Skip to Content
0 Votes
Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/25 18:57
Show last authors
1 = Crime and Substance Abuse =
2
3 {{expandable summary="Study: Correlates of immigrant youth crime in Finland"}}
4 **Source:** *European Journal of Criminology*
5 **Date of Publication:** *2015*
6 **Author(s):** *Venla Salmi, Janne Kivivuori, Mikko Aaltonen*
7 **Title:** *"Correlates of immigrant youth crime in Finland"*
8 **DOI:** [10.1177/1477370815587768](https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815587768)
9 **Subject Matter:** *Immigrant youth crime, delinquency, criminology, Finland*
10
11 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
12 1. **General Observations:**
13 - Immigrant youth had **higher prevalence and frequency** of delinquent behaviors than native Finnish youth.
14 - Example: 11% of immigrant youth vs. 5% of native youth reported beating someone up in the past year.
15 - Soft drug use: 19% immigrant youth vs. 9% native youth.
16
17 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
18 - Among immigrants, Somali, Vietnamese, Iraqi, Thai, Russian, Estonian, Swedish, and UK backgrounds were most common.
19 - Immigrant youth had **higher exposure to risk routines**, lower parental control, and lower academic achievement.
20
21 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
22 - Logistic regression (Model 5) showed immigrant youth still had **1.58x higher odds** of active offending even after adjusting for background factors.
23 - Risk routines, low parental control, alcohol use, low morality, and low self-control were key correlates of delinquency.
24 {{/expandable}}
25
26 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
27 1. **Primary Observations:**
28 - Immigrant youth committed more offenses and engaged more frequently in delinquent acts than native youth.
29 - Violent behaviors and drug use were significantly more prevalent among immigrant youth.
30
31 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
32 - Higher rates of late-night outings, unsupervised parties, and peer groups with older friends were more common in immigrant youth.
33
34 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
35 - Family socioeconomic status had limited explanatory power; risk behaviors and weak parental social control were stronger predictors.
36 {{/expandable}}
37
38 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
39 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
40 - Large, nationally representative sample.
41 - Controlled for a wide range of social, family, and individual factors.
42 - Survey-based design avoided racial bias in police or judicial records.
43
44 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
45 - Treated all immigrants as a single group, ignoring subgroup differences.
46 - Self-reported family economic status may not be fully reliable.
47 - Possible underreporting by immigrant respondents.
48 - Lacked detailed analysis of specific cultural variables or life histories.
49 {{/expandable}}
50
51 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
52 - This study provides direct evidence that immigrant youth in Europe, including Finland, have **higher crime involvement** that persists even after adjusting for socioeconomic status.
53 - Supports the need for crime statistics that **disaggregate by immigrant groups** rather than treating them as homogeneous.
54 - Reinforces the importance of addressing risky routine activities and weak parental control in immigrant populations.
55 {{/expandable}}
56
57 {{expandable summary="🔍 Racial Bias Examination"}}
58 1. The study explicitly avoided using police-recorded crime data to prevent racial bias from influencing the results.
59 2. The authors acknowledged the **overrepresentation of immigrant youth in crime statistics** across Europe and found the trend held even in self-reported surveys.
60 3. There was no evidence in this study that systemic bias could explain the higher delinquency rates among immigrant youth in Finland.
61 4. The study does not explore **anti-White bias** or examine whether immigrant youth delinquency disproportionately affects native Finns.
62 {{/expandable}}
63
64 {{expandable summary="📄 Other Wiki Pages That Should Reference This Study"}}
65 1. [[Immigrant Crime in Nordic Countries>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Immigration/Immigrant%20Crime%20in%20Nordic%20Countries/]]
66 2. [[Youth Crime Statistics>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Crime/Youth%20Crime%20Statistics/]]
67 3. [[Social Integration Policies>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Social%20Policy/Social%20Integration%20Policies/]]
68 {{/expandable}}
69
70 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
71 [[Download Full Study>>attach:salmi2015.pdf]]
72 {{/expandable}}
73 {{/expandable}}
74
75 {{expandable summary="Study: Rape and Racial Patterns"}}
76 **Source:** *Crime and Delinquency*
77 **Date of Publication:** *1984*
78 **Author(s):** *James L. LeBeau*
79 **Title:** *"Rape and Racial Patterns"*
80 **DOI:** *Unavailable – Published in Crime and Delinquency journal, 1984*
81 **Subject Matter:** *Interracial Crime, Racial Patterns in Sexual Violence, Police Data Analysis*
82
83 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
84 1. **General Observations:**
85 - Study analyzed **rape cases from six U.S. cities** (Chicago, Kansas City, Oakland, San Diego, St. Louis, San Jose) over a two-year period.
86 - Used **official police data** with verified offender and victim race.
87
88 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
89 - Confirmed that most rapes are intraracial, but found **significant exceptions in Black-on-White rape rates**.
90 - **White women were the most frequent victims** in interracial rape cases involving Black and Latino offenders.
91
92 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
93 - In **San Diego and Oakland**, Black offenders were responsible for **more than half of all rapes of White women**.
94 - Interracial rape by White offenders against Black women was virtually nonexistent in the cities studied.
95 {{/expandable}}
96
97 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
98 1. **Primary Observations:**
99 - While intraracial rape dominates overall patterns, **interracial rape involving Black offenders and White victims is substantially higher than commonly reported**.
100 - Some cities showed **disproportionate rates of Black-on-White sexual violence** compared to their population size.
101
102 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
103 - **Latino offenders also disproportionately targeted White women** in certain cities.
104 - White offenders rarely targeted minority women, particularly Black women.
105
106 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
107 - Previous studies misrepresented interracial rape by **counting serial offenders multiple times**, which inflated minority perpetration rates — this study corrected that and still found high Black-on-White victimization rates.
108 - San Diego reported that **more than half of all rapes of White women involved Black offenders**.
109 {{/expandable}}
110
111 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
112 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
113 - Directly challenges popular misconceptions about interracial rape patterns.
114 - Carefully controls for methodological errors common in prior race-crime studies.
115
116 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
117 - Study is limited to six cities and a two-year window, though the selected locations offer racial diversity.
118 - Does not address sociological or cultural explanations for the observed disparities.
119
120 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
121 - Expand analysis to more cities and rural areas to see if the pattern holds nationally.
122 - Incorporate victim and offender socioeconomic data for deeper structural understanding.
123 {{/expandable}}
124
125 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
126 - Provides **critical empirical support for challenging the myth** that interracial rape is balanced or insignificant.
127 - Documents that **White women are disproportionately targeted by minority offenders**, particularly Black and Latino men.
128 - Supports broader analysis of **racial crime patterns that contradict DEI-framed narratives** about victimization.
129 {{/expandable}}
130
131 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
132 1. Compare more recent race-rape statistics to see if patterns persist over time.
133 2. Investigate **media reporting practices** on interracial sexual violence.
134 3. Study the cultural impact of misrepresenting interracial crime statistics in public discourse.
135 {{/expandable}}
136
137 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
138 [[Download Full Study>>attach:1984-Rape-and-Racial-Patterns.pdf]]
139 {{/expandable}}
140 {{/expandable}}
141
142 {{expandable summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
143 **Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
144 **Date of Publication:** *2002*
145 **Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
146 **Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
147 **DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
148 **Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
149
150 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
151 1. **General Observations:**
152 - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
153 - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
154
155 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
156 - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
157 - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
158
159 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
160 - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
161 - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
162 {{/expandable}}
163
164 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
165 1. **Primary Observations:**
166 - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
167 - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
168
169 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
170 - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
171 - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
172
173 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
174 - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
175 - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
176 {{/expandable}}
177
178 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
179 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
180 - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
181 - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
182
183 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
184 - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
185 - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
186
187 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
188 - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
189 - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
190 {{/expandable}}
191
192 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
193 - Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
194 - Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
195 - Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
196 {{/expandable}}
197
198 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
199 1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
200 2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
201 3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
202 {{/expandable}}
203
204 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
205 [[Download Full Study>>attach:butzin2002.pdf]]
206 {{/expandable}}
207 {{/expandable}}
208
209 {{expandable summary="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
210 **Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
211 **Date of Publication:** *2003*
212 **Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
213 **Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
214 **DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
215 **Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
216
217 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
218 1. **General Observations:**
219 - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
220 - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
221
222 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
223 - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
224 - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
225
226 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
227 - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
228 - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
229 {{/expandable}}
230
231 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
232 1. **Primary Observations:**
233 - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
234 - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
235
236 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
237 - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
238 - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
239
240 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
241 - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
242 - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
243 {{/expandable}}
244
245 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
246 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
247 - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
248 - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
249
250 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
251 - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
252 - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
253
254 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
255 - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
256 - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
257 {{/expandable}}
258
259 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
260 - Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
261 - Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
262 - Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
263 {{/expandable}}
264
265 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
266 1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
267 2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
268 3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
269 {{/expandable}}
270
271 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
272 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.3109_10826087709027235.pdf]]
273 {{/expandable}}
274 {{/expandable}}
275
276 {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Differences in Marijuana Users’ Risk of Arrest in the United States"}}
277 **Source:** *Drug and Alcohol Dependence*
278 **Date of Publication:** *2006*
279 **Author(s):** *Rajeev Ramchand, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Martin Y. Iguchi*
280 **Title:** *"Racial Differences in Marijuana Users’ Risk of Arrest in the United States"*
281 **DOI:** [10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.02.010](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.02.010)
282 **Subject Matter:** *Marijuana Use, Policing, Racial Disparities, Drug Markets*
283
284 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
285 1. **General Observations:**
286 - African Americans are **2.5× more likely** to be arrested for marijuana possession than Whites.
287 - Arrest disparity persists **despite similar usage rates** between groups.
288
289 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
290 - African Americans were:
291 - **Twice as likely** to buy outdoors (0.31 vs. 0.14)
292 - **Three times as likely** to buy from a stranger (0.30 vs. 0.09)
293 - **More likely** to buy away from home (0.61 vs. 0.48)
294
295 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
296 - Over **39% of all U.S. drug arrests in 2002** were for marijuana possession.
297 - Nearly **80% of the increase in drug arrests from 1990–2002** was due to marijuana alone.
298 {{/expandable}}
299
300 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
301 1. **Primary Observations:**
302 - **Differences in purchasing behavior** partially explain racial arrest disparities.
303 - Riskier purchasing settings (outdoors, strangers, away from home) increase arrest probability.
304
305 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
306 - African Americans’ higher arrest rates are linked more to **behavioral exposure** than usage frequency.
307 - Purchasing from strangers and in public **correlates with law enforcement encounters**.
308
309 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
310 - Results based on **2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)**.
311 - Multivariate regression models confirm **race remains a significant predictor** even after controlling for demographics and behaviors.
312 {{/expandable}}
313
314 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
315 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
316 - Uses **nationally representative survey data** and robust statistical modeling.
317 - Separates **usage rates from behavior-related arrest risks**.
318
319 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
320 - Focused specifically on **marijuana**, may not generalize to other drugs.
321 - **Does not directly test law enforcement bias**, only behavioral correlates of arrest risk.
322
323 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
324 - Include **law enforcement data** on arrest locations and procedures.
325 - Extend model to **longitudinal outcomes** (repeat arrest, conviction).
326 {{/expandable}}
327
328 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
329 - Supports the argument that **behavioral patterns—not usage rates—drive racial arrest disparities**.
330 - Highlights **systemic vulnerability among Black marijuana users** due to social context of purchases.
331 - Reinforces critique of **“race-neutral” enforcement** in drug policy discussions.
332 {{/expandable}}
333
334 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
335 1. Study **how police patrol patterns** correlate with outdoor purchasing risk.
336 2. Investigate **racial profiling in drug arrests** beyond behavioral correlates.
337 3. Compare marijuana purchase risks in **urban vs. suburban contexts**.
338 {{/expandable}}
339
340 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
341 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.drugalcdep.2006.02.010.pdf]]
342 {{/expandable}}
343 {{/expandable}}

XWiki AI Chat