Mental Health Research in Correctional Settings: Perceptions of Risk and Vulnerabilities

With more than half of individuals incarcerated having serious mental health concerns, correctional settings offer excellent opportunities for epidemiological, prevention, and intervention research. However, due to unique ethical and structural challenges, these settings create risks and vulnerabilities for participants not typically encountered in research populations. We surveyed 1,224 researchers, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, and IRB prisoner representatives to assess their perceptions of risks and vulnerabilities associated with mental health research conducted in correctional settings. Highest ranked risks were related to privacy, stigma, and confidentiality; lowest ranked risks were related to prisoners’ loss of privileges or becoming targets of violence due to having participated in research. Cognitive impairment, mental illness, lack of autonomy, and limited access to services emerged as the greatest sources of vulnerability; being male, being female, being older than age 60, being a minority, and being pregnant were the lowest ranked sources of vulnerability. Researchers with corrections experience perceived lower risks and vulnerabilities than all other groups, raising the question whether these researchers accurately appraise risk and vulnerability based on experience, or if their lower risk and vulnerability perceptions reflect potential bias due to their vested interests. By identifying areas of particular risk and vulnerability, this study provides important information for researchers and research reviewers alike.     

Community engagement,greening, and violent crime: A test of the greening hypothesis and Busy Streets

Researchers have documented that vacant lot greening can reduce community-level crime and violence. Busy Streets Theory (BST) suggests that residents who are involved in the greening process can help to improve physical environments and build social connections that deter crime and violence. Yet few researchers have explored how community engagement in the greening process may affect crime and violence outcomes. We applied BST to test the effects of community-engaged vacant lot greening compared to vacant lots that received either professional mowing or no treatment, on the density of violent crime around study lots. Using mixed effects regression models, we analyzed trends in violent crime density over the summer months from 2016 to 2018 at 2102 street segments in Youngstown, OH. These street segments fell within 150 meters of an intervention parcel that was classified as one of three conditions: community-engaged maintenance, professional mowing, or no treatment (control). We found that street segments in areas receiving community-engaged maintenance or professional mowing experienced greater declines in violent crime density than street segments in areas receiving no treatment, and more decline occurred in the community-engaged condition compared to the professional mow condition. Our findings support BST and suggest that community-engaged greening of vacant lots in postindustrial cities with a concentrated vacancy can reduce crime and violence.     

Reliability of familiarity rating of ordinary Japanese words for different years and places

Two-word familiarity sets were measured in different years (1995 and 2002) and places (Kanto and Kinki, in Japan) for a large number of Japanese words, to examine the reliability of familiarity ratings. The correlation between the word familiarities of the two sets was extremely high (r = .958, N = 10,515). It is suggested that familiarity rating, at least for ordinary words found in a dictionary, is very reliable and not greatly affected by differences in years and places.     

A1 is not a conservative extension of S4 but of S5

In [1], D. W. Hart and C. Mcginn considered two logics A1 and A2. These logics embody part of a tradition about a priori knowledge and necessity. They proved that A2 is a conservative extension of a well-known modal logic S5 but left the problem whether A1 is a conservative extension of S4 open. In this note, we shall show that A1 is not a conservative extension of S4 but of S5, and also correct an inadequate proof.