Violence: The Social Problem

Introduction

Following the news in the media, people acknowledge the prevalence of violence in society. In addition to violence depiction in various films, shows, and video games, news outlets are filled with reports on cases of violence as well. It should be noted in such matters that there are no layers in the society, which are free from violent influences in one way or another. Violence not only affects individuals, families, and ethnic and religious groups, but also whole nations are affected with violence. In that regard, it can be stated that violence is an important problem in the society in which community violence can be seen as one of the most common types, which raises major concerns.

The present paper provides extensive research on the problem of violence in communities, in terms of its significance in the society, the different perspectives, its position in literature and the potential means for intervention.

Problem Statement

Violence is defined as “the use of force to injure people or to destroy their property”, and which can be divided into individual and group violence (Henslin, 2008, p. 132). The violence in communities can be defined through indicating the community context for violence. Thus, community violence can be defined as “events in the local neighborhood involving crime, weapons use, and violence or potential violence perpetrated by people outside of the immediate family” (Horowitz & McKay, 2005, p. 356). With violence in general being divided into main categories, violence in communities is often categorized into violence direct exposure, or victimization, and indirect exposure, or witnessing violence (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001, p. 298).

Additionally, the definition of community violence might consider several variables, which accordingly might refine the definition into being more specific. Such variables were identified in Rosenthal and Wilson (2003) as the location in which violence is taking place, i.e. inside or outside the home, sexual or non-sexual in nature, singular or more commonplace events, direct or indirect exposure, and being the victim or witnessing violence (Rosenthal & Wilson, 2003, p. 461).

With the definition clarified, the scale of the problem can be seen through governmental figures and statistics, according to which the problem can be assessed and evaluated. Such statistics include such facts as homicide as the leading cause of death among black males and females 15-34 years of age and the second leading cause of death all 10-19 -year-olds, by 1992 (Buka, et al., 2001, p. 298). Other statistics include domestic violence as the leading cause of injury related deaths among pregnant women in the 1990s (Englander, 2007, p. 16). In terms of child abuse, such facts are even more serious, where the results of 1996 study indicates that for children 18 years of younger approximately 1,554,000, children were found to be victims of maltreatment, 734,000 were found to be victims physical, emotional or sexual abuse, and 879,000 were victims of neglect (Margolin & Gordis, 2000, p. 447).

In that regard, it can be seen that the scale of the problem of community violence poses a real problem to the society, which is shaped through by many realities, such as cultural, social and economical. Additionally, the problem of community violence has been numerously discussed in scholarly literature, in order to identify the causes and the direct and indirect t consequences of such phenomenon. In such a context, a specific focus was directed toward children and adolescents as the victims of community crimes as well as offenders.

Literature Review

Causes

There are numerous causes linked to the occurrence of violence in communities. One perspective on the causes of community violence can be seen through psychological theories. Such theories emphasize learning as one of the causes of violence, i.e. rewarding or reinforcing violence can cause the person to be violent again (Henslin, 2008, p. 138). Another view on such cause can be seen through emphasizing modeling and copying as one of the causes of violence. Such theories can be supported through the model proposed in Miller and Knudsen (2007), reviewed in Temple (2009), which suggests an inter- and intra-generational approach that assumes the existence of potential of violence in a family. Accordingly, the modeling and the copying factor, explained in psychological theorists, can be seen in particular cycle of violence, the initial causes of which can be substance abuse, self-harm, and mental health (Temple, 2009, p. 386). The latter can be also linked to the sub-cultural theory, which states that growing in a subculture approving violence can be influential in learning to be violent (Henslin, 2008, p. 139). In terms of the mental health factor, it was also supported in Silver, Felson, and Vaneseltine (2008), a study in which it was found that “a history of mental health treatment is more strongly associated with assaultive violence and sexual offenses than with other types of crimes” (Silver, Felson, & Vaneseltine, 2008, p. 405).

The sociological approach, on the other hand, can be seen through emphasizing external risk factors, rather than causes within the people. “Rather than looking for violence-inducing characteristics within people, such as chromosomes and inhibitory mechanisms, sociologists focus on matters outside people” (Henslin, 2008, p. 138). Such risk factors can be divided into several contexts, where for example the neighborhood context implies such factors as deficits in institutional resources, collective efficiency, social cohesion and informal social control (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008, p. 298). The family context, on the other hand, implies other factors, the absence of the occurrence of which influences violence in communities. Such factors might include family living arrangements, living with biological parents, the degree of parent-child conflict, and others (Buka, et al., 2001, p. 302). While not being perceived as causes in themselves, such factors can be seen as predictors increasing the possibility of being victimized or witnessing violence. Other social community risk factors might include economic and demographic variables that correlate with violence. Such variables include poverty rates, gender characteristics, and racial/ethnic compositions (Buka, et al., 2001, p. 302).

Consequences

The consequences of community violence can be assessed in terms of violence exposure. In such context, violence exposure was found to be linked to such aspects as morbidity and mortality of adolescents. Additionally, exposure to violence was identified as a risk factor for the development of emotional and behavioral problems (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008, p. 297). The community violence was also found responsible for a pattern of trauma exposure, defined as “compounded community trauma: multiple traumatic events both in the home and outside of the home (on the streets and at school) throughout development” (Horowitz & McKay, 2005, p. 356). Such exposure was studied in Horowitz et al. (1995), cited in Horowitz and McKay (2005), and was believed to lead to mental health consequences, reporting a pattern of high rates of symptoms in all three of Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom clusters (Horowitz & McKay, 2005, p. 357). PTSD symptom clusters include re-experiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal, according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, cited in (Horowitz & McKay, 2005). The occurrence of such consequences can be explained in that community violence creates an environment of “constant danger, more similar to a war without an end” (Horowitz & McKay, 2005, p. 357). In a study by Guterman, Hahm, and Cameron (2002), the relation between community violence and mental health was investigated. The study analyzed 4590 adolescents attending school in grades 7 through 12 and found that 19.6% experienced at least one form of personal victimization, 11% of which stated that they used mental health services at 1-year follow up (Guterman, Hahm, & Cameron, 2002).

In addition to consequences related to mental health, other outcomes might occur as well, specifically for witnessing violence. Substance abuse can be seen as one of such consequences, where Kilpatrick et al. (2000), cited in Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, and Earls (2001), found that witnessing violence was one of the strongest factors for disorders related to substance abuse. Exposure to violence (ETV) triples the risk of abuse or dependency for all substances (Buka, et al., 2001, p. 304). Additionally, a correlation was found between witnessing violence, as one of community violence categories, and physiological outcomes. Stressors, including those caused by ETV, might result in physiological alterations, such as the timing or rate of physical development as well as the timing and progression of physical growth, timing of puberty, and cognitive, social and emotional development (Buka, et al., 2001, p. 305).

Potential Intervention Approaches

It can be stated that intervention approaches toward community violence share several common characteristics. Such characteristics can be generally divided between protective and preventive measures. Protective measures can be seen through providing solutions that will improve the experiences of growing up in the community. Such measures can be seen as efforts to break the violence cycle, focusing on children and adolescents growing up in violent communities. Programs related to such an approach usually focus on improving the educational experience and environment, e.g. “supplies, extracurricular activities, teacher retention, increased school safety, and health promotion” (Horowitz & McKay, 2005). Accordingly, various counseling services, in which children would be able to talk about their experiences, provide and receive support, and focusing on confidentiality as the main priority, can be seen as examples of protective measures (Horowitz & McKay, 2005, p. 363).

If the protective measures’ main concern is in dealing with the consequences of community violence, preventive measures aim at reducing crime rates in communities. Among the examples of such preventive approaches, the framework developed by Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families is a good demonstration of the roles of research, communication and collaboration. The main essential elements of such framework include identifying the criminal and delinquent activities, prevalent in the community, as well as the associated risk factors, and assess the available capacities for the community, in terms of resources and services offered by “schools, churches, businesses, nonprofit organizations, parks and recreation departments, police, hospitals, and the state serving a community’s children and families” (Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families, 2002, p. 10).

According to the gathered data, a clear and effective message would be developed, whose aims will include: 1) motivating community members to join the program, and 2) communicate the objectives of the programs to the community. With such message communicated to the public, their awareness will be increased regarding existent problems and violence, where the result of such awareness can be providing funding for the intervention programs, and the initiation of collaborative efforts between the community and the government for the development of interventions. A program exemplary of the latter can be seen in Little Rock’s Prevention, Intervention and Treatment (PIT) Initiative, the result of which were interventions such as local provision of drug-and-alcohol treatment to children and adults, summer youth programs, and others (Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families, 2002, p. 16). The results of such program were self-speaking, where “the number of youth arrested for violent crimes during the summer months dropped 81 percent between 1996 and 2000” (Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families, 2002, p. 16).

In a different approach, key elements for a successful violence prevention program were identified through a literature review and interview with experts in Dusenbury, Falco, Lake, Brannigan, and Bosworth (1997). Those key elements were derived considering the effectiveness of the reviewed programs, identifying strategies or components of programs that were effective in reducing aggression and violence (Dusenbury, Falco, Lake, Brannigan, & Bosworth, 1997). The identified elements included the following:

• A multifaceted approach, including family, peer, media and community components.
• Early start in the primary grades and reinforcement across grade levels.
• Tailoring the interventions developmentally.
• The promotion of personal and social competencies.
• The inclusion of interactive techniques such as group work, cooperative learning, discussions, role plays, and others.
• Matching the interventions material with the ethnic/cultural characteristics of the target population.
• Training and development for the program’s staff.
• The promotion of positive school culture or climate.
• Providing activities that were designed to” foster norms against violence, aggression, and bullying” (Dusenbury, et al., 1997).

In that regard, it should be noted that the inclusion of essential components and strategies that ensure success implies eliminating the components which will not work. Such components include scare tactics, the use of instructional programs, solely focusing on self-esteem, and leaving control after the end of the intervention period (Dusenbury, et al., 1997).

Recommendations

It can be stated that a combination of both preventive and protective measures will be more beneficial to reducing community violence, than the reliance on a single approach only. Among the intervention approaches discussed in this paper, it can be stated that a general framework that would be tailored to the needs of a specific population can be more feasible as an intervention, as compared to the inclusion of all nine components of successful intervention. In that regard, it is recommended that each of the proposed components should be analyzed and investigated in terms of applicability and feasibility individually, in the context of specific community and specific violence problems.

Conclusion

The present paper provided an extensive analysis of the social problem of community violence. The paper researched community violence in terms of the problem’s significance, causes, consequences, and interventions. Additionally, the paper concluded with a brief recommendation on the feasibility of selecting and implementing interventions. It can be concluded that the community violence is a major concern to the society, and accordingly, the results of social research and the advancements of social sciences should be directed toward solving such problems in the society.

References

1. Aisenberg, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2008). Community Violence in Context: Risk and Resilience in Children and Families. J Interpers Violence, 23(3), 296-315. doi: 10.1177/0886260507312287
2. Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families. (2002). Reducing Juvenile Violence in Communitiesю
3. Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(3), 298-310. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.71.3.298
4. Dusenbury, L., Falco, M., Lake, A., Brannigan, R., & Bosworth, K. (1997). Nine critical elements of promising violence prevention programs. Journal of School Health, 67(10), 409.
5. Englander, E. K. (2007). The Numbers: How Common is Violent Behavior Today? In E. K. Englander (Ed.), Understanding violence: Routledge.
6. Guterman, N. B., Hahm, H. C., & Cameron, M. (2002). Adolescent victimization and subsequent use of mental health counseling services. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(5), 336-345.
7. Henslin, J. M. (2008). Social problems : a down-to-earth approach (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
8. Horowitz, K., & McKay, M. (2005). Community Violence and Urban Families: Experiences, Effects, and Directions for Intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(3), 356–368. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.75.3.356
9. Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The Effects of Family and Community Violence on Children Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-479.
10. Rosenthal, B. S., & Wilson, W. C. (2003). The association of ecological Variables and Psychological Distress with Exposure to Community Violence among Adolescents. Adolescence 38(151), 459-479.
11. Silver, E., Felson, R. B., & Vaneseltine, M. (2008). The Relationship Between Mental Health Problems and Violence Among Criminal Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 405-426. doi: 10.1177/0093854807312851
12. Temple, J. R. (2009). Book Review: Miller, J., & Knudsen, D. D. (2007). Family Abuse and Violence: A Social Problems Perspective. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Violence Against Women, 15(3), 385-388. doi: 10.1177/1077801208330746