Appropriate Measurement and Use of “Costs of Crime” in Policy Analysis: Benefit‐cost Analysis of Criminal Justice Policies Has Come of Age

Cohen, Mark A.; Farrington, David P.

doi:10.1002/pam.22272

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The key question, then, is whether the benefit achieved by targeted extension of the sentences of "individuals otherwise out of social control" is outweighed by a criminogenic effect -i.e., that longer sentences will lead to increased recidivism rates. There is no straightforward answer, particularly when considering how much variation there is when quantifying benefits in cost-benefit analyses (Clear & Austin 2021;Cohen & Farrington, 2021;Zedlewski, 2009). Given what we have discussed regarding the variety of research methodologies, lack of consistency in findings, and general challenges in determining causality, it becomes less clear whether studies really do show strong evidence of a criminogenic effect resulting from longer prison sentences, in contrast to what Gascón (2020) has claimed.…”

Section: B Incapacitationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Sentence Length and Recidivism: A Review of the Research

Berger

Scheidegger

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to increasing concerns about jail and prison overcrowding, many officials and legislatures across the U.S. have undertaken different efforts aimed at reducing the prison population, such as reduced sentence lengths and early release of prisoners. Thus, there is currently a high degree of public interest regarding how these changes in policy might affect recidivism rates of released offenders. When considering the research on the relationship between incarceration and recidivism, many studies compare custodial with non-custodial sentences on recidivism, while fewer examine the impact of varying incarceration lengths on recidivism. This article provides a review of the research on the latter. While some findings suggest that longer sentences may provide additional deterrent benefit in the aggregate, this effect is not always consistent or strong. In addition, many of the studies had null effects, while none of the studies suggested a strong aggregatelevel criminogenic effect. Overall, the literature on the impact of incarceration on recidivism is admittedly limited by important methodological considerations, resulting in inconsistency of findings across studies. In addition, it appears that deterrent effects of incarceration may vary slightly for different offenders. Ultimately, the effect of incarceration length on recidivism appears too heterogenous to be able to draw universal conclusions. We argue that a deepened understanding of the causal mechanisms at play is needed to reliably and accurately inform policy.

show abstract

Section: B Incapacitationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Sentence Length and Recidivism: A Review of the Research

Berger

Scheidegger

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The costs to victims include tangible or out-of-pocket costs (e.g., property loss or damage, medical expenses, lost wages) and intangible costs (e.g., distress, suffering, fear, lower quality of life). Assigning monetary values to intangible costs can be controversial but is necessary (see e.g., Cohen & Farrington, 2021). The most common method of estimating intangible costs is to ask people how much they are willing to pay to avoid a hazard, such as being burgled or robbed; more information about this is presented in the article by B. Raffan Gowar, David Farrington and Maria Ttofi.…”

Section: How Should a Cost-benefit Analysis Be Carried Out?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of cost‐benefit analysis of crime reduction programmes

Farrington

Welsh

2023

Criminal Behav Ment Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-benefit analyses of crime prevention programmes have previously been reviewed in detail by .They found that developmental, situational, and community prevention methods are each effective in reducing crime, as well as in mitigating other social problems. Additionally, the evidence shows that these crime prevention methods often have large benefit-to-cost ratios over short and longer time frames. Welsh et al. ( 2023) concluded that benefit-to-cost ratios were generally greater for early prevention than for imprisonment. However, more research is needed, and the articles in this special issue draw attention to key research priorities for the years ahead. It is our hope that the new scientific knowledge reported here will lead to more rational, evidence-based expenditure on crime prevention and to increased public safety. This would be in the interests of everyone.

show abstract

“…Assigning monetary values to intangible costs can be controversial but is necessary (see e.g. Cohen & Farrington, 2021). The most common method of estimating intangible costs is to ask people how much they are willing to pay to avoid a hazard, such as being burgled or robbed; more information about this is presented in the article by B. Raffan Gowar, David Farrington and Maria Ttofi.…”

Section: How Should a Cost-benefit Analysis Be Carried Out?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Crime Reduction Programmes

Farrington,

Welsh

2023

CrimRxiv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many possible methods of reducing crime (see e.g. Tonry & Farrington, 1995). There is criminal justice or correctional prevention, which involves deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. There is community prevention, which involves targeting community risk factors and social conditions, such as community cohesiveness or disorganization, or using the community as the context for intervention. There is situational prevention, which involves reducing opportunities for offending or increasing the risks of being caught in the physical environment, for example by using closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras or improved street lighting. And there is developmental or risk-focussed prevention, which involves targeting early child or family risk factors for offending, and enhancing protective factors.How can governmental and other policymakers decide which of these approaches is best? For example, should there be more imprisonment? More police? More rehabilitative programmes in prison or on probation? More community penalties or community programmes? More situational crime prevention? Or more developmental crime prevention?One obvious criterion for the success of a crime prevention programme is the extent to which it reduces crime.However, this cannot be the only consideration. Our argument is that, in choosing between programmes, it is important to consider all their monetary costs and benefits, and to choose the programmes with the greatest benefit-to-cost ratios. Knowledge about value for money is also vital in trying to improve evidence-based crime prevention policy and practice. We need to know what works (and for whom) and what saves money. THE IMPORTANCE OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES FOR GOVERNMENTSIn general, government policymakers do not understand effect sizes such as Cohen's d and think that a 5% absolute decrease in conviction rates is very small. However, they do understand money in and money out.They are impressed by evidence suggesting that, for example, £5 is saved for every £1 spent on a programme, even if the savings are in the future. For example, in 1997 we were invited to go to London to HM Treasury to brief senior officials on cost-benefit analyses of crime prevention programmes (see .Under the recently elected government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Treasury was spearheading an ambitious Comprehensive Spending Review, to review public expenditure across all areas of government.After our meeting, the Treasury's involvement was a major factor in launching the government's ambitious Crime Reduction Programme, which had an unprecedented level of funding of £250 million (see Dhiri et al., 2001). CrimRxiv The Importance of Cost-Bene t Analysis of Crime Reduction Programmes 3 As another example, David Farrington and Leena Augimeri met with the Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada in November 2013 and briefed them about cost-benefit analysis and the SNAP (Stop Now And Plan; see later) early developmental prevention programme

show abstract

Appropriate Measurement and Use of “Costs of Crime” in Policy Analysis: Benefit‐cost Analysis of Criminal Justice Policies Has Come of Age

Cited by 6 publications

References 36 publications

Sentence Length and Recidivism: A Review of the Research

Sentence Length and Recidivism: A Review of the Research

The importance of cost‐benefit analysis of crime reduction programmes

The Importance of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Crime Reduction Programmes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About