Deterrence and social control: Rethinking the relationship

Until recent years, the operationalization of the deterrence concept has been largely legal in nature. That is, deterrence was defined in terms of certainty and celerity of arrest and severity of sanction. Contemporary research has called this narrow viewpoint into question, pointing out that legal factors are only part of the range of social-control mechanisms. One of the more important of these reformulations was found to have an analytical flaw which could have easily affected the results (Meier and Johnson, 1977). The present study corrects the analysis problems of this previous study and upholds the findings that, for a sample of adult Texas residents, extralegal factors are of more import for determining marijuana use than traditional legal deterrence. Since both legal and extralegal factors are products of the social context, deterrence may be appropriately incorporated into contemporary social- control theories.     

Book reviews

Ernest Gellner, Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rivals, (Hamish Hamilton, London 1994). 225pp. ISBN 0–241–00220–6 (hb).

James Petras and Morris Morley, Empire or Republic? American Global Power and Domestic Decay, (Routledge, London 1995). 172pp. ISBN 0–415–91064–1.

Keith Cowling and Roger Sugden, Beyond Capitalism: Towards a New World Order, (Pinter, London 1994), 195pp. ISBN 1 85567 301 0.

John Lewis Gaddis, The United States and the End of the Cold War. Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations, (OUP, Oxford 1994). x. + 301 pp. ISBN 0–19–508551–5.

Alan Haworth, Anti‐Libertarianism: Markets, Philosophy and Myth, (Routledge, London 1994). 154pp. ISBN 0–415–08254–4.

Honi Fern Haber, Beyond Postmodern Politics. Selves, Community and the Politics of Difference, (Routledge, London 1995). 160pp. ISBN 0–415–90822–1.

Stjepan G. Mestrovic The Balkanization of the West: The Confluence of Postmodernism and Postcommunism (Routledge, London 1994). 226pp. ISBN 0–415–08755–4 (pbk).     

SPECIALIZATION OF NURSING HOME CARE AND OUTCOMES1

Implications of nursing home specialization for health outcomes were examined. The formal hypothesis tested in this study was that facilities specializing in the treatment of certain kinds of residents, as reflected in a critical mass of such residents, are more likely to experience better health outcomes over time compared to facilities that do not specialize in the treatment of such residents. Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), survival, and several diagnosis‐specific outcomes were analyzed for residents. Multivariate state‐dependence and logistic regression models were estimated for residents of six diagnostic sub‐groups. Specialization was empirically defined in terms of concentration of residents with certain diagnoses within nursing facilities. Empirical results indicate that specialization has some positive effects on some outcomes. For instance, facilities specializing in the care of Alzheimer's disease patients appear to produce comparatively better outcomes with respect to restraint use and accidents. Residents with diagnoses of hypertension or ischemic heart disease in specialized facilities also fare better in terms of survival. Residents with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease in specialized facilities were found to experience worse outcomes with respect to most of the outcomes modeled in this study, however. Overall, specialization only appears to make a difference in the outcomes of residents with certain medical conditions for some health outcomes. Regression results also indicate that basic measures of frailty such as functional deficiencies, incontinence, and behavioral problems largely contribute to detrimental effects irrespective of the diagnostic group or the outcome considered.     

Federalism and the Safety Net: Delinkage and Participation Rates

Since the enactment of welfare reform legislation in 1996, thefederal government and the states have emphasized putting theneedy to work and reducing caseloads. Simultaneously, however,national policymakers delinked eligibility for cash assistancefrom eligibility for other safety-net benefits. Contrary tostated policy, though, this delinkage has led to declining participationin the case of Food Stamps and health-insurance programs forlow-income children. We highlight four factors that states mustshape if they are to narrow this gap between policy promiseand program performance by fostering higher participation. Weshow how our focus intersects with enduring questions of Americanfederalism—the level of state commitment to redistributiveprograms, their capacity to implement these programs effectively,and the degree to which states can augment governing capacityby becoming more genuine laboratories of democracy.