Preventing Violence Related Injuries

Violence is endemic in American society. In 2005, 51,175 violence related fatalities were reported in the United States, and 2,102,099 violence related non-fatal injuries occurred.14 Violence related fatalities in the US are approximately twice as high as in other developed countries.22 In this center, we focus on two particularly important forms of violence: youth violence and intimate partner violence.

Defining the Youth Violence Problem

The NCIPC defines violence as threatened or actual physical force or power initiated by an individual that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, physical or psychological injury or death. Youth violence may involve a youthful victim, a youthful perpetrator, or both. Although homicide rates among youth have dropped in recent years, they remain unacceptably high. For example, in 2008 the NCIPC reports that violence is the second leading cause of death among young people aged 10 to 24 in the US. Violent injury is much more prevalent, with 720,000 people aged 10 to 24 receiving emergency room services in 2006.14 As disturbing as these statistics are, the potential for injury resulting from youth violence is even greater. In a 2005 survey of high school students, 36% reported being in a physical fight during the past 12 months and 7% reported taking a knife, gun, or club to school during the past 30 days.23 The cost of youth violence is estimated to exceed $158 billion per year.24

Researchers have identified a spectrum of risk factors that contribute to violent behavior: a history of early aggression, beliefs supportive of violence and violent behavior, a history of engaging in antisocial behavior, the use and abuse of alcohol or other drugs, being male, involvement in serious but not necessarily violent criminal behavior, bullying or being the target of bullies, poor parental monitoring or supervision, exposure to violence, parental drug or alcohol abuse, poor emotional attachment to parents or caregivers, low family socioeconomic status or poverty, antisocial parents, association with peers engaged in high-risk behavior, low commitment to school, a history of academic failure, and high levels of transience and family disruption. Knowing these risk factors - so they can be effectively addressed - is a fundamental component of any prevention-oriented program if it is to succeed. Awareness of risk factors does not guarantee success, but ignorance of them virtually guarantees failure. The

Residential Mobility and Youth Violence in Underclass Neighborhoods

Project Director/Lead Investigator: John Bolland, PhD

The literature on youth violence consistently suggests residential mobility as a risk factor. However, studies that have examined this relationship tend to treat mobility in simple terms, as a binary event that either occurred or did not occur. We argue that if we are to understand how residential mobility affects violence, particularly among impoverished youth, we must also consider type of move, characteristics of the relocation neighborhood, and characteristics of the mover. Our purpose in this study is to explore this relationship between mobility and violence in underclass inner-city by addressing four specific aims: (a) Determine how residential mobility affects youth violence among the underclass, by examining how characteristics of the relocation neighborhood, characteristics of the mover, and type of move affect violent behavioral trajectories of underclass youth; (b) Describe mobility patterns of underclass households by estimating the incidence of household moves and the characteristics of the relocation neighborhoods; (c) Describe mobility patterns of underclass children who move between households in changing kinship care relationships by estimating the incidence of these moves and the characteristics of the relocation neighborhoods; and (d) Determine how youth risk factors affect underclass mobility (both decision to relocate and decision where to relocate).

Dissemination of Coping Power to Community Mental Health Centers in Alabama

Project Director/Lead Investigator: John E. Lochman, PhD

In this translational research study, mental health clinicians in Alabama will be trained to use the Coping Power program with preadolescent children with Disruptive Behavior Disorders. This innovative study will address ways to identify and resolve problems that may arise as a research proven program is delivered in community settings. It will address three important gaps in the literature: (a) whether this type of program can be taken “to scale” and reduce youth aggression and violence in the years following clinician training; (b) whether the intensity level of clinician training (Coping Power plus Group Leader Training: CP-GL; vs. Coping Power Training alone: CP) will influence child outcomes, intervention integrity, and clinicians’ sustained use of the program; and (c) whether characteristics of the clinicians and of the mental health centers (MHCs) will influence intervention integrity, sustained use, and intervention outcomes.

Intimate Partner Physical Violence and Coercive Control: A Preliminary Study

Project Director/Lead Investigator: Chalandra M. Bryant, PhD

The purpose of the proposed project is to examine links between spousal aggression (specifically, physical violence and coercive control) and (a) neighborhood characteristics (violence, poverty, residential instability, lack of neighborhood cohesion) as well as (b) marital dynamics. Although domestic violence affects all Americans, it disproportionately affects African Americans. Given the differential rates of physical violence and coercive control, it is not unreasonable to wonder if their correlates also differ. The project’s Specific Aims are to (a) measure the level of two types of spousal aggression in African American married couples, and to test whether levels differ for husbands versus wives; (b) examine links between spousal aggression and (i) neighborhood characteristics and (ii) marital dynamics, and then to test whether links between these factors differ for African American husbands versus wives; and (c) determine whether psychosocial resources moderate the link between spousal aggression and (i) neighborhood characteristics and (ii) marital dynamics, and to test whether the moderators operate differently for husbands versus wives.