Violence Prevention Evidence Briefs
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Youth violence is an enormous public health problem in the United States, standing as the second leading cause of death for people between the ages of 10 and 24. CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. WISQRS. Juvenile court systems have often been criticized for inadequately deterring and poorly preventing recidivism among violent youthful offenders. Steiner B, Hemmens C, Bell V. Legislative Waiver Reconsidered: General Deterrent Effects of Statutory Exclusion Laws Enacted Post-1979. Justice Quarterly. 2006;23(1):34-59.
The Law:
All states have adopted laws that allow judicial waiver of jurisdiction by the juvenile court system, which sends young offenders to adult criminal systems. Some states use a discretionary approach, giving deference to the juvenile court judge. Other states employ an automatic approach: jurisdiction is waived for specific violent offenses or when the offender has prior violent arrests. For examples of juvenile waiver laws, see RCW 13.40.110 (Washington), Fla Stat § 985.556 (Florida), and MN Stats 260B.101 (Minnesota).
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, a Community Guide expert panel reviewed seven studies evaluating the impact of six laws allowing juvenile transfer. McGowan A, Hahn R, Liberman A, et al. Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S):S7–S28. Across the studies, the reviewers observed an overall negative effect. Notably, there was a 34 percent median increase in recidivism among youths processed though adult systems compared to those retained in the juvenile courts. In addition, transfer of youths led to an increase in pretrial violence, victimization and violence in adult facilities, and elevated suicide rates among the incarcerated youths. According to the expert panel, there was not enough evidence to determine the true effect of waiver as a deterrent.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that processing youths through adult systems has a negative impact on public health.
Additional Resources: Heilbrun, et al. A National Survey of US Statutes on juvenile transfer: implications for policy and practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1998;15(2):125-149.
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
The shortage of adequate, affordable housing can create pockets of concentrated poverty, exposing children and others to lead and other pathogens, which affects the health of children and families. The Urban Institute. Research on Record: Housing. Also, housing expenses draw resources away from health expenditures (e.g., nutritious food and healthcare). CDC and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Healthy Housing Reference Manual.
The Law:
States and localities have attempted to address the inadequate supply of affordable housing and its associated harms by facilitating the creation of mixed income housing developments through a number of legal mechanisms. Mixed-income housing developments provide affordable housing for low-income residents in rental units that are interspersed with market-rate housing. Laws promote mixed-income housing developments by subsidizing the construction of multi-family residences and reserving a portion of units for low-income residents at affordable prices. Hope VI is federal housing program that funds mixed-income housing fully or in partnership with private developers. HOPE VI Revitalization Notices of Funds Availability; 24 C.F.R. 941.600. Some municipalities have used zoning law to increase mixed income housing. For example, Sacramento, California ( Sacramento City Code § 17.190.030) and Burlington, Vermont (Burlington Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance §§ 9.1-9.2)) have inclusionary zoning requirements that require that a certain percentage of new housing units are affordable to low-income residents.
The Evidence:
In a Community Guide review, Anderson et. al. could not find any qualifying studies that measured the impact of mixed-income housing developments in creating and maintaining safe and affordable housing for low-income residents. Anderson LM, et al. Providing affordable family housing and reducing residential segregation by income: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(3S):S47-67. As a result, the reviewers could not ascertain the effectiveness of mixed-income housing developments as a public health intervention.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is currently insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of mixed income housing as a public health intervention.
