Emerging Liabilities from Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products

There is growing awareness and concern regarding the presence of chemical constituents of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (“PPCPs”) in the environment. A recent USGS study indicated that PPCPs are present at low levels in surface water throughout the U.S. Concern is based in part on the fact that certain PPCPs: (1) are designed to have biological effects (particularly pharmaceuticals), (2) are persistent in or continually added to the environment, (3) have negative environmental effects (specifically on aquatic life) even at low levels, and (4) potentially have cumulative and synergistic effects when combined with other PPCPs. The primary route of PPCPs into the environment is sewage discharges, septic systems, and large stock yards and feedlots where the unmetabolized PPCPs are excreted by humans and animals and end up in surface water and ground-water. Given these circumstances, manufacturers of PPCPs may face a risk of increased regulation and possibly litigation similar to that faced by oxygenate manufacturers and petroleum refiners over the use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”). Companies can take steps now and in the future that may minimize the impact of these risks.     

PREDICTING WHO REOFFENDS: THE NEGLECTED ROLE OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT IN RECIDIVISM STUDIES*

Prior studies of recidivism have focused almost exclusively on individual‐level characteristics of offenders and their offenses to explore the correlates of reoffending. Notably absent from these studies are measures reflecting the neighborhood contexts in which individuals live. The current research addresses this shortcoming. Using data on a sample of ex‐offenders in Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland and surrounding area) in conjunction with 2000 census data, we answer two questions. First, which individual‐level factors influence rates of recidivism? Second, to what extent does neighborhood socioeconomic status account for variation in the reoffending behavior of ex‐prisoners that is not explained by their individual‐level characteristics? We find that those who return to disadvantaged neighborhoods recidivate at a greater rate while those who return to resource rich or affluent communities recidivate at a lesser rate, controlling for individual‐level factors.     

ASSESSING NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON CHILDHOOD VIOLENCE IN AN AFRICAN‐AMERICAN SAMPLE*

The present study examines the extent to which neighborhood and social psychological influences predict childhood violence among 867 African‐American youth. The results showed that neighborhood affluence was the only neighborhood‐level variable to exert a significant influence on childhood violence. Furthermore, childhood violence was significantly related to social psychological influences, such as adopting a street code, associating with violent peers, parental use of violence, and quality parenting. Overall, the findings suggested that simply living in a violent neighborhood does not produce violent children, but that family, peer, and individual characteristics play a large role in predicting violence in childhood.     

SENTENCING AND UNWARRANTED DISPARITY: AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES IN MINNESOTA*

Using an interrupted time-series design, this research note analyzes the long-term effect of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines on reducing unwarranted disparity in sentencing outcomes that fall within their scope of authority. Unwarranted disparity is defined as residual variation not attributable to legally mandated sentencing factors. Findings suggest that although the sentencing guidelines initially reduced disparity for the no prison/prison sentencing decision, inequality began to revert to preguideline levels as time passed. Further analysis revealed that the guidelines had a permanent impact on reducing disparities in decisions on the length of prison sentence. Overall we observed an 18% decline in disparity for the no prison/prison outcome and a 60% reduction in inequality for the judicial decision as to length of prison sentence. Two explanations for the reversionary trend in the no prison/prison series are highlighted.     

DOES CRIME JUST MOVE AROUND THE CORNER? A CONTROLLED STUDY OF SPATIAL DISPLACEMENT AND DIFFUSION OF CRIME CONTROL BENEFITS*

Recent studies point to the potential theoretical and practical benefits of focusing police resources on crime hot spots. However, many scholars have noted that such approaches risk displacing crime or disorder to other places where programs are not in place. Although much attention has been paid to the idea of displacement, methodological problems associated with measuring it have often been overlooked. We try to fill these gaps in measurement and understanding of displacement and the related phenomenon of diffusion of crime control benefits. Our main focus is on immediate spatial displacement or diffusion of crime to areas near the targeted sites of an intervention. Do focused crime prevention efforts at places simply result in a movement of offenders to areas nearby targeted sites—“do they simply move crime around the corner”? Or, conversely, will a crime prevention effort focusing on specific places lead to improvement in areas nearby—what has come to be termed a diffusion of crime control benefits? Our data are drawn from a controlled study of displacement and diffusion in Jersey City, New Jersey. Two sites with substantial street‐level crime and disorder were targeted and carefully monitored during an experimental period. Two neighboring areas were selected as “catchment areas” from which to assess immediate spatial displacement or diffusion. Intensive police interventions were applied to each target site but not to the catchment areas. More than 6,000 20‐minute social observations were conducted in the target and catchment areas. They were supplemented by interviews and ethnographic field observations. Our findings indicate that, at least for crime markets involving drugs and prostitution, crime does not simply move around the corner. Indeed, this study supports the position that the most likely outcome of such focused crime prevention efforts is a diffusion of crime control benefits to nearby areas.