|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this paper by Ruttenberg was to argue that the public health model of reducing youth violence would not be capable of improving the fundamental social conditions that seem to underlie violent behavior.
METHODOLOGY:
The author presented a non-experimental description of the public health model of reducing youth violence, and a discussion examining the efficacy of the model.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The public health model, as described by Ruttenburg, aims to determine the cause of the disease and either discover an antibody with which to immunize the public with or eliminate contact between the public and the source of the disease. In addition to treating and preventing infectious diseases, public health has tackled a variety of nontraditional diseases such as cigarette smoking and drunk driving. The author stated that the methods employed could be broken down into four categories: 1) public surveillance (i.e. collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and disseminating health data), 2) risk group identification, 3) risk factor exploration (i.e. exploration of the causal nature of the risk factors), and 4) program implementation/evaluation.
The author suggested that the public health method is well- suited to collect the needed data on violence, mortality and morbidity, but their traditional methods may be unable to delineate the risk factors that have been identified to date. It was argued that the risk factors are due to social ills (i.e. economic, political, and moral) which are beyond the range of public health strategies.
The author noted that the public health model may be able to have an impact on one of the risk factors, firearms. First, the public health model would identify the pathogen, the element that causes death or injury. In terms of youth violence, the pathogen would be the assaultive behavior or the weapon if one was used. The pathogen would then become the subject of the prevention effort. The next step would be to educate the public about the risk factors associated with firearms. Success in altering the public's behavior has been through modifying peoples cost benefit analysis regarding the behavior. Increased legal sanctions and mass education served to increase the costs of violence or crime which could decrease the amount of crime and violence. Public awareness on the risks of having a firearm could lead to legislative changes which could decrease the amount of firearms in circulation. The decrease in firearms would lessen firearm access therefore decreasing firearm related violence.
The author suggested that the public health method was capable of decreasing the amount of firearms but would be less effective in decreasing other types of violence. Ruttenburg noted that the method would work if the youth believed that they would get caught and have to serve a costly sentence. Yet a study concluded that on the average a person committing murder in the U.S. can expect to spend only 1.8 years in prison and the expected punishment for rape is only 60 days. Further, some youth have felt that their futures are so bleak that the costs of getting caught or being punished are meaningless. Others have felt that their only choice is between prison or death. Moreover, many children have abandoned hope of legitimate success and have resorted to illegitimate means. The author argued that these social ills of increased and prolonged poverty, family breakdown, and lack of institutional support are beyond the scope of public health methodologies. Since public health has had most of its success in affluent segments of society, the author argues that it seems unlikely that it will be successful in a community that is most resistant to traditional public health methods. These strategies have been suggested to work when the threat of legal sanctions and educational campaigns outweigh the existing situation. Thus the author concluded that violence is a multifaceted problem that results from many social and economic factors such as poverty, racism, disregard for human life, family and community disintegration, denial of educational opportunity, peer pressure, and absence of positive values which are not susceptible to superficial solutions.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author suggested that, before we allocate resources to programs that may not work, there should be a clear understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the public health model of violence prevention. Secondly, she suggested that we should utilize the public healths' capacity to reduce the lethality of violence by reducing the amount of guns in the environment. Finally, we should remember that the public health model offers no easy fixes and that only a committed effort to alter the societal factors will enable the U.S. to reduce its incidence of violence.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Juvenile Offender
Juvenile Violence
Violence Prevention
Public Health Approach
Model
Violence Causes
Violence Risk Factors
Firearms Violence
Juvenile Firearms Use
Public Awareness
Socioeconomic Factors
Sociocultural Factors
05-05 |