dollars and sense prevention instead of prison trisha beuhring, ph.d. university of minnesota...
TRANSCRIPT
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
Young offenders scare the community, too Half of all childrenwho have police contact before age 13 becomechronic, serious and/orviolent offenders by age 18
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
“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.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
Strange but TrueCounterintuitive Findings
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
Strange but TrueCounterintuitive Findings
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008
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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Beuhring Juvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota June 18, 2008