FAMILY-BASED CRIME PREVENTION
by Lawrence W. Sherman
Family risk factors have a major effect on crime. Family based crime prevention can directly address those risk factors, with substantial success. The more risk factors they address, perhaps, the better. The earlier they start in life, it seems, the better. Programs for infants and young children may be most cost-effective in the long run, even if they are expensive in the short run. Combining home-visit parental support with preschool education reduces crime committed by children when they grow up. Rigorously evaluated pilot projects with tightly controlled prevention services are consistently effective. Family problems later in life are more difficult to address, especially family violence by adults. But it is still possible. The potential of early, adolescent and adult family-based crime prevention is held back only by our failure to invest in more research and development. The need for testing programs that can work on a large scale is particularly great.
Most of these conclusions have been reached independently by diverse scholars from diverse disciplines (Yoshikawa, 1994; Tremblay and Craig, 1995; Hawkins, Arthur and Catalano, 1995; Crowell and Burgess, 1996; Kumpfer, Molgaard and Spoth, 1996; Wasserman and Miller, forthcoming). Given the normal disagreements among social scientists, the level of consensus about these conclusions is striking. But of all these conclusions, the need for further careful evaluations is the strongest point of agreement. Evaluating the varieties of possible transitions from a small pilot test of a program to a large-scale operation is a step that is frequently left out, as it was in the case of Head Start (Lazar, 1992, and Zigler, 1992, both as cited in Yoshikawa, 1994). There is no government institution fully prepared to deliver family-based prevention of the kind found effective in the scientific literature. Making the most out of what we know already will require even more knowledge about how to go from pilot tests to full operations.
Much more is known about making families better at child-raising than about preventing family violence. A recent review of the effectiveness of criminal sanctions in combatting domestic abuse concludes that the evidence in favor of these programs is either weak or absent (Fagan, 1995). Batterer's counseling, mandatory arrest, special prosecution and victim advocacy programs all remain essentially unevaluated. While theoretical inferences support such programs as battered women's shelters to reduce danger during the high-risk aftermath of an incident reported to police, there is no assurance that any of these programs actually increase long-term victim safety. Court orders of protection and other legal steps advised by victims' advocates may even increase risk of serious injury to victims. Mandatory arrest for misdemeanor spouse assault without prosecutorial action or court treatment has been found to be either ineffective or criminogenic in repeated controlled trials, although it is effective in communities of strong social capital.
Perhaps least is known about the extent to which the same family-based programs can prevent both family violence and delinquent acts by children in the family. One home-visit program for infants, for example, reduced child abuse, which is both a crime of domestic violence and a risk factor for later delinquency of abused children. The potential for broadening the outcome measures and objectives of family-based crime prevention is important for public policy analysis. It has great potential, for example, in helping to design a program that might work on a much broader scale than the pilot tests to date, most of which are limited to a few hundred participants or less. It is also one more good reason to invest more heavily in research and development.
This chapter briefly reviews the variety of family-based crime prevention programs. It then considers a few of the major research issues in evaluating and designing family-based prevention. Five major areas of research are then examined in detail, each in relation to an ecological context where families seek or receive help affecting crime and risk factors: homes, pre-schools and schools, clinics, courts, and other contexts. The chapter concludes with a scientific summary of what works, what doesn't, and what's promising, with assessments of what is known about the effectiveness of federally funded programs and suggestions for improving effectiveness through better evaluations.
VARIETIES OF FAMILY-BASED CRIME PREVENTION
Family-based crime prevention is an unintended beneficiary of the vast research enterprise on human development. Much of what we know about it comes from evaluations of programs established for other purposes. Many of these human development programs are highly elaborated, each with its own terminology, literature, and professional community. As programs intended to improve parents' child-rearing skills, children's academic skills, or children's mental health, they have often resulted--almost coincidentally--in reduced crime. This fact underlines the importance of defining prevention not as intention, but as result. It also shows how basic to human experience the factors affecting the risk of crime can be.
Several analyses of risk factors for both serious and general delinquency conclude that family factors are important. While serious crime is geographically concentrated in a small number of high crime communities, it is individually concentrated in families with anti-social parents, rejecting parents, parents in conflict, parents imposing inconsistent punishment, and parents who supervise their children loosely (Tremblay and Craig, 1995: 158). Several analysts conclude that these risk factors are cumulative, and that the more of them a prevention program can address the better (Coie and Jacobs, 1993; Yoshikawa, 1994; Tremblay and Craig, 1995; Wasserman and Miller, forthcoming). This hypothesis is consistent with much of the literature, and not falsified by any direct test. Perhaps the best way to explore it is to evaluate rigorously prevention programs addressing different numbers and combinations of risk factors.
Risk Levels and Prevention Strategy
The basic structure of family-based prevention programs depends upon strategic choices with public safety, budgetary and political consequences. The basic choice is between universal and targeted programs (Institute of Medicine, 1994). Universal programs are offered to, or even imposed upon, all families. In several European countries, for example, all families with newborn children are required to admit trained nurses to their homes to visit the baby. This program applies to everyone without regard to any risk factors. Targeted programs are of two kinds. One kind is "selective," in which families (or individuals) identified as being at high risk are offered or mandated to receive a service intended to prevent the onset of harm. The other kind of targeted program is called "indicated." In the case of crime and delinquency, indicated programs are offered to prevent recurrence of crime by children already manifesting crime or crime risk factors. Because the term "targeted" in crime prevention policy is increasingly unacceptable to African-Americans as too resonant of racially discriminatory practices, this report will substitute the term "focused" to denote the same concept.
The choice between universal and focused programs is complex. Focused programs may make more efficient use of scarce resources, but universal programs may attract greater resource levels per family. It may not be necessary to allocate resources equally to all families within a program. But it may well be necessary to have the program itself be universal in order to make a very high cost investment politically palatable. The failure of Head Start to obtain full funding, for example, may be linked directly to the fact that it is seen as a program for poor children, rather than for all children.
Families with high levels of crime risk factors may also be more likely to accept universal programs than focused ones. This may be particularly important for more intrusive interventions into family life, such as frequent home visitation. Any possible stigma of such intrusion may be limited by the universal character of the program. To the extent that risk factors in some geographic areas are correlated with race, focused programs may be even more problematic. But programs applying to all children and all families avoid any implication of discrimination.
Even though this report generally concludes that crime prevention can be most effective when scarce resources are focused on concentrations of risk factors, family-based crime prevention provides an important exception. What makes sense across cities and even schools may not work at the level of family life. The state's relationship to the citizenry is most sensitive in the institutional setting of the family. Interpreting the policy implications of the scientific evidence reviewed in this chapter can be accomplished most usefully with the issue of universal versus focused programming in mind. The "elasticity" of demand for such programs may be such that the more expensive they become through universal access, the more likely they are to be fully funded.
Family-Based Crime Prevention by Ecological Context
Ecological Context Program Prevention Delivery Agent (s) HOME Regular visits for Nurses, Universal or emotional, informational, Teachers, Selective instrumental and Para- educational support for professionals, Rarely parents of preschool (or Preschool indicated older) children Teachers Foster care outplacement Family Indicated for the prevention of services, physical, sexual abuse or Social worker neglect Family preservation of Private Indicated families at risk of Family, outplacement of child preservation teams Personal alarm for victims Police Indicated of serious domestic violence In-home proactive Police, Indicated counseling for domestic Social Workers violence PRESCHOOL Involvement of mothers in Preschool Universal or parent groups, job teachers selective training, parent training SCHOOL Parent training Psychologists. Indicated or Teachers Selective; some universal Simultaneous Parent and Psychologist, Indicated or Child Training Child Care selective Workers, Social Workers CLINICS Family Therapy Psychologists, Indicated, Psychiatrists, Selective Social Workers Medication--psychostimulants Psychiatrists, Indicated for treatment of Psychologists, hyperactivity and other Pediatricians childhood conduct disorders HOSPITALS Domestic Violence Nurses, Indicated Counseling Social Workers Low-Birthweight Baby Nurses, Indicated Mothers' Counseling & Social Workers Support COURTS Prosecution of Batterers Police, Indicated Prosecutors Warrants for Unarrested Police, Indicated Batterers Prosecutors Restraining Orders or Police, Indicated "Stay-Away" Orders of Prosecutors, Protection Judges, Victims' Advocates Hotline Notification of Probation, Indicated victim about Release of Victim Incarcerated Domestic Advocates Batterer BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTERS Safe Refuge during Volunteers; Indicated high-risk 2-7 days staff aftermath of domestic assault; counseling; hotlines
The Ecology of Family-Based Prevention
Despite the potentially greater appeal of universal programs, Figure 1 reveals a striking fact: almost all family-based crime prevention is currently offered on a focused basis. Absent an indicated reason to intervene in family life, American government generally leaves families alone. In contrast to many other western nations, the United States performs almost no universal monitoring of families in the home.1
This pattern creates a distinct ecology of prevention which treats families very differently in different places (Stinchcombe, 1963). The state imposes requirements on the disease-prevention vaccinations children must receive in hospitals and medical clinics, for example, but does not generally empower public health agents to invade the home to deliver vaccinations. The authority of the school teacher is great in a school building, but ambiguous when the teacher visits a private home by parental consent. The realm of the possible in family-based crime prevention programs is defined largely by the ecological context in which the programs might be delivered, and the authority vested in the government to intervene in family life associated with each of those contexts.
These contexts, as presented in Figure 1, include schools, preschools, hospitals, clinics, courts and battered women's shelters, as well as the home itself. All other contexts are in some sense merely windows on the home, opportunities for dialogue between the state and the family that can shape the results of family life for public safety. Hospitals and schools are places where crimes in the home are often detected and reported to police, who then have legal standing to investigate events in the home. They are also places where advice and instructions about reducing risk factors can be given. Absent the indication of existing problems or high risk, however, there are no universal crime prevention mechanisms comparable to medical vaccines.
This chapter is therefore a review of the effectiveness of programs within one strategic realm of family-based crime prevention: focused interventions. This represents an existing choice not to develop universal programs. It does not, of course, show whether focused programs are more or less effective than universal programs might be. In order to answer that question, it is necessary for a large-scale program of research and development to compare universal and targeted programs for their relative effectiveness. To the extent that universal programs might detect and prevent more problems than targeted programs, their value remains a major untested hypothesis in family-based crime prevention.
EVALUATING FAMILY-BASED CRIME PREVENTION
Scientific evaluations of family-based crime prevention programs face at least three distinctive problems, compared with other institutional settings. Perhaps foremost is the long time horizon often needed to measure the effectiveness of prevention programs. Also important is the possible variation in effectiveness by intensity or accumulation of risk factors. There are also unique problems in measuring crimes committed by family members against one another, in relation to both privacy and safety for research subjects and accuracy of measurement.
Long Time Horizon
A basic premise of developmental crime prevention is that what happens during infancy can affect the odds of crime two or three decades later. Giving this theory a fair test requires a very long time horizon. Sustaining the test over the time required creates problems of cost, management, and interpretation.
The problem of cost is not as great as it seems. Numerous birth cohort studies of delinquency have been funded intermittently over decades, keeping track of where to find the research subjects for repeated interviews and official record checks (Farrington, Ohlin and Wilson, 1987). The current OJP limitation of grant periods to two years poses more of a management problem than a cost problem, creating uncertainty about commitments to employ key staff and other planning issues. Relaxing that limitation for five- and ten-year projects would ease those difficulties, and help encourage more tests of developmental crime prevention strategies. The major problem this creates in interpreting available evidence is that there are so few long-term studies to examine.
The problem of management is perhaps more critical to interpretation of long-term findings. The two longest running tests of developmental crime prevention are both reputed to be very well managed programs (Berrueta-Clement et al, 1985; Lally, et al, 1987). Critics have raised the problem of generalizing from the results of small, well-managed programs to large, bureaucratically administered programs. The key question is how accurately we can predict that a long-term program serving tens of thousands of families will have the same effects as a short-term test program serving several hundred families for 3 to five years. In order to answer that question, we require research designs testing much larger scale programs over a longer period of time. That requires not only much greater cost, but a separate political process necessary to sustain the resources for the time horizon required. For example, ten years worth of birth cohorts might be needed to see if the long-term effects of a program operating during the enthusiasm (or confusion!) of an initial launch were the same as a program that was three, five, eight or ten years old.
Finally, the issue of interpretation is compounded by the speed with which our society is changing. By the time the results are in from a two-decade old test, the context of the program may have changed in important ways. Perhaps more qualified preschool teachers were available in the early 1960s than today, for example. Or perhaps the concentration of poverty in inner cities is so much worse in the 1990s than in the early 1960s (Wilson, 1996) that crime prevention benefits found in an earlier study would not stand up to today's more intense risk factors. Early feedback from measures of protective factors (like school conduct assessment) and child abuse might help solve this problem, providing both short- and long-term feedback. Conversely, short-term child abuse interventions such as Olds et al (1986) provide excellent opportunities for long-term followup of delinquency prevention, and even domestic violence prevention. Generating and funding such followup research should be a high priority for OJP. Similarly, short-term followups of drug abuse prevention programs merit much longer term followups, to see whether other factors cancel out early effects of interventions.
Cumulative Risk Factors and Contextual Data
This report's concern for the interdependency of crime prevention institutions is not widely shared in crime prevention research. Many clinic-based studies, for example, do not report precise data on the neighborhoods from which the research subjects are drawn. It is one thing to say that the children are from families on welfare or have teenage mothers. It is another thing altogether to report that 35% of the families in the sample reside in neighborhoods with adult unemployment rates in excess of 70%, and with 60% of households in the census tract below the poverty line (see Chapter two). Very few individual-level experiments report community-level data in the degree of specificity needed to begin to synthesize results and draw broader conclusions about program effectiveness.
Family-based prevention programs may work well in areas of high risk, but only up to a point. For example, clinic-based parent training for parents of aggressive elementary school children may work in all neighborhoods in Oregon, but not in many neighborhoods in Chicago. If there is a tipping point beyond which a parentally focused program may not work, it cannot be identified from the literature without more precise measurement. There is also a problem of consistency of the treatment itself across cities and treatment staff. That may interact, in turn, with the accumulation of risk factors. Some treatment staff or clinics may have greater capacity or experience to deal with concentrated risk factors than others.
Resolving the interaction of risk level with treatment effectiveness requires systematic attention and costly cross-site scientific designs. Planned variations in staff capacity, neighborhood social factors and family variables must be structured into the research design. Controlled experimentation with treatments across sites, as distinct from comparing naturally occurring variation in local treatment capacity, is required to bring a scientific methods score up to level 4 or 5. There is little precedent for this kind of research. But without it there will remain major limitations in generalizing from single-site experiments.
Measuring Crime in the Family
The issues of privacy and retaliation in measuring crimes within families pose a great challenge for research. Continuing disagreements about the interpretation of existing measures have afflicted even the strongest of research designs (Fagan, 1996). The central problems are low completion rates of personal interviews with victims of family crimes who have been treated, low or inconsistent reporting rates of subsequent crimes to police, and unwillingness to disclose crimes committed in the family during interviews in the home while other family members are present (NCVS study).
In several sites of the NIJ spouse assault replication project (SARP), for example, there are different results found from victim interviews and official reports to police. While victim interview data showed that arrested offenders had committed fewer repeat offenses than offenders randomly assigned to a warning, the official data showed the opposite (Dunford, et al, 1990; Berk et al, 1992). In other cities the victim data showed no effect of arrest while the official data showed some evidence of a backfiring effect (Hirschel, et al, 1990; Sherman, et al, 1991). But a major difference between these data was the completion level: official data covered 100% of the sample while the victim interview rates were as low as 23%, and averaged 41% in sites reporting a deterrent effect from victim interviews. Thus the effects of arrest may have interacted with victim willingness to be interviewed, biasing the sample towards victims who had enjoyed a protective effect from arrest.
The measurement theory challenging official data on family violence is that experimentally assigned criminal sanctions may encourage victims to call police more readily, whereas experimentally assigned warnings may discourage victims from calling police. Thus the higher rates of reported reoffending with the arrested subjects is arguably due to a measurement artifact. This theory does not explain why there are fewer repeat offenses reported about employed offenders randomly assigned to arrest compared to those assigned to a warning, and why the measurement artifact would only apply to unemployed offenders. A further theory could suggest that partners of employed males are less likely to call police than partners or unemployed males after an arrest has been made for fear of the employed batterer's losing his job. But none of these theories have been tested directly.
Possible solutions to these problems may lie in focusing scarce resources on prevention and measurement of injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms. Hospital cooperation with data collection on an anonymous basis could then provide more reliable measures of domestic violence (Sherman and Strang, 1996), although even then questions will remain.
PREVENTION AT HOME
Perhaps the most promising results in all areas of crime prevention are found in the evaluations of home visitation programs. While these programs are often combined with other institutional elements, such as preschool, there is a large and almost uniformly positive body of findings on this practice. Other prevention programs delivered in the home context, such as personal alarms for domestic violence victims and family preservation services, have been subject to far less research. These programs, however, generally operate on an indicated basis after crime problems have developed rather than on the selective basis of the home visitation programs. Combining these two findings may suggest even more reason for testing universal home-based prevention programs, to see if possible benefits of child-centered programs may be extended to family crimes involving adults.
Home Visitation Programs
Home visitation varies enormously in dosage levels, content, skill, and context. Yet there are common effects reported across all these variations. These common effects may be linked to a common core of treatment content, for which dosage levels may matter more than other dimensions. The common core of home visitation is a visitor who cares about child-raising sitting down in a home with a parent and a child. Visitors can be nurses, social workers, preschool teachers, psychologists or paraprofessionals. They can provide cognitive information, emotional support, or both. They can actively teach parents, with hands on the children. Or they can passively watch and listen, merely giving parents a good listening to. They can be trained in health (like nurses), human development (like psychologists and social workers), cognitive and social skills instruction (like preschool teachers) or some mixture of these subjects (like paraprofessionals). They can be experienced or novice, enthusiastic or burned out, assertive or hesitant. But no matter who they are or what they do, they provide a bridge between the parent, usually a mother, and the outside world.
Figure 2 summarizes the results of 18 different evaluations of programs that included a home visitation component. The Figure and this discussion draws primarily on the material in Yoshikawa's (1994) review, as well as Tremblay and Craig's (1995) and the draft OJJDP review prepared by Wasserman and Miller (forthcoming). Based on the limited information provided in the secondary reviews, the primary studies appear to merit level 4 to 5 scientific methods scores by the standards of this report, although some might drop to a 3 if they suffer large attrition problems. All of them show positive effects of home visits on either some measure of crime by children when they enter adolescence (N = 2 experiments), child abuse during or shortly after the period of home visits (N = 5 experiments), or risk factors for delinquency (N = 10 experiments, 1 meta analysis). While the meta-analysis of Head Start evaluations (McKey, et al, 1985) shows that the measured effects wear off, that analysis includes the lowest dosage of home visits of any of the experiments: as few as two per year. In contrast, the substantial reductions in later delinquency in the two long-term followup studies are associated with weekly home visits for periods up to five years.
Evaluations of Home Visitation Programs
(All studies ranked Level 4 or 5 on Scientific Methods Score)
(Secondary Review Sources: Yoshikawa, 1994 unless otherwise indicated; Tremblay & Craig, 1995; Wasserman & Miller, Forthcoming)
Primary Source Effects N of Visits, Visitors, Other Age of (Secondary Time Visited Service Child source if not Yoshikawa) EFFECTS ON CRIME 1)Berrueta-Clement Lower adult Weekly, 2-3 Teachers, High Pre- 3-5 yrs et al 1984 arrests by age years, 30 weeks risk school; High/Scope Perry 24 Exp= 7% per yr African-American Parent Preschool Control = 31% children & their Groups ( N = 121) (60 to 90 mothers visits) 2) Lally, et al Lower arrests by Weekly, 5 years Paraprofs, Low Pre-scho 0-5 1987 age 15 income, mostly ol; Syracuse Exp = 6% African-American pre-nata University Control = 22% children & their l Family (N = 119) (260 visits) mothers Development Research Program 3) Olds, et, al, Lower Child Bi-weekly over Nurses, first Doctor 0-2 1986, 1988 Abuse by age 2 122 weeks from born infants of Visits University of Exp = 19% late pregnancy high-risk low Rochester Control = 4% income white Prenatal/Early (N = 300) (up to 60 mothers Infancy Project visits) 4) Barth, Lower child Bi-weekly over Paraprof, Taught 0-6 mos Hacking & Ash abuse removals 26 weeks after children of Parent 1988 from home of birth mothers at risk Skills exps. for abusing them (N = 50) (12 visits) 5) Gray, et al, Fewer Injuries Weekly over an Nurses, children Doctor 0-2.5 1979 of Experimentals average of 130 and high risk visits yrs (N = 50) weeks mothers (130 visits) 6) Infant Health Less child abuse ? 3 years ? , High risk pre- 0-3 yrs Program & neglect children school (Tremblay & of experimentals Craig) (N = 985) 7) Larson 1980 Fewer Injuries 10 visits, most BA Psychologist, -- 0- 15 Montreal Home of Experimentals effect from 1 in infants of mos. Visitation Study (N = 95) pregnancy, 9 Canadian mothers (Wasserman & over 15 mos. in Montreal Miller) EFFECTS ON CRIME Effects N of Visits, Visitors, Other Age of RISK FACTORS Time Visited Service Child 8) Seitz, et al Less anti-social Mean = 28 visits nurse, social Doctor 0-2.5 1982 behavior in over 2.5 years worker or Visits years Yale Child school at age 10 psychologist, Welfare Project by exp boys low ses (N = 30) first-borns and mothers 9) Johnson & Less anti-social 25 visits first Paraprofessional, Pre- 1-3 YRS Walker 1987 behavior in year of life for school Houston school at age 10 experimentals Low ses only and Parent-Child by exp children children of parent Development (N = 113) Mexican-American Center families classes 2d YR 10) Wasik et al Higher cognitive Biweekly from Teachers and see 0-5 mos 1990 scores up to 54 0-3; monthly 4-5 paraprofs, column Project Care mos. with Home months of age infants of low 2 visits + ses parents cognitive day care than with only home visits (N = 62) 11) Achenbach et Experimental 11 home visits, Reg. Nurse, Low None 0-3 mos al 1990 children had 0-3 mos Birth weight Vermont greater children Intervention cognitive skills Project by age 7 (N = 56) 12) McKey et al Head Start Varies, minimum Preschool Pre 3-4 yrs 1985 Meta-analysis 2 visits per teachers; school shows effects year children of wear off families in (N= 26 studies) poverty 13) Gutelius et Experimental Yr 1=18+ visits Nurses, first None pre-natal al 1977 children higher Yr 2=12+ visits children of to 3 on cognitive Yr 3= 8+ visits unmarried years scores to 3 yrs. mothers (N = 95) 14) Barrera et Experimental Weekly 0-4 mos Paraprof, None 0-1 Yr al 1986 mothers more Biweekly 5-9 Mothers of LBW responsive to mos infants age 1 LBW child Monthly 10-12 (N = 83) mos 15) Ross 1984 Mothers more Biweekly 0-3 Nurses, low ses None 0-1 Yr responsive, mos families with children better Monthly 4-12 LBW infants cognition age 1 mos (N = 80) 16) Jacobson & Exp. Mothers and Monthly in Paraprof, None Pre-natal Frye 1991 Infants more pregnancy firstborn to attached at age Weekly 0-2 mos children of 1 Yr 1 Monthly 3-12 low-ses mothers (N = 46) mos 17) Lieberman et Exp. children Weekly (52) Social Worker None 1-2 al 1991 less anxious at (MA, MSW), low years age 2 ses anxious and (N = 93) secure Hispanic children 18) Lyons-Ruth Exp. mothers and Weekly from Paraprof and MA None 9-18 mos et al 1990 infants more intake at 0-9 level; children attached at 18 mos up to of high risk mos completion at mothers (N = 76) 18 mos
While the two long-term experiments both included preschool programs (also called "day care" in some studies), positive effects were found in 11 of the experiments from home visitation without preschool. Some of the home visitations included doctor's office visits or some other contexts for instruction and observation outside the home, but most did not. None of the five experiments showing that home visitation reduced child abuse included involvement in preschool.
The consistent finding of beneficial effects of home visits without preschool is important for several reasons. One reason is theoretical: it shows that the visits are not simply a spurious correlate of the effects of preschool programs on both the children and their mothers, who in some studies are heavily involved in the preschool programs and who show beneficial effects themselves in reduced welfare support and longer time between pregnancies. The fact that one trial (Wasik, et al, 1990) found stronger effects from home visits with cognitively oriented day care than from home visits to comparison families (of which over half were in some other kind of day care) does not contradict the independent effects of home visits. Yoshikawa (1994) and others have concluded that home visits are likely to be more effective in combination with early education, but the empirical evidence may be still too preliminary to reach a conclusion either way.
Even if home visits were more effective in combination with other prevention efforts, the evidence of their independent effect has practical implications. The Hawaii state Healthy Start program, for example (U.S. Advisory Board, 1995: 129), which reaches over half of all Hawaiian newborns, operates on a $7 million annual budget as a home visit program only. The evidence reviewed in Figure 2 suggests that the Hawaiian program is likely to be effective at reducing child abuse, as would federal funding of home visit programs nationally. Whether they would be effective at preventing delinquency or serious crime in later life by the children visited cannot be determined without longer-term studies. Child abuse and neglect is a risk factor for delinquency, however, associated in one prospective study with a 50 percent increase in prevalence and a 100% increase in frequency of adolescent arrests (Widom, 1989). Thus if the results of the home visitation experiments can be generalized to other settings, they could clearly reduce a delinquency risk factor.
The effect sizes in these evaluations are particularly impressive. Both of the long-term delinquency prevention effects are on the magnitude of a relative reduction of three-quarters less prevalence of official criminal histories. Similarly, the Rochester University study found a 79% relative reduction (4% compared to 19%) in child abuse. It is unlikely that an effect of this magnitude could be replicated nationally across all child abuse cases because the same effect size is not observed in low-risk as in high risk families. Such large effects are also unlikely to persist beyond the first two years of life. But applying the effect size to the estimated 675,000 physical child abuse cases annually would reduce that number to 142,000, or prevent 533,000 serious crimes (Reiss and Roth, 1993: 228). If the 1 million neglect cases are included as well, then an additional 800,000 serious crimes might be prevented by home nurse visitation. Perhaps the most immediate question in advancing the capacity to generalize from controlled trials to national effects is the generalizability of the Rochester University results from a rural white upstate New York sample. A long-term trial of a similar approach among 1,100 African-American families in Memphis (National Research Council, 1993: 172) may soon report crucial results on this point.
Foster Care and Family Preservation
Families in which child abuse is proven pose a major dilemma between family preservation and prevention of recidivism. The many documented deaths and injuries of children after prior reports of abuse underline the seriousness of the dilemma. But the potential benefits of keeping thousands of families together must be weighed against the cost. The current state of the evaluation science of these two alternatives does not allow precise estimation of the costs and benefits. But a recent review of the evidence by a National Academy of Sciences panel finds that the larger problems is not the choice between family preservation and foster care. The problem is that in so many cases neither course is taken.
The review found a national survey showing that more than one-third of confirmed cases of child maltreatment received no therapeutic or support services (McCurdy and Daro, 1993, as cited in National Research Council, 1993: 268). This result occurs after 50 percent of the reported cases of maltreatment are found unsubstantiated, and the child protective services agency is required to decide whether children can remain safe in the home during treatment of the family. The officials making these decisions are often understaffed, with poor training and high turnover. In 1991 in New York City, for example, 77 percent of the workers investigating child abuse reports transferred to other agencies, resigned or were laid off (Dugger, 1992, as cited in National Research Council, 1993: 268).
When children are placed in foster care due to abuse, it is not clear what their risks of further abuse become. Few studies of abuse rates of the estimated 200,000 children placed in foster care each year distinguish between abuse of the estimated 50% of children who were maltreated before going into foster care and the other half who were not (Tatara, 1989, 1992, as cited in National Research Council, 1993: 271). Studies comparing rates of abuse in foster care to other settings are methodologically weak. One study almost two decades old did find that reported abuse by all foster parents is lower than that by the general population, and much lower than rates of re-abuse by abusive parents (Bolton, et al, 1981, as cited in National Research Council, 1993: 230). But even if foster care creates a protective factor against further abuse, many cities report major shortages in the availability of foster parents relative to the numbers of children judged to need it (Kammerman and Kahn, 1989, as cited in National Research Council, 1993: 271).
When children are left in their family homes after documented maltreatment, they may or may not be at higher risk of further abuse and later delinquency. A review of four major federally funded studies of the effectiveness of treatment across 3,253 families with abuse and neglect problems found that even early and costly services are "not very successful" (Cohn and Daro, 1987, as cited in National Research Council, 1993: 255). Yet the scientific literature in this area is characterized by many of the limitations of general concern in this report (National Research Council, 1993: 254):
the research generally does not include controlled experiments, has limited sample size, uses questionable measures to assess performance, and common assessment strategies have not been used across different interventions, making it difficult to know what works for whom.
The scientific methods used to evaluate family preservation programs have been stronger, but the results have been no more encouraging than for standard in-home treatment. Family preservation are often intense (20 to 30 hours per week), brief (often 6 weeks) programs designed to prevent foster care placement through a variety of strategies. These include strengthening family bonds, improving family skills, and providing stability in crisis situations. Rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental designs evaluating these programs show equivocal results, both on prevention of outplacement and longer-term outcome measures (National Research Council, 1993: 264-65). The studies have not yet disaggregated the problem by different kinds of family problems, which could produce different results. The National Research Council Panel on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded that these programs are of unknown effectiveness. But the strategy remains popular because of its significant costs savings, an estimated $27,000 in tax dollars for each outplacement prevented. No estimate of the risks of death and injury associated with that cost saving are available.
Domestic Violence Alarms and Visitation
Two home-based strategies for secondary prevention of domestic violence have shown increasing use over the past decade. Personal radio alarms are indicated for extremely serious cases, while home visitation has been employed as a followup strategy after police response to a domestic disturbance call.
The personal alarm is usually a small panic button worn as a necklace. Pressing the button directly activates a message at police headquarters to dispatch a police car on an urgent basis to the home of the wearer, who uses it to signal that a batterer is on the premises (Sherman, 1992: 242; Farrell, 1995: 518-19). While the system is expensive to maintain, it can be allocated rationally based upon known risk factors. Police serving the Liverpool, England area rotate the available alarms across the most recent and highest-risk victims of serious attacks, based on their finding that repeat attacks were most likely to occur within thirty days after the last attack. This finding of highest risk of repeat victimization in the first 24 hours and first 30 days after the last incident has been replicated in a sample of 40,000 cases in an around Melbourne, Australia (Strang and Sherman, 1996), and is an important basic research finding of indirect evidence in support of the use of personal alarms. Unfortunately, the many documented cases of domestic homicide of women who had been issued alarms shows that the system is not foolproof. While it seems unlikely to increase the risk of attack, there is no impact evaluation presently available to address the question of whether alarms are safe and effective.
The strategy of home visitation after a police contact for domestic violence or disturbances also focuses on the high-risk time period in the immediate aftermath of a police response to a domestic disturbance in the home. The strategy has been evaluated in three tests using strong scientific methods. An NIJ-funded Dade County (Florida) police experiment in the late 1980s randomly assigned four responses to misdemeanor assault cases in which there was legally sufficient evidence to make an arrest: arrest, warning, arrest with followup visitation, and warning with followup visitation. The design was thus two separate controlled tests of followup visitation by police, one test following an arrest and one test following a warning (Pate, et al, 1991). The home visits consisted of a police detective reviewing the family's history of domestic violence problems, their legal options, and social service agencies to which the detective could refer them for further assistance. The visit was a one-time treatment, with no attempt to provide a theoretically based psychological treatment. The very rigorous test of the strategy found no effects of home visits on several diverse measures of repeat domestic violence over a six-month followup period, including police offense reports, arrest reports, and victim interviews, analyzed by prevalence, frequency, and time to failure. The results were the same for visits after an arrest and visits after a warning.
A second controlled experiment included both arrest cases (21%) and non-arrest cases (79%) in the same sample randomly assigned to receive home visitation (or not) by two person police-social worker teams (Davis and Taylor, forthcoming). The home visits were observed by researchers as lasting from ten to thirty minutes, depending on the victim's receptiveness and whether the batterer was present. The team tried to educate the victim, and the batterer if present, about the seriousness of domestic violence and encourage the family to seek change through the courts or other services. Specific information was provided about how to go to court for restraining orders, and to social services including battered women's shelters, substance abuse treatment, relocation to another address, and home security. No difference in repeat violence between experimentals and controls were reported in victim interviews (response rate = 72%), but homes assigned to the experimental group generated twice as many domestic calls to police. The authors interpret this as evidence that visitation increases reporting but not violence; an alternative interpretation (untested in the analysis) is that visitation increased repeat calls, with the homes with no victim interviews accounting for a substantial portion of the total increase in the experimental group.
However the data are interpreted, there are now three strong tests of the police home visits strategy for preventing domestic violence. All three of the tests falsify the hypothesis that this strategy is effective.
Effects on Domestic Violence of Proactive Home Visitation after Reactive Police Contacts
Study Scientific Home Visitation Results Providers Methods Score Pate et al 1991 5 Police Detectives Visits after a warning had no effect on repeat violence (N= 447) over a 6 month followup period as reported by victim interviews or documented in official records Pate et al 1991 5 Police Detectives Visits after an arrest had no effect on repeat violence (N= 442) over a 6 month followup period as reported by victim interviews or documented in official records Davis and Taylor 5 Police-social Visits in domestic violence forthcoming worker teams public housing "hot spots" had no effect over a six (N= 436) month followup period on repeat violence reported by victims; calls to police about domestic incidents from experimental group almost twice as high as from control homes
PREVENTION LINKS BETWEEN PARENTS AND PRESCHOOL OR SCHOOL
Outside the home, the preschool and the school provide major opportunities for family-based crime prevention. Many of the prevention effects associated with early infancy home visits are impossible to separate from the simultaneous provision of a strong linkage between parents and preschool. As children age, the school takes over more of the child's day (see Chapter Five), but many schools continue to seek parental involvement in reducing a child's behavioral risk factors for delinquency. Without duplicating the coverage of school-based prevention in the next chapter, this section explores the evidence on family-based prevention delivered through school settings.
Developmentally, the family-school linkage can begin as early as infants are left in educationally enriched day care for even part of the day. For children whose parent or parents are employed, the availability of such care can be a crucial factor allowing the parents to work. For children who have at least one parent out of the labor force, the link to day care or preschool can be an important means of helping that parent find work. The daily structure of commuting to a child care center, and of spending part of each day or week there, can help establish patterns essential for participation in mainstream society. Effects of maternal participation in preschool in studies reviewed by Yoshikawa (1994) included increased employment, reduced welfare dependency, and increased time between giving birth. To the extent that these effects were also linked to home visitation, however, the greatest certainty about generalizing from these results lies in framing them as a combined preschool-home visitation effect.
School setting programs for parent training and family-based prevention with older children also combine several different treatments. The recent review by Tremblay and Craig shows generally positive effects of these programs on delinquency or, more often, risk factors for delinquency with indicated or selective samples. Many of the evaluations suffer from small samples, short (or no) followup periods, and other methodological weaknesses. But the consistency of the results suggests that school-family outreach to train parents of problem children could be an effective means of preventing delinquency in certain kinds of areas.
Children at Risk. Unfortunately, the results of the moderately strong evidence in Figure 4-4 were not confirmed by a very strong test of a very expensive program linking schools and families of very high-risk youth to a wide range of services in very high risk neighborhoods. The Urban Institute's four-year NIJ-funded evaluation of the Children at Risk program in Austin (TX),
Effects of Parent Training in School Settings
(Secondary Review Source: Tremblay and Craig, 1995; Scientific Methods Not Scored)
Primary Source Type Sample Treatments Effects Tremblay et al 1994 Indicated 160 boys 2 Years of 6-Year Followup aged 7 parent showed lower years at training, self-reported outset social (ES= .25) and skills official (ES = training .07) delinquency, better school adjustment Hawkins et al 1992 Universal 1,659 boys 4 years of 5 month followup and girls training of showed lower aged 6 at parents, self-reported outset teachers, delinquency (ES= students .16), better parenting, attachment to family & school Pepler et al 1991 Indicated 40 boys & 12 weeks of 3 month followup girls aged parent and showed better 8 years student control over some training disruptive behaviors, not others Horn et al 1990 Indicated 42 boys & 12 weeks of 8 month followup girls aged parent showed better 7 to 11 training social control, years and child less self-control hyperactivity and therapy conduct problems Kolvin et al 1981 Selective 574 3 to 15 20 to 32 month Children months of followup showed age 7 years parent less anti-social counseling, behavior and group neurotic problems therapy
Bridgeport (Conn), Memphis, Savannah and Seattle was a randomized trial with 671 experimentals and controls, plus 203 youth in comparison neighborhoods (Harrell, 1996). Eligible subjects were referred to the program between ages 11 and 13 while attending 6th or 7th grade at the middle school in the study neighborhood in each city, where they were required to live. Referrals from school, police or courts were based on indicators of at least three school risk factors (such as truancy), one family risk factor (such as parental violence), or one personal risk indicator (such as prior arrests or gang membership). Service protocols were locally determined in each site, including some help from each of the following services: social work, family services, tutoring or educational services, recreational after-school and summer programs, mentoring, gifts and special events, community policing and juvenile courts. Half the sample was African-American and one third was Hispanic. Funding from private and DOJ sources for the program cost between $11 and 20 million.
The preliminary findings from the evaluation so far have shown that these intensive and expensive interventions combined had virtually no effect. The findings are based on self-reported behavior by the experimental and control adolescents, with a 75% response rate after four years from the original randomly assigned sample. No differences were detected in attrition patterns by treatment group, which gives the analysis a scientific methods score = 5. The interviews show no difference within the high-risk areas between experimentals and controls on self-reported delinquency, drug use in the past month or entire lifetime, or sexual activity. A small difference in weapon carrying favored the treatment group. Further analyses still to be reported include officially measured crime and delinquency from police and court records, which will cover 100% of the experimental sample and not just the survey respondents (Harrell, 1996). Thus the conclusions could change. Even with the best possible results from official data, however, further findings on the effectiveness of services costing about $35,000 per child will be unable to provide clear evidence of effective crime prevention.
The CAR findings from self-reported delinquency do not provide much guidance on how to prevent crime effectively in the places where prevention is needed the most. But the negative findings may not generalize to lower-risk families, adolescents, schools or neighborhoods. Figure 4-3 suggests that multi-treatment school outreach to parents might be effective with other samples. Similar results suggest the same about family therapy clinics working with families of children showing risk factors, either in the clinical setting or with the clinicians working with families in the home.
PREVENTION IN CLINICS
One key factor in the Children at Risk evaluation may have been the low parental involvement with the adolescent (Harrell, personal communication, 1996). Where parents can be successfully engaged in the question of how to raise their children more effectively, the results may be more encouraging. Figure 4-5 summarizes Tremblay and Craig's review of twelve evaluations of family therapy. Only one of these has a delinquency measure, but that one finds a prevention effect of moderate effect size. The other studies, while weaker, consistently report reductions in risk factors associated with family therapy by clinics.
Effects of Family Therapy Interventions By Clinical Staff
(Secondary Review Source: Tremblay and Craig, 1995; Scientific Methods Not Scored)
Primary Source Type Sample Treatment Effects Therapy Delivered in Clinics Kazdin et al 1992 Indicated 97 boys & 6 to 8 1-Year Followup girls months of showed lower around 10 cognitive-be self-reported years old havioral delinquency (ES= at outset parent .25), anti-social training behavior and parental stress Dishion et al 1992 Selective 58 boys and 12 weeks of During treatment 61 girls parent child's aged 10 to training, Anti-social 14 at self-regulat conduct and outset ion parent's negative discipline declined; home conduct worse Yu et al 1986 Indicated 35 boys 20 weeks of During treatment aged 7 to parent and boys improved on 12 years student problem-solving, training in externalizing and problem-solv social competence ing Horn et al 1990 Indicated 42 boys & 12 weeks of 8 month followup girls aged parent showed better 7 to 11 training social control, years and child less self-control hyperactivity and therapy conduct problems Kolvin et al 1981 Selective 574 3 to 15 20 to 32 month Children months of followup showed age 7 years parent less anti-social counseling, behavior and group neurotic problems therapy Clinical Therapy Delivered at Home McNeil et al 1991 Indicated 30 children 14 weeks less aggression & X = 4.9 parent opposition by years old training children during treatment Packard et al 1983 Indicated 34 2 weeks of 11 week followup mother-child parent showed less pairs, training problem behavior child age X = 4.3 Shure & Spivak 1979 Indicated 10 boys, 10 3 months of Less impulsivity, girls age Social better X = 4.3 problem-solv problem-solving ing and during treatment parent training Webster-Stratton et Indicated 171 fathers 4 months of 3 year followup al 1988, 1990 & mothers parent showed better of children training parenting, less aged child X = 4.5 hyperactivity Strain et al 1982 Indicated 40 boys & 17 weeks 3 to 9 year girls aged child & followup showed 3 to 5 parent less oppositional training behavior and more compliance Dadds et al 1987 Indicated 24 families 6 weeks of 6 month followup with parent showed less children training, oppositional, aged problem-solv more compliance X = 4.2 ing behaviors by children Strayhorn and Selective 84 children 5 months 1 year followup Weidman 1991 aged X = parent shows better 3.7 years training parenting, less hyperactivity, no effect on hostility
A recent analysis by Kumpfer (forthcoming) also shows beneficial effects of parent training in "clinics" more broadly defined, including recreation rooms of public housing and other apartment complexes. Kumpfer's work attends to the practical issues of incentives and transportation in obtaining high parental attendance rates at training sessions focused on prevention of substance abuse by both parents and children; when such issues are properly addressed, she even finds high attendance rates in high-risk areas.
PREVENTION IN COURT
When prevention practices in all other settings fail, families often rely on the criminal justice system to stop the crime. This is especially true for problems of family violence. Compared to what is known about human development and developmental crime prevention, however, the science of domestic violence has little knowledge to offer for effective policymaking. But the opportunities for advancing evaluations of legal efforts at violence prevention are great, once the limitations of the current state of knowledge are fully understood.
The basic science of domestic violence and the law offers several well-known facts (Crowell and Burgess, 1996): domestic violence is widespread and highly under-reported to authorities. When police are called, they find no evidence of actual physical violence in over half of all "domestic" calls, and make no arrests in the majority of cases where such evidence is available. The vast majority of arrests that are made are for misdemeanor assaults with limited evidence of injury, for which prosecutors drop charges in the majority of the cases (Sherman, 1992). While the suspect is gone from the scene when police arrive in 40% of the cases in which police do have sufficient evidence to arrest, few courts or police agencies bother to issue arrest warrants unless the victim requests one by making a burdensome trip to court. Rising arrest rates for simple assault in the early 1990s has placed even more workload pressure on courts and prosecutors, for which there is some evidence that the odds of prosecution per arrest will decline. Odds of conviction per arrest for misdemeanor domestic assault are as low as 1 percent, with odds of incarceration per arrest as low as zero per 400 cases (Sherman, 1992: 337).
The prevention program often recommended in response to these facts of under-enforcement of the law is full, or fuller, enforcement. The premise of this policy is two-fold, both moral and empirical. The moral premise is that full enforcement is the proper response to all crimes, from drug possession to homicide, even though there is ample evidence that under-enforcement of the law by 50 percent or more cuts across both felonies and misdemeanors of almost all kinds (Reiss, 1971; Black, 1980; Smith and Visher, 1981). From this perspective, the crime prevention effects of fuller enforcement are not dispositive.
Fuller enforcement is also claimed, however, to have preventive effects. The empirical premise is that increasing certainty and severity of punishment will create either general or specific deterrence of domestic violence. "General" deterrence refers to prevention of crimes by people in the community generally regardless of whether they have been caught and punished for a crime. "Specific" deterrence denotes the preventive effects of punishment on people who have been caught. Both hypotheses are widely accepted as true by legislators, but hotly debated by evaluation scientists (Zimring and Hawkins, 1973; Blumstein, et al, 1978).
Rigorous scientific impact evaluation evidence is unavailable about most of the criminal law strategies for preventing domestic violence (Crowell and Burgess, 1996; Fagan, 1996). Police have been the component of the legal system most willing to engage in rigorous impact evaluations. Other agencies of the criminal justice system have repeatedly refused to allow careful testing of their effectiveness; prosecutors in Milwaukee and judges in Minneapolis are just two examples over the past decade. As a result, a great deal is known about the effects of one police decision, while little is known about most other criminal justice practices.
The National Institute of Justice has pioneered in supporting rigorous tests of domestic violence responses. This include the six offender-present and one offender-absent experiment in arrests for misdemeanor domestic assault (Scientific Methods Score = 5), reviewed in Chapter Eight. These studies find no consistent support for the specific deterrent hypothesis, in the general absence of any referrals, prosecutions or convictions after an arrest; they do find arrest is effective for employed offenders (Sherman, 1992) and absent offenders for whom police issue a warrant (Dunford, 1991). A frequent conclusion from these findings is that arrest must have followup actions in order to be effective. That hypothesis, however, remains untested. So does the general deterrence hypothesis that mandatory arrest in a city will prevent domestic violence city-wide. The hypothesis that allowing victims to decide whether or not an arrested batterer should be prosecuted will prevent violence, however, has also been tested by an NIJ-funded controlled experiment (Scientific Methods = 5). The Indianapolis Domestic Violence Prosecution Experiment (Ford, 1993) randomly assigned cases in the prosecutor's office to a policy of either "no-drop" or victim decision. The victim decision policy produced a lower repeat violence rate, also falsifying the hypothesis that full enforcement offers greater prevention.
The hypothesis that mandatory referral of arrested batterers to counseling or therapy will help prevent repeat violence has also been tested with NIJ support, although with weaker scientific methods than the evaluations described above. This test provides moderately strong evidence of a negative effect. Harrell (1991) found in a matched comparison of arrested batterers referred to court ordered treatment and those not referred to treatment that the treated group had higher repeat violence rates. Crowell and Burgess (1996: 122), however, cite several weaker studies that find the opposite conclusion. The strongest design appears to be Goldkamp's (1996) evaluation of the Dade County Domestic Violence Court program combining substance abuse treatment with domestic violence counseling, a randomized experiment not yet reported with significance tests or other statistics (SMS = 3); preliminary results suggest a reduction in same-victim domestic violence by offenders in the combined treatment, compared to offenders given only one or the other treatment approaches. The effects of court-ordered treatment seem likely to vary widely by the specific approach to treatment, the skills of the individual therapists, the background of the batterers, and other factors making it difficult to generalize from a few weak evaluation designs (Fagan and Browne, 1993).
Most domestic violence evaluations have been focused on noninjurious violence, and very little is known about the prediction or prevention of serious injury. One of the major practices to be evaluated is the effectiveness of court orders of protection. According to an NIJ-funded study by the National Center for State Courts (1996) in Wilmington, Denver and the District of Columbia, women who seek orders of protection suffer very high rates of serious injury prior to obtaining the order. According to a matched control evaluation of women granted orders in Denver and Boulder, the one-year recidivism rates are lower against women who obtain the orders (Harrell, et al, 1993), thus supporting the full enforcement deterrence hypothesis. In the absence of any other reported impact evaluations of restraining orders, this level three study makes the use of such orders at least "promising."
PREVENTION IN OTHER SETTINGS
The effects of practices in other settings on families and their crime risks may be quite substantial. Churches, employers, landlords and neighbors may all play roles that are not yet well understood. This section addresses only a few of the other settings affecting families: battered women's shelters, hospitals, and gun shops.
Battered Women's Shelters. The number of battered women's shelters in the US was recently estimated at 1,200 (Plichta, 1995, cited in Crowell and Burgess, 1996: 101). These shelters, and 600 other related programs, offer a wide array of services to families and women suffering intimate violence. The core of a shelter's service, however, is providing a safe haven during the high risk period in the immediate aftermath of a domestic violence incident (Farrell, 1995; Strang and Sherman, 1996). There is evidence that current levels of this service are insufficient to meet the demand; an estimated 300 women and children per week were turned away from New York City shelters in March of 1995 due to lack of space (O'Sullivan et al, 1995, as cited in Crowell and Burgess, 1996: 102).
Whether shelters actually reduce violence against women is an important question for evaluation. The logical basis for predicting that result is the reduction of risk after the passage of time with the offender unable to gain access to the victim. Berk et al (1986), however, found quasiexperimental (Scientific Methods Score = 4) evidence that unless the shelter clients took other steps to seek help beyond staying in the shelter, their rates of repeat violence after leaving the shelter were actually higher than a similar group who had not gone to a shelter. Among women who did take additional steps, however, the shelter stay had a measured protection effect against repeat violence lasting about 6 weeks. The relatively small sample size (N = 155) and Santa Barbara (CA) site for this analysis (N = 155) may limit the generalizability of the findings, but the results suggest the clear need for impact evaluations of all crime prevention programs.
Hospitals. Little is known about the identification and reporting of family violence in hospitals. A recent NIJ grant to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority will examine the possible data collection opportunities in hospital emergency rooms, which could lead to operational indicators as well as research findings. A clear interpretation of the number domestic violence cases reported to police is impossible as long as increased reports might reflect growing confidence in the police, rather than more violence in the home (Davis and Taylor, forthcoming; Sherman and Strang, 1996). Hospital measures over time may provide a community with its most reliable indicator of progress or decline in the effectiveness of its efforts to deal with the problem.
Gun Shops also play a crucial role in family violence, and most of some 2,000 domestic homicides a year. The 1996 Lautenberg Act imposed a federal ban on gun ownership among persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. We may estimate the likely effect of implementing this law by noting that an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 persons are convicted annually of domestic violence misdemeanors.2 Moreover, the risk of a domestic homicide is approximately eight times higher among people who have had police encounters for misdemeanor offenses than among people who have not in Milwaukee, and 18 times higher in Victoria (Melbourne), Australia (Strang and Sherman, 1996). While this risk is nonetheless a very low 1 in 33,000 person-years, it still amounts to 5 murders per year among people newly convicted of domestic violence. If the prior convictions were included for 20 years, that could amount to 100 murders per year committed by persons previously convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. How many of those murders would be prevented by the Lautenberg law is impossible to predict. But the indirect evidence on risk factors suggests that the law does address a major risk factor for serious domestic injury and death.
CONCLUSIONS: WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T, WHAT'S PROMISING
This section discusses the following conclusions, and their research and policy implications:
o Long-term frequent home visitation combined with preschool prevents later delinquency
o Infant weekly home visitation reduces child abuse and injuries
o Family Therapy by clinical staff for delinquent and pre-delinquent youth
o Home visits by police after domestic violence incidents fails to reduce repeat violence
o Battered women's shelters for women who take other steps to change their lives
o Orders of Protection for battered women
The Effectiveness of DOJ-Funded Local Prevention Programs
Over the last three decades, the Congress has left family-based crime prevention largely in the hands of other federal agencies besides the Department of Justice (DOJ). This began to change with the rising concern over domestic violence in the 1980s.3 The passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as Title IV of the 1994 Crime Act was a major increase in the role of DOJ in the family (although the VAWA also addresses crimes committed by strangers). Most recently, the Office of Justice Programs has identified infant home visitation as an important strategy to include in comprehensive community prevention programs such as Weed and Seed and various OJJDP initiatives. The evidence suggests that DOJ's increasing responsibility for national crime rates logically draws it to the major risk factors for crime, which must clearly include the family.
In what may be a period of transition towards more explicit focus on family-based prevention, Congress has created a number of funding programs that offer opportunities to develop that role. These may be divided into developmental and family violence prevention. The developmental programs are funded primarily by OJJDP and the Executive Office of Weed and Seed with discretionary funds, while the family violence funding is concentrated in the Violence Against Women Grants Office.
Safe Kids, Safe Streets (OJJDP, with VAWGO and EOWS). This funding program will provide about $1.4 million per year for five years to each of six communities. Informed by much of the research reviewed in this chapter, the program is specifically aimed at prevention of child abuse and neglect and related risk factors for delinquency. The strategies supported by the program include family strengthening, mental health services and treatment. A national process evaluation is underway to determine exactly what strategies each site selects, and a national impact evaluation is planned for future years.4 To the extent that the local grantees elect to employ approaches to family based prevention reviewed in this chapter, there is evidence that the funding can be effective in preventing crime. To the extent that the local grantees focus on the highest risk pre-adolescents in the highest-risk neighborhoods, however, the preliminary results from the Children at Risk Program may indicate that the state of the prevention art is not yet up to such a sever challenge (Harrell, 1996).
Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). This program distributed $20 million in FY 1995 for local programs encouraged to adopt the Communities That Care model (Hawkins, et al, 1992). The program was initially developed and field tested by OJJDP in the early 1980s, and has established a substantial record of evaluation results. The CTC model recommends consideration of parent training as well as family therapy for high-risk adolescents and early childhood home-based and center-based strategies. This review finds all those approaches can be effective.5
Operation Weed and Seed (EOWS). This program is currently planning to conduct a field test of the Rochester University model of early infancy home nurse visitation. The location of such a test within Weed and Seed neighborhoods would provide an excellent replication of the original Elmira study. Results from the Memphis replication currently underway could also inform the Weed and Seed approach to this model, which has such strong evidence of reducing child abuse among high-risk rural white families.
Congressional Action on Universal Home Visitation. The evidence reviewed in this chapter suggests that substantial crime prevention effects could be obtained from greater federal investment in early infancy and pre-school home visitation. For reasons discussed in this chapter, a universal approach to such a program is more likely to succeed than a selective approach based upon risk factors. The latter approach is more cost-efficient but potentially stigmatizing. While further research is needed to compare the crime prevention benefits of early prevention to costly federal programs such as prison construction, such research could inform the Congress of where it can find the maximum crime prevention for each taxpayer dollar. While appropriations for Head Start have never been able to meet the demand for the program, that may reflect its use on a selective basis. A universal home visitation program that promises to reduce crime may be more feasible than fully funding Head Start. Controlled testing of visitation with and without Head Start, however, is required in order to determine whether visitation alone can create lasting benefits without reinforcement for both parent and child through the pre-school environment.
Universal home visitation for children may also have the benefit of helping to prevent or at least detect domestic violence. Visitation has been found ineffective in the immediate aftermath of a police response. But it may well be effective at reducing unreported cases, especially in families where police are never called. While this would not be a central goal of universal early infancy visitation, it could be a side benefit. That hypothesis also provides a linkage between DOJ efforts to prevent crime developmentally and among members of the family.
STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) Formula Grants (VAWGO). By far the largest OJP expenditure on issues affecting crime in families is the STOP Grant funding program, which distributed $23 million in fiscal 1995 and has been appropriated $145 million for FY 1997.6 This money, which addresses all violence against women and not just family violence, is appropriated on the basis of population. How the money is used is up to the states, within the broad initial guidelines of 25% allocations to each of three areas (Burt, 1996: vi): law enforcement, prosecution, and victim services. Much of it appears to go for training, model policies, equipment, and other support materials.
To the extent that this funding can be effective in reducing family violence, it could be more so if the funds were allocated on the basis of some crime risk indicator. Possible criteria include the number of women murdered by men in each state, or total women murdered (which would have less reporting bias than other crimes against women like rape). Like police patrol funding (see Chapter Eight), the population based formula may put the money equally in places that need it desperately and places that do not.
As the major source of federal funds that could be used to combat family violence, STOP might provide a vehicle for increasing prosecution and adjudication of domestic violence arrests. The full enforcement hypothesis remains an unanswered question, even though there is clear evidence that it is not supported with certain kinds of offenders. In order to test the effects of higher levels of prosecution and sentencing, the funding required for the extra courtroom work must be provided. A review of the FY 1995 grant awards made by the States, however, suggests that the funds are not being used to support increased volume of court case processing--unlike the competitive Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies. Most of the purposes are for support services such as training. The effects of training of police and prosecutors on crime prevention have not yet been evaluated. But the effects of increased prosecution are also unknown. The general absence of scientific tests of most local practices in domestic violence prevention provides very little guidance to Congress, DOJ and the states on how this funding can be spent most effectively to prevent domestic violence.
Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies (VAWGO). A review of grant award abstracts for the FY 1996 grants suggests that these grants are supporting diverse local programs. The most direct operational activity is increased capacity for prosecution, with DOJ funds used to hire prosecutors and bring charges in cases that would otherwise be dropped. Some jurisdictions even commit to 100% prosecution. Thus the program may provide a realistic possibility in many communities to link arrest to a high certainty of prosecution, a response that has never been evaluated but which could be very different from arrest alone. Until evaluations of that kind are conducted, the effectiveness of increased prosecution a crime prevention practice will remain unknown.
These grants also support training, data bases and other approaches designed to increase arrests made by police officers. Here again, the current state of evaluation science has little guidance to offer one way or another about any expenditures to encourage domestic violence arrests. The potential value for impact studies across a range of options for such programs would be to identify those which appear most cost-effective.
Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance grants (VAWGO). The absence of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of local practices in rural areas, and with child abuse cases, also limits the assessment that can be made of this funding based on scientific evidence. The 1993 National Academy of Sciences Panel found the problem of child abuse to lack rudimentary science on many of these questions. To the extent that the Olds et al (1986) experiment prevented rural child abuse successfully, the Congress may wish to open the scope of acceptable funding for this program to include prevention as well as enforcement. Alternatively, the use of nurses legally obligated to report abuse might qualify as child abuse enforcement. If local programs funded by DOJ use their money in that fashion, it seems reasonably likely to be effective in rural white low-income communities or families.
National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction. This $6 million three-year program establishes a data base as part of the National Crime Information Center that will cover various offenses and offenders in domestic and family violence and stalking. In addition to the data base funding from the STOP Block grants, these funds will help create the capacity for implementing the 1996 Lautenberg Act extending the Brady Bill to misdemeanor domestic violence. While the latter Act prohibits persons convicted of such misdemeanors from owning a gun, there is currently no data base available in most states to identify such persons. This gap results from the absence of special statutes for "domestic" offenses, which are generally prosecuted under generic laws against assault. Whether a misdemeanor assault conviction reflects domestic violence is not a part of the court record, and can only be determined retrospectively by examining police records. The latter are often kept in paper files rather than computers, making the task very difficult in retrospect. But if new data bases can capture the data prospectively, it may be possible to implement the law with these funds by the 21st Century. It seems unlikely to happen without these DOJ funds.
No empirical test of the effect of a handgun ban for domestic violence misdemeanant has ever been conducted. Ongoing NIJ evaluations of the Brady bill may provide some idea. Other uses of the data bases created by VAWA funding could have even greater preventive effect, such as public access to a registry of convicted batterers. Such a registry could have a far greater deterrent effect than arrest alone, and could also help warn potential victims to avoid relationships with previously convicted batterers. Whether any of these hypothesized effects would occur, however, can only be determined by a program of rigorous research and development.
Office of Victims of Crime. This office, funded by fines collected by federal courts, provides grants in support of some of the local practices reviewed in this chapter. Support for battered women's shelters is a notable example. The potential value of these programs in preventing crime suggests that this Office might be included in the overall scope of DOJ crime prevention activity.
Improving Funding Effectiveness Through Better Evaluations
As the Congress recognized in its passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the research agenda for family-based crime prevention is substantial. A great many key questions about local practices remain unanswered, while tens of millions of cases are processed annually. This final section considers three high priority areas: home visitation, police arrest policies, and orders of protection.
Early Infancy Home Visitation. This Chapter's primary recommendation is the same as the 1993 Report of the National Research Council (1993) on Child Abuse and Neglect:
"Research on home visiting programs focused on the prenatal, postnatal, and toddler periods has great potential for enhancing family functioning and parental skills and reducing the prevalence of child maltreatment." (National Research Council, 1993: 191-92). "The panel recommends that evaluations of home visiting programs include descriptions of what goes on in visits..and direct observations of home visitors in action." (NRC 1993: 193).
The theoretically powerful early infancy visitation model raises a host of unanswered questions about its effectiveness. Before formulating or proposing a national policy, DOJ needs to procure randomized experiments testing the basic model under different conditions: high and low crime neighborhoods, different training for the visitors, different frequency and length of visitation, and different combinations of other interventions such as preschool with parental involvement. The funding of visitation programs as part of existing DOJ programs creates an opportunity to implement this proposal. The absence of a randomized controlled trial, however, would gravely limit what can be learned from an impact evaluation. The feasibility of a rigorous experiment has been demonstrated in Elmira and Memphis, and DOJ can build upon that precedent.
Police Arrest Policies. Given the growing use of arrest for domestic violence and the continuing debate over the interpretation of the previous NIJ experiments, it would be very helpful to continue the program of research that produced them. Collaborative experiments with prosecutors and courts would seem to be the highest priority, to test the hypothesis that full enforcement by the criminal justice system is an effective prevention approach. Alternative sanctions, such as reintegrative shaming conferences (Braithwaite and Daly, 1993), also need to be tested against more customary measures like probation and fines. Even stigmatic shaming such as court-ordered display of bumper stickers or t-shirts proclaiming the offender to be a batterer (Kahan, 1997) could be tested against its theoretical competition in reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989). More sophisticated research designs can also now be employed to control for contextual effects of neighborhood labor force participation rates, rather than the less policy-relevant individual employment status.
Orders of Protection. Given the high risks of serious injury suffered by many domestic violence victims who receive orders of protection, the need for further research is great. The most theoretically promising strategy for further testing would be a randomized trial of the personal panic alarm in a big city jurisdiction. A large city would minimize the ethical problems with the creation of a control group, since there would be far too many victims for most jurisdictions to give them all a panic alarm. Randomized tests of women who volunteer for an evaluation of a randomized trial based upon informed consent may also lead to a strong test of orders of protection without any additional tools, which is by far the most common condition under which they are issued.
1This discussion is limited to government, rather than a broader range of institutions, by the content of the available research. All of the available program evaluations examine the effects of government programs, broadly defined to include schools and publicly supported health care. Other institutions, such as churches and charities, no doubt provide crime prevention services (also broadly defined) to families. But in the current social structure of American life, it seems unrealistic to expect private resources to fund the level of intervention that research suggests is needed to appreciably reduce serious crime rates. While churches and other private groups may be ideal for administering such efforts under government contracts, the level of resources associated with the evaluated programs far exceeds those likely to be raised from solely non-public sources.
2This calculation employs the FBI count of 1.86 million arrests for all assaults in 1995, less 75% for non-domestic assaults, adjusted by the arrest probability of 22% for domestic and 13% for non-domestic assaults observed in the Indiana University police observation study (Oppenlander, 1982), and multiplied by a conviction probability estimate of 20% given a domestic arrest (Sherman, 1992).
3Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence, Report. 1984.
4OJJDP Fact Sheet #38, June 1996.
5OJJDP, 1995 Report to the Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs.
6This program is not just focused on families, but aims to prevent all forms of violence against women including stranger violence. Since most violence against women is caused by relatives and intimates, however, much of these funds are appropriately focused on family violence.
Achenbach, T.M, V. Phares, C. Howell, V.A. Raugh, and B. Nurcombe
1990 Seven Year Outcome of the Vermont Intervention Program for Low-Birthweight Infants. Child Development 61: 1672-1681.
Barth, R.P., S. Hacking and J.R. Ash
1988 Preventing Child Abuse: An Experimental Evaluation of the Child-Parent Enrichment Project. Journal of Primary Prevention 8: 201-217.
Berk, Richard, Phyllis J. Newton, and Sarah F. Berk
1986 What A Difference A Day Makes: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Shelters For Battered Women. Journal of Marriage and the Family 48: 431-490.
Berk, Richard A., Alec Campbell, Ruth Klap, and Bruce Western
1992 The Deterrent Effect of Arrest in Incidents of Domestic Violence: A Bayesian Analysis of Four Field Experiments. American Sociological Review 57: 698-708.
Barrera, M.E., P.L. Rosenbaum, and C.E. Cunningham
1986 Early Home Intervention With Low Birth-Weight Infants and Their Parents. Child Development 57: 20-33.
Berreuta-Clement, J.R., L.J. Schweinhart, W.S. Barnett, A.S. Epstein, and D.P. Weikart
1985 Changed Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Press.
1980 The Manners and Customs of the Police. NY: Academic.
Blumstein, Alfred, Cohen, Jacqueline, and Daniel Nagin (eds).
1978 Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating The Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Bolton, F.G., R.H. Lanier, and D.S. Gia
1981 For Better or Worse? Foster Parents and Foster Children in an Officially Reported Child Maltreatment Population. Children and Youth Services Review 3: 37-53.
1989 Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, John and Kathleen Daly
1993 Masculinities, Violence and Communitarian Control. Paper Presented to the National Conference on Violence. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
1996 The Violence Against Women Act of 1994: Evaluation of the STOP Block Grants to Combat Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Coie, J.D. and M.R. Jacobs
1993 The Role of Social Context in the prevention of Conduct Disorder. Development and Psychopathology 5: 263-275.
Crowell, Nancy A. and Ann W. Burgess
1996 Understanding Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Dadds, M.R., S. Schwartz, and M. Sanders
1987 Marital Discord and Treatment Outcome in Behavioral Treatment of Child Conduct Disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55: 396-403.
Davis, Robert C. and Bruce G. Taylor
Forthcoming A Proactive Response to Family Violence: The Results of a Randomized Experiment. Criminology 1997.
Dishion, T.J., G.R. Patterson, and K.A. Kavanagh
1992 An Experimental Test of the Coercion Model: Linking Theory, Measurement and Intervention. In J. McCord and R.E. Tremble, Eds., Preventing Anti-Social Behavior: Interventions from Birth Through Adolescence. NY: Guilford.
1992 Shortage of Trained Caseworkers Imperils Young Victims of Abuse. New York Times. December 28.
Dunford, Franklyn W.
1990 System-Initiated Warrants for Suspects of Misdemeanor Domestic Assault: A Pilot Study. Justice Quarterly 7: 631-653.
1992 The Measurement of Recidivism in Cases of Spouse Assault. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83: 120-136.
Dunford, Franklyn W., David Huizinga, and Delbert S. Elliott
1990 The Role of Arrest in Domestic Assault: The Omaha Police Experiment. Criminology 28: 183-206.
1996 The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits. Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Fagan, Jeffrey and Angela Browne
1993 Violence Between Spouses and Intimates: Physical Aggression Between Women and Men in Intimate Relationships.
1995 Preventing Repeat Victimization. In Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington, Eds., Building A Safer Society. Crime and Justice, Vol. 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Farrington, David P., Lloyd Ohlin and James Q. Wilson
1986 Understanding and Controlling Crime: Toward a New Research Strategy. New York: Springer-Verlag.
1993 The Indianapolis Domestic Violence Prosecution Experiment. Department of Sociology: Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Goldkamp, John S.
1996 The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and Its Treatment: Dade County's Domestic Violence Court Experiment. Executive Summary. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
Gray, J.D., C.A. Cutler, J.G. Dean, and C.H. Kempe
1979 Prediction and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. Journal of Social Issues 35: 127-139.
Gutelius, M.F., A.D. Kirsch, S. MacDonald, M.R. Brooks, and T. McErlean
1977 Controlled Study of Child Health Supervision: Behavioral Results. Pediatrics 60: 294-305.
1991 Evaluation of Court-Ordered Treatment of For Domestic Violence Offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
1996 Findings of the Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program. Paper Presented at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Harrell, Adele, B. Smith and L. Newmark
1993 Court Processing and the Effects of Restraining Orders for Domestic Violence Victims. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Hawkins, J. David, Michael W. Arthur and Richard F. Catalano
1995 Preventing Substance Abuse. In Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington, Eds., Building A Safer Society. Crime and Justice, Vol. 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hirschel, David, Ira W. Hutchison III, Charles W. Dean, Joseph J. Kelley, and Carolyn E. Pesackis
1990 Charlotte Spouse Assault Replication Project: Final Report. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Horn, W.F., N. Ialongo, G. Greenberg, T. Packard, and C. Smith-Winberry
1990 Additive Effects of Behavioral Parent Training and Self-Control Therapy With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disordered Children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 19: 98-110.
Institute of Medicine
1994 Reducing Risks of Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Jacobson, S.W. and K.F. Frye
1991 Effect of Maternal Social Support on Attachment: Experimental Evidence. Child Development 62: 572-582.
Johnson, D.L., and T. Walker
1987 Primary Prevention of Behavioral Problems in Mexican-American Children. American Journal of Community Psychology 15: 375-385.
1997 Its A Shame There is None. Wall Street Journal, January.
Cohn, A.H. and D. Daro
1987 Is Treatment Too Late: What Ten Years of Evaluative Research Tells Us. Child Abuse and Neglect 11: 433-442.
Kammerman, S.B., and A.J. Kahn
1989 Social Services for Children, Youth and Families in the U.S. NY: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Kazdin, A.E., T.C. Siegel, and D. Bass
1992 Cognitive Problem-Solving Skills Training and Parent Management Training in the Treatment of Anti-Social Behavior in Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60: 733-747.
Kolvin, I., R.F. Garside, A.R. Nicole, A. MacMillen, F. Wolstenhome, and I.M. Leitch
1981 Help Starts Here. NY: Tavistock.
Forthcoming Report of Family-Based PEPS, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Kumpfer, Karol, Virginia Molgaard and Richard Spoth
1996 The Strengthening Families Program for the Prevention of Delinquency and Drug Use. In Ray DeV Peters and Robert J. McMahon, Eds., Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse and Delinquency. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lally, J.R., P.L. Mangione and A.S. Honig
1988 The Syracuse University Family Development Research Project: Long-Range Impact of an Early Intervention with Low-Income Children and Their Families. In D.R. Powell, Ed., Annual Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 3: Parent Education as Early Childhood Intervention: Emerging Directions in Theory, Research, and Practice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
1992 Discussion. In F.L. Parker, R. Robinson, S. Sambrano, C. Piotrkowski, J. Hagen, S. Randolph, and A. Baker, Eds., Conference Proceedings: New Directions in Child and Family Research: Shaping Head Start in the 90s. NY: National Council of Jewish Women Center for the Child.
Lieberman, A.F., D.R. Weston, J.H. Pawl
1991 Preventive Intervention and Outcome With Anxiously Attached Dyads. Child Development 62: 199-209.
Lyons-Ruth, K., D.B. Connell, H.U. Grunebaum and S. Botein
1990 Infants at Social Risk: Maternal Depression and Family Support Services as Mediators of Infant Development and Security of Attachment. Child Development 61: 85-98.
McCurdy, K. and D. and Daro
1993 Current Trends in Child Abuse Reporting and Fatalities: The Results of the 1992 Annual Fifty State Survey. Working Paper 808. April. Chicago, IL: National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse.
McKey, R.H., L. Condelli, H. Ganson, B.J. Barrett, C. McConkey, and M.C. Plantz.
1985 The Impact of Head Start on Children, Families and Communities: Final Report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis and Utilization Project [DHHS Publication No. 85- 31193]. Washington, DC: USGPO.
McNeil, C.B., S. Eyberg, T.H. Eisenstadt, K. Newcomb, and B. Funderburk
1991 Parent-Child Interaction Therapy With Behavioral Problem Children: Generalization of Treatment Effects to the Social Setting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 20: 140-51.
National Center for State Courts
1996 The Effectiveness of Civil Protection Orders: Executive Summary. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
National Research Council
1993 Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
O'Sullivan, C., J. Wise, and V. Douglass
1995 Domestic Violence Shelter Residents in New York City: Profile, Needs and Alternatives to Shelter. NY: Victim Services Agency.
Olds, D.L., C.R. Henderson, R. Chamberlin, and R. Tatelbaum
1986 Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: A Randomized Trial of Nurse Home Visitation. Pediatrics 78: 65-78.
1988 Improving the Life-Course Development of Socially Disadvantaged Mothers: A Randomized Trial of Nurse Home Visitation. American Journal of Public Health 78: 1436-1445.
Packard, T., E.A. Robinson, and D. Grove
1983 The Effect of Training Procedures on the Maintenance of Parental Relationship Building Skills. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 12: 181-186.
Pate, Antony, Edwin E. Hamilton and Sampson Annan
1991 Metro-Dade Spouse Abuse Replication Project: Draft Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.
Pepler, D.J., G. King and W. Byrd
1991 A Social Cognitively-Based Social Skills Training Program for Aggressive Children. In D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin, Eds., The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
1995 Domestic Violence: Building Paths for Women to Travel to Freedom and Safety. College of Health Sciences, Old Dominion University.
Reiss, Albert J. Jr.
1971 The Police and the Public. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Reiss, Albert J. Jr., and Jeffrey A. Roth, eds.
1993 Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
1984 Home Intervention for Premature Infants of Low-Income Families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 54: 263-70.
Schure, M.B. and G. Spivak
1979 Interpersonal problem-Solving, Thinking and Adjustment in the Mother-Child Dyad. In M.W. Kent and J.E. Rolf, Eds., Primary Prevention of Psychopathology. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Seitz, V., L.K. Rosenbaum, and N.H. Apfel
1985 Effects of Family Support Intervention: A Ten-Year Follow-Up. Child Development 56: 376-391.
Sherman, Lawrence W.
1992 Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas. NY: Free Press.
Sherman, Lawrence W., Janell D. Schmidt, Dennis P. Rogan, Patrick R. Gartin, Ellen G. Cohn, Dean J. Collins and Anthony R. Bacich
1991 From Initial Deterrence to Long-Term Escalation: Short-Custody Arrest for Poverty Ghetto Domestic Violence. Criminology 29: 821-50.
Sherman, Lawrence W. and Heather Strang
1996 Policing Domestic Violence: The Problem-Solving Paradigm. Paper Presented to the Conference on Problem-Oriented Policing as Crime Prevention, Stockholm, Swedish National Police College.
Smith, Douglas and Visher, Christy
1981 Street-Level Justice: Situational Determinants of Police Arrest Decisions. Social Problems 29: 167-78.
1963 Institutions of Privacy in the Determination of Police Administrative Practice. The American Journal of Sociology 69: 150-160.
Strain, P.S., P. Steele, T. Ellis, and M.A. Timm
1982 Long-Term Effects of Oppositional Child Treatment With Mothers as Therapists and Therapist-Trainers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 15: 163-169.
Strang, Heather and Lawrence W. Sherman
1996 Paper Presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Baltimore, MD, February.
Strayhorn, J.M. and C. Weidman
1991 Follow-up One Year After Parent-Child Interaction Training: Effects on Behavior of Preschool Children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 30: 138-143.
1989 Characteristics of Children in Foster Care. Division of Child, Youth and Family Services Newsletter (American Psychological Association) 12: 16-17.
1992 Characteristics of Children in Substitute and Adoptive Care: A Statistical Summary of the VCIS National Child Welfare Data Base. Based on FY 82 through FY 8 Data. March.
Tremble, R.E., L. Kurtz, L.C. Masse, F. Vitaro, and R.O. Pihl
1994 A Bimodal Preventive Intervention for Disruptive Kindergarten Boys: Its Impact Through Mid-Adolescence. Unpublished MS. Montreal: University of Montreal Research Unit on Children's Psycho-Social Maladjustment.
Tremble, Richard and Wendy Craig
1995 Developmental Crime Prevention. In Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington, Eds., Building A Safer Society. Crime and Justice, Vol. 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
US Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect
1995 Annual report. Washington, DC: DHHS.
Wasik, B.H., C.T. Ramey, D.M. Bryant and J.J. Sparling
1990 A Longitudinal Study of Two Early Intervention Strategies: Project CARE. Child Development 61: 1682-1696.
Wasserman, Gail. A. and Laurie S. Miller
forthcoming The Prevention of Antisocial Behavior. Draft. In Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, Eds., Report of the OJJDP Study Group on Serious, Chronic, and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: OJJDP.
1990 Long-Term Follow-Up of Families With Young Conduct Problem Children: From Preschool to Grade School. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 19: 144-49.
Webster-Stratton, C., M. Kolpacoff, and T. Hollinsworth
1988 Self-Administered Videotape Therapy for Families With Conduct Problem Children: Comparison With Two Cost-Effective Treatments and a Control Group. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56: 558-66.
Widom, Cathy Spatz
1989 Child Abuse, Neglect, and Violent Criminal Behavior. Criminology 27: 251-271.
Wilson, William Julius
1996 When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
1994 Prevention as Cumulative Protection: Effects of Early Family Support and Education on Chronic Delinquency and Its Risks. Psychological Bulletin 115: 28-54.
Yu, P., G. E. Harris, B.L. Solovitz, and J.L. Franklin
1986 A Social Problem-Solving Intervention for Children at High Risk for Later Psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 15: 30-40.
1992 Head Start Falls Behind. The New York Times, June 27, p. 23.
Zimring, Franklin E. and Gordon Hawkins
1973 Deterrence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.