No abstract

The current research tests three conceptual models designed to explain citizens' fear of crime-vulnerability, disorder, and social integration. These models are assessed for differential impact across the cognitive and affective dimensions of fear of crime. The analysis reported here considers the consecutive and simultaneous influence of individual-and city-level factors using multilevel modeling techniques. Recently collected survey data for 2,599 citizens nested within 21 cities across Washington State provide the empirical evidence for the analysis. Results indicate that the disorder model is best able to explain variation in both the cognitive and affective dimensions of citizens' fear of crime across cities. The vulnerability and social integration models explain significantly less variation. Further, the vulnerability model lacks directional consistency across the observed dimensions of fear. Societal implications of the research findings are discussed.Keywords Fear of crime Á Victimization Á Multilevel analysis Á Vulnerability Á Disorder Á Social integration Fear of crime has been recognized as a significant social problem, affecting the quality of life across various demographic and socio-economic conditions. Attempts to understand the dynamics underlying the fear of crime have led to numerous empirical and theoretical developments. Three dominant models have emerged as possible explanations of variation in fear of crime among citizens-the vulnerability, disorder, and social integration models. While each of these models has received some

This research examines the influence of several important community characteristics on the sentencing of convicted felony defendants, net of other predictors associated with sentencing decisions. Using an appropriate multilevel technique, I find that several community characteristics affect the likelihood that defendants are sentenced to prison versus jail. However, none of the community characteristics influence the odds of prison versus non-custodial sanctions or jail versus non-custodial sanctions for these defendants. This underscores the importance of using sentencing measures beyond the basic "in/out" dichotomy. Even more importantly, the results suggest that there remains a statistically significant and substantial amount of sentencing variation across counties after controlling for relevant individual-and community-level factors. The implications of these findings for research, theory, and policy-making are discussed.

No abstract

Background Substance use and crime/recidivism are irrevocably linked. We explore the nuances of this association by highlighting the prevalence, trends, and correlates of substance use dsorders in a large group of probationers/parolees. Methods We examined SUDs among probationers and parolees in the United States using data from the National Study on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Logistic regression models were computed to examine eight distinct outcomes: alcohol abuse, illicit drug abuse, marijuana/hashish abuse, comorbid alcohol and illicit drug abuse, alcohol dependence, illicit drug dependence, marijuana/hashish dependence, and comorbid alcohol and illicit drug dependence. Results Probationers/parolees have high prevalence rates across all SUDs categories and these trends have been relatively constant. Prevalence rates for alcohol abuse and dependence are two to six times higher than for marijuana and other illicit drug abuse and dependence. Key correlates of substance abuse for probationers/parolees include: age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, risk propensity, crime/violence measures, and comorbid substance abuse. Similar correlates were found for substance dependence, in addition to employment and mental health treatment. Conclusions This study indicates that SUDs are higher among probationer/parolees as compared to their non-supervised counterparts – between four and nine times higher – and these levels have changed little in recent years. Effectively responding to SUDs in this population may enhance adherence to supervision requirements, prevent recidivism, and improve public safety. We may be better served using limited funds for further development of evidence-based policies and programs, such as drug courts, which demonstrate reductions in both drug use and recidivism.