Search for: All records

ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine concurrent polysubstance use of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana and determine correlations with access to marijuana, friend and familial drug use habits, risk perception and the age of initiation associated with the singular use of these substances. DesignA secondary data analysis. SettingUsed the Jamaica National Drug Prevalence Survey 2016 dataset. ParticipantsInvolved the entire dataset comprising 4623 randomly selected respondents between 12 and 65 years old. Outcome measuresPrimary outcome: concurrent polysubstance use recorded as using two or more of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. Predictor variables include risk perception and age of initiation of singular alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use, ease of marijuana access and family and friend alcohol and illegal drug use. ResultsApproximately 58%–66% of respondents commenced singular alcohol, tobacco or marijuana use under 17. Participants commencing marijuana use at 11 years and under and between 12 and 17 were 3.346 and 4.560 times more likely to report past month concurrent polysubstance use (p=0.030 and p<0.001). Respondents who did not believe that smoking tobacco sometimes (p=0.049), and smoking marijuana sometimes and often was harmful, had increased odds of concurrent polysubstance use (p=0.047 and p<0.001, respectively). Respondents who indicated access to marijuana as easy were significantly more likely to report past month concurrent polysubstance use compared with those who reported access as difficult (p=0.002). Participants who indicated that friends or family members get drunk and take illegal drugs were associated with 1.722 and 1.864 increased odds of reporting past month concurrent polysubstance use (p=0.004 and p=0.017, respectively). ConclusionsDecreased perceived risk, childhood and adolescent age of initiation and easy access to marijuana were significantly associated with polysubstance use among Jamaicans. The influence of friends and family members’ drug and alcohol use behaviours on individuals developing polysubstance use habits further endorses the need for interventions. 

Abstract This paper explores the intersection of two major trends in the United States over the last forty years: a substantial investment in local law enforcement and the diversification of suburbia. While previous research on police spending has focused almost exclusively on large central cities, this study broadens this perspective to assess how these dynamics play out in outer-ring suburbs. I construct a unique panel dataset of over 200 California municipalities and find that the drivers of police spending vary across the metropolis in significant ways. Fixed-effects models that control for unobserved heterogeneity across place suggest that suburbs with growing shares of renters spend more on police. Elaborating on the concept of renter threat, I show how increases in renter households are associated with increases in police expenditures across a range of model specifications in suburbia. I point to suburban homeowner concerns about crime and property values as well as the history of racial exclusion in suburbia that is often couched in economic terms as potential explanations for these findings. Results point to the enduring role of police as a contemporary mechanism of both social control and inequality in California suburbs. 

In the context of a national movement to defund police departments, many American cities are starting to reimagine public safety, as activists demand new practices that maintain safety while minimizing harm, as well as ensuring accountability when harms occur. Drawing on Everyday Peace Indicators methodologies, we argue that “community-centered” measurement, combined with researcher-practitioner partnerships, can help move both researchers and policymakers toward a more meaningful approach to policy design and evaluation. However, the application of community-centered measurement to the context of American policing raises important theoretical and practical concerns—in particular, the question of how community is defined, and who gets to define it. In this article, we ask: how do we define “community” in participatory research contexts where the concept of community is overlapping and contested? Using the example of a recent study carried out in the City of Oakland, we illustrate the complexities of applying a community-centered measurement process to the case of public safety and, more broadly, to police reform in American cities. We conclude with a discussion of both the benefits and limitations of our own approach, as well as a set of considerations for those engaging in participatory research. 

This study explores COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among prison security staff and the extent to which they trust varied sources of information about the vaccines. Cross-sectional survey data were obtained from a state-wide sample of corrections officers (COs, hereafter; n = 1208) in February 2021. Group differences, disaggregated by demographic characteristics, were examined using F-tests and t-tests. Despite the comparatively limited risk of contracting the virus, non-security staff reported they would accept a COVID-19 vaccine at no cost (74%), compared to their more vulnerable CO counterparts (49%). We observed vaccine refusal correlations between COs’ reported gender, age, and length of time working as a CO, but none with their self-reported race. Vaccine refusal was more prevalent among womxn officers, younger officers, and those who had spent less time working as prison security staff. Our findings also suggest that the only trusted source of information about vaccines were family members and only for officers who would refuse the vaccine; the quality of trust placed in those sources, however, was not substantially positive and did not vary greatly across CO racial groups. By highlighting characteristics of the observed gaps in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance between COs and their non-security staff coworkers, as well as between corrections officers of varied demographic backgrounds, these findings can inform the development of responsive and accepted occupational health policies for communities both inside and intrinsically linked to prisons. 

The “job talk” is a standard element of faculty recruiting. How audiences treat candidates for faculty positions during job talks could have disparate impact on protected groups, including women. We annotated 156 job talks from five engineering and science departments for 13 categories of questions and comments. All departments were ranked in the top 10 by US News & World Report. We find that differences in the number, nature, and total duration of audience questions and comments are neither material nor statistically significant. For instance, the median difference (by gender) in the duration of questioning ranges from zero to less than two minutes in the five departments. Moreover, in some departments, candidates who were interrupted more often were more likely to be offered a position, challenging the premise that interruptions are necessarily prejudicial. These results are specific to the departments and years covered by the data, but they are broadly consistent with previous research, which found differences comparable in magnitude. However, those studies concluded that the (small) differences were statistically significant. We present evidence that the nominal statistical significance is an artifact of using inappropriate hypothesis tests. We show that it is possible to calibrate those tests to obtain a properP-value using randomization.