One of the reading assignments for week 1 is Walsh and Farrington’s “Toward an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime.” Does this make sense to you? Do you believe there are good arguments for moving away from doing “business as usual”? Beyond the costs of ill-advisedly-spent tax dollars, what other harmful effects can you mention? What kinds of arguments can we make to those who still need to slake their thirst for revenge?
Any or all of the above are fodder for discussion. Enjoy. dl
Evidence based crime prevention makes perfect sense if our American society hopes to ever get a handle on crime. The problem of instituting evidence based methodology is not whether we should or should not decide to use this form of crime prevention, but with the political agendas controlling America’s criminal policy decisions. The importance of whether a politician gets re-elected, or his individual views on crime prevention are taking priority over the evidence of what does or does not work. Welsh and Farrington (2001) validate this problem and acknowledge that it is a difficult task to overcome political and policy barriers in order to utilize what really works for preventing crime (p. 169).
Welsh and Farrington (2001) also mention three very good examples for arguing that business as usual crime prevention is in dire need of change. Their first suggestion of diverting criminal justice monies from street-level enforcement and correctional treatment to hot spot policing and cognitive behavior offender treatment is based on promising crime prevention evidence (p. 168). Current tough-on-crime policies such as mandatory sentencing, three strikes law, and increased incarceration practices has only led to the serious overcrowding of American prisons and has obviously not made any kind of a dent in crime prevention. Another perpetuated crime prevention blooper is Welsh and Farrington’s (2001) second example of tough boot camp programs. These military style discipline camps have proven to be ineffective at counteracting recidivism and a waste of tax payers’ dollars (p. 168). While discipline is a needed tool in preventing delinquent or criminal behavior, maybe a better time and place to administer this would be in early childhood within the home environment. This brings us to Welsh and Farrington’s (2001) last suggestion of investing in long term systematic review of parental support and training, during early childhood, as base line prevention for delinquency. This method could prove to be a more effective and long term crime prevention technique (p. 168).
So maybe, what needs fixing in the world of crime prevention today is to get at the root of the problem. Investing in the family unit to prevent the delinquent and antisocial behaviors arising from family dysfunction might just be the answer towards altering the systemic patterns of crime and criminal behavior.
Reference:
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward and evidence based approach to
preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 578, pp. 158-173.
The problem with the criminal justice system is that it is a closed culture especially law enforcement. New ideas such as evidence based programs were slow to gain recognition due to the simple fact that for the first time, the idea of using validated scientific methods would be met with resistance and suspicion. The challenge of law enforcement over the last thirty years is that the concepts of “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” or the idea of “jumping on the bandwagon” because other agencies have done so without first asking it works. A classic example has already been stated by Welsh and Farrington in regards to mandatory sentencing resulting from the “War on Drugs” that only increased prison populations yet there was no discernible decrease in crime.
A great example of a law enforcement agency used evidence based practices would be the Memphis Police department. The following is a synopsis of the evidence based program that addresses the challenge of subjects with mental illness and law enforcement intervention. “The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program is a community partnership working with mental health consumers and family members. The goal is to set a standard of excellence for officers with respect to treatment of individuals with mental illness. This is done by establishing individual responsibility for each event and overall accountability for the results. Officers will be provided with the best quality training available, they will be part of a specialized team which can respond to a crisis at any time and they will work with the community to resolve each situation in a manner that shows concern for the citizen’s well being.” As a result of the Memphis model, incidents involving the use of force with subjects with mental illness have been reduced and referral/interaction with the mental health and medical communities have increased.
The challenge of law enforcement and other agencies of the criminal justice will be ability to recognize that change is needed and the willingness to abandon out dated practices and embrace new techniques that utilize evidence based practices.
After reading Welsh and Farrington’s article, “Toward an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime,” moving in the direction of evidence-based practices within the criminal justice field makes complete sense. The use of evidence-based practices in regards to criminal justice is not only the smarter choice, both economically and in terms of efficacy, but it is also represents a more studied approach towards justice in our society. For far too long now society has been inundated with the notion that we should be “tough on crime.” Being “tough on crime” has produced a culture that emphasizes punishment as a primary solution to crime. However, as we can clearly see by the rates of recidivism, overcrowding of our jails and prisons, and by the racial disparity experienced within our criminal justice system, punishment as a primary solution to crime has proven ineffectual. (Beckett & Sasson, 2005, pg. 43) Welsh and Farrington quote Sherman as saying, “most police practice, like medical practice, is still shaped by local custom, opinions, theories, and subjective impressions… but evidence-based policing challenges those principals of decision making and creates systematic feedback to provide continuous quality improvement…” (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, pg. 159).
There are several valid arguments for moving away from conducting “business as usual” in reference to our current criminal justice policies. There are two in particular that I will address. One valid argument is that because our criminal justice system is punitive in nature, incarceration is the primary response to crimes committed. The current well being of the criminal justice system is in dire need of modification as evident by the number of individuals incarcerated in our jails and prisons or who are on probation or parole. There are currently 2.3 million individuals incarcerated in our jails and prisons. (Aizenman, 2008, pp. 2). This number is astounding and disheartening. Our current means have not proven to be effective. There is no scientific evidence proving that incarceration reduces crime, therefore we should at least reevaluate our current practices and consider changing our typical response to crime.
A second valid argument for utilizing evidence-based practices within the criminal justice field is that we should aim to prevent crimes from ever occurring. With evidence-based practices in place, we would be able to distinguish and implement programs proven to be effective that are geared towards crime prevention and not simply just locking people up and throwing away the key. “In an evidence-based society, government crime prevention policy and local practice would be base on interventions with demonstrated effectiveness in preventing crime and offending” (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, pg. 166). Granted, we cannot prevent ALL crimes from occurring, however, if we can reduce crime occurrence this would prove just as consequential.
For those of us who still possess an insatiable yearning for revenge, may I present one idea to you: we are all just humans. Individuals who violate the law should not be viewed as another class of human being. While I do not believe that crimes shall be dismissed without some type of justice being served, the goal should be to rehabilitate offenders so that they may become functioning law-abiding citizens who contribute positively to this country. Our future is dependent upon it.
Welsh, B.C. & Farrington, D.P. (November 2001). Toward an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
DOI: 10.1177/0002716201578001010 158 2001; 578;
The criminal justice field is in need of change. Just as medicine is moving towards evidence-based practices, so should criminal justice. According to Sherman, “[e]vidence-based policing challenges [sic] principles of decision making and creates systematic feedback to provide continuous quality improvement in the achievement of police objectives (see Hoover 1996)” (p. 6). In other words, decisions on how to achieve crime control would no longer be based on “local custom, opinions, theories, and subjective impressions” (p. 6) but based on scientific evidence.
Additionally, it does not make sense to spend money on programs that do not work. Instead, programs that are proven to be effective should be implemented. Welsh and Farrington (2001) suggest three courses of action (p. 168):
1. Increase funding of police initiatives targeted at crime hot spots (to reduce crime and disorder) and cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders (to reduce recidivism);
2. Stop funding of correctional boot camps designed to reduce recidivism; and
3. Initiate a program of research to test the effects of parent training and support programs during early childhood on disruptive behavior and delinquency.
Although there will be barriers in the reformation of criminal justice policies, the long-term effects of using evidence-based practices will be beneficial to everyone. Reduced recidivism, more rehabilitated offenders, less tax money wasted on programs that do not work, and less crowding within the jail and prison system are just a few of the benefits of transitioning the current criminal justice policies to evidence-based approaches.
References:
Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence based policing. Ideas in American policing. Police Foundation. Washington, DC. [electronic version] retrieved January 10, 2009 from http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/Sherman.pdf.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward and evidence based approach to preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, pp. 158-173.
Debra Lindberg asked, ‘what kind of arguments can we make to those who still need to slake their thirst for revenge.’ I believe that there is just one argument, that revenge is not an effective method of reducing crime. By that I mean that deterrence is not an effective method of reducing crime. Those that naturally thirst for revenge will rationalize it by saying that long periods of incarceration will deter people from committing crimes. The theory goes that people will either be deterred because they are stuck in prison (specific deterrence), or they will be deterred out of fear of a harsh sentence (general deterrence).
According to Worrall (2008) there are three scientifically researched theories that point to deterrence being ineffective in reducing crime: ‘…many serious offenders lack the ability to associate criminal activity with the potential for punishment…offenders often have substance abuse problems… and perhaps most importantly, the criminal justice system has a poor record of catching law breakers.’ The idea of throwing away the key is just a joke to many of those committing the crimes. Remember the TV advertisement in the 1980’s that showed an egg being fried in a pan with the announcement that ‘this is your brain on drugs?’ That was just a hilarious joke to every stoner that I knew in High School. I doubt that that had any deterrence effect on drug users.
But I empathize with the people that believe these theories. There are those in the public - and also those working in the criminal justice system - that believe retribution through harsh sentencing is an effective method of reducing and preventing crime because that is all that they hear about. A majority of the public and those entering the field of criminal justice can’t help but be bombarded by these emotional appeals. We hear NEWS every day that merely recounts crime statistics, never really getting into the nitty gritty of the science of reducing crime. And those entering the fields of corrections or police work immediately run into punitive attitude that runs deeply, if not overtly.
Revenge is a funny thing. Rhetorically, why wouldn’t people want revenge against those who steal our cars, break into our houses, hurt us, and have no regard for us? It is convenient and perfectly natural that revenge in the form of harsh penalties is an approach that just keeps on ticking. It has an emotional resonance to those in the public and in law enforcement that feel strongly in a just and reciprocal eye for an eye. But locking people up and throwing away the key does not decrease crime – it is just an end in itself that satisfies some deep dark belief in justice. So why do we continue with the charade? Why don’t we separate emotional revenge from a scientific approach to preventing and reducing crime?
I feel that I have a valuable perspective on this issue. Over the past two years, at the same time I have been gaining an education in criminal justice administration from Portland State University, I worked as a detention officer in my county juvenile hall/probation department and then attended a five month sheriff’s training academy. My questions as to what makes criminals tick have been seen from the perspective of a citizen, of a student of criminal justice, of a detention officer, and of a sheriff’s deputy in training.
The thirst for revenge that Debra Lindberg referred to dies hard. Even in this day and age, my county probation department and the sheriff’s academy both had a strong undercurrent of the ‘us versus them’ mentality, with the word ‘dirt bag’ being synonymous with the word ‘suspect.’ At the ground level, where officers are contacting members of the public that might be intent on doing them harm, this attitude is strong, and it is also a life saver. A pencil unaccounted for is a deadly weapon in a juvenile hall setting. And a driver with their hands anywhere but visibly on the steering wheel during a traffic stop is a potential cop killer. But let’s not pretend that this attitude prevents crime. Sherman (1998) noted that, ‘most police practice, like medical practice, is still shaped by local custom, opinions, theories, and subjective impressions.’
The disconnect between what our society is told and believes about criminal justice and actual scientific research into effectively preventing crime is all that stands in the way of revenge being reduced to its emotional appeal. Joan Petersilia (1990) cautions on this disconnect: ‘how and where we publish our research has helped make it irrelevant to high-level policymakers. Policymakers are not resistant to using research, but we make their access to relevant findings difficult… we need to develop publications and other forms of communication tailored for those audiences.’
Petersilia, Joan (1991). The policy relevance of future of criminology—The American Society of Criminology. 1991. Presidential Address.” Criminology, 29, 1, 1-15
Sherman, Lawrence W. (1998). Evidence-Based Policing. Ideas in American Policing. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation
Worrall, John L. (2008). Crime Control in America – What Works? Pearson Education, Boston
Evidence based crime prevention strategies are generally good. However, it is up to the politicians or policy makers to ensure the studies show that a program works or not and to ensure the study is done without bias using the highest level of proven research methodology. Studies using a randomized control of its units (people or places) seem to be the most convincing method to evaluate crime prevention programs (Farrington 1983). Combining multiple studies of the same crime prevention solutions by a systematic review will provide a better picture of what works and what doesn’t work. However, even if a study uses randomized control methodology it must also have been completed with the utmost integrity.
My fear is that most politicians and policy makers don’t take the time to properly evaluate these studies. They simply go with whatever seems to be the trend of the day, (e.g. Correctional Boot Camps or Scared Straight Programs). They will use a cookie cutter approach in deciding what programs they will support or not, thinking if it worked in one city it will work in theirs, without analyzing their own specific problems.
Many of the crime problems we face today can not be solved by criminal justice solutions. Crime is a symptom of a much bigger social illness. As Lynn Webb wrote in her comments, we need to get to the root cause of crime. There have been many studies that show promise in this area. The programs that work take a lot of time and money, time and money that politicians, policy makers, and most citizens will not invest.
Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2001). Toward an evidence-based approach to preventing crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 158-173.
Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2005). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: Conclusions and Directions for a safer Society. CJCC/RCCJP, 337-354.
Dave K
Authors Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington wrote a much needed article titled “Toward an Evidence Based Approach to Preventing Crime” highlighting the need for research based evaluation of criminal justice programs. Considering the current tendency of lawmakers to allow themselves to be persuaded by current fads and public outcry in crime prevention, this piece makes a lot of sense to me. As the authors mention, other sciences, such as medicine, rely heavily on evidence collected from well designed research (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, p. 159). However, criminal justice evaluation seems to be stuck in the dark ages. All too often, programs are implemented on a wide scale based on arm chair philosophy or knee jerk reactions to recent events in the media. Frighteningly, many strategies being used in corrections and law enforcement may not just be ineffective-they may be making current problems worse (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, p. 159). The outcry for more evidence based policy decisions is therefore one that all in the criminal justice field need to rally behind. It is time to move away from business as usual.
Admittedly, this is not an easy task. Tax payer dollars are needed to fund research. Plus, creating well designed randomized experiments with internal and external validity tailored to the unique nature of the criminal justice field is just not as simple as it is in other sciences such as medicine (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, p. 164). Yet it is not an insurmountable undertaking. This is a challenge that must be undertaken in order to advance the science of criminal justice.
Reference:
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward an evidence based approach to
preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 578, pp. 158-173.
Evidence-based practices are growing and are more widely implemented, as Sherman highlights, “The pressure for better measures of results is in the spirit of the age, and police cannot long escape it.” The pressure for better measures that Sherman speaks of is the driving force that will ultimately encourage this change and allow for implementation of evidence-based practices in police department agencies (Steadman, 1998).
A great example of effective evidence-based practice is that of The Crisis Intervention Team Model of the Memphis Police Department. The Crisis Intervention Team Model is a form of evidence-based practice that is currently being adopted by several law enforcement agencies throughout America (Steadman, 2000). “The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program is a community partnership working with mental health consumers and family members. The goal is to set a standard of excellence for our officers with respect to treatment of individuals with mental illness” (CABLE, 1998). CIT officers are trained on how to effectively respond to individuals with mental illness, without using traditional policing, by working closely with mental health services so to assist the individual with the services that would be most beneficial in the given situation.
Steadman (2000) highlighted possible barriers or conflicts in the CIT program. Steadman stated that law enforcement officers “often feel inadequately trained to identify and intervene in cases involving mental illness, yet when called to respond, they are responsible to provide a disposition that both serves the needs of the individual and maintains order and safety in the community.” These situations will often lead to an arrest, as the restraint method is an area that all law enforcement officers have been trained in and are familiar with.
Evidence-based practices such as the CIT program have showed to be highly beneficial. Increased CIT trained officers have already shown to assist in decreasing arrest rates and jail overflow as well as free up non-CIT law enforcement’s response times to more emergency based calls. Increased CIT trained officers have also assisted in decreasing officer and citizen injury for CIT officers are trained in de-escalating or defusing potentially dangerous situations (Steadman, 2000).
Steadman, H.J., Deane, M.W., Borum, R. & Morrissey, J.P. (2000). Comparing outcomes of major models of police responses to mental health emergencies. Psychiatric Services, 51, 645-649. http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/content/vol51/issue5/index.dtl
The idea of moving towards an evidence-based approach to preventing crime absolutely makes sense to me. In Welsh and Farrington’s “Toward an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime” they state that “in an evidence-based society, government crime prevention policy and local practice would be based on interventions with demonstrated effectiveness in preventing crime and offending” (p. 166). Based on everything that I have learned so far in this program, an evidence-based is what is needed to fix the current crime and offending issues.
One of the most interesting ideas in the Welsh and Farrington article is the concept of “Using What Works and Stopping Using What Doesn’t”. This may not seem like a difficult concept, but once society gets comfortable and used to what they are doing, whether it is working or not, it is hard to bring about change. Even the three main courses of action suggested in the article (p. 167) will be hard to accomplish. This seems strange to me since these courses are well supported. For instance, number two is “to stop funding of correctional boot camps designed to reduce recidivism.” That boot camps are still used seems ridiculous to me considering that even the Welsh and Farrington article (p. 167) states that in a review of 44 studies done on boot camps and their effects on recidivism, only 9 were found to be beneficial. Eight of the studies were found to be harmful and the remaining studies showed no impact at all. Since this is the case, how is it that boot camps are still being used?
Reference:
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward and evidence based approach to preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, pp. 158-173
Evidence-based approaches to crime prevention makes complete sense. Just as a person would invest their time and money into a medical procedure that was successful, the same idea should be applied crime prevention. Todays economy appears dreary. So finding ways to effectively spend taxes for appropriate programs, seems to be in the best interest for everyone.
This leads into the next question posed, what other harmful effects can be mentioned by not moving towards evidence-based crime control? As mentioned in Welsh and Farrington (2001), political figures tend to focus on the “right here, right now” approach to crime control. It is not in their best interest to invest themselves in long term programs. The harm caused by this type of governing is the same type of person will be enforcing the same type of programs. In order for a positive movement towards evidence-based crime control, politicians and the community need to move towards change.
Unfortunately, there is still a large part of the population that believes incarceration is the answer for all criminal activity. Many believe long-term incarceration will change the behavior of a criminal, both in the juvenile and adult system. Even though recent findings have found that locking up juveniles seems to be doing more harm than good. It is this type of thinking that will be hard to convince otherwise.
Welsh, B.C.,& Farrington, D.P. (2001). Toward and evidence based approach to preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 158-173.
What makes sense about evidence-based policing was said by Lawrence Sherman,”Of all the ideas in policing, evidence-based policing stands out as the most powerful force for change: police practices should be based on scientific evidence about what works best.” The medical field has been using this practice for some time now and has proven to be effective. Sherman suggests using a “medical type chart” to be used in the criminal justice field, but as a chart of offenses that may create proactive policing methods and allow for police officers to see how certain situations should be handled.
Welsh and Farrington have discussed that the current way of doing things is not always effective although some do have positive results. They state that the conclusion of a systematic review on boot camps was that “boot camps do not reduce the risk of recidivism…” If this is true, why are boot camps still being used? Some of the strategies brought up that show beneficial signs or have been proven effective are: parent support by age three on disruptive behavior, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders, and targeted policing in “hot spots.”
Now to take the findings of the research from these and move toward applying this research, money could be saved by cutting boot camps and the funding could be used on other programs that are effective. This is exactly what evidence-based policing is all about.
Welsh,B.C. Farrington,D.P.(2001). Toward an evidence-based approach to preventing crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,578. http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/578/1/158
According to Walsh et al, p. 166. (2008) in an evidence-based society, government crime prevention policy and local practice would be based on interventions with demonstrated effectives in preventing crime and offending. The government has been using obsolete prevention methods and funding correctional boot camps programs without scientific research that the programs reduce recidivism. If the government continues doing “business as usual” the criminal justice system will become an ideology of the past. The criminal justice system needs to base all their programs based on scientific evidence. An example is diversion program for People with serious mental illness co-occurring with substance abuse. The states have diversion or jail diversion programs, for low level offenses, however, little or none evidence on the cost and cost-effectivessness of the programs. Most of the programs lack scientific research and the variation reflects heterogeneity in the structure and implementation of the programs. According to Walsh et al. it is right to move toward an evidence-based approach to prevent crime. According to Sherman (1993), communities are the central institution for crime prevention and our nation’s ability to prevent serious violent crimes may depend heavily on our ability to help reshape community life.
Evidence based-approach requires that the results of rigorous evaluation be rationally integrated into decisions about interventions by policymakers and practitioners, Walsh et al. (p. 159). As medical providers are using medicine based-practices, the criminal justice system should also use an evidence based-approach. It does make sense that “Business as usual” it is not working on the prevention of crime and researchers are right that the criminal justice diversion programs are not cost-effective on the prevention of crime.
References:
Sherman, L. (1993). Communities and crime prevention. National Academy of Science Report. Chapter 3.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward and Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, pp. 158-173.
Debra Lindberg wrote,
One of the reading assignments for week 1 is Walsh and Farrington’s “Toward an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime.” Does this make sense to you? Do you believe there are good arguments for moving away from doing “business as usual”? Beyond the costs of ill-advisedly-spent tax dollars, what other harmful effects can you mention? What kinds of arguments can we make to those who still need to slake their thirst for revenge?
Any or all of the above are fodder for discussion. Enjoy. dl
Link | January 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Lynn Webb wrote,
Evidence based crime prevention makes perfect sense if our American society hopes to ever get a handle on crime. The problem of instituting evidence based methodology is not whether we should or should not decide to use this form of crime prevention, but with the political agendas controlling America’s criminal policy decisions. The importance of whether a politician gets re-elected, or his individual views on crime prevention are taking priority over the evidence of what does or does not work. Welsh and Farrington (2001) validate this problem and acknowledge that it is a difficult task to overcome political and policy barriers in order to utilize what really works for preventing crime (p. 169).
Welsh and Farrington (2001) also mention three very good examples for arguing that business as usual crime prevention is in dire need of change. Their first suggestion of diverting criminal justice monies from street-level enforcement and correctional treatment to hot spot policing and cognitive behavior offender treatment is based on promising crime prevention evidence (p. 168). Current tough-on-crime policies such as mandatory sentencing, three strikes law, and increased incarceration practices has only led to the serious overcrowding of American prisons and has obviously not made any kind of a dent in crime prevention. Another perpetuated crime prevention blooper is Welsh and Farrington’s (2001) second example of tough boot camp programs. These military style discipline camps have proven to be ineffective at counteracting recidivism and a waste of tax payers’ dollars (p. 168). While discipline is a needed tool in preventing delinquent or criminal behavior, maybe a better time and place to administer this would be in early childhood within the home environment. This brings us to Welsh and Farrington’s (2001) last suggestion of investing in long term systematic review of parental support and training, during early childhood, as base line prevention for delinquency. This method could prove to be a more effective and long term crime prevention technique (p. 168).
So maybe, what needs fixing in the world of crime prevention today is to get at the root of the problem. Investing in the family unit to prevent the delinquent and antisocial behaviors arising from family dysfunction might just be the answer towards altering the systemic patterns of crime and criminal behavior.
Reference:
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward and evidence based approach to
preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 578, pp. 158-173.
Link | January 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Peter Burrell, Team one wrote,
The problem with the criminal justice system is that it is a closed culture especially law enforcement. New ideas such as evidence based programs were slow to gain recognition due to the simple fact that for the first time, the idea of using validated scientific methods would be met with resistance and suspicion. The challenge of law enforcement over the last thirty years is that the concepts of “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” or the idea of “jumping on the bandwagon” because other agencies have done so without first asking it works. A classic example has already been stated by Welsh and Farrington in regards to mandatory sentencing resulting from the “War on Drugs” that only increased prison populations yet there was no discernible decrease in crime.
A great example of a law enforcement agency used evidence based practices would be the Memphis Police department. The following is a synopsis of the evidence based program that addresses the challenge of subjects with mental illness and law enforcement intervention. “The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program is a community partnership working with mental health consumers and family members. The goal is to set a standard of excellence for officers with respect to treatment of individuals with mental illness. This is done by establishing individual responsibility for each event and overall accountability for the results. Officers will be provided with the best quality training available, they will be part of a specialized team which can respond to a crisis at any time and they will work with the community to resolve each situation in a manner that shows concern for the citizen’s well being.” As a result of the Memphis model, incidents involving the use of force with subjects with mental illness have been reduced and referral/interaction with the mental health and medical communities have increased.
The challenge of law enforcement and other agencies of the criminal justice will be ability to recognize that change is needed and the willingness to abandon out dated practices and embrace new techniques that utilize evidence based practices.
Reference:
http://www.memphispolice.org/crisis%20Intervention.htm
Link | January 6th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Angelica Mejia-Rutland wrote,
After reading Welsh and Farrington’s article, “Toward an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime,” moving in the direction of evidence-based practices within the criminal justice field makes complete sense. The use of evidence-based practices in regards to criminal justice is not only the smarter choice, both economically and in terms of efficacy, but it is also represents a more studied approach towards justice in our society. For far too long now society has been inundated with the notion that we should be “tough on crime.” Being “tough on crime” has produced a culture that emphasizes punishment as a primary solution to crime. However, as we can clearly see by the rates of recidivism, overcrowding of our jails and prisons, and by the racial disparity experienced within our criminal justice system, punishment as a primary solution to crime has proven ineffectual. (Beckett & Sasson, 2005, pg. 43) Welsh and Farrington quote Sherman as saying, “most police practice, like medical practice, is still shaped by local custom, opinions, theories, and subjective impressions… but evidence-based policing challenges those principals of decision making and creates systematic feedback to provide continuous quality improvement…” (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, pg. 159).
There are several valid arguments for moving away from conducting “business as usual” in reference to our current criminal justice policies. There are two in particular that I will address. One valid argument is that because our criminal justice system is punitive in nature, incarceration is the primary response to crimes committed. The current well being of the criminal justice system is in dire need of modification as evident by the number of individuals incarcerated in our jails and prisons or who are on probation or parole. There are currently 2.3 million individuals incarcerated in our jails and prisons. (Aizenman, 2008, pp. 2). This number is astounding and disheartening. Our current means have not proven to be effective. There is no scientific evidence proving that incarceration reduces crime, therefore we should at least reevaluate our current practices and consider changing our typical response to crime.
A second valid argument for utilizing evidence-based practices within the criminal justice field is that we should aim to prevent crimes from ever occurring. With evidence-based practices in place, we would be able to distinguish and implement programs proven to be effective that are geared towards crime prevention and not simply just locking people up and throwing away the key. “In an evidence-based society, government crime prevention policy and local practice would be base on interventions with demonstrated effectiveness in preventing crime and offending” (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, pg. 166). Granted, we cannot prevent ALL crimes from occurring, however, if we can reduce crime occurrence this would prove just as consequential.
For those of us who still possess an insatiable yearning for revenge, may I present one idea to you: we are all just humans. Individuals who violate the law should not be viewed as another class of human being. While I do not believe that crimes shall be dismissed without some type of justice being served, the goal should be to rehabilitate offenders so that they may become functioning law-abiding citizens who contribute positively to this country. Our future is dependent upon it.
References:
Aizenman, N.C. (2008). New High In U.S. Prison Numbers Growth Attributed To More Stringent Sentencing Laws. Retrieved January 8, 2008 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html
Beckett, K. & Sasson, T. (2005). The Rise of Modern “Tough on Crime” Movement. In Defending Justice: An Activist Resource Kit (sec. Conservative Agendas and Campaigns). Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/pdfs/chapters/toughcrime.pdf
Welsh, B.C. & Farrington, D.P. (November 2001). Toward an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
DOI: 10.1177/0002716201578001010 158 2001; 578;
Link | January 10th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Chanelle Bouwmeester - Team 1 wrote,
The criminal justice field is in need of change. Just as medicine is moving towards evidence-based practices, so should criminal justice. According to Sherman, “[e]vidence-based policing challenges [sic] principles of decision making and creates systematic feedback to provide continuous quality improvement in the achievement of police objectives (see Hoover 1996)” (p. 6). In other words, decisions on how to achieve crime control would no longer be based on “local custom, opinions, theories, and subjective impressions” (p. 6) but based on scientific evidence.
Additionally, it does not make sense to spend money on programs that do not work. Instead, programs that are proven to be effective should be implemented. Welsh and Farrington (2001) suggest three courses of action (p. 168):
1. Increase funding of police initiatives targeted at crime hot spots (to reduce crime and disorder) and cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders (to reduce recidivism);
2. Stop funding of correctional boot camps designed to reduce recidivism; and
3. Initiate a program of research to test the effects of parent training and support programs during early childhood on disruptive behavior and delinquency.
Although there will be barriers in the reformation of criminal justice policies, the long-term effects of using evidence-based practices will be beneficial to everyone. Reduced recidivism, more rehabilitated offenders, less tax money wasted on programs that do not work, and less crowding within the jail and prison system are just a few of the benefits of transitioning the current criminal justice policies to evidence-based approaches.
References:
Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence based policing. Ideas in American policing. Police Foundation. Washington, DC. [electronic version] retrieved January 10, 2009 from http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/Sherman.pdf.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward and evidence based approach to preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, pp. 158-173.
Link | January 10th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Theo Krause - Group 2 wrote,
Debra Lindberg asked, ‘what kind of arguments can we make to those who still need to slake their thirst for revenge.’ I believe that there is just one argument, that revenge is not an effective method of reducing crime. By that I mean that deterrence is not an effective method of reducing crime. Those that naturally thirst for revenge will rationalize it by saying that long periods of incarceration will deter people from committing crimes. The theory goes that people will either be deterred because they are stuck in prison (specific deterrence), or they will be deterred out of fear of a harsh sentence (general deterrence).
According to Worrall (2008) there are three scientifically researched theories that point to deterrence being ineffective in reducing crime: ‘…many serious offenders lack the ability to associate criminal activity with the potential for punishment…offenders often have substance abuse problems… and perhaps most importantly, the criminal justice system has a poor record of catching law breakers.’ The idea of throwing away the key is just a joke to many of those committing the crimes. Remember the TV advertisement in the 1980’s that showed an egg being fried in a pan with the announcement that ‘this is your brain on drugs?’ That was just a hilarious joke to every stoner that I knew in High School. I doubt that that had any deterrence effect on drug users.
But I empathize with the people that believe these theories. There are those in the public - and also those working in the criminal justice system - that believe retribution through harsh sentencing is an effective method of reducing and preventing crime because that is all that they hear about. A majority of the public and those entering the field of criminal justice can’t help but be bombarded by these emotional appeals. We hear NEWS every day that merely recounts crime statistics, never really getting into the nitty gritty of the science of reducing crime. And those entering the fields of corrections or police work immediately run into punitive attitude that runs deeply, if not overtly.
Revenge is a funny thing. Rhetorically, why wouldn’t people want revenge against those who steal our cars, break into our houses, hurt us, and have no regard for us? It is convenient and perfectly natural that revenge in the form of harsh penalties is an approach that just keeps on ticking. It has an emotional resonance to those in the public and in law enforcement that feel strongly in a just and reciprocal eye for an eye. But locking people up and throwing away the key does not decrease crime – it is just an end in itself that satisfies some deep dark belief in justice. So why do we continue with the charade? Why don’t we separate emotional revenge from a scientific approach to preventing and reducing crime?
I feel that I have a valuable perspective on this issue. Over the past two years, at the same time I have been gaining an education in criminal justice administration from Portland State University, I worked as a detention officer in my county juvenile hall/probation department and then attended a five month sheriff’s training academy. My questions as to what makes criminals tick have been seen from the perspective of a citizen, of a student of criminal justice, of a detention officer, and of a sheriff’s deputy in training.
The thirst for revenge that Debra Lindberg referred to dies hard. Even in this day and age, my county probation department and the sheriff’s academy both had a strong undercurrent of the ‘us versus them’ mentality, with the word ‘dirt bag’ being synonymous with the word ‘suspect.’ At the ground level, where officers are contacting members of the public that might be intent on doing them harm, this attitude is strong, and it is also a life saver. A pencil unaccounted for is a deadly weapon in a juvenile hall setting. And a driver with their hands anywhere but visibly on the steering wheel during a traffic stop is a potential cop killer. But let’s not pretend that this attitude prevents crime. Sherman (1998) noted that, ‘most police practice, like medical practice, is still shaped by local custom, opinions, theories, and subjective impressions.’
The disconnect between what our society is told and believes about criminal justice and actual scientific research into effectively preventing crime is all that stands in the way of revenge being reduced to its emotional appeal. Joan Petersilia (1990) cautions on this disconnect: ‘how and where we publish our research has helped make it irrelevant to high-level policymakers. Policymakers are not resistant to using research, but we make their access to relevant findings difficult… we need to develop publications and other forms of communication tailored for those audiences.’
Petersilia, Joan (1991). The policy relevance of future of criminology—The American Society of Criminology. 1991. Presidential Address.” Criminology, 29, 1, 1-15
Sherman, Lawrence W. (1998). Evidence-Based Policing. Ideas in American Policing. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation
Worrall, John L. (2008). Crime Control in America – What Works? Pearson Education, Boston
Link | January 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
David Killeen wrote,
Evidence based crime prevention strategies are generally good. However, it is up to the politicians or policy makers to ensure the studies show that a program works or not and to ensure the study is done without bias using the highest level of proven research methodology. Studies using a randomized control of its units (people or places) seem to be the most convincing method to evaluate crime prevention programs (Farrington 1983). Combining multiple studies of the same crime prevention solutions by a systematic review will provide a better picture of what works and what doesn’t work. However, even if a study uses randomized control methodology it must also have been completed with the utmost integrity.
My fear is that most politicians and policy makers don’t take the time to properly evaluate these studies. They simply go with whatever seems to be the trend of the day, (e.g. Correctional Boot Camps or Scared Straight Programs). They will use a cookie cutter approach in deciding what programs they will support or not, thinking if it worked in one city it will work in theirs, without analyzing their own specific problems.
Many of the crime problems we face today can not be solved by criminal justice solutions. Crime is a symptom of a much bigger social illness. As Lynn Webb wrote in her comments, we need to get to the root cause of crime. There have been many studies that show promise in this area. The programs that work take a lot of time and money, time and money that politicians, policy makers, and most citizens will not invest.
Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2001). Toward an evidence-based approach to preventing crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 158-173.
Welsh, B.C. and Farrington, D.P. (2005). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: Conclusions and Directions for a safer Society. CJCC/RCCJP, 337-354.
Dave K
Link | January 11th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Melissa Forsythe-Group 1 wrote,
Authors Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington wrote a much needed article titled “Toward an Evidence Based Approach to Preventing Crime” highlighting the need for research based evaluation of criminal justice programs. Considering the current tendency of lawmakers to allow themselves to be persuaded by current fads and public outcry in crime prevention, this piece makes a lot of sense to me. As the authors mention, other sciences, such as medicine, rely heavily on evidence collected from well designed research (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, p. 159). However, criminal justice evaluation seems to be stuck in the dark ages. All too often, programs are implemented on a wide scale based on arm chair philosophy or knee jerk reactions to recent events in the media. Frighteningly, many strategies being used in corrections and law enforcement may not just be ineffective-they may be making current problems worse (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, p. 159). The outcry for more evidence based policy decisions is therefore one that all in the criminal justice field need to rally behind. It is time to move away from business as usual.
Admittedly, this is not an easy task. Tax payer dollars are needed to fund research. Plus, creating well designed randomized experiments with internal and external validity tailored to the unique nature of the criminal justice field is just not as simple as it is in other sciences such as medicine (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, p. 164). Yet it is not an insurmountable undertaking. This is a challenge that must be undertaken in order to advance the science of criminal justice.
Reference:
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward an evidence based approach to
preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 578, pp. 158-173.
Link | January 11th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Briana Valencia Group 3 wrote,
Evidence-based practices are growing and are more widely implemented, as Sherman highlights, “The pressure for better measures of results is in the spirit of the age, and police cannot long escape it.” The pressure for better measures that Sherman speaks of is the driving force that will ultimately encourage this change and allow for implementation of evidence-based practices in police department agencies (Steadman, 1998).
A great example of effective evidence-based practice is that of The Crisis Intervention Team Model of the Memphis Police Department. The Crisis Intervention Team Model is a form of evidence-based practice that is currently being adopted by several law enforcement agencies throughout America (Steadman, 2000). “The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program is a community partnership working with mental health consumers and family members. The goal is to set a standard of excellence for our officers with respect to treatment of individuals with mental illness” (CABLE, 1998). CIT officers are trained on how to effectively respond to individuals with mental illness, without using traditional policing, by working closely with mental health services so to assist the individual with the services that would be most beneficial in the given situation.
Steadman (2000) highlighted possible barriers or conflicts in the CIT program. Steadman stated that law enforcement officers “often feel inadequately trained to identify and intervene in cases involving mental illness, yet when called to respond, they are responsible to provide a disposition that both serves the needs of the individual and maintains order and safety in the community.” These situations will often lead to an arrest, as the restraint method is an area that all law enforcement officers have been trained in and are familiar with.
Evidence-based practices such as the CIT program have showed to be highly beneficial. Increased CIT trained officers have already shown to assist in decreasing arrest rates and jail overflow as well as free up non-CIT law enforcement’s response times to more emergency based calls. Increased CIT trained officers have also assisted in decreasing officer and citizen injury for CIT officers are trained in de-escalating or defusing potentially dangerous situations (Steadman, 2000).
Reference:
Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence Based Policing. Ideas in American Policing, Police Foundation. Washington, DC.
http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/Sherman.pdf
Steadman, H.J., Deane, M.W., Borum, R. & Morrissey, J.P. (2000). Comparing outcomes of major models of police responses to mental health emergencies. Psychiatric Services, 51, 645-649.
http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/content/vol51/issue5/index.dtl
Link | January 11th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Christy Holodnak - Group Two wrote,
The idea of moving towards an evidence-based approach to preventing crime absolutely makes sense to me. In Welsh and Farrington’s “Toward an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime” they state that “in an evidence-based society, government crime prevention policy and local practice would be based on interventions with demonstrated effectiveness in preventing crime and offending” (p. 166). Based on everything that I have learned so far in this program, an evidence-based is what is needed to fix the current crime and offending issues.
One of the most interesting ideas in the Welsh and Farrington article is the concept of “Using What Works and Stopping Using What Doesn’t”. This may not seem like a difficult concept, but once society gets comfortable and used to what they are doing, whether it is working or not, it is hard to bring about change. Even the three main courses of action suggested in the article (p. 167) will be hard to accomplish. This seems strange to me since these courses are well supported. For instance, number two is “to stop funding of correctional boot camps designed to reduce recidivism.” That boot camps are still used seems ridiculous to me considering that even the Welsh and Farrington article (p. 167) states that in a review of 44 studies done on boot camps and their effects on recidivism, only 9 were found to be beneficial. Eight of the studies were found to be harmful and the remaining studies showed no impact at all. Since this is the case, how is it that boot camps are still being used?
Reference:
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward and evidence based approach to preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, pp. 158-173
Link | January 11th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Michelle Baglioni-Group One wrote,
Evidence-based approaches to crime prevention makes complete sense. Just as a person would invest their time and money into a medical procedure that was successful, the same idea should be applied crime prevention. Todays economy appears dreary. So finding ways to effectively spend taxes for appropriate programs, seems to be in the best interest for everyone.
This leads into the next question posed, what other harmful effects can be mentioned by not moving towards evidence-based crime control? As mentioned in Welsh and Farrington (2001), political figures tend to focus on the “right here, right now” approach to crime control. It is not in their best interest to invest themselves in long term programs. The harm caused by this type of governing is the same type of person will be enforcing the same type of programs. In order for a positive movement towards evidence-based crime control, politicians and the community need to move towards change.
Unfortunately, there is still a large part of the population that believes incarceration is the answer for all criminal activity. Many believe long-term incarceration will change the behavior of a criminal, both in the juvenile and adult system. Even though recent findings have found that locking up juveniles seems to be doing more harm than good. It is this type of thinking that will be hard to convince otherwise.
Welsh, B.C.,& Farrington, D.P. (2001). Toward and evidence based approach to preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 158-173.
Link | January 11th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Lodi Presley wrote,
What makes sense about evidence-based policing was said by Lawrence Sherman,”Of all the ideas in policing, evidence-based policing stands out as the most powerful force for change: police practices should be based on scientific evidence about what works best.” The medical field has been using this practice for some time now and has proven to be effective. Sherman suggests using a “medical type chart” to be used in the criminal justice field, but as a chart of offenses that may create proactive policing methods and allow for police officers to see how certain situations should be handled.
Welsh and Farrington have discussed that the current way of doing things is not always effective although some do have positive results. They state that the conclusion of a systematic review on boot camps was that “boot camps do not reduce the risk of recidivism…” If this is true, why are boot camps still being used? Some of the strategies brought up that show beneficial signs or have been proven effective are: parent support by age three on disruptive behavior, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders, and targeted policing in “hot spots.”
Now to take the findings of the research from these and move toward applying this research, money could be saved by cutting boot camps and the funding could be used on other programs that are effective. This is exactly what evidence-based policing is all about.
References:
Sherman,L.(1998). Evidence based policing. Ideas in American policing, Police Foundation. Washington,DC. http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/Sherman.pdf
Welsh,B.C. Farrington,D.P.(2001). Toward an evidence-based approach to preventing crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,578. http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/578/1/158
Link | January 12th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Wurzburg-Denelia wrote,
According to Walsh et al, p. 166. (2008) in an evidence-based society, government crime prevention policy and local practice would be based on interventions with demonstrated effectives in preventing crime and offending. The government has been using obsolete prevention methods and funding correctional boot camps programs without scientific research that the programs reduce recidivism. If the government continues doing “business as usual” the criminal justice system will become an ideology of the past. The criminal justice system needs to base all their programs based on scientific evidence. An example is diversion program for People with serious mental illness co-occurring with substance abuse. The states have diversion or jail diversion programs, for low level offenses, however, little or none evidence on the cost and cost-effectivessness of the programs. Most of the programs lack scientific research and the variation reflects heterogeneity in the structure and implementation of the programs. According to Walsh et al. it is right to move toward an evidence-based approach to prevent crime. According to Sherman (1993), communities are the central institution for crime prevention and our nation’s ability to prevent serious violent crimes may depend heavily on our ability to help reshape community life.
Evidence based-approach requires that the results of rigorous evaluation be rationally integrated into decisions about interventions by policymakers and practitioners, Walsh et al. (p. 159). As medical providers are using medicine based-practices, the criminal justice system should also use an evidence based-approach. It does make sense that “Business as usual” it is not working on the prevention of crime and researchers are right that the criminal justice diversion programs are not cost-effective on the prevention of crime.
References:
Sherman, L. (1993). Communities and crime prevention. National Academy of Science Report. Chapter 3.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward and Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, pp. 158-173.
Link | January 12th, 2009 at 1:47 am