dollars and sense prevention instead of prison trisha beuhring, ph.d. university of minnesota...

Dollars and Sense Prevention Instead of

Prison

Trisha Beuhring, Ph.D.University of Minnesota

College of Education & Human Development

Institute on Community Integrationand

The Ohio State UniversityCollege of Social & Behavioral

SciencesDepartment of Psychology

Doing Juveniles Justice in MinnesotaJuvenile Justice ForumJune 18, 2008

Overview Policy Makers’ Dilemma

Prisons versus Prevention Solution – WA State Institute for Public

Policy Benefit/Cost Tradeoffs

In principle – Three options for calculating In practice – What costs/benefits? Who

pays/reaps? Key Points for Practitioners

When replicating a model program When tailoring or designing an intervention ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008

Overview Strange but True – Counterintuitive

Findings Interventions can do harm Effective programs can be a poor investment Biggest B/C ratio may not be best investment

Implications Evidence-based progress not practice B/C ratio changes the prevention question

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Policy Makers’ DilemmaPrisons versus Prevention

Social Values Protect the community Save a child

Cost/Benefit Issues Protect the community – Prisons are

expensive, overcrowded, and don’t prevent re-offending

Save a child -- Interventions mismatched to task, not evidence-based, more likely to fail than work

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Prisons Not Working

Deterrence in principle, revolving door in practice

Chronic, serious and/or violent offenders Few in number (5-8% of all delinquents) Disproportionately costly

Crime, drug use, lost productivity = $1.4 to $1.7million for each chronic offender over their lifetime

Lifetime cost can rise to $1.7 to $2.4 million each for early-onset delinquents

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Violent sexual offenders most expensive of all

In 2003, treatment cost Minnesota taxpayers $206,225/year each

Politically unacceptable to release them back into the community

Lifetime treatment costs $2.1 to $10.3 million each

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Young offenders scare the community, too Half of all childrenwho have police contact before age 13 becomechronic, serious and/orviolent offenders by age 18

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


“The new First Grade Reader”

Community ResponseLowering the Age of Adjudication

Age 6 years: North Carolina

Age 7 years: Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York

Age 8 years: Arizona

Age 10 years: Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania,

South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

The remaining 34 states do not have a minimum age.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Prison (residential placement) does not fit

Child delinquents don’t have the cognitive development to plan ahead, think of consequences, participate in their own defense.

Teenage brain still maturing (executive function). Peer influences enhance child’s risk, not resiliency

“Preventive intervention” is best hope Save the child Protect the community Break the cycle

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Need Options

Developmentally Appropriate Fit

UnfortunatelyPrevention Not Working Much Better

As of 2007, found only 11 model programs and 18 promising programs out of 600 programs reviewed “To date, most of the resources ... have been invested in untested programs based on questionable assumptions and delivered with little consistency or quality control. Further, the vast majority of these programs are not being evaluated. This means we will never know which (if any) have had significant deterrent effect; we will learn nothing from our investment … to improve our understanding of the causes of violence or to guide our future efforts to deter violence ...”

Center for Study and Prevention of Violencewww.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Watching the Bottom LineWA State Institute for Public Policy

(WSIPP)

Model for Minnesota www.wsipp.wa.gov (prison & prevention options) Policy-relevant research with University partners State legislature mandates and helps fund studies Developing “diversified portfolio” of interventions

Model programs that work when brought to scale Various target populations (universal, at-risk, indicated) Matches interventions to risk profiles (aligns current

costs with future benefits)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Benefit/Cost TradeoffsDefining Terms

Cost = dollars spent now (per child, on average)

Benefit = future expenses avoided (per child, on average) Like insulating your house to avoid future heating

expenses

Benefit/Cost ratio = return on investment $2,500 future expenses avoided / $500 cost now = 5:1

ratio $5 in future expenses avoided for every $1 spent now To break even, the intervention must achieve

Complete success with one out of five children served Partial success with each child served ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In PrincipleThree Calculation Options

Longitudinal study comparing outcomes Follow intervention children and comparable

children who don’t get the intervention for years Meta-analysis of studies already done (Aos, 1998, 2004)

Cost of hypothetical child saved (Cohen, 1998)

If right target population, can estimate B/C ratio B/C ratio of hypothetical program (Anton & Temple,

2007)

If program fits target population, estimates program value

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In PracticeEstimating the Pieces is Complex

Which costs/benefits? Costs include everything the program depends on

Direct service, facilities, oversight committee Grant support, ancillary services provided “free” by

other programs (someone is paying for the child to receive them)

Benefits depend on who is asking Tangible expenses avoided by taxpayer / local business Intangible suffering avoided / business climate improved One outcome (delinquency) or many (drug, pregnancy)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Who pays / reaps? Cost of early intervention typically paid by local

government, community agencies, foundations County coffers reap only some of future

benefits State and Federal government – reduced court,

incarceration, welfare expenses Businesses – Reduced security costs, higher

productivity Individual taxpayers – improved safety, reduced

insurance costs, less suffering/lost property____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Key Points for PractitionersReplicating Model Programs

Match the target population carefully Lower risk target population means lower payoff

Monitor fidelity of implementation! “Tailor to your needs” can backfire and do harm The most effective models monitor you

Expect to be half as effective as the model Less if wrong target population, poor fidelity

Evaluate

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Key Points for PractitionersImplementing New or Promising

Programs

Must be theory-based, consistent with research

Define target population carefully Risk assessment to restrict enrollment Risk assessment to estimate future expenses

avoided Partner with a University researcher Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate Expect program development to take years

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Why Risk Assessment MattersSame Offense but Different Risk Profile

Means Different Intervention Challenge / Payoff

Tommy (9)—Very Low

Risk Mild tempered, liked by peers Few behavior problems Single mother works, no criminal or

drug history Father is drug addict and

schizophrenic (no criminal history) No domestic violence Siblings no behavior problems Grandfather helps Borderline neighborhood Stable home & school (3 yrs)

Jim (8)—Extreme Risk Hyperactive (no meds), peer rejection Expelled for threats to kill Single mother is recovering addict with

criminal history Father is violent career criminal (murder,

rape, kidnapping) Domestic violence Older siblings are all violent delinquents Chronic and pervasive neglect High crime neighborhood Changes home/school every 6-9 mos.

Strange but TrueCounterintuitive Findings

Interventions can harm Group interventions for juvenile delinquents

Boot camps Model interventions done without fidelity

Four model programs to scale (WSIPP) Maybe a developmental issue?

“SNAP” intervention for children 7-11 “Developmental Repair” for children age 3 to

grade 3

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Ineffective programs can save money Boot camps less expensive than incarceration

Effective programs can be a poor investment Program costs more than future expenses avoided

$15,000 cost but only $14,000 future expenses avoided $1.5 million per crime prevented (Texas study)

Future expenses avoided not the ones that matter Replicated with wrong target population

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Biggest benefit/cost ratio may not be the best investment Aggression Replacement Therapy -- $11 saved

for every $1 invested but targeted to lower risk juvenile delinquents with few family risk factors

Functional Family Therapy -- $7 saved for every $1 invested but appropriate for higher risk juvenile delinquents who cost the community more

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Implications

Focus should be on evidence-based progress Relatively few effective programs

Center Study & Prev. Violence has most rigorous criteria

Largely limited to low and moderate risk youth Risk assessment is not yet refined (target

populations vary and results vary accordingly) Generality of effective programs largely unknown Components of effectiveness largely unknown

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Implications

B/C ratio may change the policy perspective Before - How many will benefit from

intervention? Favors programs that serve large numbers Favors programs that are cheapest (easily achieve

success) Now - Who will benefit the community most?

Favors programs that serve the highest risk children and families

Favors programs that are expensive (success requires greater scope, duration, intensity of services)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Benefit/Cost Research isChanging the Prevention Question

Small numbers with disproportionately large impact Early interventions need to succeed with only a few

to repay program costs for all children served Full or partial success with remaining children is

community’s “return on investment” Payoff compounds over generations (virtuous cycle)

It is not who will benefit most (or most easily), it is who will benefit the community most if change is achieved — that makes the community’s highest risk children and families the best, not worst, investment

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


dollars and sense prevention instead of prison trisha beuhring, ph.d. university of minnesota...

Documents

juveniles justice

community prisons

community integration

practice chronic

prison trisha beuhring

violent sexual offenders

lifetime lifetime cost

sense prevention