BLACK VISIBILITY,CITY SIZE,AND SOCIAL CONTROL*

The research reported in this article tests the hypothesis that the relationship between the public fiscal commitment to policing and minority group size is not the same in small cities as it is in large cities. The results of a comparison of all cities in the United States that were greater than 50,000 in population in 1970 with those that were between 25,000–50,000 at that time indicates that the impact of the relative size of the black population on social control efforts differs in both strength and form in the two subpopulations. In large cities percent black has a significant impact on the level of resources devoted to policing, and a curvilinear impact on capital policing expenditures even after other determinants of policing expenditures have been controlled. In small cities the relationship is insignificant or weak. These results suggest that blacks are perceived as a greater threat to the social order in large cities than they are in small cities. It is possible that the anonymity and lower level of informal social control characteristic of large cities increases both fear of crime and the degree of threat represented by the minority group. The higher level of social cohesion and informal surveillance characteristic of smaller cities could be inhibiting the extent to which blacks are perceived as a threat to the existing order, and thereby preventing the iink between percent black and formal social control efforts that is found in large cities.     

Augmenting the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) characterized and prioritized the physical cross‐border threats and hazards to the nation stemming from terrorism, market‐driven illicit flows of people and goods (illegal immigration, narcotics, funds, counterfeits, and weaponry), and other nonmarket concerns (movement of diseases, pests, and invasive species). These threats and hazards pose a wide diversity of consequences with very different combinations of magnitudes and likelihoods, making it very challenging to prioritize them. This article presents the approach that was used at DHS to arrive at a consensus regarding the threats and hazards that stand out from the rest based on the overall risk they pose. Due to time constraints for the decision analysis, it was not feasible to apply multiattribute methodologies like multiattribute utility theory or the analytic hierarchy process. Using a holistic approach was considered, such as the deliberative method for ranking risks first published in this journal. However, an ordinal ranking alone does not indicate relative or absolute magnitude differences among the risks. Therefore, the use of the deliberative method for ranking risks is not sufficient for deciding whether there is a material difference between the top‐ranked and bottom‐ranked risks, let alone deciding what the stand‐out risks are. To address this limitation of ordinal rankings, the deliberative method for ranking risks was augmented by adding an additional step to transform the ordinal ranking into a ratio scale ranking. This additional step enabled the selection of stand‐out risks to help prioritize further analysis.     

Do antidepressants work? Statistical significance versus clinical benefits

Ours has been called the Prozac generation but, earlier this year, newspaper front page headlines screamed "Antidepressants don't work". Our authors' reanalysis of drug trials was widely reported as implying that antidepressant drugs such as Prozac are overprescribed and useless. The truth, as Blair T. Johnson and Irving Kirsch explain, is more complex, and more interesting.