What We Spend and What We Get: Public and Private Provision of Crime Prevention

Witte, Ann Dryden; Witt, Robert

doi:10.3386/w8204

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, there has been a great deal of research on the costs of crime. This research has covered a wide range of topics, including the cost of gun violence (Cook, Lawrence, Ludwig, & Miller, 1999;Cook & Ludwig, 2000), the cost of violence against women (Laurence & Spalter-Roth, 1996), the cost to crime victims in general (Cohen, 1988;Cohen & Miller, 1998;Macmillan, 2000;Miller et al, 1996), the cost of and willingness of the public to pay for crime prevention programs (Cohen, Rust, Steen, & Tidd, 2004;Welsh & Farrington, 2000;Welsh, Farrington, & Sherman, 2001;Witte & Witt, 2001), the cost of crime to businesses (van Dijk & Terlouw, 1996), and the aggregate cost of crime to society (Anderson, 1999; see also Atkinson, Mourato, & Healey, 2003). The costs of juvenile crime have also been a topic that has been the subject of research by criminologists and economists, and what follows are estimates of juvenile crime costs from the leading studies.…”

Section: What Do We Know About the Costs Of Juvenile Crime?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs of Juvenile Crime in Urban Areas

Welsh

Loeber

Stevens

et al. 2008

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is important to calculate the monetized social burden of crime, and a longitudinal perspective offers distinct advantages over studies limited to one year. This study assessed the monetary costs to society of self-reported male juvenile offending in urban areas. Previously published estimates of victim costs of a number of violent and property crimes were used to calculate the monetized social burden of criminal activity of a cohort of 503 boys (ages 7-17 years), comprising the youngest sample of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Conservatively estimated, the cohort caused a substantial burden of harm to society in the form of victimization costs, ranging from a low of $89 million to a high of $110 million. From an early age the cohort was responsible for substantial crime victim losses, with these losses mounting in the teen years. Importantly, it is argued that high crime costs do not themselves suggest a policy solution. Implications for policy and research are explored within this context.

show abstract

Section: What Do We Know About the Costs Of Juvenile Crime?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs of Juvenile Crime in Urban Areas

Welsh

Loeber

Stevens

et al. 2008

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, many researches have incorporated new paradigms to explain the mechanisms that cause crime. New research studies the existing relationship between illegal behavior and social interaction (Grogger, 1997;Imai and Krishna, 2001;Lochner, 2001;Witte and Witt, 2001;inter alia). Another example is the work that links factors related to family situations or heritages to crime (Levitt, 1996;Mocan and Ress, 1999).…”

Section: Brief Comments On the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Crime, economic conditions, social interactions and family heritage

Loureiro

Mendonça

Moreira

et al. 2009

International Review of Law and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For an international perspective on public expenditure in this area and a discussion of rationales for public intervention see Witt and Witte (2003).…”

Section: Public Order and Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

The distributional impact of public spending in the UK

O’Dea¹,

Preston²

2012

Working Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) were made available through the UK Data Archive (UKDA). ELSA was developed by a team of researchers based at the National Centre for Social Research, University College London and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The data were collected by the National Centre for Social Research. The funding is provided by the National Institute of Aging in the United States, and a consortium of UK government departments co-ordinated by the Office for National Statistics. The Expenditure and Food Survey (EFS) is produced by the Office for National Statistics and was supplied by the ESRC data archive. Data from the National Travel Survey were collected by the Office for National Statistics for the Department for Transport and were supplied by the ESRC Data Archive. Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's printer for Scotland. All errors are our own. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may† Institute for Fiscal Studies. ‡ University College London and Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Distributional Impact of Public Spending in the UKO' Dea and Preston, 2010 Public spending in the UK in 2008/9 amounted to over £10,000 per person or about 43% of national income (Crawford, Emmerson and Tetlow 2009) while net receipts from tax and social security contributions exceeded £8,000 per person or about 35% of national income. These transfers of resources between individuals and the state, either as cash payments or as supply of goods, affect individual standards of living and do so in ways that differ markedly between different households. Assessing the impact of government activity on the distribution of household living standards is essential to the evaluation of public service provision but raises challenging conceptual issues that we discuss in this report.The diversity of ways in which governments spend raises complex issues for assessment. In particular the distinction between straight cash transfers and provision of benefits in kind, and, within the provision of benefits in kind between provision of private and of public goods, may call for a variety of approaches in evaluation of the associated benefits. While cash transfers are often regarded (though even here there are issues) as straightforwardly allocable to well-identified recipients, some goods such as health or education services can be associated with specific recipients but at a valuation which ...

show abstract

What We Spend and What We Get: Public and Private Provision of Crime Prevention

Cited by 8 publications

References 28 publications

Costs of Juvenile Crime in Urban Areas

Costs of Juvenile Crime in Urban Areas

Crime, economic conditions, social interactions and family heritage

The distributional impact of public spending in the UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About