkel, F. W., Arensman, E., Sheridan, L., & Freeve, A. (2002). The toll of stalking: The relationship features of stalking and psychopathology of victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 50–63.

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Block, C. R. (2003). How can practitioners help an abused woman lower her risk of death? National Institute of Justice, 250, 4–7.

Blumenthal, J. A. (2009). Affective forecasting and capital sentencing: Reducing the effect of victim impact statements. American Criminal Law Review, 46, 107–126.

Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Ruin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480–484.

Bond, P. G., & Webb, J. R. (2010). Child abuse, neglect, and maltreatment. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 1, pp. 75–83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bonderman, J. (2001). Working with victims of gun violence. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime.

Bonnie, R. J., & Wallace, R. B. (2003). Elder mistreatment: Abuse, neglect and exploitation in aging America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Bookwala, J., Frieze, I., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297–311.

Bovin, M. J., Jager-Hyman, S., Gold, S. D., Marx, B. P., & Sloan, D. M. (2008). Tonic immobility mediates the influence of peritraumatic fear and perceived inescapability on posttraumatic stress symptom severity among sexual assault survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21, 402–409.

996

Download more at Learnclax.com

Branson-Potts, H. (2014, August 24). Suge Knight, 2 others shot at Chris Brown party on Sunset Strip. L.A. Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suge-knight-chris-brown- 20140824-story.html

Breetzke, G. D., & Pearson, A. L. (2014). The fear factor: Examining the spatial variability of recorded crime on the fear of crime. Applied Geography, 46, 45–52.

Breiding, M. J., & Armour, B. S. (2015). The association between disability and intimate partner violence in the United States. Annals of Epidemiology, 25, 455–457.

Breitenbecher, K. H. (2001). Sexual assault on college campuses: Is an ounce of prevention enough? Applied and Preventative Psychology, 9, 23–52.

Breitenbecher, K. H., & Gidycz, C. A. (1998). An empirical evaluation of a program designed to reduce the risk of multiple sexual victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 472–488.

Brochman, S. (1991, July 30). Silent victims: Bringing male rape out of the closet. The Advocate, 582, 38–43.

Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). The impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 66–77.

Browning, S., & Erickson, P. (2009). Neighborhood disadvantage, alcohol use, and violent victimization. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 331–349.

Brownridge, D. A. (2006). Partner violence against women with disabilities: Prevalence, risk, and explanations. Violence Against Women, 12, 805–822.

Brownridge, D. A., Taillieu, T., Chan, K. L., Afifi, T., Santos, S., & Tiwari, A. (2016). The risk of men’s and women’s intimate partner violence victimization across activity limitation types in Canada. Partner Abuse, 7, 169–192.

Brunton-Smith, I., & Sturgis, P. (2011). Do neighborhoods generate fear of crime? An empirical test using the British Crime Survey. Criminology, 49, 331–369.

Bui, H. I. (2001). In the adopted land: Abused immigrant women and the criminal justice system. Westport, CT: Praeger.

997

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suge-knight-chris-brown-20140824-story.html

Bunch, J., Clay-Warner, J., & McMahon-Howard, J. (2014). The effects of victimization on routine activities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 574–592.

Bune, K. L. (2007, February 4). Marital privilege law sends wrong message. Retrieved from http://www.officer.com/article/10250193/marital-privilege-law-sends-wrong-message

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006a). Criminal victimization in the United States: Statistical tables 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006b). National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010, February). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2007: Statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0702.pdf

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Data tables. Table 76. Personal robbery and assault, 2008: Percent of victimizations in which victims sustained physical injury, by selected characteristics of victims and type of crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015a). NCVS-1 Basic Screen Questionnaire. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015b). Crime Incident Report. National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Fact sheet: Workplace shootings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/osar0014.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011, August 25). National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2010 (preliminary results). Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved

998

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.officer.com/article/10250193/marital-privilege-law-sends-wrong-message

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0702.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/osar0014.htm

from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016a). Table A-1. Fatal occupational injuries by industry and event or exposure, all United States, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t01.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016b). Table A-8. Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure and age, all United States, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0293.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016c). Distribution of fatal injury events by gender of worker, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0013.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016d). Work-related homicides by gender of decedent and assailant type, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0014.pdf

Buschur, C. (2010). Expert testimony. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 1, pp. 364–365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Buzawa, E. S. (2007). Victims of domestic violence. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio, & S. Herman (Eds.), Victims of crime (3rd ed., pp. 55–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (1993). Opening the doors: The changing police response to domestic violence. In R. G. Dunham & G. P. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (pp. 551–567). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Campbell, J., Rose, L., Kub, J., & Reed, D. (1998). Voices of strength and resistance: A contextual and longitudinal analysis of women’s responses to battering. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 743–762.

Campbell, R., Patterson, D., & Lichty, L. F. (2005). The effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs: A review of the psychological, medical, legal, and community outcomes. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6, 313–329.

Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Reanne, T., Lee, H., Bruce, C., & Thomas, G. (2015). Report on the

999

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t01.htm

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0293.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0013.pdf

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0014.pdf

AAU Campus Climate Survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat.

Cantwell, H. B. (1999). The neglect of child neglect. In M. E. Helfer, R. S. Kempe, & R. D. Krugman (Eds.), The battered child (pp. 347–373). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Carbone-Lopez, K., & Kruttschnitt, C. (2010). Risky relationships? Assortative mating and women’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Crime and Delinquency, 56, 358–384.

Carter, S. D., & Bath, C. (2007). The evolution and components of the Jeanne Clery Act: Implications for higher education. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 27–44). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Casey, E. A., & Nurius, P. S. (2005). Trauma exposure and sexual revictimization risk. Violence Against Women, 11, 505–530.

Cass, A. I. (2007). Routine activities and sexual assault: An analysis of individual and school level factors. Violence and Victims, 22, 350–366.

Catalano, S. (2010). Victimization during household burglary. National Crime Victimization Survey, 1–12.

Catalano, S. (2013). Intimate partner violence: Attributes of victimization, 1993–2011 (Report No. NCJ 243300). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvav9311.pdf

Catalano, S., Smith, E., Snyder, H., & Rand, M. (2009). Female victims of violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2003). Victim-reported risk factors for continued abusive behavior: Assessing the dangerousness of arrested batterers. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 349–369.

Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner violence a cross- disciplinary critical review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 141–175.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against women. Atlanta, GA: Author.

1000

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvav9311.pdf

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). HIV statistics and surveillance. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010a). Developmental disabilities. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/default.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010b). Intimate partner violence: Consequences. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/consequences.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014, June 13). Youth risk behavior surveillance: United States, 2013. Surveillance Summaries, 63, 1–168.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). CDC releases youth risk behaviors survey results. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/features/yrbs

Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2008). What is restorative justice? (Briefing paper). Retrieved from http://www.pfi.org/cjr

Chalfin, A. (2016). Economic costs of crime. In W. G. Jennings (Ed.), The encyclopedia of crime and punishment (pp. 1–12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Chalk, R., & King, P. (1998). Violence in families: Assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Chan, K. L., Emery, C. R., & Ip, P. (2016). Children with disability are more at risk of violence victimization: Evidence from a student of school-aged Chinese children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1026–1046.

Chandek, M. S., & Porter, C. O. L. H. (1998). The efficacy of expectancy disconfirmation in explaining crime victim satisfaction with the police. Police Quarterly, 1, 21–40.

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, 42 USC §§5101–5106 (1974).

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2008a). Long-term consequences of child abuse and neglect. Retrieved

1001

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/default.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/consequences.html

http://www.cdc.gov/features/yrbs

http://www.pfi.org/cjr

from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2008b). What is child abuse and neglect? Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/whatiscan.cfm

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2009). Parental substance use and the child welfare system. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/parentalsubabuse.cfm

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2010a). Infant safe haven laws: Summary of state laws. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2010b). Mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect: Summary of state laws. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm

Chon, S. (2010, February 24). Carr v. United States (08-1301). Ithaca, NY: Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1301

Chonco, N. R. (1989). Sexual assaults among male inmates: A descriptive study. The Prison Journal, 69, 72–82.

Clarke, R. V. G. (1980). “Situational” crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology, 20(2), 136–147.

Clarke, R. V. G. (1982). Crime prevention through environmental management and design. In J. Gunn & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Abnormal offenders, delinquency, and the criminal justice system (pp. 213–230). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Clarke, R. V. G., & Harris, P. M. (1992). Auto theft and its prevention. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 16, pp. 1–52). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Clarke, R. V. G., Perkins, E., & Smith, D. J., Jr. (2001). Explaining repeat residential burglaries: An analysis of property stolen. In G. Farrell & K. Pease (Eds.), Repeat victimization (pp. 119–132). Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Classen, C., Pales, O. G., & Aggarwa, R. (2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature.

1002

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/whatiscan.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/parentalsubabuse.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1301

Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 6, 103–129.

Clay-Warner, J. (2002). Avoiding rape: The effects of situational factors on rape. Violence and Victims, 17, 691–705.

Clay-Warner, J., Bunch, J., & McMahon-Howard, J. (2016). Differential vulnerability: Disentangling the effects of state dependence and population heterogeneity on repeat victimization. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 43, 1406–1429. doi:10.1177/0093854816636415

Clery, H., & Clery, C. (2008). What Jeanne didn’t know. Retrieved from http://www.securityoncampus.net/index.php? option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=34&Itemid=53

CNN Wire Staff. (2011). Swiss social worker admits to 114 sexual assaults on disabled. CNN World. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/01/switzerland.sex.charges/index.html

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

Coker, A. L., Cook-Craig, P. G., Williams, C. M., Fisher, B. S., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., & Hegge, L. M. (2011). Evaluation of Green Dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17, 777–796.

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Bethea, L., King, M. R., & McKeown, R. E. (2000). Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 1–7.

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Thompson, M. P., McKeown, R. E., Bethea, L., & Davis, K. E. (2002). Social support protects against the negative effects of partner violence on mental health. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 5, 465–476.

Coleman, K., & Straus, M. (1986). Marital power, conflict, and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. Violence and Victims, 1, 141–157.

College students at risk for identity theft. (2014, August 21). CNN News Wire. Retrieved from http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/college-students-at-risk-for-identity- theft/81271/LUzujp92oketdMheeMzevQ

1003

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.securityoncampus.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=34&Itemid=53

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/01/switzerland.sex.charges/index.html

http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/college-students-at-risk-for-identity-theft/81271/LUzujp92oketdMheeMzevQ

Connolly, J., & Gordon, R. (2015). Co-victims of homicide: A systemic review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 16, 494–505.

Conron, K. J., Beardslee, W., Koenen, K. C., Buka, S. L., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2009). A longitudinal study of maternal depression and child maltreatment in a national sample of families investigated by child protective services. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 922–930.

Cooper, A., & Smith, E. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980–2008. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Copeland, A. (1985). Homicide in childhood: The Metro-Dade County experience from 1956 to 1982. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 6, 21–24.

Cose, E. (1994, August 8). Truths about spouse abuse. Newsweek, p. 49.

Cox, R. W., Johnson, T. A., & Richards, G. E. (2009). Routine activity theory and Internet crime. In F. Schmalleger & M. Pittaro (Eds.), Crimes of the Internet (pp. 302–316). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson- Prentice Hall.

Cromwell, P. F., Olson, J. N., & Avary, D. W. (1991). Breaking and entering: An ethnographic analysis of burglary. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cross, T. P., Walsh, W. A., Simone, M., & Jones, L. M. (2003). Prosecution of child abuse: A meta-analysis of rates of criminal justice decisions. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 4, 323–340.

Custers, K., & Van den Bulck, J. (2013). The cultivation of fear of sexual violence in women: Processes and moderators of the relationship between television and fear. Communication Research, 40, 96–124.

Cyr, K., Clement, M., & Chamberland, C. (2014). Lifetime prevalence of multiple victimizations and its impact on children’s mental health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 616–634.

Daigle, L. E. (2010). Risk heterogeneity and recurrent violent victimization: The role of DRD4. Biodemography and Social Biology, 56, 137–149.

Daigle, L. E., Beaver, K. M., & Hartman, J. L. (2008). A life-course approach to the study of victimization and offending behaviors. Victims and Offenders, 3, 365–390.

1004

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Daigle, L. E., & Fisher, B. S. (2010). Rape. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 708–715). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2008). The violent and sexual victimization of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1296–1313.

Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Stewart, M. (2009). The effectiveness of sexual victimization prevention among college students: A summary of “what works.” Victims and Offenders, 4, 398–404.

Daigle, L. E., Guastaferro, W. P., & Azimi, A. (2016). Victims’ compensation as a tool of therapeutic justice: Examining the physical and mental health needs of victim compensation applicants and the role of health in receiving compensation. Violence and Victims, 31, 837–853.

Dantas, S., Santos, A., Dias, I., Dinis-Oliveira, R. J., & Magalhães, T. (2014). Parricide: A forensic approach. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 22, 1–6.

Daquin, J. C., Daigle, L. E., & Listwan, S. J. (2016). Witnessing victimization in prison and post-release outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 1018–1033.

Davies, K. (2010). Victim assistance programs, United States. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 968–969). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, R. C., & Erez, E. (1998, May). Immigrant populations as victims: Toward a multicultural criminal justice system. (Research in Brief, NCJ 167571). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Davis, R. C., Henley, M., & Smith, B. (1990). Victim impact statements: Their effects on court outcomes and victim satisfaction. New York, NY: New York City Victim Service Agency.

Davis, R. C., & Mulford, C. (2008). Victim rights and new remedies: Finally getting victims their due. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 198–208.

Davis, R. C., O’Sullivan, C., Guthrie, P., & Ross, T. (2006). Reducing repeat sexual revictimization: A field test with an urban sample. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

1005

Download more at Learnclax.com

Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Davies, H. J. (2001). Effects of no-drop prosecution of domestic violence upon conviction rates. Justice Research and Policy, 3, 1–13.

Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Taylor, B. (2008). Effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family abuse: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15. doi:10.4073/csr.2008.15

Dawkins, J. L. (1996). Bullying, physical disability and the pediatric patient. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 38, 603–612.

Dawson, M., & Dinovitzer, R. (2001). Victim cooperation and the prosecution of domestic violence in a specialized court. Justice Quarterly, 18, 593–622.

Deess, P. (1999). Victims’ rights: Notification, consultation, participation, services, compensation, and remedies in the criminal justice process. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

Deinstitutionalization. (2011). Encyclopedia of mental disorders. Retrieved from http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Deinstitutionalization.html

DeLisi, M., Jones-Johnson, G., Johnson, W. J., & Hochstetler, A. (2014). The aftermath of criminal victimization: Race, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 85–105.

Department of the Attorney General. (2006). Compensation for victims of crime. Retrieved from http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/_files/Compensation_for_VOC_brochure.pdf

Desai, S., Arias, I., Thompson, M. P., & Basile, K. C. (2002). Childhood victimization and subsequent adult revictimization assessed in a nationally representative sample of women and men. Violence and Victims, 17, 639–653.

Devoe, J. F., Bauer, L., & Hill, M. R. (2010, July). Student victimization in U.S. schools: Results from the 2007 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010319.pdf

Devries, K. M., Child, J. C., Bacchus, L. J., Mak, J., Falder, G., Graham, K., Watts, C., & Heise, L. (2014). Intimate partner violence victimization and alcohol consumption in women: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Addiction, 109, 379–391.

1006

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Deinstitutionalization.html

http://www.courts.dotag.wa.gov.au/_files/Compensation_for_VOC_brochure.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010319.pdf

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., Seguin, J. R., Mejia, J. M., Pihl, R. O., Beitchman, J. H., … & Palmour, R. M. (2006). The dopamine D4 receptor gene and moderation of the association between externalizing behavior and IQ. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 1410–1416.

Diedrich, J., & Fauber, J. (2006, November 14). Gunshot costs echo through economy: From hospitals to jails, price of violence adds up quickly. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29205944.html

Dixon, L., & Stern, R. K. (2004). Compensating the victims of 9/11 (Research brief). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9087.html

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1992). Women, violence and social change. London, UK: Routledge.

Dragiewicz, M. (2010). Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS/CTS2). In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 1, pp. 136–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dryden-Edwards, R. (2007). Anxiety. Emedicinehealth. Retrieved from http://www.emedicinehealth.com/anxiety/article_em.htm#Anxiety%20Overview

Dugan, L. (1999). The effect of criminal victimization on a household’s moving decision. Criminology, 37, 903–930.

Dugan, L., LaFree, G., Cragin, K., & Kasupski, A. (2008). Building and analyzing a comprehensive open source database on global terrorist events. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223287.pdf

Duhart, D. T. (2001). National Crime Victimization Survey: Violence in the workplace, 1993–1999 (Special Report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vw99.pdf

Du Mont, J., & Forte, T. (2014). Intimate partner violence among women with mental health-related activity limitations: A Canadian population based study. BMC Public Health, 14, 51. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14- 51

1007

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29205944.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9087.html

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/anxiety/article_em.htm#Anxiety%20Overview

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223287.pdf

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vw99.pdf

Dunn, P. (2004). Victim support in the United Kingdom: Its history and current work. Retrieved from http://www.unafei.or.jp/English/pdf/RS_No63/No63_15VE_Dunn1.pdf

Dupont-Morales, T. (2009). Von Hentig’s typologies. In J. K. Wilson (Ed.), Praeger handbook of victimology (pp. 308–309). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Eberhardt, S. (n.d.). Core crimes defined in the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Retrieved from http://www.iccnow.org/documents/FS-CICC- CoreCrimesinRS.pdf.

Ebstein, R. P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., Priel, B., Osher, Y., Blaine, D., … & Belmaker, R. H. (1996). Dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with the human personality trait of novelty seeking. Nature & Genetics, 12, 78–80.

Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–309.

Ehrlich, H. J. (1992). The ecology of anti-gay violence. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 105–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eigenberg, H. M. (1989). Male rape: An empirical examination of correctional officers’ attitudes toward rape in prison. The Prison Journal, 68, 39–56.

Elder, J. W. (1976). Comparative cross-national methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 209–230.

Elias, R. (1984). Alienating the victim: Compensation and victim attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 103–116.

Erez, E., & Globokar, J. (2010). Victim impact statements. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 974–975). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Erez, E., Roeger, L., & Morgan, F. (1994). Victim impact statements in South Australia: An evaluation. Adelaide: Office of Crime Statistics, South Australian Attorney General’s Department.

Erez, E., & Tontodonato, P. (1992). Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice. Justice Quarterly, 9, 393–417.

1008

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.unafei.or.jp/English/pdf/RS_No63/No63_15VE_Dunn1.pdf

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/FS-CICC-CoreCrimesinRS.pdf

Ericson, N. (2001, June). Addressing the problem of juvenile bullying (OJJDP Fact Sheet #27). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200127.pdf

Esbensen, F. A., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1999). Family context and criminal victimization in adolescence. Youth and Society, 31, 168–198.

Escobar, G. (2010). Prosecuting intimate partner violence: Do victim services affect case outcomes? Paper presented at the ASC Annual Meeting, San Francisco. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p431247_index.html

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383.

Estrich, S. (1988). Real rape: How the legal system victimizes women who say no. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

European Commission. (n.d.). Victims. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/victims/index_en.htm

European Union. (2014). The history of the European Union. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/european- union/about-eu/history/2010-today/2014_en

Evans, D. (2014). Compensating victims of crime. New York, NY: Research & Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. Retrieved from http://www.justicefellowship.org/sites/default/files/Compensating%20Victims%20of%20Crime_John%20Jay_June%202014.pdf

Family Violence Prevention Fund. (2010). Intimate partner violence and healthy people 2010 fact sheet. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/ipv.pdf

Faraone, S. V., Doyle, A. E., Mick, E., & Biederman, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of the association between the 7-repeat allele of the dopamine D4 receptor gene and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1052–1057.

1009

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200127.pdf

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p431247_index.html

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/victims/index_en.htm

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/2010-today/2014_en

http://www.justicefellowship.org/sites/default/files/Compensating%20Victims%20of%20Crime_John%20Jay_June%202014.pdf

http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/ipv.pdf

Farmer v. Brennan (92–7247), 511 U.S. 825 (1994).

Farrell, A., McDevitt, J., & Fahy, S. (2008). Understanding and improving law enforcement responses to human trafficking, final report. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.

Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2006). Preventing repeat residential burglary. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places (pp. 161–178). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Farrell, G., Phillips, C., & Pease, K. (1995). Like taking candy: Why does repeat victimization occur? British Journal of Criminology, 35, 384–399.

Fattah, E. A. (2010). The evolution of a young, promising discipline: Sixty years of victimology, a retrospective and prospective look. In S. G. Shoham, P. Knepper, & M. Kett (Eds.), International handbook of victimology (pp. 43–94). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Fay, M., Morrissey, M., & Smyth, M. (1999). Northern Ireland’s troubles: The human costs. Sterling, VA: Pluto.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Crime in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009/crime2009

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Hate crime statistics, 2009: Methodology. Retrieved from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/methodology.html

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). UCR program changes definition of rape. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-link/march-2012/ucr-program-changes-definition-of-rape

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Burglary. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about- us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/property-crime/burglary

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014a). Crime in the United States, 2014. About the UCR program. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the- u.s.-2014/resource-pages/about-ucr

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014b). Human trafficking, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

1010

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009/crime2009

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/methodology.html

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-link/march-2012/ucr-program-changes-definition-of-rape

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/property-crime/burglary

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/resource-pages/about-ucr

Justice.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015a). Crime in the United States, 2015. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/persons-arrested/persons-arrested

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015b). FBI releases 2014 crime statistics from the National Incident-Based Reporting System. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/resource- pages/summary-of-nibrs-2014_final.pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015c). Data tables. Relationship of victims to offenders by offense category, 2014. https://www.fbi.gov/about- us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/tables/relationship_of_victims_to_offenders_by_offense_category_2014_final.pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015d). Data tables. Crimes against persons offenses, offense category by location, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/tables/by- location/crimes_against_persons_offenses_offense_categoryby_location_2014_final.pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015e). Data tables. Crimes against property offenses, offense category by location, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/tables/by- location/crimes_against_property_offenses_offense_category_by_location_2014_final.pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015f). Crime in the United States. Table 12: Crime trends. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-12

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015g). Crime in the United States. Expanded homicide data. Table 2: Murder victims. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the- u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015h). Crime in the United States. Expanded homicide data. Table 1: Murder victims. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the- u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_1_murder_victims_by_race_ethnicity_and_sex_2015.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015i). Crime in the United States. Expanded homicide data. Table 10: Murder circumstances. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the- u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls

1011

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/persons-arrested/persons-arrested

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/resource-pages/summary-of-nibrs-2014_final.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/tables/relationship_of_victims_to_offenders_by_offense_category_2014_final.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/tables/by-location/crimes_against_persons_offenses_offense_categoryby_location_2014_final.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2014/tables/by-location/crimes_against_property_offenses_offense_category_by_location_2014_final.pdf

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-12

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_1_murder_victims_by_race_ethnicity_and_sex_2015.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2015.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015j). Crime in the United States. Expanded homicide data. Table 7: Murder, types of weapons used. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the- u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_7_murder_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_region_2015.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015k). Crime in the United States. Expanded homicide data. Table 13: Murder circumstances. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the- u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_13_murder_circumstances_by_sex_of_victim_2015.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015l). Crime in the United States. Murder. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law- enforcement/murder

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015m). Crime in the United States. Clearances. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law- enforcement/clearances/clearances

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015n). Hate crime statistics, 2015. Victims. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/victims_final

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015o). Crime in the United States, 2015. Table 1: Crime in the United States by volume and rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1996–2015. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime- in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015p). Crime in the United States. Table 42: Arrests by sex, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the- u.s.-2015/tables/table-42

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015q). Crime in the United States. Table 38: Arrests by age, 2014. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-38

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015r). Crime in the United States. Table 43: Arrests by race, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the- u.s.2014/tables/table-43

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015s). Crime in the United States. Larceny-theft. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-

1012

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_7_murder_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_region_2015.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_13_murder_circumstances_by_sex_of_victim_2015.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/murder

https://ucr.fbi.gov/cri

http://me-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances/clearances

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/victims_final

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-42

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-38

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.2014/tables/table-43

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-lawenforcement/larceny-theft

lawenforcement/larceny-theft

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015t). Crime in the United States. Motor vehicle theft. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law- enforcement/motor-vehicle-theft

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015u). Crime in the United States: Burglary. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-stats-released

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.-a.). National Incident-Based Reporting System. Quick facts. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs-quick-facts

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.-b). Human trafficking. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about- us/investigate/civilrights/human_trafficking

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (2004, December 14). Putting an end to account-hijacking identity theft. Retrieved from http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/idtheftstudy/identity_theft.pdf

Federal Grants Wire. (2011). Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act Program (16.597). Retrieved from http://www.federalgrantswire.com/motor-vehicle-theft-protection-act-program.html

Federal Trade Commission. (2004). CAN-SPAM Act: A compliance guide for business. Retrieved from http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business

Federal Trade Commission. (2015). Consumer sentinel network data book: January–December 2014. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data- book-january-december-2014/sentinel-cy2014-1.pdf

Fedus, D. B. (2010). Elder abuse, neglect, and maltreatment. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and victim prevention (Vol. 1, pp. 348–350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Felson, M. (1992). Routine activities and crime prevention: Armchair concepts and practical action. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 1, 30–34.

Felson, R. B. (2002). Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology, 40, 617–648.

1013

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/motor-vehicle-theft

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-stats-released

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs-quick-facts

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/human_trafficking

http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/idtheftstudy/identity_theft.pdf

http://www.federalgrantswire.com/motor-vehicle-theft-protection-act-program.html

http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data-book-january-december-2014/sentinel-cy2014-1.pdf

Felson, R. B. (2006). Big people hit little people: Sex differences in physical power and interpersonal violence. Criminology, 34, 433–452.

Feniger, Y., & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. (2010). Risk groups in exposure to terror: The case of Israel’s citizens. Social Forces, 88, 1451–1462.

Fernandes-Alcantara, A. L. (2014). Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and funding. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=751765

Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces, 75, 667–690.

Ferraro, K. F., & LaGrange, R. L. (1987). The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry, 5, 70–101.

FindLaw. (n.d.-a). Farmer v. Brennan, U.S. 1994. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi- bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10394

FindLaw. (n.d.-b). CAL. PEN. CODE § 422.6: California Code—Section 422.6. Retrieved from http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/11.6/2/s422.6

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007a). Poly-victimization and trauma in a national longitudinal cohort. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 149–166.

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007b). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization trauma. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 7–26.

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2009). Lifetime assessment of poly-victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 403–411.

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Ormrod, R. K., & Hamby, S. (2009). Violence, abuse and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics, 124, 1–14.

1014

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=751765

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10394

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/11.6/2/s422.6

Finn, P. (2000). Labeling automobile parts to combat theft. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 69, 10–14.

Finn, P., & McNeil, T. (1987). The response of the criminal justice system to bias crimes. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Fischer, K., & Rose, M. (1995). When “enough is enough”: Battered women’s decision making around court orders of protection. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 414–429.

Fishbein, D. (2001). Biobehavioral perspectives in criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Measuring the sexual victimization of women: Evolution, current controversies, and future research. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000 volumes: Vol. 4. Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (pp. 317–390). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (1998). The extent and nature of sexual victimization among college women: A national-level analysis; Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute of Justice.

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2010a). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2010b). What distinguishes single from recurrent sexual victims? The role of lifestyle-routine activities and first-incident characteristics. Justice Quarterly, 27, 102–129.

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Santana, S. A. (2007). Assessing the efficacy of the protective action-sexual victimization completion nexus. Violence and Victims, 22, 18–42.

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6–38.

Fisher, B. S., Karjane, H. M., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Santana, S. A., & Daigle, L. E. (2007).

1015

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reporting sexual assault and the Clery Act: Situating findings from the National Campus Sexual Assault Policy Study within college women’s experiences. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 65–86). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J., Cullen, F. T., & Lu, C. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671–710.

Fishman, G., Hakim, S., & Shachmurove, Y. (1998). The use of household survey data: The probability of property crime victimization. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 24, 1–13.

Fleming, J., Mullen, P. E., Sibthorpe, B., & Bammer, G. (1999). The long-term impact of childhood sexual abuse in Australian women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 145–159.

Fliege, H., Lee, J., Grimm, A., & Klapp, B. F. (2009). Risk factors and correlates of deliberate self-harm behavior: A systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 66, 477–493.

Florida Statutes, § 812.135 (2011).

Focht-New, G., Clements, P. T., Barol, B., Faulkner, M. J., & Service, K. P. (2008). Persons with developmental disabilities exposed to interpersonal violence and crime: Strategies and guidance for assessment. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 44, 3–13.

Ford, J. D., Elhai, J. D., Connor, D. F., & Frueh, B. C. (2010). Poly-victimization and risk of posttraumatic, depressive, and substance use disorders and involvement in delinquency in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 545–552.

Forrester, D., Chatterton, M., & Pease, K. (1988). The Kirkholt Burglary Project, Rochdale. (Crime Prevention Unit Paper 13). London, England: Home Office.

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., & Linder, G. F. (1999). Family violence and perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 331–343.

Four charged in starvation death of child with autism. (2014, August 27). Retrieved from http://www.wsvn.com/story/26388305/4-charged-in-starvation-death-of-child-with-autism

1016

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.wsvn.com/story/26388305/4-charged-in-starvation-death-of-child-with-autism

Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011). Is stalking a learned phenomenon? An empirical test of social learning theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 39–47.

Franklin, C. A. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-control and alcohol-induced sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 263–285.

Franklin, C. A., Franklin, T. W., Nobles, M. R., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). Assessing the effect of routine activity theory and self-control on property, personal, and sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1296–1315.

Frye, V. (2001). Examining homicide’s contribution to pregnancy-associated deaths. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 1510–1511.

Frye, V., Hosein, V., Waltermaurer, E., Blaney, S., & Wilt, S. (2005). Femicide in New York City 1990 to 1999. Homicide Studies, 9(3), 204–228.

Gabor, T., & Mata, G. (2004). Victimization and repeat victimization over the life span: A predictive study and implications for policy. International Review of Victimology, 10, 193–221.

Gabriel, R., Ferrando, L., Corton, E. S., Mingote, C., Garcia-Cambo, E., Liria, A. F., & Galea, S. (2007). Psychopathological consequences after a terrorist attack: An epidemiological study among victims, the general population, and police officers. European Psychiatry, 22, 339–346.

Gadsden mother convicted of aggravated child abuse of 22-month-old son. (2011, April 8). Gadsden Times. Retrieved from http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/DA/20110408/News/603227729/GT

Galliano, G., Noble, L. M., Travis, L. A., & Puechl, C. (1993). Victim reactions during rape/sexual assault: A preliminary study of the immobility response and its correlates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 109–114.

Garner, J., & Maxwell, C. (2009). Prosecution and conviction rates for intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 44–79.

Gartner. (2006). Gartner says number of phishing e-mails sent to U.S. adults nearly doubles in just two years. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=498245

1017

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/DA/20110408/News/603227729/GT

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=498245

Garvin, M. (2010). Victims’ rights movement, United States. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 1019–1020). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gibson, C. L. (2012). An investigation of neighborhood disadvantage, low self-control, and violent victimization among youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 41–63.

Gibson, L. E., & Leitenberg, H. (2001). The impact of child sexual abuse and stigma on methods of coping with sexual assault among undergraduate women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 1343–1361.

Gidycz, C. A., Lynn, S. J., Rich, C. L., Marioni, N. L., Loh, C., Blackwell, L. M., … & Pashdag, J. (2001). The evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction program: A multisite investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1073–1078.

Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 720–742.

Global Terrorism Database. (2016). Incidents over time in North America. START. College Park: University of Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx? expanded=no&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&success=yes&region=1&ob=GTDID&od=desc&page=1&count=100#results- table

Goldkamp, J. S., Weiland, D., Collins, M., & White, M. (1996). Role of drug and alcohol abuse in domestic violence and its treatment: Dade County’s domestic violence experiment, appendices to the final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Goldman, R. (2010, March 29). Teens indicted after allegedly taunting girl who hanged herself. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/TheLaw/teens-charged-bullying-massgirl-kill/story?id=10231357

Gonzales, A. R., Schofield, R. B., & Gillis, J. W. (2001). Responding to victims of terrorism and mass violence crimes: Coordination and collaboration between American Red Cross workers and crime victim service providers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/redcross/ncj209681.pdf

Goodlin, W. E., & Dunn, C. S. (2010). Three patterns of domestic violence in households: Single victimization, repeat victimization, and co-occurring victimization. Journal of Family Violence, 25,

1018

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?expanded=no&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&success=yes&region=1&ob=GTDID&od=desc&page=1&count=100#results-table

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/TheLaw/teens-charged-bullying-massgirl-kill/story?id=10231357

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/redcross/ncj209681.pdf

107–122.

Goodman, L. A., Salyers, M. P., Mueser, K. T., Rosenberg, S. D., Swartz, M., Essock, S. M., … & Vidaver, R. M. (2001). Recent victimization in women and men with severe mental illness: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 615–632.

Goodman, L. A., Thompson, K., Weinfurt, K., Corl, S., Acker, P., Mueser, K., & Rosenberg, S. D. (1999). Reliability of reports of violent victimization and PTSD among men and women with SMI. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 587–599.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gover, A., MacDonald, J., & Alpert, G. (2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 109–132.

Gozdziak, E. M., & Collett, E. A. (2005). Research on human trafficking in North America: A review of literature. International Migration, 43, 1–2.

Greenfeld, L., & Henneberg, M. (2000). Alcohol, crime, and the criminal justice system. Paper commissioned for the Alcohol Policy XII Conference, Washington, DC.

Grills, A. E., & Ollendick, T. H. (2002). Peer victimization, global self-worth, and anxiety in middle school children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 59–68.

Groff, E. R. (2007). Simulation for theory testing and experimentation: An example using routine activity theory and street robbery. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 75–103.

Grothaus, R. S. (1985). Abuse of women with disabilities. In S. E. Brown, D. Connors, & N. Stern (Eds.), With the power of each breath: A disabled woman’s anthology (pp. 124–132). Pittsburg, PA: Cleiss.

Gruszczynska, B., Lucia, S., & Killias, M. (2012). Juvenile victimization from an international perspective. In J. Junger-Tas, I. H. Marshall, D. Enzmann, M. Killias, M. Steketee, & B. Gruszczynska (Eds.), Many faces of youth crime (pp. 95–116). New York, NY: Springer.

Gundy-Yoder, A. V. (2010). Victims’ rights legislation, federal, United States. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab

1019

Download more at Learnclax.com

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 1012–1013). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gurwitch, R. H., Pfefferbaum, B., & Leftwich, M. T. J. (2002). The impact of terrorism on children: Considerations for a new era. Journal of Trauma Practice, 1, 101–124.

Guterman, N. B., & Lee, Y. (2005). The role of fathers in risk for physical child abuse and neglect: Possible pathways and unanswered questions. Child Maltreatment, 10, 136–149.

Hahn, J. W., McCormick, M. C., Silverman, J. G., Robinson, E. B., & Koenen, K. C. (2014). Examining the impact of disability status on intimate partner violence victimization in a population sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 3063–3085. doi:10.1177/0886260514534527

Hall, A. L. (2007, June 12). Forget Paris! Keeping Genarlow in prison constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice. iPINIONS Journal. Retrieved from http://www.theipinionsjournal.com/2007/06/forget-paris- keeping-genarlow-in-prison-constitutes-a-gross-miscarriage-of-justice

Hammack, S. E., Cooper, M., & Lezak, K. R. (2012). Overlapping neurobiology of learned helplessness and conditioned defeat: Implications for PTSD and mood disorders. Neuropharmacology, 62, 565–575.

Hanson, K. A., & Gidycz, C. A. (1993). Evaluation of a sexual assault prevention program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1046–1052.

Hard, S. (1986). Sexual abuse of the developmentally disabled: A case study. Paper presented at the National Conference of Executives of Associations for Retarded Citizens, Omaha, NE.

Harlow, C. W. (2005). Hate crimes reported by victims and police (Special report, NCJ 20991). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Harper, D. W., & Voigt, L. (2007). Homicide followed by suicide an integrated theoretical perspective. Homicide Studies, 11, 295–318.

Harper, S. (2014, April 3). PM announces historic legislation to create a Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, Mississauga, Ontario. Retrieved from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=835229

1020

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.theipinionsjournal.com/2007/06/forget-paris-keeping-genarlow-in-prison-constitutes-a-gross-miscarriage-of-justice

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=835229

Harrell, E. (2011). Workplace violence, 1993–2009. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

Harrell, E. (2014). Crimes against persons with disabilities, 2009–2012 statistical tables (Report No. NCJ 244525). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd0912st.pdf

Harrell, E. (2015). Victims of identity theft, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Harrell, E. (2016). Crimes against persons with disabilities, 2019–2014 statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Harrell, E., & Langton, L. (2013). Victims of identity theft, 2012 (Report No. NCJ 243779). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Harrell, E., & Rand, M. (2010). Disabilities and victimization: NCVS statistical overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd08.pdf

Hart, T. C. (2007). Violent victimization of college students: Findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey. In J. Sloan & B. Fisher (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 129–146). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Hartley, D., Biddle, E., & Jenkins, L. (2005). Societal cost of workplace homicides in the United States. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 47, 518–527.

Hartman, J. L., & Alligood, K. (2010). Protection /restraining orders. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 688–689). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hartman, J. L., & Belknap, J. (2003). Beyond the gatekeepers: Court professionals’ self-reported attitudes about experiences with misdemeanor domestic violence cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 349–373.

Hauser, W., & Kleck, G. (2013). Guns and fear: A one-way street? Crime & Delinquency, 59, 271–297.

Hay, C., Meldrum, R., & Mann, K. (2010). Traditional bullying, cyber bullying, and deviance: A general

1021

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd0912st.pdf

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd08.pdf

strain theory approach. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 130–147.

Haynie, D. L. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in fear of crime over time, 1970–1995: A methodological approach. Criminal Justice Review, 23, 29–50.

Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simmons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 29–49.

Headden, S. (1996, July 1). Guns, money & medicine. U.S. News & World Report, 121, 31–40.

Heaton, L., Cantor, D., Bruce, C., Ren, W., Hartge, J., & Beck, A. J. (2016). Facility-level and individual- level correlates of sexual victimization in juvenile facilities, 2012. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Working Paper Series. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/flilcsvjf12.pdf

Heide, K. M. (2014). Patricide and matricide victims and offenders: An empirical analysis of US arrest data. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 1261–1278.

Heidt, J. M., Marx, B. P., & Forsyth, J. P. (2005). Tonic immobility and childhood sexual abuse: A preliminary report evaluating the sequela of rape-induced paralysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1157–1171

Hensley, C., Koscheski, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2005). Examining the characteristics of sexual assault targets in maximum security prisons. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40, 667–697.

Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54–74.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945–951.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C., & Glunt, E. K. (1997). Hate crime victimization among lesbians, gay, and bisexual adults: Prevalence, psychological correlates, and methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195–215.

1022

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/flilcsvjf12.pdf

Herkov, M. J., & Biernat, M. (1997). Assessment of PTSD symptoms in a community exposed to serial murder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 809–815.

Herman, S. (2004, April 28). Supporting and protecting victims: Making it happen. Keynote address at the National Victims Conference, London, England. Retrieved from http://ncvc.alfa-xp.com/ncvc/main.aspx? dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=38044

Hewitt, C. (1988). The costs of terrorism: A cross-national study of six countries. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 11, 169–180.

Heyman, R. E., & Smith, A. (2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead to adulthood family violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 864–870.

Hiday, V. A. (1997). Understanding the connection between mental illness and violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 20, 399–417.

Hiday, V. A., Swartz, M. S., Swanson, J. W., Borum, R., & Wagner, H. R. (1999). Criminal victimization of persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 50, 62–68.

Hiday, V. A., Swartz, M. S., Swanson, J. W., Borum, R., & Wagner, H. R. (2002). Impact of outpatient commitment on victimization of people with severe mental illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1403–1411.

Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Hirschel, D. (2008, July 25). Domestic violence cases: What research shows about arrest and dual arrest rates. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiani, D., & Reuland, M. (2007, May). Explaining the prevalence, context, and consequences of dual arrest in intimate partner cases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Hirschel, J., Dean, C., & Lumb, R. (1994). The relative contribution of domestic violence to assault and injury of police officers. Justice Quarterly, 11, 99–117.

1023

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://ncvc.alfa-xp.com/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=38044

Hirschfield, A., Newton, A., & Rogerson, M. (2010). Linking burglary and target hardening at the property level: New insights into victimization and burglary protection. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(3), 319–337.

History of auto-theft legislation. (n.d.). SmartMotorist.com. Retrieved from http://www.smartmotorist.com/auto-securi-ty-systems/history-of-auto-theft-legislation.html

Hodge, P. D. (1999). National law enforcement programs to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute elder abuse and neglect in healthcare facilities. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 9, 23–41.

Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2009). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1–25.

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., Mears, D. P., & Wolfe, S. E. (2014). Financial exploitation of the elderly in a consumer context. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Home Office. (2011). Crime in England and Wales: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime (2nd ed.). Home office statistical bulletin 2010/11. London, UK: Author. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf

Howard, D. E., Griffin, M. A., & Boekeloo, B. O. (2008). Prevalence and psychosocial correlates of alcohol- related sexual assault among university students. Adolescence, 43, 733–750.

Howell, E., Bieler, S., & Anderson, N. (2014). State variation in hospital use and cost of firearm assault injury, 2010. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Howton, A. J. (2010). Sexual assault response team (SART). In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 855–856). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hudson, C. G. (2005). Socioeconomic status and mental illness: Tests of the social causation and selection hypotheses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 3–18.

Human Rights Watch. (2001). Violence against women and honor crimes. Retrieved from

1024

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.smartmotorist.com/auto-securi-ty-systems/history-of-auto-theft-legislation.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/04/un_oral12_0405.htm

Human Rights Watch. (2012, July 20). World Court: Important victory for Habré victims. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/20/world-court-important-victory-habr-victims

Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–318 (1998).

Insurance Information Institute. (2011, June). Auto theft. Retrieved from http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test4/

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2013, August 8). Ford F-250 has highest theft rate of any 2010- 2012 model. Status Report, 48. Retrieved from http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/48/6/3

International Court of Justice. (n.d.). The court. Retrieved from http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php? p1=1&p2=6

International Victimology Institute Tilburg. (2014). About INTERVICT. Retrieved from https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/intervict

Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Iyengar, R. (2007, August 7). The protection battered spouses don’t need (Editorial). New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/opinion/07iyengar.html

Jackson, J. (2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 14, 1–25.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798–1809.

Jaquier, V. (2010). The role of the gay male and lesbian community. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 1, pp. 313–314). Los Angeles CA: Sage.

Jenkins, E. L. (2010). Workplace violence, United States. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 1078–1084). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1025

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/04/un_oral12_0405.htm

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/20/world-court-important-victory-habr-victims

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test4/

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/48/6/3

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6

https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/intervict

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/opinion/07iyengar.html

Jerin, R. A., Moriarty, L. J., & Gibson, M. A. (1996). Victim service or self-service: An analysis of prosecution-based victim-witness assistance programs and services. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 7, 142–154.

Jesperson, A., Lalumiere, M. L., & Seto, M. C. (2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(3), 179–192.

Johnson, H., Ollus, N., & Nevala, S. (2008a, February 28). Getting the facts to make the change: The International Violence Against Women Survey. Presentation. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw52/stmt/dawparallelevents/IVAWS%20Holly%20Johnson.pdf

Johnson, H., Ollus, N., & Nevala, S. (2008b). Violence against women: An international perspective. New York, NY: Springer.

Johnson, I., & Sigler, R. (2000). Forced sexual intercourse among intimates. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 95–108.

Johnson, M., & Kercher, G. (2009, January). Personal victimization of college students. Huntsville, TX: Crime Victims’ Institute, Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston State University. Retrieved from http://www.crimevictimsinstitute.org/documents/CSVictimizationFinal.pdf

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003–1018.

Johnson, R. J., Rew, L., & Sternglanz, W. (2006). The relationship between childhood sexual abuse and sexual health practices of homeless adolescents. Adolescence, 41, 221–234.

Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004). The burglary as clue to the future: The beginnings of perspective of hot-spotting. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 237–255.

Johnstone, G. (2002). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Portland, OR: Willan.

1026

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw52/stmt/dawparallelevents/IVAWS%20Holly%20Johnson.pdf

http://www.crimevictimsinstitute.org/documents/CSVictimizationFinal.pdf

Jordan, C. (2004). Intimate partner violence and the justice system: An examination of the interface. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1412–1434.

Jozkowski, K. N., & Sanders, S. A. (2012). Health and sexual outcomes of women who have experienced forced or coercive sex. Women & Health, 52, 101–188.

Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I. H., Enzmann, D., Killias, M., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (2010). Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond. New York, NY: Springer.

Kang, S., Magura, S., Laudet, A., & Whitney, S. (1999). Adverse effect of child abuse victimization among substance-using women in treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 657–670.

Kanno, H., & Newhill, C. (2009). Social workers and battered women: The need to study client violence in the domestic field. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 18, 46–63.

Kastsoris, N. C. (1990). The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes: A decade of frustration. Fordham International Law Journal, 14, 186–215.

Kaufman, M. T. (1998, April 18). Marvin E. Wolfgang, 73, dies; leading figure in criminology. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/18/us/marvin-e-wolfgang-73-dies-leading- figure-in-criminology.html

Keilitz, S., Hannaford, P., & Efkeman, H. (1997). Civil protection orders: The benefits and limitations for victims of domestic violence. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/pr/172223.pdf

Kelley, B. T., Thornberry, T. P., & Smith, C. A. (1997). In the wake of child maltreatment. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Kennard, K. L. (1989). The victim’s veto: A way to increase victim impact on criminal case dispositions. California Law Review, 77, 417.

Kerley, K. R., Hochstetler, A., & Copes, H. (2009). Self-control, prison victimization, and prison infractions. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 553–568.

1027

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/18/us/marvin-e-wolfgang-73-dies-leading-figure-in-criminology.html

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/pr/172223.pdf

Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., Hughes, M., & Nelson, C. B. (1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048–1060.

Kilchling, M. (n.d.). Victims of terrorism: An overview on international legislation on the support and compensation for victims of terrorist threats. Retrieved from http://www.humsec.eu/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/humsec/SAc_06_PPP/PPP_Kilchling_victims_of_terrorism.pdf

Kilpatrick, D. G., & Acierno, R. (2003). Mental health needs of crime victims: Epidemiology and outcomes. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 119–132.

Kilpatrick, D. G., Amick, A., & Resnick, H. S. (1990). The impact of homicide on surviving family members. Charleston: Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina.

Kilpatrick, D. G., Edmunds, C., & Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. In The National Women’s Study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Victim’s Center, and National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center at the Medical University of South Carolina.

Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., Ruggiero, K., Conoscenti, L. M., & McCauley, J. (2007). Drug facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Kilpatrick, D. G., & Tidwell, R. (1989). Victims’ rights and services in South Carolina: The dream, the law, the reality. Charleston: Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina.

King, R. D. (2007). The contest of minority group threat: Race, institutions and complying with hate crime law. Law and Society, 41, 36–41.

Kirchhoff, G. F. (2010). History and a theoretical structure of victimology. In S. G. Shoham, P. Knepper, & M. Kett (Eds.), International handbook of victimology (pp. 95–123). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Klaus, P. A., & Maston, C. T. (2008). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1094

Klein, L. (2010). Victim compensation. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 971–974). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1028

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.humsec.eu/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/humsec/SAc_06_PPP/PPP_Kilchling_victims_of_terrorism.pdf

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1094

Knauer, S. (2002). Recovering from sexual abuse, addictions, and compulsive behaviors: “Numb” survivors. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Social Work Practice Press.

Knoll, C. (2016, June 4). Prosecutors release moving 12-page statement from woman raped by former Stanford swimmer. L.A. Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-stanford-rape- victim-statement-20160604-snap-story.html

Knowles, G. J. (1999). Male prison rape: A search for causation and prevention. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 267–282.

Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305–1317.

Koen, A. (2014, September 3). Scam victim opens up to warn others about elder abuse. Retrieved from http://www.koaa.com/news/scam-victim-opens-up-to-warn-others-about-elder-abuse/

Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48, 193–212.

Koss, M. P. (1988). Hidden rape. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Garland.

Koss, M. P., Abey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., … & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370.

Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170.

Kotz, P. (2010, January 28). Phoebe Prince, 15, commits suicide after onslaught of cyber-bullying from fellow students. Retrieved from http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/01/phoebe_prince_15_commits_suici.php

Krasnoff, M., & Moscati, R. (2002). Domestic violence screening and referral can be effective. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 40, 485–492.

LaFree, G., Morris, N. A., & Dugan, L. (2010). Cross-national patterns of terrorism: Comparing trajectories

1029

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-stanford-rape-victim-statement-20160604-snap-story.html

http://www.koaa.com/news/scam-victim-opens-up-to-warn-others-about-elder-abuse/

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/01/phoebe_prince_15_commits_suici.php

for total, attributed and fatal attacks, 1970–2006. Global Perspectives, 50, 622–649.

LaGrange, R. L., Ferraro, K. F., & Supancic, M. (1992). Perceived risk and fear of crime: Role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 311–334.

Lahm, K. F. (2009). Physical and property victimization behind bars: A multilevel examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 348–365.

Langton, L., Berzofsky, M., Krebs, C., & Smiley-McDonald, H. (2012). Victimizations not reported to the police, 2006–2010. National Crime Victimization Survey Special Report. (Report No. NCJ 238536). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit08.pdf

Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2010). Victims of identity theft, 2008. National Crime Victimization Survey Supplement, pp. 1–19.

Lantz, B., & Ruback, R. B. (2015). A networked boost: Burglary co-offending and repeat victimization using a network approach. Crime & Delinquency. Online first doi:10.1177/0011128715597695

Lasley, J. R., & Rosenbaum, J. L. (1988). Routine activities and multiple personal victimization. Sociology and Social Research, 73, 47–50.

Laub, J. H., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1998). The interdependence of school violence with neighborhood and family conditions. In D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools (pp. 127–158). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Laumann, E. I., Leitsch, S. A., & Waite, L. J. (2008). Elder mistreatment in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a nationally representative study. Journal of Gerontology, Social Sciences, 63, S248–S254.

Lauritsen, J. L., & Davis Quinet, K. F. (1995). Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 143–166.

Lauritsen, J. L., Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1992). Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescents. Violence and Victims, 7, 91–108.

Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among

1030

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit08.pdf

adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.

Layman, M., Gidycz, C. A., & Lynn, S. J. (1996). Unacknowledged versus acknowledged rape victims: Situational factors and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 124–131.

Lehner-Zimmerer, M. (2011). Future challenges of international victimology. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 4, 13.

Lens, K. M. E., Pemberton, A., Brans, K., Braeken, J., Bogaerts, S., & Lahlah, E. (2014). Delivering a victim impact statement: Emotionally effective or counter-productive? European Journal of Criminology, 12, 17–34.

Levin, A. (2005). People with mental illness more often crime victims. Psychiatric News, 40, 16.

Levin, B., & Amster, S. (2007). Making hate history: Hate crime and policing in America’s most diverse city. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 319–348.

Levin, R. (2002). September 11 victim compensation fund: A model for compensating terrorism victims? Retrieved from http://www.kentlaw.edu/honorsscholars/2002students/Levin.html

Levitt, S. D. (1999). The changing relationship between income and crime victimization. Economic Policy Review, 5.

Levy, M. P., & Tartaro, C. (2010). Auto theft: A site-survey and analysis of environmental crime factors in Atlantic City, NJ. Security Journal, 23, 75–94.

Limber, S. P., & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address bullying in U.S. schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 445–455.

Linden, R., & Chaturvedi, R. (2005). The need for comprehensive crime prevention planning: The case of motor vehicle theft. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 47, 251–270.

Lindgren, M., & Nikolic-Ristanovic, V. (2011). Crime victims: International and Serbian perspective. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mission to Serbia, Law Enforcement Department.

1031

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.kentlaw.edu/honorsscholars/2002students/Levin.html

Link, B., Monahan, J., Stueve, A., & Cullen, F. T. (1999). Real in their consequences: A sociological approach to understanding the association between psychotic symptoms and violence. American Sociological Review, 64, 316–332.

Littel, K. (2001). Sexual assault nurse examiner programs: Improving the community response to sexual assault victims. Office for Victims of Crime Bulletin, 4, 1–19.

Little, L. (2002). Middle-class mothers’ perceptions of peer and sibling victimization among children with Asperger’s syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 25, 43–57.

Littleton, H. L., Axson, D., Breitkopf, C. R., & Berenson, A. (2006). Rape acknowledgment and postassault experiences: How acknowledgment status related to disclosure, coping, worldview, and reactions received from others. Violence and Victims, 21, 761–778.

Logan, T. K., Walker, R., & Hunt, G. (2009). Understanding human trafficking in the United States. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 3–30.

LoJack. (2011). How it works. Retrieved from http://www.lojack.com/why/pages/how-lojack-works.aspx

Lonsway, K. A., Archambault, J., & Berkowitz, A. B. (2007). False reports: Moving beyond the issue to successfully investigate and prosecute non-stranger sexual assault. San Luis Obispo, CA: EVAW International.

Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.

Lord, V. B. (1998). Characteristics of violence in state government. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 489–503.

Luckenbill, D. F. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25, 176–186.

Lynch, D. R. (1997). The nature of occupational stress among public defenders. Justice System Journal, 19, 17–35.

Lyon, E., & Lane, S. (2009). Meeting survivors’ needs: A multi-state study of domestic violence shelter

1032

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.lojack.com/why/pages/how-lojack-works.aspx

experiences. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and UConn School of Social Work.

Lyon, E., Lane, S., & Menard, A. (2008). Meeting survivors’ needs: A multi-state study of domestic violence shelter experiences, final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225025.pdf

Lyons, C. J. (2007). Community (dis)organization and racially motivated crime. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 815–863.

Maier, S. L. (2008). Are rape crisis centers feminist organizations? Feminist Criminology, 3, 82–100.

Maltz, W. (2001). The sexual healing journey: A guide for survivors of sexual abuse. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Marge, D. K. (2003). A call to action: Ending crimes of violence against children and adults with disabilities; A report to the nation. Syracuse: SUNY Upstate Medical University, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Margolin, L. (1992). Child abuse by mothers’ boyfriends: Why the overrepresentation? Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 541–551.

Maroney, T. A. (1998). The struggle against hate crime: Movement at a crossroads. NYU Law Review, 73, 564–620.

Marshall, I. H., & Maljevic, A. (2013). Editors’ introduction: Theoretical and methodological insights from the second International Self-Report Study of Delinquency (ISRD-2). Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 4–12.

Marshall, T. F. (1999). Restorative justice: An overview. London, England: Home Office, Research Development and Statistics Division.

Martin, G., Bergen, H. A., Richardson, A. S., Roeger, L., & Allison, S. (2004). Sexual abuse and suicidality: Gender differences in a large community sample of adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 491–503.

Martin, S. L., Ray, N., Sotres-Alvarez, D., Kupper, L. L., Moracco, K. E., Dickens, P. A., … & Gizlice, Z. (2006). Physical and sexual assault of women with disabilities. Violence Against Women, 12, 823–837.

1033

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225025.pdf

Marx, B. P., Calhoun, K. S., Wilson, A. E., & Meyerson, L. A. (2001). Sexual revictimization prevention: An outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 25–32.

Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.mdcrimevictims.org/

Maston, C. T. (2010, March 2). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm? ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

Matthias, R. E., & Benjamin, A. E. (2003). Abuse and neglect of clients in agency-based and consumer- directed home care. Health & Social Work, 28, 174–184.

Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.mpicc.de/en/home.cfm

Maxwell, C., Garner, J., & Fagan, J. (2001). The effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: New evidence from the spouse assault replication program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/188199.txt

May, D. C. (2010). Victimization of school teachers/staff. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 833–835). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

May, D. C., Rader, N. E., & Goodrum, S. (2010). A gendered assessment of the ‘‘threat of victimization’’: Examining gender differences in fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 159–182.

McCabe, A., & Manian, S. (2010). Sex trafficking: A global perspective. Plymouth, England: Lexington Books.

McCartney, J. R., & Campbell, V. A. (1998). Confirmed abuse cases in public residential facilities for persons with mental retardation: A multi-state study. Mental Retardation, 36, 465–473.

McClellan, D. S., Farabee, D., & Crouch, B. M. (1997). Early victimization, drug use, and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 455–476.

1034

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.mdcrimevictims.org/

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

https://www.mpicc.de/en/home.cfm

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/188199.txt

McCold, P., & Wachtel, B. (1998). Restorative policing experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project. Bethlehem, PA: Real Justice.

McCorkle, R. C. (1992). Personal precautions to violence in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 160–173.

McFarlane, J., Hughes, R. B., Nosek, M. A., Groff, J. Y., Swedlend, N., & Dolan Mullen, P. (2001). Abuse assessment screen-disability (AAS-D): Measuring frequency, type, and perpetrator of abuse toward women with physical disabilities. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 10, 861–866.

McGarrell, E., Olivares, K., Crawford, K., & Kroovand, N. (2000). Returning justice to the community: The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiment. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

McMullin, D., Wirth, R. J., & White, J. W. (2007). The impact of sexual victimization on personality: A longitudinal study. Sex Roles, 56, 403–414.

Medica Zenica. (2014). Retrieved from: http://medicazenica.org/uk/

Mele, M. (2009). The time course of repeat intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 619–624.

Menard, S. (2002, February). Short- and long-term consequences of adolescent victimization. Youth Violence Research Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Mendelsohn, B. (1947, March). New biopsychosocial horizons: Victimology. Paper presented to the Psychiatric Society of Bucharest, Coltzea State Hospital, Hungary.

Mertl, S. (2012, June 12). Toronto Eaton Centre shooting shines light on Canada’s gang problem. The Daily Brew. Retrieved from http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/toronto-eaton-centre-shooting-shines- light-canada-gang-202058661.html

Messman-Moore, T. L., & Long, P. J. (2002). Alcohol and substance abuse disorders as predictors of child to adult sexual revictimization in a sample of community women. Violence and Victims, 17, 319–340.

Meyers, T. W. (2002). Policing and sexual assault: Strategies for successful victim interviews. In L. J.

1035

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://medicazenica.org/uk/

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/toronto-eaton-centre-shooting-shines-light-canada-gang-202058661.html

Moriarty & M. L. Dantzker (Eds.), Policing and victims (pp. 57–73). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Miller, E., Decker, M. R., Silverman, J. G., & Raj, A. (2007). Migration, sexual exploitation and women’s health: A case report from a community health center. Violence Against Women, 13, 486–497.

Miller, H. V., & Miller, J. M. (2010). School-based bullying prevention. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 817–819). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, L. (2004). Psychotherapeutic interventions for survivors of terrorism. American Journal of Psychiatry, 58, 1–16.

Miller, T. R., Cohen, M. A., & Wiersema, B. (1996). Victim costs and consequences: A new look. Washington, DC: United States National Institute of Justice.

Millett, L. S., Kohl, P. L., Jonson-Reid, M., Drake, B., & Petra, M. (2013). Child maltreatment victimization and subsequent perpetration of young adult intimate partner violence: An exploration of mediating factors. Child Maltreatment, 18, 71–84.

Ministére de la Justice. (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/accueil.asp

Minnesota Department of Health. (1998). Tools about sexual violence: General prevention tool #25: Effects of sexual victimization. In A place to start: A resource kit for preventing sexual violence. St. Paul, MN: Author.

Model penal code. (n.d.). Hein Online. Retrieved from https://home.heinonline.org/titles/American-Law- Institute-Library/Model-Penal-Code/?letter=M

Moracco, K. E., Runyan, C. W., & Butts, J. D. (1998). Femicide in North Carolina, 1991–1993: A statewide study of patterns and precursors. Homicide Studies, 2, 422–446.

Morgan, P. (2010). Workplace violence training and education. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 1076–1078). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan, R. E., & Mason, B. J. (2014). Crimes against the elderly 2003–2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cae0313.pdf

1036

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/accueil.asp

https://home.heinonline.org/titles/American-Law-Institute-Library/Model-Penal-Code/?letter=M

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cae0313.pdf

Morrall, P., Hazelton, M., & Shackleton, W. (2011). Homicide and its effect on secondary victims: Peter Morrall and colleagues discuss the impact of violent crime on the families, friends and associates of its victims, and the potential forensic role of mental health nurses. Mental Health Practice, 15, 14–19.

Morton, E., Runyan, C. W., Moracco, K. E., & Butts, J. (1998). Partner homicide-suicide involving female homicide victims: A population-based study in North Carolina, 1988–1992. Violence and Victims, 13, 91–106.

Mouzos, J. (1999). Femicide: An overview of major findings. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice/Australian Institute of Criminology, 124, 1.

Muftić, L. R., & Baumann, M. L. (2012). Female versus male perpetrated femicide: An exploratory analysis of whether offender gender matters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2824–2844.

Muftić, L. R., & Hunt, D. E. (2013). Victim precipitation: Further understanding the linkage between victimization and offending in homicide. Homicide Studies, 17, 239–254.

Muftić, L. R., & Moreno, R. D. (2010). Juvenile homicide victimization: Differences and similarities by gender. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 386–398.

Mukherjee, S., & Carcach, C. (1998). Repeat victimization in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series No. 15). Griffith: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Munson, L. (2007, October 26). Ruling in Wilson case highlights draconian penalty. ESPN. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3081047

Murdock, S. (2016, June 9). Brock Turner’s sentence will be even shorter than you think. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brock-turner-sentence-short_us_57597bbce4b0e39a28acb046

Murphy, S. A., Tapper, V. J., Johnson, L. C., & Lohan, J. (2003). Suicide ideation among parents bereaved by the violent deaths of their children. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 24, 5–25.

Murphy, S. M., Kilpatrick, D. G., Amick-McMullan, A., Veronen, L. J., Paduhovich, J., Best, C. L., … & Saunders, B. E. (1988). Current psychological functioning of child sexual assault survivors: A community study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 55–79.

1037

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3081047

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brock-turner-sentence-short_us_57597bbce4b0e39a28acb046

Mustaine, E. E. (2010). Stalking. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 900–904). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36, 829–857.

Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5, 43–62.

Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2007). The routine activities and criminal victimization of students: Lifestyle and related factors. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (pp. 147–166). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Nada-Raja, S., & Skegg, K. (2011). Victimization, posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology, and later nonsuicidal self-harm in a birth cohort. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3667–3681.

Nannini, A. (2006). Sexual assault patterns among women with and without disabilities seeking survivor services. Women’s Health Issues, 16, 372–379.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.

Natarajan, M. (1996). Women police units in India: A new direction. Police Studies, 19, 63–75.

National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Board. (2014). Crime Victim Compensation Quarterly, 4. Retrieved from http://www.nacvcb.org/NACVCB/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000233/2014newsletter.2013- 4.pdf

National Association of State Boards of Education. (2010, December 3). Bullying, harassment, and hazing. State School Healthy Policy Database. Retrieved from http://nasbe.org/healthy_schools/hs/state.php? state=Florida#Bullying,HarassmentandHazing

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast facts: Back to school statistics. Retrieved from

1038

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.nacvcb.org/NACVCB/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000233/2014newsletter.2013-4.pdf

http://nasbe.org/healthy_schools/hs/state.php?state=Florida#Bullying,HarassmentandHazing

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, National District Attorneys Association. (2010, July). NDAA presence of support person for child witness compilation. Retrieved from http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Presence%20of%20Support%20Persons%20for%20Child%20Witnesses%202010.pdf

National Center for Victims of Crime. (1999). Victim impact statements. Retrieved from http://www.victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-help-bulletins-for-crime-victims/victim- impact-statements

National Center for Victims of Crime. (2008a). Domestic violence: Why victims may stay. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Victims of Crime. (2008b). Hate and bias crimes. Retrieved from http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/hate-and-bias-crime

National Center for Victims of Crime. (2008c). Sexual assault. Retrieved from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32369

National Center for Victims of Crime. (2009). About victims’ rights. Retrieved from https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp

National Center for Victims of Crime. (n.d.-a). Victims’ rights and sexual assault kits. Retrieved from https://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/dna-resource-center/untested-sexual-assault-kits/victims’-rights- and-sexual-assault-kits

National Center for Victims of Crime. (n.d.-b). Laws about the sexual assault kit backlog. Retrieved from http://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/dna-resource-center/untested-sexual-assault-kits/sexual-assault- kit-backlog-laws

National Center for Victims of Crime. (n.d.-c). Male rape. Retrieved from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361

National Center for Victims of Crime. (n.d.-d). Stalking facts. Retrieved from http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/stalking

1039

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Presence%20of%20Support%20Persons%20for%20Child%20Witnesses%202010.pdf

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-help-bulletins-for-crime-victims/victim-impact-statements

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/hate-and-bias-crime

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=

http://DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32369

https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp

https://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/dna-resource-center/untested-sexual-assault-kits/victims%E2%80%99-rights-and-sexual-assault-kits

http://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/dna-resource-center/untested-sexual-assault-kits/sexual-assault-kit-backlog-laws

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/stalking

National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence. (2011). Family justice centers. Retrieved from http://www.ncdsv.org/ncd_linksfamilyjustice.html

National Center on Elder Abuse. (2011). Why should I care about elder abuse? Retrieved from http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/Main_Site/pdf/publication/NCEA_WhatIsAbuse-2010.pdf

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. (2010). Hate violence against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer communities in the United States in 2009. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cuav.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/5954_NCAVP2009HateViolenceReportforWeb.pdf

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. (2004, July 22). The 9/11 Commission report. Retrieved from http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

National Council on Disability. (2007). Breaking the silence on crime victims with disabilities in the United States (Joint statement by the National Council on Disability, the Association of University Centers, and the National Center for Victims of Crime). Retrieved from http://www.ilru.org/html/training/webcasts/archive/2007/05-30-NCVC.html

National Counterterrorism Center. (2009, April 30). 2008 report on terrorism. Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterterrorism Center. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2008.pdf

National Counterterrorism Center. (2010, April 30). 2009 report on terrorism. Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterterrorism Center. Retrieved from http://www.nctc.gov/witsbanner/docs/2009_report_on_terrorism.pdf

National Counterterrorism Center. (2012, March). 2011 report on terrorism. Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterterrorism Center. Retrieved from http://fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf

National Counterterrorism Center. (2016a, June). Statistical information on terrorism 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

National Counterterrorism Center. (2016b, June). Country reports on terrorism 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism. Retrieved from

1040

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ncdsv.org/ncd_linksfamilyjustice.html

http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/Main_Site/pdf/publication/NCEA_WhatIsAbuse-2010.pdf

http://www.cuav.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/5954_NCAVP2009HateViolenceReportforWeb.pdf

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

http://www.ilru.org/html/training/webcasts/archive/2007/05-30-NCVC.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2008.pdf

http://www.nctc.gov/witsbanner/docs/2009_report_on_terrorism.pdf

http://fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/258249.pdf

National Court Appointed Special Advocates. (2010). Evidence of effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5332511/k.7D2A/Evidence_of_Effectiveness.htm

National Crime Victim Bar Association. (2007). Civil justice for victims of crime. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Victim_Services/docs/Civil%20Justice%20%20FINAL%20%28non-book%29.pdf

National District Attorneys Association. (2008, November). Legislation permitting the use of anatomical dolls in child abuse cases. Retrieved from http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/stat-utes-anatomical-dolls-112008.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1995, May). Preventing homicide in the workplace (Publication No. 93-109). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2014). Occupational violence. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1995). NIDA notes (Vol. 10). Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NN95index.html

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1998). NIDA notes (Vol. 13, No. 5). Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NN98index.html#Number5

National Insurance Crime Bureau. (2014). NICB’s 2014 theft and awareness. Retrieved from https://www.nicb.org/theft_and_fraud_awareness/top-vehicles-stolen-by-state

National Insurance Crime Bureau. (2015). NICB’s 2015 hot spots vehicle theft report. Retrieved from https://www.nicb.org/newsroom/news-releases/2015-hot-spots-vehicle-theft-report

National Research Council. (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Victims’ Constitutional Amendment Passage. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nvcap.org/

1041

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/258249.pdf

http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5332511/k.7D2A/Evidence_of_Effectiveness.htm

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Victim_Services/docs/Civil%20Justice%20%20FINAL%20%28non-book%29.pdf

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/stat-utes-anatomical-dolls-112008.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/

http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NN95index.html

http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NN98index.html#Number5

https://www.nicb.org/theft_and_fraud_awareness/top-vehicles-stolen-by-state

https://www.nicb.org/newsroom/news-releases/2015-hot-spots-vehicle-theft-report

http://www.nvcap.org/

Neeves, S. (2008). An examination of power differentials and intimate partner violence in lesbian relationships. Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05012008- 211729/unrestricted/NeevesThesisIPVLesbian.pdf

Nellis, A. M., & Savage, J. (2012). Does watching the news affect fear of terrorism? The importance of media exposure on terrorism fear. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 748–768.

Nettelbeck, T., & Wilson, C. (2002). Personal vulnerability to victimization of people with mental retardation. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 3, 289–306.

Network for Public Health Law. (2014). Protecting victims of domestic violence: Court watch programs. Retrieved from https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2014/11/20/521/protecting_victims_of_domestic_violence_court_watch_programs

New York Department of Criminal Justice. (2016). Instructions for preparing the supplementary homicide report. Retrieved from http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/crimereporting/forms/homicide.pdf

Nicholas, S., Povey, D., Walker, A., & Kershaw, C. (2005). Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005. London, England: Great Britain Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

Nichols, A. J., & Heil, E. C. (2014). Challenges to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases in the Midwest United States. Feminist Criminology, 10, 7–35.

Nies, Y., James, S. D., & Netter, S. (2010, January 28). Mean girls: Cyberbullying blamed for teen suicides. Good Morning America, ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/girls-teen- suicide-calls-attention-cyberbullying/story?id=9685026#.UEd9kmNrWTw

Nolan, J. J., McDevitt, S., Cronin, S., & Farrell, A. (2004). Learning to see hate crimes: A framework for understanding and clarifying ambiguities in bias crime classification. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 17, 91–105.

Noonan, M. E. (2010a). Deaths in custody reporting program: Mortality in local jails, 2000–2007 (Special report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Noonan, M. E. (2010b). Deaths in custody reporting program: Mortality in state prisons, 2000–2007 (Special

1042

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05012008-211729/unrestricted/NeevesThesisIPVLesbian.pdf

https://www.networkforphl.org/the_network_blog/2014/11/20/521/protecting_victims_of_domestic_violence_court_watch_programs

http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/crimereporting/forms/homicide.pdf

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/girls-teen-suicide-calls-attention-cyberbullying/story?id=9685026#.UEd9kmNrWTw

report). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Norris, J., Nurius, P. S., & Graham, T. L. (1999). When a date changes from fun to dangerous: Factors affecting women’s ability to distinguish. Violence Against Women, 5, 230–250.

North, C. S., Nixon, S. J., Shariat, S., Mallonee, S., McMillen, J. C., Spitznagel, E. L., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Psychiatric disorders among survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing. JAMA, 282, 755–762.

Nosek, M. A. (1996). Sexual abuse of women with physical disabilities. In D. M. Krotoski, M. A. Nosek, & M. A. Turk (Eds.), Women with physical disabilities: Achieving and maintaining health and well-being (pp. 153–173). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Nugent, W. R., & Paddock, J. B. (1995). The effect of victim-offender mediation on severity of response. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 12, 353–367.

Nunziata, L. J. (2015). Immigration and crime: Evidence from victimization data. Journal of Population Economics, 28, 697–736.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91–596 (1970).

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). Safety and health topics: Workplace violence. Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/

Office for National Statistics. (2015). Crime in England and Wales: Year ending December 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2015

Office for Victims of Crime. (2012, April). Crime Victims Fund: OVC fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/crimevictimsfundfs/index.html

Office for Victims of Crime. (2013). 2012 Victims of Crime Act performance report. Washington, DC: Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Office of Justice Programs. (2002, January). Enforcement of protective orders (Legal Series, Bulletin #4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/bulletins/legalseries/bulletin4/ncj189190.pdf

1043

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2015

http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/crimevictimsfundfs/index.html

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/bulletins/legalseries/bulletin4/ncj189190.pdf

Okun, L. E. (1986). Women abuse: Facts replacing myths. Albany: SUNY Press.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bates, C. A., & Lean, E. R. (2009). Sexual harassment at work: A decade (plus) of progress. Journal of Management, 35, 503–536.

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. (2011). State and federal bullying information. Retrieved from http://www.olweus.org/public/bullying_laws.page

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. New York, NY: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (2007). Bullies and victims at school: Are they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 441–464.

O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 23–29.

Orchowski, L. M., Untied, A. S., & Gidycz, C. A. (2013). Social reactions to disclosure of sexual victimization and adjustment among survivors of sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2005–2023.

Orel, N. A. (2010). Elder abuse, neglect, and maltreatment: Institutional. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention (Vol. 1, pp. 351–353). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Osborn, D. R., Ellingworth, D., Hope, T., & Trickett, A. (1996). Are repeatedly victimized households different? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 223–245.

1044

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.olweus.org/public/bullying_laws.page

Osborn, D. R., & Tseloni, A. (1998). The distribution of household property crimes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 307–330.

Outlaw, M. C., Ruback, R. B., & Britt, C. (2002). Repeat and multiple victimizations: The role of individual and contextual factors. Violence and Victims, 17, 187–204.

Pagelow, M. D. (1997). Battered women: A historical research review and some common myths. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press.

Parents of Murdered Children (POMC). (2014). Problems of survivors. Retrieved from http://www.pomc.com/problems.html

Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on capital decision making. Criminology, 49, 129–161.

Pawloski, J. (2011, January 8). Olympia-area man arrested in Thurston County’s largest ever ID-theft case. The Olympian. Retrieved from http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/crime/article25277005.html

Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991).

Payne, B. K., & Cikovic, R. (1995). An empirical examination of the characteristics, consequences and causes of elder abuse in nursing homes. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 7(4), 61–74.

Payne, B. K., & Gainey, R. R. (2009). Family violence and criminal justice: A life-course approach (3rd ed.). Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender.

Pease, K. (1992). The Kirkholt Project: Preventing burglary on a British Public Housing Estate. Security Journal, 2, 73–77.

Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimization: Taking stock (Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 90). London, England: Home Office.

Peguero, A. A. (2013). An adolescent victimization immigrant paradox? School-based routines, lifestyles, and victimization across immigration generations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1759–1773.

1045

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.pomc.com/problems.html

http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/crime/article25277005.html

Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 165–176.

Perrault, S., Sauve, J., & Burns, M. (2010). Multiple victimization in Canada. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Profile Series, 22.

Petersilia, J. R. (2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities: A review essay. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 655–694.

Petersilia, J. R. (2010). A retrospective view of corrections reform in the Schwarzenegger administration. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22, 148–153.

Pfohl, S. J. (1977). The “discovery” of child abuse. Sociological Problems, 24, 310–323.

Phillips, N. (2009). The prosecution of hate crimes: The limitations of hate crime typologies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 883–905.

Pillemer, K., & Finkelhor, D. (1988). The prevalence of elder abuse: A random sample survey. The Gerontologist, 28, 51–57.

Piquero, A. R., & Hickman, M. (2003). Extending Tittle’s control-balance theory to account for victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 282–301.

Pitts, V. L., & Schwartz, M. D. (1993). Promoting self-blame in ridden rape cases. Humanity and Society, 17, 383–398.

Planty, M., Langton, L., Krebs, C., Berzofsky, M., & Smiley-McDonald, H. (2013). Female victims of sexual violence, 1994-2010 (Report No. NCJ 240655). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

Pleck, E. (1987). Domestic tyranny: The making of American social policy against family. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Policastro, C., Teasdale, B., & Daigle, L. E. (2016). The recurring victimization of individuals with mental illness: A comparison of trajectories for two racial groups. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 675–693.

1046

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

Polk, K. (1999). Males and honor contest violence. Homicide Studies, 3, 6–29.

Polvi, N., Looman, T., Humphries, C., & Pease, K. (1991). The time course of repeat burglary victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 411–414.

Potter, R., & Thomas, P. (2001). Engine immobilisers: How effective are they? Melbourne, Australia: National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council.

Powers, L. E., Curry, M. A., Oschwald, M., & Maley, S. (2002). Barriers and strategies in addressing abuse: A survey of disabled women’s experiences. Journal of Rehabilitation, 68, 4.

Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. A. (2014). Self-control and victimization: A meta- analysis. Criminology, 52, 87–116.

Preston, E. (2014, August 24). Crime forcing old family business out of neighborhood. Retrieved from http://wreg.com/2014/08/24/crime-forcing-old-family-business-out-ofneighborhood/

Prevent Child Abuse America. (2000). Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: The 2000 fifty state survey. Chicago, IL: National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research.

Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered women in the courtroom: The power of judicial responses. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Pyrooz, D. C., Wolfe, S. E., & Spohn, C. (2011). Gang-related homicide charging decisions: The implementation of a specialized prosecution unit in Los Angeles. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22, 3–26.

Raghavan, R., Bogart, L. M., Elliott, M. N., Vestal, K. D., & Schuster, M. A. (2004). Sexual victimization among a national probability sample of adolescent women. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 225–232.

RAINN. (2009). Sexual assault of men and boys. Retrieved from http://www.rainn.org/get- information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault

RAINN. (2011). The laws in your state. Retrieved from http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/laws-in-your-

1047

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://wreg.com/2014/08/24/crime-forcing-old-family-business-out-ofneighborhood/

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault

http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/laws-in-your-state

state

RAINN. (2017). Ohio mandatory reporting requirements regarding elders/disabled. Retrieved from https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-state-laws.cfm?state=Ohio&group=5

RAND Corporation. (2004). Compensating the victims of 9/11. Research Brief. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9087/index1.html

Rand, M. R. (1997). Violence-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments [Special report]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Rand, M. R. (2008). Criminal victimization, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Rand, M. R. (2009). Criminal victimization, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Rand, M. R., Sabol, W. J., Sinclair, M., & Snyder, H. (2010). Alcohol and crime: Data from 2002 to 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/acf/ac10.pdf

Raphael, J. (2008). Book review: Taylor Jr., S., & Johnson, K. C. (2007). Until proven innocent: Political correctness and the shameful injustices of the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Violence Against Women, 14, 370–375.

Ratcliffe, J. H., & Rengert, G. F. (2008). Near-repeat patterns in Philadelphia shootings. Security Journal, 21, 58–76.

Rathgeber, C. (2002). The victimization of women through human trafficking: An aftermath of war? European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 10, 152–163.

Rauma, D. (1984). Going for the gold: Prosecutorial decision making in cases of wife assault. Social Science Research, 13, 321–351.

Reaves, B. A. (2015, January). Campus law enforcement, 2011–12 (Special Report NCJ 248028). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from

1048

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-state-laws.cfm?state=Ohio&group=5

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9087/index1.html

https://www.bjs.gov/content/acf/ac10.pdf

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5216

Redmond, L. (1989). Surviving when someone you love was murdered: A professional’s guide to group grief therapy for families and friends of murder victims. Clearwater, FL: Psychological Consultation and Educational Services.

Reiss, A. (1980). Victim proneness in repeat victimization by type of crime. In S. Fienberg & A. Reiss (Eds.), Indicators of crime and criminal justice: Quantitative studies (pp. 41–53). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Rengert, G., & Wasilchick, J. (1985). Suburban burglary: A time and place for everything. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Rennison, C. M. (1999). Criminal victimization in 1998: Changes 1997–1998 with trends 1993–1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice and Statistics.

Rennison, C. M. (2002). Criminal victimization 2001: Changes 2000–2001 with trends 1993–2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Reno, J., Marcus, D., Leary, M. L., & Turman, K. M. (2000). Responding to terrorism victims: Oklahoma City and beyond. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime.

Renzetti, C. M., & Miley, C. H. (1996). Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships. New York, NY: Haworth.

Resnick, H., Monnier, J., & Seals, B. (2002). Rape-related HIV risk concerns among recent rape victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(7), 746–759.

Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216–238.

Rice, K. J., & Smith, W. R. (2002). Socioecological models of automotive theft: Integrating routine activity and social disorganization approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(3), 304–336.

Ricketts, M. (2010). School violence. In B. S. Fisher & S. P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and

1049

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5216

crime prevention (Vol. 2, pp. 835–840). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rigby, K. (1997). Bullying and suicide among children. Beyond Bullying News, 2, 3–4.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian school children: Implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615–627.

Riggs, D. S., Caulfield, M. B., & Street, A. E. (2000). Risk for domestic violence: Factors associated with perpetration and victimization. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 1289–1316.

Rinehart, J. K., & Yeater, E. A. (2013) Using cognitive theory and methodology to inform the study of sexual victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 3–15. Online first doi:10.1177/1524838013515761

Risser, H. J., Hetzel-Riggin, M.D., Thomsen, C. J., & McCanne, T. R. (2006). PTSD as a mediator of sexual revictimization: The role of reexperiencing, avoidance, and arousal symptoms. Journal of Trauma Stress, 19, 687–698.

Ritsche, D. F. (2006, September). Sex crime legislation (Informational Bulletin 06-3). Madison: State of Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau.

Robers, S., Kemp, J., Rathbun, A., Morgan, R. E., & Snyder, T. D. (2014). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2013 (NCES 2014-042/NCJ 243299). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

Robers, S., Zhang, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. D. (2010, November). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2010 (NCES 2011-002/NCJ 230812). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

Roberts, A., & Willits, D. (2013). Lifestyle, routine activities, and felony-related eldercide. Homicide Studies, 17, 184–203.

Roberts, A. L., Austin, S. B., Corliss, H. L., Vandermorris, M. D., & Koenen, K. C. (2010). Pervasive trauma exposure among U.S. sexual orientation minority adults and risk of posttraumatic stress disorder. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 2433–2441.

1050

Download more at Learnclax.com

Roberts, J. V., & Manikis, M. (2011). Victim personal statements. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/news/press-releases/victims-com/vps-research.pdf

Robinson, L., de Benedictis, T., & Segal, J. (2011). Elder abuse and neglect: Warning signs, risk factors, prevention, and help. Retrieved from http://helpguide.org/mental/elder_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm

Robinson, M. B. (1998). Burglary revictimization: The time period of heightened risk. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 78–87.

Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The acquaintance process: Looking mainly backward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156–1166.

Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., & Baumer, E. (2005). Did Ceasefire, Compstat, and Exile reduce homicide? Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 419–449.

Rounds-Bryant, J., Kristiansen, P. L., Fairbank, J. A., & Hubbard, R. L. (1998). Substance use, mental disorders, abuse and crime: Gender comparisons among a national sample of adolescent drug treatment centers. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 7(4), 19–34.

Rountree, P. W. (1998). A reexamination of the crime-fear linkage. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 341–372.

Rountree, P. W., & Land, K. C. (1996). Burglary victimization, perceptions of crime risk, and routine activities: A multilevel analysis across Seattle neighbourhood and census tracts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 147–180.

Rowe, D. C., Stever, C., Chase, D., Sherman, S., Abramowitz, A., & Waldman, I. D. (2001). Two dopamine genes related to reports of childhood retrospective inattention and conduct disorder symptoms. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 429–433.

Ruback, R. B., Ménard, K. S., Outlaw, M. C., & Shaffer, J. N. (1999). Normative advice to campus crime victims: Effects of gender, age, and alcohol. Violence and Victims, 14(4), 381–396.

Russell, D. E., & Harmes, R. A. (2001). Femicide in global perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

1051

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/news/press-releases/victims-com/vps-research.pdf

http://helpguide.org/mental/elder_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm

Rycus, J., & Hughes, R. (1998). Field guide to child welfare. Volume IV: Placement and permanence. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America and Columbus, OH: Institute for Human Services.

Rydberg, J., & Pizarro, J. M. (2014). Victim lifestyle as a correlate of homicide clearance. Homicide Studies, 18, 342–362.

Saisan, J., Smith, M., & Segal, J. (2011, June). Child abuse and neglect: Recognizing and preventing child abuse. Retrieved from http://www.helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm

Salasin, S. E., & Rich, R. F. (1993). Mental health policy for victims of violence: The case against women. In J. P. Wilson and B. Raphael (Eds.), International handbook of traumatic stress syndromes (pp. 947–955). New York, NY: Plenum.

Sampson, R. J. (1985). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of personal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(1), 7–40.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.

Schafer, S. (1968). The victim and his criminal: A study in functional responsibility. New York, NY: Random House.

Schauer, E. J., & Wheaton, E. M. (2006). Sex trafficking in the United States: A literature review. Criminal Justice Review, 31, 146–169.

Schmidt, J., & Steury, E. (1989). Prosecutorial discretion in filing charges in domestic violence cases. Criminology, 27, 487–510.

Schmidt, L. A., Fox, N. A., Rubin, K. H., Hu, S., & Hamer, D. H. (2002). Molecular genetics of shyness and aggression in preschoolers. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 227–238.

Schneider, H. J. (2001). Victimological developments in the world during the past three decades (I): A study

1052

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm

of comparative victimology. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(4), 449–468.

Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16(3), 633–654.

Schreck, C. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization: Extending routine activities and lifestyles theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(9), 1021–1041.

Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G. N., Elliott, M. N., … & Berry, S. H. (2001). A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 1507–1512.

Schwartz, M. D., & Pitts, V. L. (1995). Exploring a feminist routine activities approach to explaining sexual assault. Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 9–31.

Scott, K. D., Schafer, J., & Greenfield, T. K. (1999). The role of alcohol in physical assault perpetration and victimization. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 528–536.

Sedensky, S. J., III. (2013). Report of the state’s attorney for the judicial district of Danbury on the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf

Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death; A series of books in psychology. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Sexual Assault Laws of Alabama. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ageofconsent.com/alabama.htm

Sexual Harassment, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11[a] [2] [3] (1999).

Shanley, J. R., Risch, E. C., & Bonner, B. L. (2010). US child death review programs: Assessing progress

1053

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf

http://www.ageofconsent.com/alabama.htm

toward a standard review process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39, 522–528.

Shared Hope International. (2011). Protected innocence legislative framework: Methodology. Retrieved from http://www.sharedhope.org/Portals/0/Documents/ProtectedInnocenceMethodologyFINAL.pdf

Sharps, P. W., Campbell, J., Campbell, D., Gary, F., & Webster, D. (2001). The role of alcohol in intimate partner femicide. American Journal of Addictions, 10, 122–135

Shepherd, J. M. (2002). Reflections on a rape trial: The role of rape myths and jury selection in the outcome of a trial. Affilia, 17, 69–92.

Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York, NY: Free Press.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.

Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–55.

Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Angel, C., Woods, D., Barnes, G., Bennett, S., Inkpen, N. (2005). Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 367–395.

Siegel, J. A., & Williams, L. M. (2003). Risk factors for sexual victimization of women: Results from a prospective study. Violence Against Women, 9(8), 902–930.

Siegel, R. S., La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2009). Peer victimization and social anxiety in adolescents: Prospective and reciprocal relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(8), 1096–1109.

Silver, E. (2002). Mental disorder and violent victimization: The mediating role of involvement in conflicted social relationships. Criminology, 40, 191–212.

Silver, E., Arseneault, L., Langley, J., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2005). Mental disorder and violent victimization in a total birth cohort. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 2015–2021.

1054

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.sharedhope.org/Portals/0/Documents/ProtectedInnocenceMethodologyFINAL.pdf

Silver, R. C., Holman, E. A., McIntosh, D. N., Poulin, M., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2002). Nationwide longitudinal study of psychological responses to September 11. JAMA, 288, 1235–1244.

Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 572–579.

Simmons, D. (2014, August 20). Sexual assault evidence will be stored in state crime lab in Madison. Retrieved from http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/sexual-assault-evidence-will-be-stored-in-state- crime-lab/article_8ed49c37-65f6-5509-b831-0312009e4089.html

Sinozich, S., & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age females, 1995– 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Skogan, W. G. (1987). The impact of victimization on fear. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 135–154.

Sloan, J. J., & Shoemaker, J. (2007). State-level Cleary Act initiatives: Symbolic politics or substantive policy? In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (pp. 102–121). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Slone, M., & Shoshani, A. (2008). Indirect victimization from terrorism: A proposed post-exposure intervention. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30, 255–266.

Smith, Gambrell, & Russell, LLP. (2005). Workplace violence: Recognizing risk factors and formulating prevention strategies. Trust the Leaders, 13. Retrieved from http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl13/869/

Smith, B. L., Sloan, J. J., & Ward, R. M. (1990). Public support for the victims’ rights movement: Results of a statewide survey. Crime and Delinquency, 36(4), 488–502.

Smith, D. L. (2008). Disability, gender, and intimate partner violence: Relationships from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Sexuality and Disability, 26, 15–28.

Smith, E. L., & Cooper, A. (2013). Homicide in the U.S. known to law enforcement, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf

1055

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/sexual-assault-evidence-will-be-stored-in-state-crime-lab/article_8ed49c37-65f6-5509-b831-0312009e4089.html

http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl13/869/

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf

Smith, N. E., & Batiuk, M. E. (1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The Prison Journal, 69, 29–38.

Smolak, L., & Murnen, S. K. (2002). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 136–150.

Snyder, J. A., Fisher, B. S., Scherer, H. L., & Daigle, L. E. (2012). Unsafe in the camouflage tower: Sexual victimization and perceptions of military academy leadership. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Online first doi:10.1177/0886260512441252

Sobsey, D. (1994). Violence and abuse in the lives of people with disabilities: The end of silent acceptance? Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Sobsey, D., & Doe, T. (1991). Patterns of sexual abuse and assault. Journal of Sexuality and Disability, 9, 243–259.

Soler-Baillo, J. M., Marx, B. P., & Sloan, D. M. (2005). The psychophysiological correlates of risk recognition among victims and non-victims of sexual assault. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(2), 169–181.

Sowyer, A. (2015). Budget deal robs $1.5 billion from crime victims. Retrieved from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/28/budget-deal-robs-1-5-billion-crime-victims/

Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly, 18, 651–688.

Stark, E. (1984, May). The unspeakable family secret. Psychology Today, pp. 42–46.

State Government of Victoria. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.vic.gov.au/

State police: Man robbed Ogletown business once, then tried again. (2014, January 25). The News Journal. Retrieved from http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2014/01/25/state-police-man-robbed- ogletown-business-once-then-tried-again/4895479/

State v. Johnson, No. C4-92-251, 1993, Minn. App. LEXIS 617 (Minn. App. June 9, 1993).

1056

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/28/budget-deal-robs-1-5-billion-crime-victims/

http://www.vic.gov.au/

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2014/01/25/state-police-man-robbed-ogletown-business-once-then-tried-again/4895479/

Stepakoff, S. (1998). Effects of sexual victimization on suicidal ideation and behavior in U.S. college women. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 28(1), 107–126.

Stets, J., & Straus, M. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 227–244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Stiegel, L. A. (2008). Durable power of attorney abuse: It’s a crime too: A national center on elder abuse fact sheet for consumers. Retrieved from http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/main_site/pdf/publication/DurablePowerOfAttorneyAbuseFactSheet_Consumers.pdf

Stiegel, L. A., Klem, E., & Turner, J. (2007). Neglect of older persons: An introduction to legal issues related to caregiver duty and liability. Retrieved from http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/main_site/pdf/publication/NeglectOfOlderPersons.pdf

Stöckl, H., Devries, K., Rotstein, A., Abrahams, N., Campbell, J., Watts, C., & Moreno, C. G. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. The Lancet, 382, 859–865.

Stombler, M. (1994). “Buddies” or “slutties”: The collective sexual reputation of fraternity little sisters. Gender and Society, 8, 297–323.

Storch, E. A., Brassard, M. R., & Masia-Warner, C. L. (2003). The relationship of peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study Journal, 33, 1–19.

Strang, H. (2004). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. Oxford, England: Clarendon.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamilial conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.

Straus, M. A. (2007). Conflict tactics scales. In N. A. Jackson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of violence (pp. 190–197). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics

1057

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/main_site/pdf/publication/DurablePowerOfAttorneyAbuseFactSheet_Consumers.pdf

http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/main_site/pdf/publication/NeglectOfOlderPersons.pdf

Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

Students invent nail polish that could detect date rape drugs. (2014, August 24). Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/08/25/students-invent-nail-polish-that-could-detect-date-rape- drugs

Sugarman, D. B., & Frankel, S. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 13–40.

Sullivan, P. M., & Knutson, J. F. (2000). Maltreatment and disabilities: A population-based epidemiological study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1257–1273.

Sweeting, H., Young, R., West, P., & Der, G. (2006). Peer victimization and depression in early-mid adolescence: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 577–594.

Sygnatur, E. F., & Toscano, G. A. (2000, Spring). Work-related homicides: The facts. Compensation and Working Conditions, 3–8.

Tabachneck, A., Norup, H., Thomason, S., & Motlagh, P. (2000). VICC approved theft deterrent systems: A study into the impact of VICC approved theft deterrent systems on insurance theft claim frequency and loss cost. Don Mills, Ontario: Vehicle Information Centre of Canada.

Talerico, K., Evans, L., & Strumpf, N. (2002). Mental health correlates of aggression in nursing home residents with dementia. The Gerontologist, 42, 169–177.

Tatara, T., Kuzmeskus, L. B., Duckhorn, E., & Bivens, L. (1998). National Elder Abuse Incidence Study: Final report. Washington, DC: Administration on Aging, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://aoa.gov/AoA_Programs/Elder_Rights/Elder_Abuse/docs/ABuseReport_Full.pdf

Taylor, B. G., Davis, R. C., & Maxwell, C. D. (2001). The effects of a group batterer treatment program in Brooklyn. Justice Quarterly, 18, 170–201.

Taylor, R.B. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows: Baltimore neighborhoods and the nationwide fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

1058

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/08/25/students-invent-nail-polish-that-could-detect-date-rape-drugs

http://aoa.gov/AoA_Programs/Elder_Rights/Elder_Abuse/docs/ABuseReport_Full.pdf

Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F., & Freng, A. (2007). Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 351–380.

Teasdale, B. (2009). Mental disorder and violent victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 513–535.

Teasdale, B., Daigle, L. E., & Ballard, E. (2013). Trajectories of recurring victimization among people with major mental disorders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 987–1005.

Teasdale, B., Daigle, L. E., Hawk, S. R., & Daquin, J. C. (2015). Violent victimization in the prison context: An examination of the gendered contexts of prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 995–1015.

Teaster, P. B., Otto, J. M., Dugar, T. A., Mendiondo, M. S., Abner, E. L., & Cecil, K. A. (2006). The 2004 survey of state adult protective services: Abuse of adults 60 years of age and older. Retrieved from http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/main_site/pdf/2-14-06%20final%2060+report.pdf

Teplin, L. A., McClelland, G. M., Abram, K. M., & Weiner, D. A. (2005). Crime victimization in adults with severe mental illness: Comparison with the National Crime Victimization Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 911–921.

Testa, M., Hoffman, J. A., & Livingston, J. A. (2011). Intergenerational transmission of sexual victimization vulnerability as mediated by parenting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 363–371.

Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2000). Routine activities and vandalism: A theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23, 81–110.

Tewksbury, R., & Pedro, D. (2003). The role of alcohol in victimization. In L. J. Moriarty (Ed.), Controversies in victimology (pp. 25–42). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Thompson, M. P., Kaslow, N. J., Price, A. W., Williams, K., & Kingree, J. B. (1998). Role of secondary stressors in the parental death–child distress relation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(5), 357–366.

Tillyer, M. S., & Wright E. M. (2013). Intimate partner violence and the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 29–55.

1059

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/main_site/pdf/2-14-06%20final%2060+report.pdf

Tittle, C. R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tittle, C. R. (1997). Thoughts stimulated by Braithwaite’s analysis of control balance theory. Theoretical Criminology, 1(1), 99–110.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998, November). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000a). Full report of the prevalence, incidence and consequences of violence against women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000b). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142–161.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (1999). Comparing violence over the life span in samples of same- sex and opposite cohabitants. Violence and Victims, 14, 413–425.

Tobolowsky, P. (1999). Victim participation in the criminal justice process: Fifteen years after the President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime. Criminal and Civil Confinement, 25(21), 21–105.

Toch, H. (1977). Police, prisons, and the problem of violence (NCJ 039511). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-386 (2000).

Truman, J. L. (2011). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

1060

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

Truman, J. L., & Langton, L. (2015). Criminal victimization, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf

Truman, J. L., Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2013). Criminal victimization, 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf

Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2014). Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003–2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf

Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2016). Criminal victimization, 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv15.pdf

Truman, J. L., & Rand, M. R. (2010). Criminal victimization, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

Tseloni, A. (2000). Personal criminal victimization in the United States: Fixed and random effects of individual and household characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 415–442.

Tucker, P., Pfefferbaum, B., North, C. S., Kent, A., Jeon-Slaughter, H., & Parker, D. E. (2010). Biological correlates of direct exposure to terrorism several years postdisaster. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 22, 186–195.

Tunnell, K. (1992). Choosing crime: The criminal calculus of property offenders. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Turanovic, J. J., & Pratt, T. C. (2014). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 29–56.

Turanovic, J. J., Pratt, T. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Structural constraints, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10940-016-9334-5

Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2010). The effect of adolescent victimization on self-concept and depressive symptoms. Child Maltreatment, 15(1), 76–90.

Tyler, K. A., Schmitz, R. M., & Adams, S. A. (2015). Alcohol expectancy, drinking behaviour, and sexual

1061

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv15.pdf

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

victimization among female and male college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–25. Online first doi:10.1177/0886260515591280

Tynes, B., & Giang, M. (2009). Online victimization, depression, and anxiety among adolescents in the U.S. European Psychiatry, 24(1), S686.

Ulicyn, G. R., White, G., Bradford, B., & Matthews, R. M. (1990). Consumer exploitation by attendants: How often does it happen and can anything be done about it? Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 33, 240–246.

Ullman, S. E. (2007). A 10-year update of “review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 411–429.

Ullman, S. E., & Peter-Hagene, L.C. (2016). Longitudinal relationships of social reactions, PTSD, and revictimization in sexual assault survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1074–1094.

Ullman, S. E., Relyea, M., Peter-Hagene, L., & Vasquez, A. L. (2013). Trauma histories, substance use coping, PTSD, and problem substance use among sexual assault victims. Addictive Behavior, 38, 2219–2223.

Umbreit, M. S. (2000). Appendix B. What is humanistic mediation? Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/reports/96517-gdlines_victims- sens/guide9.html

Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Kalanj, B. (1994). Victim meets offender: The impact of restorative justice and mediation. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.

Umbreit, M. S., & Greenwood, J. (2000). Guidelines for victim-sensitive victim offender mediation: Restorative justice through dialogue. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs.

Umbreit, M. S., & Vos, B. (2000). Homicide survivors meet the offender prior to execution restorative justice through dialogue. Homicide Studies, 4, 63–87.

United Nations. (1985). Security Council resolutions. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1985.shtml

1062

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/reports/96517-gdlines_victims-sens/guide9.html

http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1985.shtml

United Nations. (2000). Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/anti- trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/united_nations_protocol_on_thb_en_4.pdf

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Global study on homicide. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and- analysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996, July). Violence in the workplace: Risk factors and prevention strategies (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication No. 96-100). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-100/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999a). Blending perspectives and building common ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/blending-perspectives-and- building-common-ground

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999b). Mental health: A report of the surgeon general. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBHS.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Child maltreatment, 2009. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011a). Certification for victims of trafficking fact sheet. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/about/cert_victims.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011b). Labor trafficking fact sheet. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/about/fact_labor.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Child maltreatment 2012. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2012.pdf#page=16

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). Child maltreatment 2014. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2014.pdf

1063

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/united_nations_protocol_on_thb_en_4.pdf

https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-100/

https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/blending-perspectives-and-building-common-ground

https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBHS.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/about/cert_victims.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/about/fact_labor.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2012.pdf#page=16

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2014.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Identity theft and identity fraud. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

U.S. Department of State. (2010, June). Trafficking in persons report (10th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/142979.pdf

U.S. Department of State. (2014, June). Trafficking in persons report. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/226844.pdf

U.S. Department of State. (2015, July). Trafficking in persons report. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245365.pdf

U.S. Department of State. (2016a, June). Trafficking in persons report. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/258876.pdf

U.S. Department of State. (2016b). National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. Statistical information on terrorism in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2011). Shaken baby syndrome. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000004.htm

Valenti-Hein, D., & Schwartz, L. (1995). The sexual abuse interview for those with developmental disabilities. Santa Barbara, CA: James Stanfield Company.

Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997.

van Dijk, J. J. M., van Kesteren, J. N., & Smit, P. (2008). Background to the International Crime Victims Survey. In Criminal victimisation in international perspective: Key findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS (pp. 21–23). The Hague, The Netherlands: Boom Legal. Retrieved from http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf

Verdugo, M. A., Bermejo, B. G., & Fuertes, J. (1995). Maltreatment of intellectually handicapped children and adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 205–215.

1064

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/142979.pdf

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/226844.pdf

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245365.pdf

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/258876.pdf

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000004.htm

http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/V/VictCrimAsA09.pdf

Victim–Offender Reconciliation Program Information and Resource Center. (2006). About victim-offender mediation and reconciliation. Retrieved from http://www.vorp.com/

Victim Support. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/

Victim Support Australia. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.victimsupport.org.au/

Victim Support Europe. (2014). Victim of crime in another EU Country? What you need to know. Retrieved from http://www.victimsupport.im/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Victim-of-crime-in-another-country.pdf

von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal and his victim: Studies in the sociobiology of crime. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waalen, J., Goodwin, M., Spitz, A., Petersen, R., & Saltzman, L. (2000). Screening for intimate partner violence by health care providers: Barriers and interventions. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 19, 230–237.

Wacker, J. L., Parish, S. L., & Macy, R. J. (2008). Sexual assault and women with cognitive disabilities: Codifying discrimination in the states. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19, 86–94.

Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Wallace, H. (2007). Victimology: Legal, psychological, and social perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Wallace, R. M. M. (1997). International human rights: Text and materials. London, England: Sweet & Maxwell.

Walters, J. H., Moore, A., Berzofsky, M., & Langton, L. (2013). Household burglary, 1994–2011 (Special Report No. NCJ 241754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Warr, M. (1984). Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid? Social Science

1065

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/V/VictCrimAsA09.pdf

http://www.vorp.com/

https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/

http://www.victimsupport.org.au/

http://www.victimsupport.im/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Victim-of-crime-in-another-country.pdf

Quarterly, 65, 681–702.

Warr, M. (1985). Fear of rape among urban women. Social Problems, 32, 238–250.

Warr, M., & Stafford, C. (1983). Fear of victimization: A look at the proximate causes. Social Forces, 61, 1033–1043.

Waters, E., Jindasurat, C., & Wolfe, C. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-affected hate violence in 2015. New York, NY: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP). Retrieved from http://hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/www.hivlawandpolicy.org/files/NCAVP%20Hate%20Violence%20Report%202015.pdf

Watts-English, T., Fortson, B. L., Gibler, N., Hooper, S. R., & De Bellis, D. (2006). The psychology of maltreatment in childhood. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 717–736.

Websdale, N. (2003). Reviewing domestic violence deaths. National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 26–31.

Weese, B. (2011, March 14). Honour killings term angers Trudeau. Toronto Sun. Retrieved from http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/14/17610021.html

Weinberg, M. K., & Tronick, E. Z. (1998). Emotional characteristics of infants associated with maternal depression and anxiety. Pediatrics, 102, 1298–1304.

Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2003). Reforming to preserve: Compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 421–456.

Weisel, D. L., Clarke, R. V., & Stedman, J. R. (1999). Hot dots in hot spots: Examining repeat victimization for residential burglary in three cities: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Wells, W., Wu, L., & Ye, X. (2011). Patterns of near-repeat gun assaults in Houston. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 49, 186–212.

Welsh, B. C., Loeber, R., Stevens, B. R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Cohen, M. A., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Costs of juvenile crime in urban areas: A longitudinal perspective. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 3–27.

1066

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/www.hivlawandpolicy.org/files/NCAVP%20Hate%20Violence%20Report%202015.pdf

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/14/17610021.html

West, K., & Wiley-Cordone, J. (1999). Healing the hate: Innovations in hate crime prevention. Illinois Council for the Prevention of Violence, 1, 1–4.

Westerholm, R. (2014, July 31). U.S. Senate announces anticipated bill-toughening penalties on schools that mishandle campus sexual assault. Retrieved from http://www.universityherald.com/articles/10687/20140731/u-s-senate-announces-anticipated-bill- toughening-penalties-on-schools-that-mishandle-campus-sexual-assault.htm

Wevodau, A. L., Cramer, R. J., Kehn, A., & Clark, J. W., III. (2014). Why the impact? Negative affective change as a mediator of the effects of victim impact statements. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2884–2903. doi:10.1177/0886260514527170

Widom, C. S. (1989a). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(3), 355–367.

Widom, C. S. (1989b). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160–166.

Widom, C. S. (2000, January). Childhood victimization: Early adversity, later psychopathology. National Institute of Justice Journal, 2–9.

Widom, C. S., Czaja, S., & Dutton, M. A. (2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 650–663.

Wilcox, P., Jordan, C. E., & Pritchard, A. J. (2006). Fear of acquaintance versus stranger rape as a “master status”: Towards refinement of the “shadow of sexual assault” hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 21(3), 355–370.

Wilcox, P., Jordan, C. E., & Pritchard, A. J. (2007). A multidimensional examination of campus safety: Victimization, perceptions of danger, worry about crime, and precautionary behaviour among college women in the Post-Clery era. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 219–254.

Wilcox, W. B., & Dew, J. (2008, January). Protectors or perpetrators? Fathers, mothers, and child abuse and neglect (Research brief 7). New York, NY: Institute for American Values: Center for Marriage and Families.

Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., & Robinson, D. (1996). Association of common health symptoms

1067

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.universityherald.com/articles/10687/20140731/u-s-senate-announces-anticipated-bill-toughening-penalties-on-schools-that-mishandle-campus-sexual-assault.htm

with bullying in primary school children. BMJ, 313, 17–19.

Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127–162.

Wilson, A. E., Calhoun, K. S., & Bernat, J. A. (1999). Risk recognition and trauma related symptoms among sexually revictimized women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 705–710.

Wilson, C., & Brewer, N. (1992). The incidence of criminal victimization of individuals with an intellectual disability. Australian Psychologist, 27, 114–117.

Wilson, C., Seaman, L., & Nettelbeck, T. (1996). Vulnerability to criminal exploitation: Influence of interpersonal competence differences among people with mental retardation. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 40, 10–19.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8, 3–16.

Wilson, M. M. (2014). Hate crime victimization, 2004–2012 – statistical tables (Report No. NCJ 244409). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault. (2003). People with disabilities and sexual assault: Information sheet series. Madison, WI: Author. Retrieved from http://kyasap.brinkster.net/Portals/0/pdfs/Disabilitiesandsexualassault.pdf

Wisner, C., Gilmer, T., Saltman, L., & Zink, T. (1999). Intimate partner violence against women: Do victims cost health plans more? Journal of Family Practice, 48, 6439–6443.

Wolf, M., Holt, V., Kernic, M., & Rivara, F. (2000). Who gets protection orders for intimate partner violence? American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 19, 286–291.

Wolff, N., Blitz, C., & Shi, J. (2007). Rates of sexual victimization in prisoners with and without mental disorders. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1087–1094.

1068

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://kyasap.brinkster.net/Portals/0/pdfs/Disabilitiesandsexualassault.pdf

Wolff, N., Shi, J., & Siegel, J. A. (2009a). Patterns of victimization among male and female inmates: Evidence of an enduring legacy. Violence and Victims, 24, 469–484.

Wolff, N., Shi, J., & Siegel, J. A. (2009b). Understanding physical victimization inside prisons: Factors that predict risk. Justice Quarterly, 26, 445–475.

Wolfgang, M. E. (1957). Victim precipitated criminal homicide. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48(1), 1–11.

Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated theory in criminology. London, England: Tavistock Publications.

Wooldredge, J. D. (1998). Inmate lifestyles and opportunities for victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 480–502.

Wooldredge, J. D., & Steiner, B. (2013). Violent victimization among state prison inmates. Violence and Victims, 28, 531–551.

World Health Organization. (2013). Violence against women: A “global health problem of epidemic proportions”: New clinical and policy guidelines launched to guide health sector response. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/violence_against_women_20130620/en/

World Society of Victimology. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.worldsocietyofvictimology.org/

Wright, E. M., & Benson, M. L. (2011). Clarifying the effects of neighbourhood context on violence “behind closed doors.” Justice Quarterly, 28, 775–798.

Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. (1994). Burglars on the job: Streetlife and residential break-ins. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Würger, M. (2013). Victim rights and compensation in an international comparison: France, Austria, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.mpicc.de/ww/en/pub/forschung/forschungsarbeit/kriminologie/archiv/victim_rights.htm#metanav

1069

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/violence_against_women_20130620/en/

http://www.worldsocietyofvictimology.org/

http://www.mpicc.de/ww/en/pub/forschung/forschungsarbeit/kriminologie/archiv/victim_rights.htm#metanav

Wyatt, G. E., Guthrie, D., & Notgrass, C. M. (1992). Differential effects of women’s child sexual abuse and subsequent sexual revictimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 167–173.

Xie, M., & McDowall, D. (2008). Escaping crime: The effects of direct and indirect victimization on moving. Criminology, 46, 809–840.

Xu, J., Murphy, S. L., Kochanek, K. D., & Bastian, B. A. (2013). National Vital Statistics Report, Deaths: Final Data for 2013. National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Yan, E. (2014, August 19). DA: Joseph Caleca charged with hate crimes after hitting, dragging Sandeep Singh in Queens. Retrieved from http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/joseph-caleca-charged-with- hate-crimes-after-hitting-dragging-man-in-queens-nypd-says-1.9095507

Yan, E., Chan, K., & Tiwari, A. (2015). A systematic review of prevalence and risk factors for elder abuse in Asia. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 199–219.

Yllo, K. A., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative factors. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 383–389). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Young, M. A. (1989). Crime, violence, and terrorism. In R. Gist & B. Lubin (Eds.), Psychological aspects of disaster (pp. 61–85). New York, NY: Wiley.

Young, M. A., & Stein, J. (2004). The history of the crime victims’ movement in the United States: A component of the Office for Victims of Crime oral history project. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

Yun, I., Johnson, M., & Kercher, G. (2005). Victim impact statements: What victims have to say. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University Crime Victims’ Institute.

Zaykowski, H. (2010). Racial disparities in hate crime reporting. Violence and Victims, 25, 378–394.

1070

Download more at Learnclax.com

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/joseph-caleca-charged-with-hate-crimes-after-hitting-dragging-man-in-queens-nypd-says-1.9095507

Zhang, A., Musu-Gillett, L., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2016). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2015 (NCES 2016-079/NCJ 249758). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs15.pdf

Zielinski, D. (2009). Child maltreatment and adult socioeconomic well-being. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(10), 666–678.

Zimmerman, C., Hossain, M., Yun, K., Gajdadziev, N., Tchomarova, M., Ciarrochi, R. A., … & Watts, C. (2008). The health of trafficked women: A survey of women entering posttrafficking services in Europe. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 55–59.

Zimmerman, C., Yun, K., Watts, C., Shvab, I., Trappolin, L., Treppete, M., … & Regan, L. (2003). The health risks and consequences of trafficking women and adolescents: Findings from a European study. London, England: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Zink, T. M., Fisher, B. F., Regan, S. L., & Pabst, S. (2005). The prevalence and incidence of intimate partner violence in older women in primary care practices. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20, 884–888.

Zubrick, S. R., Silburn, L., Gurrin, H., Teoh, C., Shepherd, J., Carlton, J., & Lawrence, D. (1997). Western Australian Child Health Survey: Education, health and competence. Perth: Australian Bureau of Statistics and the TVW Institute for Child Health Research.

1071

Download more at Learnclax.com

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs15.pdf

Index

AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, 225 Abandonment, 338 Abbey, A., 243 Academic effects, on family member homicide survivors, 211–212 Account hijacking, 433–434 Acknowledgment, of sexual victimization, 228 Acute battering phase, in cycle of violence, 283 Adams, R., 328 Adams, S., 226, 242 Add Health study, 40, 44 Addington, L. A., 179 Adolescents

family and peer influence on violent victimization, 36–45 homicide survivors, 209–210 See also Youth

Adolescent violent victimization, 22 Adult arrests, child abuse and neglect and, 348–362 Adult Protective Services, 339–340, 342, 344, 364, 368 Age

burglary and, 431 elder abuse in Asia and, 564 fear of terrorism and, 629 hate crime victimization and, 572 homicide clearance and victim, 194 homicide risk and, 179–180 homicide victims and offenders and, 177 identity theft and, 435, 436 intimate partner violence and, 277, 304, 487 recurring victimization and, 102 reporting victimization and, 73 risk for child maltreatment and, 333 sex trafficking and, 579

Age-graded theory of adult social bonds, 27, 28 Agency, intimate partner violence and, 324–325 Agnew, R., 391, 392, 393, 394, 399, 498, 504, 506, 509 Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (2001), 587–588 Alabama, mandatory reporting requirements regarding elders and disabled, 344

1072

Download more at Learnclax.com

Alcohol expectancy, 243, 244, 245, 249, 252 Alcohol use

intimate partner violence and, 281–282, 304, 488 recurring victimization and, 102 role in victimization, 29 sexual victimization and, 226, 227, 242–256 victimization at college and, 241–256, 379–380

Alderden, M. A., 196 Allwood, M. A., 348 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), 488 Amir, M., 5–6 Anderson, E., 49, 59 Anti-Car Theft Act (1992), 429 Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act (1996), 429 Anti-LGBTQ hate violence, 573–576

in the United States, 593–602 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1996), 137, 139 Anxiety

as consequence of victimization, 64–65 defined, 473 family member homicide survivors and, 209–211 self-harm and, 85

Archer, J., 293, 299 Arizona, reports of identity theft in, 435 Armour, B. S., 467 Arndt, S., 264–265 Arrest policies, intimate partner violence, 285–286 Asdigian, N. L., 505 Ashton, J., 121, 129 Asia, prevalence and risk factors for elder abuse in, 553–569 Aslanian, 615 Assault victimizations, elderly and, 366–368 Audain, T., 466 Australia, victims’ rights in, 531 Aviation Security Improvement Act (1990), 587 Avoidance behaviors, 76 Avoidance strategies, for victimization while incarcerated, 481

Bachman, R., 340, 363 Baker, T., 221

1073

Download more at Learnclax.com

Baladerian, N. J., 468 Bales, K., 615–616 Barnett, O., 493 Baron, R. M., 156 Baron, S. W., 392 Barton, G., 234 Baseless allegations, 235 Battered child syndrome, 329 Battered husband syndrome, 297 Battering, women’s responses to, 316–327. See also Intimate partner violence Beaver, K. M., 28 Beck, A. J., 603 Behavior

avoidance, 76 changes in child and adolescent homicide survivors, 209–210 defensive, 76 effects of sexual victimization on, 230–231 protective, 76 strategies to prevent workplace victimization, 387

Behavioral self-blame, 67 Belknap, R. A., 316, 317 Beloof, D., 166, 167 Below, G., 234–235 Bereavement, 184–185 Bereavement centers, 187 Berg, M. T., 313 Bergh, H., 328–329 Berk, R., 284–285 Bernasco, W., 120, 121 Berns, S., 317 Berrill, K., 593 Berry, J. O., 486 Bias crime, 570 Biden, J., 471 Black, D., 192, 196 Bolger, N., 351 Bonanno, G. A., 152 Bonded labor, 579 “Boost” explanation, of recurring victimization, 104, 120, 122, 123–124, 129, 130 Bosnia and Herzegovina

1074

Download more at Learnclax.com

human trafficking victimization and, 581–582, 584 victims’ rights in, 532–533

Bounding, 17 Boxer, P., 510, 517 Bracken, A., 259 Brain, consequence of victimization and the, 67 Breiding, 467 Brewer, N., 466 British Crime Survey (BCS), 47, 100, 456–458, 525 Broidy, L., 392, 394 Brown, C., 23 Browning, C., 52, 53 Brownridge, D., 468, 485 Brunovskis, A., 604 Buckey, P. M., 331 Buckey, R., 331 Bullying, 374–375

of children with disabilities, 468 depression as outcome of, 64 as emotional abuse, 329 general strain theory perspective on, 391–402 programs to combat, 376–378 psychosocial effects of, 375 violent effects of, 375

Bully/victims, 374 Bunch, J., 23 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 17 Burglary

hot spots for, 448–449 household, 430–432 prevention of, 106–107 target hardening and, 442–453

Burglary co-offending and repeat victimization, 119–132 Burt, M., 617 Busch-Armendariz, N., 605 Bush, G. W., 9 Buzzi, B., 211 Bystander programs, sexual victimization and, 237

California

1075

Download more at Learnclax.com

constitutional amendment on victims’ rights, 165 Crime Victims with Disabilities Act of 1998, 470 hate crime law provisions, 577 Marsy’s Law, 136 victim compensation in, 139

Campbell, J., 284, 316, 317 Campbell, R., 235, 256, 259 Campbell, V. A., 466 Campus law enforcement, 382 Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act (2013), 381 Canada

elder abuse among Chinese immigrants in, 558, 562 restorative justice movement and, 145 victims’ rights in, 531, 532

CAN-SPAM Act (2003), 438 Capable guardianship, 21

community social control and, 47 in cyberspace, 462 delinquent peer association and, 39 elder maltreatment and, 343, 368 family context and, 38 hate crimes and, 575 identity theft and, 436–437 motor vehicle theft and, 429 recurring victimization and, 117 victimization at college and lack of, 379

Carbone-Lopez, K., 281 Cardwell, M., 316, 317 Caregiver Psychological Elder Abuse Behavior (CPEAB) scale, 562 Caregivers, elder abuse in Asia and, 565–566 Cares, A., 299 Carjacking, 426 Castle doctrine, 171 Certified, human trafficking victims, 583 Cham, G. W., 562 Chan, K.-L., 553 Chang, J., 554 Chappell, M., 485 Character contest, homicides and, 184 Characterological self-blame, 67

1076

Download more at Learnclax.com

Charmaine, P. C., 211 Chen, M. K., 509 Chery, C., 209 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974), 329, 335–337 Child fatality reviews, 186–187 Child maltreatment, 328–337

consequences of, 334–335 cost of hospitalizations, 69 defined, 329–330 developmental role attainment, adult arrests, and, 348–362 measurement and extent of, 330–332 perpetrators of, 332 responses to, 335–337 risk factors for, 332–333 victimization and, 21 victims of, 332 See also Child sexual abuse

Child neglect, 329, 330, 331, 333 Children

homicide survivors, 209–210 intimate partner violence and, 295 See also Youth

Children’s rights, 7 Child sexual abuse, 329, 330, 331

of children with disabilities, 468 psychological effects of, 334 PTSD and, 67 revictimization and, 79–80, 98, 110 as risk factor for adult sexual assault, 242, 243, 245, 248, 252 self-harm and, 79, 81, 82–83, 84–85

Child Victims’ Bill of Rights (1990), 137, 138 China (People’s Republic of China), elder abuse in, 554, 555, 556 Chiricos, T., 623, 629 Chokkanathan, S., 562 Christopher, S. R., 486 Chu, L. D., 363 Church Arson Prevention Act (1996), 577 Ciancone, A., 262 Circumstance codes, in Supplemental Homicide Reports, 174 Circumstances surrounding homicides, 178

1077

Download more at Learnclax.com

Civil litigation, 141 Civil protective order (CPO), cost-benefit of, 87–97 Civil rights movement, 7 Clarke, R. V., 455, 456, 461, 462 Classification, 481–482 Clay-Warner, J., 23 Cleary Act (1998), 380–381, 419 Clements, P. T., 211 Clery, J., 380, 381 Clery Act (1998), 237, 405 Clinton, B., 163 Code of Hammurabi, 1–2 “Code of the streets,” 21, 49 Coerced sexual contact, 221, 222 Coercion and Conflict in Abuse Experience Scale, 298 Coercive control, 317 Cognitive effects

of child maltreatment, 334 on family member homicide survivors, 210–211

Cognitive functioning, as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 565 Cohabitation, intimate partner violence and, 280, 305 Cohen, L., 21, 22 Cohen, L. E., 426, 455–456 Cohen, M. A., 68 Cohen, T. H., 603 Collective efficacy, 47 Colleges

campus safety, 403–423 victimization at school, 378–382

College students alcohol expectancy, drinking behavior, and sexual victimization among, 242–256 rape and, 223–224 risk of identity theft and, 436 sexual revictimization of, 100, 107, 110–119 sexual victimization and, 226, 237

Collette, R., 262 Columbine school shooting, 371, 372 Combs-Lane, A. M., 110 Community change effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner programs, 262, 265–266 Community consequences, of hate crimes, 576

1078

Download more at Learnclax.com

Community-dwelling elderly, assaults and, 366–367 Community responses

to homicide victimization, 186–187 to intimate partner violence, 288–289

Compensation and restitution for terrorism victims, 587–589 for victims, 165, 529–533

Compensation programs, 7–8 Compliance programs, 163, 167 Compounding vulnerability, 105 CompStat, 186 Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI), 551 Conflicted relationships, mental disorder and violent victimization and, 497–508 Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), 275–276, 293, 298, 317, 321, 489, 494, 501 Confrontational homicides, 184 Conjugal visits, 482 Connolly, J., 184, 207 Conoscenti, L. M., 224 Constitutional amendments, victims’ rights, 9, 139, 163, 166–167 Constrained behaviors, 76 Contextual therapy (CT), 214 Control-balance theory, 26 Control deficit, 26 Control ratio, 26 Control surplus, 26 Cook, S. L., 298 Copeland, A., 177 Copes, H., 478 Cornell, D., 263 Cost-benefit of civil protective disorders, 87–97 Cost effectiveness, of target hardening, 449, 450 Costs of victimization, 10

direct property losses, 68 economic, 67–70 identity theft, 437 medical care, 68–69 mental health, 64–67, 69 motor vehicle theft, 426–427 sexual victimization, 231 system, 70

1079

Download more at Learnclax.com

workplace homicide, 386 Country risk factors, for human trafficking victimization, 581–582 Courts

remedies and victims’ rights in, 141–147 response to homicide victimization, 186 response to intimate partner violence, 286–287

Court watch programs, 287 Co-victims of homicide, 207–218 Crandall, C., 263, 265, 266 Crime, fear of. See Fear of crime Crime Control Act (1990), 138 Crime in the United States (report), 15 Crimes against humanity, 528 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), 19, 99, 525 Crime-switching pattern of recurring victimization, 100, 101, 111, 114 Crime Victim’s Crights Act (2004), 9 Crime Victims Fund, 8, 140 Crime Victims with Disabilities Act (2008), 470 Crime Victims with Disabilities Act of 1998 (California), 470 Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act (1998), 465, 470 The Criminal and His Victim (von Hentig), 3 Criminal homicide, 171–173 Criminal intent incidents, 383 Criminality, child maltreatment and, 334–335 Criminal justice system

crime victim and, 10–11 effects on family survivor grief, 212–213 homicide survivors and, 185, 186 responses to intimate partner violence, 284–287 responses to sexual victimization, 234–237 response to child maltreatment, 337 response to elder maltreatment, 344–345 response to hate crime victimization, 577–578 response to human trafficking victims, 583–584 system costs, 70

Criminals, intimate partner violence and associating with, 281 Criminal-victim dyad, 3 Criminal Victimization in the United States (report), 18–19 Cronin, J., 196 Cross-border victim, 529

1080

Download more at Learnclax.com

Cullen, F. T., 100, 101, 110, 224, 378, 509 Cultivation hypothesis, 623, 624 Curry, M. A., 467, 485, 488 Customer/client incidents, 383 Cyberbullying, 375, 377

general strain theory perspective on, 391–402 Cybercrime, 22 Cycle of violence, 283, 305, 343

Daigle, L. E., 28, 100, 101, 110, 508 Dalton, E., 607 Dannemiller, 212 Daquin, J. C., 508 “Dark figure of crime,” 331 Date rape drugs, 238 D’Augelli, A., 594, 600 Davis, J. J., 110 Davis, K., 605 Davis, R. C., 145, 163 Davis Quinet, K. F., 100 Day, K., 407 Death

from child maltreatment, 332, 333 as consequence of victimization, 64 from intimate partner violence, 282

Death or casualty notification, 185 Debbie Smith Act (2004), 139 Debt bondage, 579 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 522, 526, 547 Defensive behaviors, 23, 76 Deinstitutionalization, 474, 485 Delayed repeat victimizations, 106 Deliberate indifference, 481 Deliberation, 172 Delinquent peers

influence on violent victimization, 36–45 victimization risk and, 24, 25

Dependency-stress model, 470 Dependency theory, 343 Depression

1081

Download more at Learnclax.com

as consequence of victimization, 64, 65–66 defined, 472 family member homicide survivors and, 209–211 revictimization and, 79–80

Deprivation perspective, 477 Derhammer, F., 263 Destination country, 581 Developmental disability, 465 Developmental effects, of child maltreatment, 334 Developmental role attainment, child abuse and neglect and, 348–362 Deviance, bullying, cyberbullying, and, 391–402 Deviance of Peers instrument, 53 Deviant Lifestyle Scale, 199–200, 201, 202, 203 DeYoung, R., 211 Diamond, T., 510 DiNitto, D., 264 Direct bullying, 374 Direct costs, of identity theft, 437 Direct property losses, 68 Disability. See Persons with disabilities Diversion from prosecution, mediation as, 146 Domestic fatality reviews, 187 Domestic human trafficking, 579 Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Rund, 584 Domestic violence. See Intimate partner violence Domestic violence hotline, 289 Domestic violence order (DVO), 89 Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Allies program (DELTA), 289 Domestic violence shelters, 288–289 Dong, X., 565 Doob, A., 623 Dopamine, 28–29, 103 Drug- or alcohol-facilitated rape, 220 Drugs. See Substance use DSM-V diagnostic criteria for PTSD, 65–66 Dual arrest, 285–286 Dumpster dive, 433 Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, 79, 80 Dunham, J., 462

1082

Download more at Learnclax.com

Eck, J. E., 454, 456, 461, 462 Economic control, intimate partner violence and, 295 Economic costs of victimization, 67–70

direct property losses, 68 intimate partner violence, 87–97 medical care, 68–69 mental health care, 69 pain, suffering, and lost quality of life, 70 productivity losses, 69–70

Educational attainment, child abuse and neglect and, 349, 354–360 Education level, as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 564 Eighth Amendment, 481 Ekberg, G., 617 Ekblom, P., 452 Elder, G. H., Jr., 348 Elder, J. W., 523 Eldercide, 179 Elder Justice Act (2010), 344 Elderly, homicide risk for, 179–180 Elder maltreatment, 337–345

characteristics of, 342 defined, 337–339 in institutions, 340, 343 measurement and extent of, 339–341 prevalence and risk factors for in Asia, 553–569 responses to, 343–345 risk factors for, 342–343 victims of, 340–342

Ellison, C. G., 624, 629 Emergency shelters for elderly victims of abuse, 369 Emotional abuse, 273, 295–296

child, 329, 330 Emotional elder abuse, 337–338 Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impulsivity Temperament Survey (EASI), 52 Emotional outcomes

of intimate partner violence, 282–283 of sexual victimization, 230

Emotional reactions, family member homicide survivors and, 210 Employment, child abuse and neglect and adult, 349, 354–360 Environmental design, to prevent workplace victimization, 387

1083

Download more at Learnclax.com

Erez, E., 152 Ericksen, J., 261 Esbensen, F. A., 24 Estroff, S. E., 498 Ethnicity

hate crimes and, 572, 573 identity theft and, 435 victimization at school and, 373

European Union (EU), 530 Evans, C., 210, 211 Event characteristics perspective, homicide clearance and, 192–194, 204–205 Event dependence, 104 Evidence, victims’ rights related to, 135 Excusable homicide, 171 Existential empowerment family therapy, 214–215 Exposure to Violence (ETC) interview, 52 Express malice, 172

Fahy, S., 604 False allegations, sexual victimization and, 235 Families and Friends of Missing Persons, 8 Family

familial risk factors for child maltreatment, 333 influence on violent victimization, 36–45 victimization risk and, 25

Family function, family member homicide survivors and, 211–212 Family justice centers, 145 Family member homicide survivors, 209–212 Family or community group conferencing, 146 Family structure, 24 Family violence perspective, on intimate partner violence, 292–293, 303–304 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (1984, 2015), 289 Farmer v. Brennan, 481 Farrell, A., 604, 605, 606, 616 Farrell, G., 544 Fatality reviews, 186–187 Fatal workplace victimization, 384–385 Faugno, D., 261 FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Fearfulness, family member homicide survivors and, 210–211

1084

Download more at Learnclax.com

Fear of crime, 74–76, 403–404, 405–407 on campus, 407, 418–419 Internet and identity theft and, 459–461, 462 link to objective risk, 406–407 media and, 623 risk to self and risk to others, 625, 628 routine activities and, 458

Fear of terrorism, media exposure and, 622–631 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

data on antigay violence, 593 definition of burglary, 430 definition of hate crimes, 571 definition of negligent manslaughter, 172–173 definition of theft, 424 human trafficking investigations, 583 supplemental homicide reports, 364 See also Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)

Federal law, related to victims’ rights, 136–139. See also Legislation Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 7 Feeney, J., 71 Feldman Hertz, M., 209 Felonious homicide, elderly and risk of, 179–180 Felony murder, 172 Felony-related homicide, 5 Felson, M., 21, 22, 26, 39, 47, 426, 455–456 Felson, R., 278, 280 Felson, R. B., 498, 504, 505, 506 Felt stigma, 595, 597–599, 600 Femicide, 181–182 Feminist perspective, on intimate partner violence, 292–293 Ferraro, K. F., 405–406 Fighting back, as strategy in intimate partner violence, 322 Filicide, 179 Financial Abuse Specialist Teams, 345 Financial exploitation, of the elderly, 338, 341 Financial remedy, for victims, 139–141 Finkelhor, D., 106, 340, 505 Firearms

costs associated with gun violence, 69, 70, 71 homicides and, 178

1085

Download more at Learnclax.com

intimate partner violence and, 288 link with violence, 540–543

First-degree murder, 172 Fisher, B. S., 25, 36, 100, 101, 110, 224, 378, 407, 408, 418 Fisher, E., 316 Flag hypothesis, 104, 122, 129 Florida, bullying/harassment, cyberbullying, and hazing laws, 376–377 Forced labor, 579 Forceful physical strategies, 229 Forceful verbal strategies, 229 Forcible rape, 220 Ford, J. A., 488 Forensic effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner programs, 262, 263 Forensic nurse examiner. See Sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) France, victim assistance in, 530–531 Frazier, P. A., 153 Freng, A., 24 Frieze, I., 294, 299

Gang circumstances, homicide clearance and, 196 Garofalo, J., 22, 405 Gay youth, bullying and, 374. See also LGBTQ Gelles, R. J., 275, 317 Gender

alcohol expectancies and sexual assault and, 243 bullying at school and, 374 child sexual abuse and, 332 differences in response to strain and, 394 effects of bullying on self-harm and suicidal ideation and, 400 fatal workplace victimization and, 384–385 fear of terrorism and, 629 femicide, 181–182 hate crimes and, 572 homicide clearance and victim, 194 homicide victims and offenders and, 176–177 human trafficking victimization and, 580–581 intimate partner homicide and, 180 intimate partner violence and, 180, 277–278 physical injury as consequence of victimization and, 63 post-traumatic stress disorder and, 84

1086

Download more at Learnclax.com

recurring victimization and, 102 reporting and, 73 as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 564 sexual victimization and, 225–226 sexual victimization while incarcerated and, 479 victimization at college and, 378, 379 victimization at school and, 372–373 victimization while incarcerated and, 477, 478 See also Men; Women

Gender-based violence, 181 Gender symmetry, 292–293, 294 General Social Survey (GSS), 405, 468 General Social Survey on Victimization in Canada, 99–100 General strain theory (GST)

bullying, cyberbullying, and deviance and, 391–402 conflicted social relationships and violent victimization and, 498, 504–506 witnessing violence and, 509

General theory of crime, 27–28, 48 A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi), 27 Genetic factors

risky behavior and, 102–103 victimization and, 28–29

Gene x environment interaction, 28–29 Genocide, 528 Georgia, law regarding HIV testing for sex offenders, 233, 234 Germany, as destination country for sex trafficking, 581 Gerson, L. W., 262 Gibson, C. L., 46 Gibson, L. E., 510 Gibson, M., 272–273 Gilson, S. R., 494 Global view of homicide victimization, 175. See also Victimology from comparative perspective Goddard, M., 259 Gondolf, W., 316 Goodman, L. A., 298 Gordon, R., 184, 207 Gorner, E., 317 Gottfredson, M. R., 22, 27, 38, 39, 44, 48, 49, 52, 393, 478 Gottman, J. M., 317 Goudriaan, H., 546

1087

Download more at Learnclax.com

Graham, L., 617 Graham-Kevan, N., 299 Greek housing, college student sexual victimization and, 244, 252 Green Dot, 237 Grief, of family member homicide survivors, 212–213, 215 Grigorieva, O., 272–273 Grills, A. E., 64 Grossman, A., 594, 600 Guardian ad litem (GAL), 337 Guardianship

See also Capable guardianship Gun-Free Schools Act (2004), 375 Guns. See Firearms

Hague, W., 533 Handbook on Justice (UN), 526 Handlers, 38 Harper, S., 531 Hartman, J. L., 28 Hassan, A., 6 Hate crime, 570 Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990), 570, 576–577, 600 Hate crime victimization, 570–578

among sexual minority adults in the United States, 593–602 characteristics of, 574–575 consequences of, 575–576 defined, 570–571 extent of, 571–572 responses to, 576–578 risk factors for, 574–575 sexual-orientation-bias-motivated, 572–575 victim characteristics, 572

Hauser, W., 76 Hay, C., 375, 391 Hazing, 377 Health care fraud and abuse, 338 Health outcomes

human trafficking and, 582 intimate partner violence and, 282, 289

Hearnden, I., 121

1088

Download more at Learnclax.com

Heil, E. C., 584, 602, 604, 605 Helitzer, D., 263, 265, 266 Henderson, D. J., 317 Hepburn, S., 606, 616 Herek, G. M., 593, 600 Herman, J. L., 151 Hickman, M., 26 Hiday, V. A., 498, 505 Hierarchy rule, 15 Hindelang, M. J., 22, 462 Hinduja, S., 400 Hirschfield, A., 432, 442 Hirschi, T., 27, 38, 39, 44, 48, 49, 52, 393, 478 Hispanics, hate crime victimization and, 572 HIV testing, sexual victimization and, 233, 234 Hobdell, K., 210 Hochsprung, D., 183 Hochstetler, A., 478 Hoff, L. A., 316–317 Hoffman, J. A., 226 Hoffman, J. H., 244 Holtfreter, K., 456 Holtzworth-Munroe, A., 299 Home invasion, 430 Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory, 53 Homicide

criminal, 171–173 excusable, 171 felonious, 5, 179–180 of incarcerated people, 476 intimate partner, 180–181, 282 involving multiple victims, 182–183 justifiable, 171 occupational, 384–385 subintentional, 5 victim-precipitated, 5, 183–184

Homicide clearance, victim lifestyle and, 192–207 Homicide-suicide, 181 Homicide survivors, 70–72, 207–218 Homicide victimization, 170–218

1089

Download more at Learnclax.com

co-victims of homicide, 207–218 defining, 171–173 of elderly, 364–365 indirect or secondary, 184–185 legal and community responses to, 185–187 measurement and extent of, 173–175 risk factors for and characteristics of, 175–179 at school, 372 types of, 179–183 victim precipitation, 5, 183–184

Homogamy, principle of, 22, 39, 312 Honda, T., 563 Honeymoon phase, of cycle of violence, 283 Hong Kong, elder abuse in, 555, 557 Honor contests, 184 Honor killings, 182 “Hooking up,” sexual victimization and, 243–244, 246, 251, 252, 253 Hopper, E. K., 605 Hostage Relief Act (1980), 587 Hostile work environment sexual harassment, 386 Hot spots, 23–24

burglary, 448–449 Household burglary, 430–432 Household-level risk factors and recurring victimization, 103–104 Howe, K., 488 Howell, J., 261 Hoyt, W., 68, 87 Humanistic mediation, 146–147 Human Rights Watch, 182 Human trafficking, 570

defined, 578–579 Human trafficking victimization, 578–84

characteristics of victims, 580–581 consequences for, 582 extent of, 579–580 response to victims, 582–584 risk factors for, 581–582

Hunt, D. E., 5, 184 Husbands, C., 6

1090

Download more at Learnclax.com

Identity theft, 432–439 characteristics of, 436 consequences of, 437 defined, 433 example, 434 extent of, 434–435 online routines and, 454–463 responses to, 437–439 risk factors for, 436–437 victims of, 435

Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (1998), 433, 437, 455 Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (2004), 438 Identity Theft Supplement (ITS), 434, 436, 437 Illinois, identity theft law, 439 Immigrants

human trafficking of, 581 repatriation of human trafficking victims, 582–583 victimization and, 25

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), sex trafficking and, 606, 612, 614, 616, 618–619 Implied/constructive malice, 172 Importation perspective, 477 Impulsivity, 52 Incapacitated rape, 220 Incarceration

effects of witnessing victimization while incarcerated on offender reentry, 508–520 victimization of incarcerated, 476–482

Incident report, 17 Incivilities, 75 Income, as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 564 Index of Spousal Abuse (ISA), 317, 319, 321 India

elder abuse in, 554–555, 558, 562 special services for female victims of crime, 533

Indirect bullying, 374 Indirect costs, of identity theft, 437 Indirect victimization, 184–185, 418 Individual consequences, of hate crimes, 576 Individual-level risk factors

for child maltreatment, 333 for recurring victimization, 102–103

1091

Download more at Learnclax.com

Infanticide, 179 Institutional factors, in victimization while incarcerated, 478–479 Institutions

elder maltreatment in, 340, 343, 367–368 protection of elderly in, 369 victimization of persons with disabilities in, 469

International Court of Justice (ICJ), 526–527 International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), 19–20, 523, 537–552

on attitudes toward crime and criminal justice, 549 on crime trends, 543–546 findings from, 538 on guns-violence link, 540–543 on police measures of crime, 538–543 on repeat victimization, 540 on reporting and police performance, 546–549 on responsive securitization, 544–546 on victims’ satisfaction with police response, 547–548 on victim support, 548–549

International Criminal Court (ICC), 527–529 International response, to human trafficking, 582–584 International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD), 523, 524 International victimization studies, 523 International Victimology Institute Tilburg (INTERVICT), 522, 523 International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS), 523, 525 Internet, identity theft and, 433, 436, 454–463 Intervention, sexual victimization, 237–238 Intimate partner, 273 Intimate partner homicide, 180–181

followed by suicide, 181 Intimate partner violence, 272–327

consequences of, 282–284 criminal justice responses to, 284–287 defining, 273–274 distinguishing among types of heterosexual, 293–296 economic costs of, 87–97 intimate terrorism, 273 legal and community responses to, 287–289 measurement and extent of, 274–277 older women and, 340–341 people with disabilities and, 469–470

1092

Download more at Learnclax.com

prevention programs for, 107–108 recurring victimization and, 101 risk factors and theories for, 280–282 same-sex, 278–279 situational couple violence, 273–274 victim-offender overlap and, 303–315 victims of, 277–279 why relationships continue, 283–284 against women with disabilities, 467–468, 485–497

Intimate terrorism, 273, 292, 293, 294, 296–297 perpetrators, 299

Involuntary domestic servitude, 579 Involuntary/negligent manslaughter, 172–173 Isolation, intimate partner violence and, 295, 305

Jackson, T. L., 110 Jacobson, N. S., 317 Jail, victimization of people in. See Incarceration Japan, elder abuse in, 559–560, 563 Jeanne Cleary Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (1998), 380–381 Jiao, A. Y., 193, 196 Johnson, D., 121 Johnson, M., 273, 278, 292 Johnson, S. D., 120, 121, 124 Jolie, A., 533 Jolley, J. M., 515 Jonson, C. L., 509 Jordan, C. E., 381, 403 Journal of the American Medical Association, 329 Justice for All Act (2004), 9, 138, 139 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (2015), 584 Justice system responses to victimization, 525–529 Justifiable homicide, 171

Kashy, D. A., 351 Keller, R., 105 Kennedy, M. A., 616 Kenny, D. A., 156, 351 Kentucky, mandatory reporting requirements regarding children, 336 Kerbs, J. J., 515 Kerley, K. R., 478

1093

Download more at Learnclax.com

Kessler, R. C., 84 Kilpatrick, D. G., 164, 165–166, 224, 229 Kim, H., 563 Kim, H. S., 563 King, R. D., 577 Kinship, as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 565–566 Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project, 106–107 Kleck, G., 76 Kleuber, S., 604 Klinger, D. A., 193 Knight, S., 23 Kolomer, S. R., 563 Konradi, A., 617–618 Koops, B.-J., 455 Korea, elder abuse in, 554 Korean Americans, elder abuse among, 555, 561, 563 Koss, M., 223–224 Kraus, J. F., 363 Kruttschnitt, C., 281 Kub, J., 284, 316 Kyckelhahn, T., 603

Labeling self as abused, 325 Labor trafficking, 579 Lachs, M., 367 LaGrange, R., 405–406 Lai, D. W., 562 Landenburger, K., 317, 324, 325 Lantz, B., 104, 119 Lanza, A., 182, 183 Lanza, N., 183 Lather, P., 317 Laub, J., 27, 28 Laub, J. H., 348, 349 Lauritsen, J. L., 100 Lavery, T. A., 196 Law school clinics, victims’ rights, 168 Leach, M. T., 350 Learned helplessness, as consequence of victimization, 67 Ledray, L. E., 261, 263, 265

1094

Download more at Learnclax.com

Lee, A. E. Y., 562 Lee, C., 196, 198 Lee, M., 563 Leenes, R., 455 Legal effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner programs, 262, 264–265 Legal responses

to homicide victimization, 185–187 to intimate partner violence, 287–289 to sexual victimization, 232–234

Legislation, 8–9 addressing violence in schools, 375–377 campus victimization, 380–382 challenges of implementing victims’ rights, 165–166 child maltreatment, 335–337 elder maltreatment, 343–344 hate crime victimization, 576–577 human trafficking, 583–584 identity theft, 437–439 intimate partner violence, 274 motor vehicle theft, 429–430 sexual victimization, 232–234 terrorism victimization, 587 victimization of people with disabilities, 470–471 victims’ rights, 163–165 workplace victimization, 388

Lempert, L. B., 317, 324 Lens, K., 150, 152 Leone, J., 299 Lesbians. See LGBTQ Levitt, S. D., 178 Lex talionis, 1 LGBTQ, same-sex intimate partner violence, 278–279. See also Anti–LGBTQ hate violence Li, L., 488 Lichty, L., 235, 256 Life-course perspective, 27–28, 348 Lifestyle-exposure theory, identity theft and, 462. See also Routine activities and lifestyles theories of victimization Listwan, S. J., 508 Littel, K., 263 Litwin, K. J., 193, 196

1095

Download more at Learnclax.com

Livingston, J. A., 226, 244 Lize, S., 615–616 Lloyd, S., 298 Local victimization studies, 523 Location, of homicides, 178 Logan, T. K., 68, 87 Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, 340, 343 Lopez, A., 170–171 Lopez, J., 170, 185 Lopez, P., 170 Lost productivity, 69–70 Lu, C., 378 Lucente, V., 263 Luckenbill, D. F., 183–184 Lundman, R. J., 193, 194 Lyons, C. J., 196

Macdonald, G. E., 623 Macy, R., 617 Magill, C., 121 Mahoney, A. M., 211 Maimon, D., 52, 53 Maley, S., 467 Malloy, M., 261 Malone, L., 212 Mandatory arrest policies, 285 Mandatory reporting

of child maltreatment, 335–337 of elder maltreatment, 344 of victimization of people with disabilities, 471

Mann, K., 375, 391 Manslaughter, 172–173 Marital privilege laws, 286 Marital status, as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 564 Marriage, child abuse and neglect and later, 349–350, 354–360 Marshall, L. L., 298 Marsy’s Law, 136 Martin, P. Y., 258 Martinez, P., 84 Martins, D., 563

1096

Download more at Learnclax.com

Mass murder, 182 Mass shootings, 25 Matheson, S., 259 Matricide, 179 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act (2009), 570–571, 572, 577 Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, 522 Mayhew, P., 537 McAuslan, P., 243 McCartney, J. R., 466 McCauley, J., 224 McCullagh, M. J., 120 McDevitt, J., 604 McDowall, D., 47 McDuffie, D., 243 McFerron, R., 316 McKay, H., 46 McMahon-Howard, J., 23 Measurement

of child maltreatment, 330–332 of elder maltreatment, 339–341 of fear, 75 of homicide victimization, 173–175 of intimate partner violence, 274–277, 298–299 of sexual victimization, 222–225 of victimization, 15–20 of victimization across the globe, 523–525

Mechanic, M. B., 267 Media coverage

family member homicide survivors and, 213 fear of crime and exposure to, 623 fear of terrorism and exposure to, 622–631 vicarious victimization and, 72

Mediation homicide victimization and, 187 victim-offender, 146–147

Medical care costs, 68–69 Medical/health care effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner programs, 261–263 Medical-legal response to sexual victimization, 235–236 Medica Zenica, 533 Megan’s Law (1996), 233

1097

Download more at Learnclax.com

Meldrum, R., 375, 391 Mele, M., 101 Meloy, M. L., 340, 363 Men

domestic violence shelters and, 288–289 elder maltreatment and, 342–343 sexual victimization and, 225–226, 231–232 as victims of intimate partner violence, 297 See also Gender

Menard, S., 29 Mendelsohn, B., 1, 4, 521 Mental health consequences and costs of victimization, 64–67, 69 Mental health outcomes, for victims of human trafficking, 582 Mental health treatment, for sexual victimization, 231 Mental illness

common, 472–473 defining, 472–473 negative post-release from prison outcomes and, 517 post-traumatic stress disorder and, 81, 82, 83 recurring victimization and, 103 victimization of persons with, 472–476 victimization while incarcerated and, 478 violent victimization and, 497–508

Merritt-Gray, M., 317, 324 Mezey, G., 210 Miethe, T. D., 47 Milberger, S., 486 Miley, C. H., 278 Miller, J., 264 Miller, L., 211 Miller, P., 316, 317 Miller, T. R., 68 Millie, A., 452 Mills, T., 317 Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, 284–285 Minorities

fatal workplace victimization and, 385 intimate partner violence and, 304, 312 See also Ethnicity; Race

Misdemeanor, 284

1098

Download more at Learnclax.com

Moffitt, T. E., 59 Moon, A., 554, 555 Moon, B., 392 Moore, D., 488 Moreno, R. D., 176 Mothers, child maltreatment and, 332, 333 Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), 8, 187 Motivated offenders, 21

delinquent peer association and exposure to, 39 family context and exposure to, 38

Motor vehicle theft, 22, 426–430 Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (1984), 429 Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act (1994), 429 Mourdian, V. E., 267 Muftic, L. R., 5, 176, 184 Mulford, C., 145, 163 Muller, R. T., 510 Murder. See Homicide Murphy, S., 264 Mustaine, E. E., 426 Mutual violent control, 274, 292, 294, 296, 297

Nada-Raja, S., 79 Nagin, D. S., 509 Nakanishi, M., 563 Nakashima, T., 563 Nash, R., 342 National Alliance of Victims’ Rights Attorneys (NAVRA), 168 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 175 National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), 330–331 National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 573, 574, 593 National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV), 224 National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), 585, 586 National Court Appointed Special Advocates Association, 337 National Crime Information Center (NCIC), 197 National Crime Survey (NCS), 6, 17

on fear of crime, 405–406 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 6, 9, 16, 17–19

definition of hate crime, 571 extent of antigay violence, 593

1099

Download more at Learnclax.com

extent of direct property losses, 68 extent of elder maltreatment, 340, 363, 364 extent of hate crime victimization, 571–572 extent of household burglary, 431 extent of identity theft, 434 extent of intimate partner violence, 275 extent of male sexual victimization, 231 extent of medical care costs, 68 extent of motor vehicle theft, 426, 427 extent of personal victimization, 424 extent of physical injury, 63–64 extent of property victimization, 424 extent of recurring victimization, 99 extent of school victimization, 372, 373–374 extent of sexual victimization, 223 extent of theft, 425 extent of victimization of people with disabilities, 465, 466, 468, 469 extent of victimization of persons with mental illness, 473 extent of workplace victimization, 383 School Crime Supplement, 373, 375

National Crime Victims Law Institute (NCLVI), 167, 168 National Elder Abuse Incidence Study, 339–340, 364 National Family Violence Survey, 275, 293, 298 National Human Trafficking Resource Center, 603 National Incidence Study (NIS), 331, 342 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), 16–17, 195–196, 286, 363, 571 National Inmate Survey, 479 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), 225, 276–277, 279, 303, 467 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 36, 37, 39–40 National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, 429 National Organization for Victim Assistance, 8 National Rifle Association (NRA), 288 National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project, 340, 342 National Study of Drug or Alcohol Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape, 224–225 National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC), 480 National victimization studies, 523 National Victims’ Constitutional Amendment Network, 139, 166 National Victim Survey, 258 National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), 100, 106, 223, 276, 278, 283, 287, 298, 299, 303

1100

Download more at Learnclax.com

National Youth Survey, 100 Near-repeat burglaries, 101 Near-repeat victimization, 98–99 Nedd, D., 284, 316 Nederlof, A. F., 155 Negative state dependence, 105–106 Neglect

child, 329, 330, 331, 333 elder, 338

Negligent manslaughter, 172–173 Neighborhood context, 23

intimate partner violence and, 281 victimization risk and, 46–62

Neighborhood-level risk factors and recurring victimization, 103–104 Nellis, A. M., 622 Nettelbeck, T., 470, 487 New Directions From the Field (report), 9 New Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (2003), 437 Newman, E., 486 Newman, G. R., 462 Newt, A., 442 Newton, A., 432 Neysmith, S., 554 Ng, T. W., 562 Nichols, A. J., 584, 602 No-drop prosecution policies, 286 Noncontact sexual abuse, 222 Nonforceful physical strategies, 229 Nonforceful verbal strategies, 229 Nonsuicidal self-harm (NSSH), victimization and, 79–87 Norris, F. H., 208, 209, 213 Northeast Healthcare Law Enforcement Association (NHLEA), 344–345 Nosek, M. A., 495 Notification, as victim right, 134–135, 164

Occupational effects, family member homicide survivors and, 211–212 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 388 Occupations

dangerous for human trafficking, 581 with greatest risk of workplace victimization, 384, 385

1101

Download more at Learnclax.com

O’Connell, B., 71 Offender Based Correctional Information System (OBCIS), 197 Offender reentry, effects of witnessing victimization while incarcerated on, 508–520 Offenders, 20

homicide, 176–178 intimate partner violence, 299 sexual victimization, 227–228 See also Motivated offenders

Offending, victimization and, 20–21 Oh, J., 563 Ohio, mandatory reporting law for crime victims with mental disabilities, 470–471 O’Keefe, G. J., 623 Okun, L. E., 316, 317 Older Americans Act (1965), 340, 343 Ollendick, T. H., 64 Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 378 Online victimization, 64 Operation Ceasefire, 186 Operation Hardcore, 186 Organizational and administrative controls, 387 Ormrod, R. K., 106 Oschwald, M., 467 Osgood, D. W., 53 Outlaw, M. C., 29

Pain consequences of victimization and, 70 quantifying, 70

Palermo Protocol, 578–579, 582 Parents, child maltreatment and, 332, 333 Parents of Murdered Children, 8 Parity hypothesis, 229 Parker, W. R., 170–171, 172 Parricide, 179, 184 Participation and consultation, 135, 164–165 Patchin, L. W., 400 Patriarchal ideology, intimate partner violence and, 280, 487 Patricide, 179 Patterson, D., 235, 256 Paymar, M., 294, 298

1102

Download more at Learnclax.com

Payne v. Tennessee, 143–144 Peacemaking circle, 146 Peer abuse. See Bullying Peer delinquency

exposure to, 24 measuring, 53

Peer mediation programs, 376, 378 Peers, influence on violent victimization, 36–45 Pemberton, A., 151 Pence, E., 294, 298 Perceived risk of being victim, 74–75 Permissive arrest policies, 285 Perpetrators

of child maltreatment, 332 of elder maltreatment, 342–343, 565–566 of intimate partner violence, 487–488

Persistence, 52 Personal relationship incidents, 383 Personal victimization, 424 Persons, R., 212 Persons with disabilities

bullying at school and, 374 child maltreatment victimization and, 333 defining, 464–465 intimate partner violence and, 281 mandatory reporting requirements regarding, 344 partner violence against women with disabilities, 485–497 victimization of, 464–471 victimization of youth, 468 violence against women with disabilities, 467–468

Persons with mental illness, victimization of, 472–476 Petersilia, J. R., 470, 487 Peterson, D., 24 Phishing, 433 Phua, D. H., 562 Physical assault victimization, on college campuses, 408, 409–419 Physical bullying, 374 Physical child abuse, 329, 330, 331 Physical effects

of child maltreatment, 334

1103

Download more at Learnclax.com

of sexual victimization, 230 Physical elder abuse, 337–338 Physical health, as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 564–565 Physical incivilities, 75 Physical injury

from intimate partner violence, 282 from sexual victimization, 228 from victimization, 63–64

Physical violence, 273 Pillemer, K., 340 Piquero, A. R., 26 Pizarro, J. M., 178, 192 Police response

to homicide victimization, 186 to intimate partner violence, 284–286 to sex trafficking, 604, 617 to sexual victimization, 234–235

Polk, K., 184 Polvi, N., 120, 121, 122, 125, 128–129 Polyvictimization, 98, 99, 106 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

as consequence of victimization, 65–67 diagnostic criteria for, 65–66 family member homicide survivors and, 209–211 hate crime victimization and, 576 homicide survivors and, 71–72 terrorism victimization and, 587 victimization, nonsuicidal self-harm, and, 79–87 vulnerability to recurring victimization and, 117

Poverty child maltreatment and effect on adult, 335 risk of child maltreatment and, 333 risk of human trafficking victimization and, 581 risk of victimization of people with disabilities and, 470

Power, intimate partner violence and, 280 Power, M., 436 Power of attorney abuse, 338, 339 Powers, L. E., 467 Pratt, T. C., 105, 456 Precautionary measures

1104

Download more at Learnclax.com

to prevent motor vehicle theft, 430 to prevent victimization on campus, 414–416, 418 See also Prevention measures

Premeditation, 172 Presumptive arrest policies, 285 Prevention measures

effectiveness of burglary, 443 for identity theft, 438–439 in response to recurring victimization, 106 for sexual victimization, 237–238 See also Precautionary measures

Prevention programs and policies, 11–12 Prince, P., 375, 376 Principle of homogamy, 22, 39, 312 Prior, M., 607, 615 Prison, victimization of people in, 476–482 Prison Rape Elimination Act (2003), 479, 480, 517 Pritchard, A. J., 381, 403 Privilege, intimate partner violence and, 295 Pro-arrest policies, 285 Procedural justice theory, victim impact statements and, 152–153, 155, 158–159 Productivity losses, consequences of victimization and, 69–70 Project Exit, 186 Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, Longitudinal Cohort in, 46, 47, 50 Property losses, direct, 68 Property victimization, 424–432

household burglary, 430–432 motor vehicle theft, 426–430 theft, 424–426

Prosecution of intimate partner violence cases, 286–287 of rape and sexual assault, 236–237 of sexual trafficking, 602–622

Protection, victim’s right to, 134, 135, 165 Protective behaviors, 76 Protective custody, 480–481 Protective orders, 287–288

effectiveness of, 288 Prothrow-Stith, D., 209 Psychological effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner programs, 261, 262

1105

Download more at Learnclax.com

Psychological effects of antigay hate crimes and harassment, 600 of child maltreatment, 334 family member homicide survivors and, 209–211 of intimate partner violence, 282–283 of sexual victimization, 230

Psychological elder abuse, 337–338 Psychological Elder Abuse Scale, 562 Psychological variables, as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 565 Psychosocial effects of bullying, 375 Puckett, J. L., 193, 194 Pulse nightclub shootings, 25 Punishment, intimate partner violence and, 295

Quality of life consequences of victimization and lost, 70 domestic violence orders and, 91, 94, 95

Quid pro quo sexual harassment, 386

Race burglary and, 431 child abuse, developmental role attainment and, 350, 358 child maltreatment and, 332 fear of crime and, 406 fear of terrorism and, 629 hate crimes and, 572, 573 homicide clearance and victim’s, 194 homicide victimization and, 175 homicide victims and offenders and, 177 identity theft and, 435 intimate partner violence and, 277 physical injury as consequence of victimization and, 63–64 recurring victimization and, 102 sexual victimization while incarcerated and, 479–480 victimization at school and, 373 victimization while incarcerated and, 478, 482 See also Minorities

Raine, A., 49, 58, 59 Rape

acknowledging, 228 cost on quality of life, 70

1106

Download more at Learnclax.com

defined, 220, 222 drug- or alcohol-facilitated, 220 forcible, 220 incapacitated, 220 law reform for, 232 measurement of, 223–225 Menachem Amir and study of, 5–6 prosecuting, 236–237 reporting, 228–229 role of alcohol in, 29 statutory, 220, 222 types of, 220, 222 victim-precipitated, 6 victim’s impact statement and, 143 women’s movement and services for victims of, 7 of women with disabilities, 467 See also Sexual victimization

Rape kits, 135, 139, 235, 236, 257, 258, 263–264 Rape shield laws, 232 Raphael, J., 605, 607 Ratcliffe, J. H., 120 Rational choice theory, burglary and, 442 Reagan, R., 8, 9, 163 Reconciliation programs, 146 Recovery after crime, trajectories of, 151–152 Recurring sexual victimization, 231 Recurring victimization, 98–132

characteristics of, 100–101 consequences of, 106 crime-switch patterns and, 100, 101, 111, 114 defined, 98, 99 extent of, 99–100 near-repeat victimization, 98–99 polyvictimization, 98, 99 responses to, 106–108 risk factors for, 102–104 theoretical explanations of, 104–106 time course of, 101 types of, 98–99 See also Repeat victimization

1107

Download more at Learnclax.com

Reed, J., 263 Reid, J. A., 604, 606, 615, 617, 618 Reinharz, S., 317 Reisig, M. D., 456, 459 Relationship effects, of sexual victimization, 230–231 Relationships factors, in intimate partner violence against women with disabilities, 486–487 Religion

family member homicide survivors and, 213, 215 hate crimes and, 573, 574

Remedies for victims compliance programs, 163, 167 in court, 141–147 financial, 139–141 victims’ rights clinics, 163, 167–168

Reno, J., 9 Renzetti, C. M., 278 Repatriation, of human trafficking victims, 582–583 Repeat victimization, 98, 99

burglary and, 442, 447–448 burglary co-offending and, 119–132 delayed, 106 International Crime Victims Survey on, 540 See also Recurring victimization

Reporting, 72–74 elder maltreatment, 339–340 hate crimes, 575 International Crime Victims Survey on, 546–549 reasons for, 74 reasons for not reporting, 73 sex trafficking, 604 sexual victimization, 228–229 victimization of people with disabilities, 469, 470 victimization of persons with mental illness, 475

Research articles alcohol use and sexual victimization among college students, 242–256 burglary and target hardening, 442–453 burglary co-offending and repeat victimization, 119–132 campus safety, 403–423 child abuse and neglect, developmental role attainment, and adult arrests, 348–362 co-victims of homicide, 207–218

1108

Download more at Learnclax.com

economic costs of partner violence and cost-benefit of civil protective orders, 87–97 effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner programs, 261–268 epidemiology of violence against the elderly, 363–370 family and peer influence on violent victimization, 36–45 gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence, 292–302 general strain theory and bullying, cyberbullying and deviance, 391–402 hate crimes among sexual minority adults in the United States, 593–602 how to read, 33–35 intimate partner violence and victim-offender overlap, 303–315 media exposure and fear of terrorism, 622–631 mental disorder and violent victimization, 497–508 neighborhood context, low self-control, and violent victimization among youth, 46–62 online routines and identity theft victimization, 454–463 partner violence against women with disabilities, 485–497 posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology, nonsuicidal self-harm, and victimization, 79–87 sex trafficking cases in the Midwest United States, 602–622 sexual revictimization of college women, 110–119 vicarious victimization in prison, 508–520 victim impact statements, 150–162 victim lifestyle and homicide clearance, 192–207 women’s responses to battering, 316–327

Residential mobility, 24, 25 Resistance strategy, to sexual victimization, 229–230 Resnick, H., 224 Resonance perspective, media and fear of terrorism and, 624, 625 Response latency, 227 Responsive securitization, 544–546 Restitution, 1, 134, 140–141, 163, 165 Restitution programs, 146 Restorative justice, 141, 145–146, 187 Retaliation, 39 Retribution, 1 Revictimization

childhood sexual abuse and, 79–80, 98, 110, 283 defined, 98 intimate partner violence and, 283 sexual revictimization of women, 100, 103, 107, 110–119

Revised Sexual Experiences Survey, 245 Reynaers, S., 151 Reyns, B. W., 454

1109

Download more at Learnclax.com

Rice, J., 277 Rice, R., 277 Richters, J. E., 84 Riedel, M., 192 Rights related to evidence, 135 Right to a speedy trial, 134, 135, 165 Right to protection, 134, 135, 165 Rinear, E. E., 211 Risk, perceived, 74–75 Risk factors

for child maltreatment, 332–333 for elder abuse in Asia, 563–566 for elder maltreatment, 342–343 for hate crime victimization, 575 for homicide victimization, 175–179 for household burglary, 432 for human trafficking, 581–582 for identity theft victimization, 436–437 for intimate partner violence, 280–282 for motor vehicle theft victimization, 428–429 for recurring victimization, 102–104 for school victimization, 373 for sexual victimization, 225–228, 242, 243–244 for sexual victimization while incarcerated, 480 for terrorism victimization, 586 for theft victimization, 425–426 for victimization at college, 378–380 for victimization for persons with disabilities, 469–470 for victimization while incarcerated, 477–479 for workplace victimization, 385

Risk heterogeneity, 104, 105 Risk of terrorism, perceived, 628–629 Risk seeking, 52 Risk taking/self-control, victimization while incarcerated and, 478 Risky behavior

genetic factors in, 102–103 recurring victimization and, 104–105

Risky lifestyle, intimate partner violence and, 281–282 Robbery, elderly and, 365–366 Roberts, A., 193, 196

1110

Download more at Learnclax.com

Roethlisberger, B., 219 Rogerson, M., 432, 442 “Romeo and Juliet” laws, 220 Rome Statute, 527, 528 Romito, P., 349 Rose, L., 284, 316 Rosenfeld, R., 186 Ross, L. T., 243 Rountree, P. W., 47 Routine activities and lifestyles theories of victimization, 21–23, 22

burglary and, 442 elder maltreatment and, 343 family and peer context and violent victimization and, 43–44 hate crimes and, 575 household burglary and, 432 identity theft and, 436 motor vehicle theft victimization and, 428–429 online routines and identity theft and, 454–463 recurring victimization and, 102 sexual victimization and, 226–227 terrorism victimization and, 586 victimization at college and, 379 victimization of people with disabilities and, 469 victimization while incarcerated and, 479

Ruback, R. B., 29, 104, 119, 208, 209 Rubin, A. M., 624 Ruggiero, K., 224 Russell, D., 181, 317 Russia, as source country for sex trafficking, 581 Rydberg, J., 178, 192

Safe haven laws, 336–337 Sagovsky, A., 120 Same-sex intimate partner violence, 278–279, 288 Sampson, R., 24, 27, 28, 47, 48, 348, 349, 462 Sandy Hook massacre, 182, 183 Sansone, R. A., 349 Savage, J., 622 SCAREM (Stealth, Challenge, Anonymity, Reconnaissance, Escape, and Multiplicity), 462 Schafer, S., 4–5

1111

Download more at Learnclax.com

Schizophrenia, 473 Schlock, C. J., 25, 27, 36, 41, 48, 58, 478 Schmaltz, R., 226, 242 School, victimization at, 371–382

bullying, 374–375 college, 378–382 grades K-12, 371–378

School Crime Supplement Survey, 372 School shooters, bullying and, 375 Scott, C., 261 Screening, for intimate partner violence, 289 Screen questions, 17 Seaman, L., 470 Sebastian, D., 562 Secondary victimization, 184–185, 576 Secondary victims, 8 Second-degree murder, 172 Second responder program, 107–108 Securitization, responsive, 544–546 Security measures

in response to campus victimization, 382 in response to school victimization, 375

Self-blame as consequence of victimization, 67 family member homicide survivors and, 210

Self-control, family context and, 44 Self-control, low

general theory of crime and, 27–28 neighborhood context, violent victimization, and, 46–62 recurring victimization and, 105 sexual victimization and, 227 victimization while incarcerated and, 478

Self-control theory, 48, 393–394 Self-defense training, sexual victimization and, 237 Self-esteem, effects of victimization on, 64 Self-harm

bullying victimization and, 393–394, 396–397, 399, 400 victimization and, 79–87

Self-neglect, 338, 342 Self-protective action

1112

Download more at Learnclax.com

college women and recurring victimization and, 116–117 persons with mental illness and, 474 sexual victimization and, 229–230

Self-reports of intimate partner violence, 274 Self-worth, effects of victimization on, 64 Seligman, M. E. P., 67 Sentencing circle, 146 September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 584

compensation for victims, 588 Serial murder, 182 Series victimizations, 18 Severs, H., 261 Sex crime units, 235 Sex offender registration and notification, 233–234 Sex trafficking, 579

coercion of victims, 610–611, 616 defining, 604–605, 611, 615–616 gender and, 580–581 identifying and prosecuting cases in the Midwest United States, 602–622 interstate movement of victims, 609–610, 615 misreporting, 604–605, 611, 615–616 online solicitation and, 609, 615 source and destination countries, 581 techniques, 605–606, 614–615 victim testimony, 612–614, 616

Sexual abuse noncontact, 221–222 of people with disabilities, 470 See also Sexual victimization

Sexual assault fear of, 75, 404 prosecuting, 236–237 revictimization and, 98 See also Rape; Sexual victimization

Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting Act (2013), 138, 139 Sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs, 235–236

effectiveness of, 256–271 history and current operations of, 259–260 need for, 258–259

Sexual assault response team (SART), 236, 260

1113

Download more at Learnclax.com

Sexual coercion, 221, 222 Sexual control, intimate partner violence and, 296 Sexual elder abuse, 338 Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), 223–224 Sexual harassment, 386 Sexual orientation, sexual victimization while incarcerated and, 480 Sexual-orientation-bias-motivated hate crime victimization, 572–575 Sexual revictimization of women, 100, 103, 107, 110–119 Sexual stigma, 594–600 Sexual victimization, 219–271

on college campuses, 408, 409–420 consequences of, 230–231 definitions of, 220–222 effects of, 64 of incarcerated people, 476, 478, 479–480 legal and criminal justice responses to, 232–237 of males, 231–232 measurement and extent of, 222–225 prevention and intervention, 107, 237–238 recurring, 100, 231 responses to, 228–230 risk factors for and characteristics of, 225–228 routine activities and lifestyle and, 22 witnessing while incarcerated, 516 of women with disabilities, 467 See also Rape

Sexual violence, 273 Shadow hypothesis, 75 Shaffer, J. N., 29 Shaken baby syndrome, 334 Shakur, T., 23 Shapiro, J. M., 509 Sharpe, T. L., 213 Shaw, C., 46 Shepard, M., 572 Shepherd, J., 237 Sherlach, M., 183 Sherman, L., 23, 284–285 Shi, J., 476, 477, 515 Shoulder surfing, 433

1114

Download more at Learnclax.com

Sic Thugs (gang), 6 Sidebottom, A., 452 Siegel, J. A., 476, 477 Sievers, V., 264 Silver, E., 474, 497 Simmelink, K., 263 Simon, M. A., 565 Simon, R., 606, 616 Singapore, elder abuse in, 559, 562–563 Singer, S. I., 39 Situational couple violence, 273–274, 292, 293, 296, 297, 299 Situational crime prevention, identity theft and, 462 Skegg, K., 79 Skewer, T. V., 562 Skimming, 433 Sloan, J. J., 378, 407, 408 Slone, M., 623–624 Small, S., 317 Smith, K., 260 Smith, L., 606, 615, 618 Smith, W. F., 8 Sobsey, D., 492 Social bonds, age-graded theory of adult, 27, 28 Social bullying, 374 Social distance, 478 Social incivilities, 75 Social interactionist theory of violence, 26, 498, 504–506 Social learning, intimate partner violence and, 280–281 Social learning theory, 25–26

abusive behavior and, 333, 335 Social network perspective, on repeat victimization, 122, 125–126 Social push perspective, 49 Social services, crime victim and, 11 Social support, intimate partner violence and, 305 Social variables, as risk factor for elder abuse in Asia, 565 Sociodemographic characteristics of homicide victims and offenders, 176–178 Socioeconomic status

burglary and, 431–432 homicide victims and offenders and, 178 intimate partner violence and, 304

1115

Download more at Learnclax.com

victimization at school and, 373 Solola, A., 261, 264 Sotirovic, M., 623 Source country, 581 South Korea, elder abuse in, 561, 563 Sow, E., 562 Sparks, R. F., 39 Specialized victimization studies, 523 Speck, P., 261 Speedy trial, victim’s right to, 134, 135, 165 Spousal privilege laws, 286 Spree murder, 182 Spyware, 434 Srebrenica, Dutch peacekeepers death of men from, 527 Stalking, 22, 279

on college campuses, 408, 409–419 Stance, A., 522 Stand-your-ground laws, 171 Stanford rape victim’s impact statement, 143 State dependence, 104, 105

negative, 105–106 States

hate crime legislation, 577–578 intimate partner violence legislation, 284 legislation to protect elderly persons, 344 motor vehicle theft legislation, 429–430 policies to combat school violence, 375–378 victim rights’ clinics, 167–168 victims’ rights law, 133–136, 164–165

State v. Johnson, 142 Statutory rape, 220, 222 STDs (sexually transmitted diseases)

rape victims and treatment of, 259, 260, 262 sexual victimization and testing for, 233

Steadman, H. J., 500 Stein, P., 555 Steinmetz, S. K., 297 Stets, J. E., 298 Strategies to decrease intimate partner violence, 322–323, 324–325 Straus, M., 275, 298, 317

1116

Download more at Learnclax.com

Street cultures, 49, 59 Street robbery, 22 Stress, intimate partner violence and, 280 Structural and social process factors in victimization, 23–24 Structural density, 24 Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act (1990), 380 Subculture of violence theory, 20–21 Subintentional homicide, 5 Subordinating the self, in intimate partner violence, 323, 325 Substance use

child maltreatment and parental, 333 homicide clearance and victim, 196 homicides and, 179 intimate partner violence and, 281–282, 304, 488 victimization of persons with mental illness and, 474 violent victimization and, 504

Suffering consequences of victimization and, 70 quantifying, 70

Suicidal ideation bullying and, 400 child sexual abuse and, 334

Suicidality, victimization and, 79–80 Suicide

intimate partner homicide followed by, 181 intimate partner violence and, 283 at school, 372

Suitable targets, 21, 575 Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR), 173–174, 363, 372 Survivor family therapy, 214–215 Survivor guilt, 210 Survivor support groups, 214, 215 Symptomology, 475 System costs of victimization, 70

Taiwan, elder abuse in, 556–557, 562 Tam, S., 554 Tang, C., 566 Target antagonism, 505 Target attractiveness

1117

Download more at Learnclax.com

delinquent peer association and, 39 family context and, 38

Target hardening, 430 burglary and, 442–453

Task Force on Victims of Crime, 144 Taylor, T. J., 24 Teachers, victimization at school and, 373 Teaster, P. B., 340 Television news, fear of terrorism and exposure to, 625, 626–630 Tension-building phase, in cycle of violence, 283 Teplin, L. A., 473 Terrorism, media exposure and fear of, 622–631 Terrorism victimization, 584–589

characteristics of, 585–586 consequences of, 586–587 extent of, 585 responses to, 587–589 risk factors for, 586 victim characteristics, 585

Testa, M., 226, 244 Tewksbury, R., 426 Theft, 22, 424–426

identity, 432–439 Theories and explanations of victimization, 20–29

age-graded theory of adult social bonds, 28 control-balance, 26 cycle of violence hypothesis and, 283, 305, 343 dependency-stress model, 470 dependency theory, 343 general strain theory, 391–402, 498, 504–506, 509 general theory of crime, 27–28 genes and, 28–29 intimate partner violence and, 280–282 life-course perspective, 27–28 lifestyles theory, 22 link between victimization and offending, 20–21 recurring victimization and, 104–106 role of alcohol, 29 social interactionist perspective, 26 social learning, 25–26

1118

Download more at Learnclax.com

structural and social process factors, 23–25 subculture of violence, 20–21 victim precipitation, 183–184 See also Research articles; Routine activities and lifestyles theories of victimization

Theory of low self-control, 478 Thoennes, N., 29 Thompson, M. P., 208, 209, 213 Threats of intimate partner violence, 294–295 Tillyer, M. S., 282, 303, 454 Time course of recurring victimization, 100–101, 110–111, 113–114 Time course of repeat burglar victimization, 125 Tittle, C., 26 Tiwari, A., 553 Tjaden, P., 29 Tolerance Equality Awareness Movement, 603 Tolman, R. M., 298 Tonic immobility, 230 Tormentors, 4 Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP Report), 580 Trafficking Victims Protection Act (2000), 578, 582, 583, 584, 604 Training for identifying and responding to sex trafficking cases, 617–618 Transnational human trafficking, 579 Triad program, 368 Trussler, T., 196 Trust Fund for Victims (TFV), 529 Tseloni, A., 543, 544 Turanovic, J. J., 105 Turner, H. A., 106 Turner, M., 224 Turning points, 320–321, 348 T visa, 583 Tyldum, G., 604 Tyler, K., 226, 242

Ugarte, M., 605, 617 Umbreit, M. S., 146 Unfounded allegations, 235 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), 9, 15–16

crime drop, 622 deaths attributable to crime, 64

1119

Download more at Learnclax.com

definitions of homicide, 171 extent of hate crimes, 571 extent of household burglary, 430–431 extent of motor vehicle theft, 426, 427 extent of sexual victimization, 222–223 extent of theft, 425 homicide statistics, 173

United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 522, 526, 547 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Palermo Protocol), 578–579, 582 victims and, 525–526 Vienna Declaration on Femicide, 181

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 175 United States

anti-LGBTQ hate violence in, 593–602 definition of disability in, 488 government response to human trafficking victims, 583–584 homicide victimization in, 173–175 human trafficking within, 580, 581 identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases in the midwest United States, 602–622

U.S. Constitution, victims’ rights and, 136 Unwanted sexual contact, 221, 222 Unwanted sexual contact with force, 221, 222 Urbanity, homicide victims and offenders and, 178

van Dijk, J., 537, 538, 543, 544, 546–547 van Kesteren, J., 537 Vardaman, P. J., 213 Vaughn, A. E., 434 Velazquez, C. E., 244 Vera Institute of Justice’s Victim/Witness Assistance Project, 144, 164, 166 Verbal abuse, 222 Verbal bullying, 374 Vevea, B., 234 Vicarious victimization, 70–72 The Victim and His Criminal (Schafer), 4 Victim assistance programs, international, 529–533 Victim compensation, 139–140, 165 Victim devaluation perspective, homicide clearance and, 192–193, 194, 204

1120

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victim impact statements (VISs), 141–144 emotional effectiveness of, 150–162 who chooses to deliver, 156–157

Victimization causes of, 9–10 consequences of, 63–76 costs of, 10 direct, 625 extent of, 18–19 immigration and, 25 of the incarcerated, 476–482 indirect, 625 measuring, 15–20 neighborhood context, low self-control and violent, 46–52 nonsuicidal self-harm and, 79–87 offending and, 20–21 of persons with disabilities, 464–471 of persons with mental illness, 472–476 preventing, 11–12 property, 424–432 at school, 371–382 theories and explanations of, 20–29 typical, 19 vicarious, 70–72 victim culpability and, 3 witnessing, 476 witnessing while incarcerated, 508–520 at work, 382–388 See also Homicide victimization; Recurring victimization; Sexual victimization

Victimization risk, neighborhood context and, 46–62 Victimization salience, 105 Victimization studies, 523 Victimization surveys, 549–550. See also individual surveys Victimization theory, 21. See also Theories and explanations of victimization Victim lifestyle, homicide clearance and, 192–207 Victim-offender mediation programs, 146–147 Victim-offender overlap

child maltreatment and, 334–335 genetics and, 29 intimate partner violence and, 303–315

1121

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victim-offender relationship homicides and, 178 sexual victimization and, 227–228 victimization of persons with disabilities and, 469

Victimology contemporary, 9–12 defined, 1 early history of, 1–2 early researchers of, 3–6 victims’ rights movement and history of, 6–7

Victimology from comparative perspective, 521–569 justice system response to victimization, 525–529 victimology across the globe, 521–525 victims’ rights and assistance programs, 529–533

Victim precipitation theories, 183–184 Victim proneness, recurring victimization and, 100, 101 Victim Rights Act (2004), 164 Victim(s)

Bill of Rights, 8 characteristics of, 20 criminal justice system and, 10–11 cross-border, 529 culpability of, 3 data on, 6–7, 9 early programs for crime, 7–8 facilitation, 2 identity theft, 435 organizations, development of, 8 precipitation, 2, 5, 6 provocation, 2 role in crime, study of, 2–6 secondary, 8 social services and, 11 typical, 19 typology, 4–5 United Nations and, 525–526 See also Reporting

Victims Bill of Rights (Canada), 531, 532 Victim services for victims of human trafficking, 584 Victims of Crime Act (1984), 8, 137, 138, 140, 163, 187

1122

Download more at Learnclax.com

Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act (1986), 587 Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act (2001), 587 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (2000), 139 Victims’ rights, 133–139

challenges of implementing legislation, 165–166 common, given by state, 133–136 contributions of, 7–9 in court, 141–147 defined, 133 federal law, 136–139 history of victimology and, 6–7 international, 529–533 issues with, 136 new remedies, 163–169 notification, 134–135 state laws, 164–165

Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (1990), 137, 138, 163 Victims’ Rights Clarification Act (1997), 137, 139 Victims’ rights clinics, 163, 167–168 Victim Support, 531–532 Victim Support Europe, 530 Victim voice, 152–153 Victim/witness assistance programs (WWAPs), 144–145 Victim Witness Protection Act (1982), 137, 138, 163 Vienna Declaration on Femicide, 181 Vigil, G. J., 211 Violence

consequences of exposure to, 510 defined, 273

Violence Against Women Act (1994), 8, 137, 139, 232–233, 287 Violence Against Women Act (2000), 137, 139, 233 Violence Against Women Act (2005), 233 Violence Against Women Act (2013), 138, 139 Violence Risk Assessment Study, 499–501, 505–506 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), 8–9, 137, 139, 163, 570, 577 Violent resistance, 274, 292, 294, 296–297 Violent victimization

college women and repeat, 110–119 hate crimes and, 574 mental disorder and, 497–508

1123

Download more at Learnclax.com

See also Victimization Virginia, victims’ rights in, 134 Visual abuse, 222 Vittert, C., 144 Voluntary manslaughter, 172 Von Hentig, H., 3–4, 521

Walker, L., 283 Walker, R., 68, 87 WALLS (watchers, activity nodes, location, lighting, and security), 429 Walsh, W., 604 Wang, J. J., 562 War crimes, 528 Warr, M., 403, 624–625, 629, 630 Weapon use

in homicides, 178 in sexual victimization, 228 See also Firearms

Wellford, C., 196 Welsh, B. C., 68 West, K., 23 Whisman, M., 349 Widom, C. S., 348 Wiersema, J. D., 68 Wilcox, P., 381, 403 Williams, J. E., 267 Williams, O., 555 Williams, S. A., 350 Williamson, C., 607, 615 Wilson, C., 262, 466, 470 Wilson, D., 604 Wilson, G., 220, 221 Wilson, J., 607 Wimer, C., 349 Winick, B. J., 153 Wisconsin, sexual assault and DNA evidence law in, 136 Witnessing violence while incarcerated, 508–520 Wolff, N., 476, 477, 515 Wolfgang, M., 5, 183, 193 Women

1124

Download more at Learnclax.com

analysis of responses to battering, 316–327 campus safety and, 403–423 elder maltreatment and, 342–343 fear of sexual assault and, 75, 404 post-traumatic stress disorder and, 65, 82, 84 sex trafficking and, 580–581 sexual revictimization of, 100, 103, 107, 110–119 sexual victimization and, 225–226 specialized services for, 532–533 victim impact statements and, 156 violence against women with disabilities, 467–468, 485–497 See also Gender

Women’s rights movement, 7, 274 Woodredge, J., 47 Worker-on-worker incidents, 383 Workplace victimization, 22, 382–388

consequences of, 386 defined, 382–383 demographic characteristics of victims, 383–384, 384–385 extent of, 383 fatal, 384–385 occupations with greatest risk, 384, 385 prevention strategies, 387 responses to, 386–388 risk factors, 385 sexual harassment, 386

World Health Organization (WHO), 175, 180, 374, 488 World Society of Victimology (WSV), 522 Worry about crime, 624

victimization on campus and, 411–414, 416–418 Wright, E. M., 282, 303 Writ of mandamus, 136 Wuest, J., 317, 324 Wu Shortt, J., 317

Xu, Y., 196

Yamada, Y., 563 Yan, E., 553, 566 Young, M., 263, 486, 495 Young, W., 259

1125

Download more at Learnclax.com

Youth bullying of gay, 374 neighborhood context, low self-control, and violent victimization among, 46–62 sexual victimization while incarcerated and, 480 victimization of youth with disabilities, 468 See also Adolescents; Children

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 372–373, 374

Zero-tolerance policies, 376 Zimmer, C., 498 Zweig, J., 617

1126

Download more at Learnclax.com

About the Author

Leah E. Daigle is professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. She received her PhD in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati in 2005. Her most recent research has centered on repeat sexual victimization of college women and responses women use during and after being sexually victimized. Her other research interests include the development and continuation of offending and victimization across the life course. She is coauthor of Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course and Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women, which was awarded the 2011 Outstanding Book Award by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. She has also published numerous peer-reviewed articles that have appeared in outlets such as Justice Quarterly, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Victims and Offenders.

1127

Download more at Learnclax.com

Half Title
Publisher Note
Title Page
Copyright Page
Brief Contents
Detailed Contents
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
Section I Introduction to Victimology
Section II Extent, Theories, and Factors of Victimization
Section III Consequences of Victimization
Section IV Recurring Victimization
Section V Victims’ Rights and Remedies
Section VI Homicide Victimization
Section VII Sexual Victimization
Section VIII Intimate Partner Violence
Section IX Victimization at the Beginning and End of Life: Child and Elder Abuse
Section X Victimization at School and Work
Section XI Property and Identity Theft Victimization
Section XII Victimization of Special Populations
Section XIII Victimology From a Comparative Perspective
Section XIV Contemporary Issues in Victimology: Victims of Hate Crimes, Human Trafficking, and Terrorism
Glossary
References
Index
About the Author