Memorandum submitted by Professor Cynthia
McDougall, OBE, University of York
With thanks for contributions from Russell
Bruce, Chief Officer of Probation, County Durham, and Professor
Mark Cohen, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee.
KEY MESSAGES
Although we try to reduce re-offending, crime
is never going to be eliminated. Therefore we need to change course
and begin to regard crime as a problem to be managed in a cost-beneficial
way.
With a finite budget available to spend on criminal
justice, sentencing should take account of the benefit-cost ratios
of each intervention in deciding whether to give a custodial or
community penalty. This is arguably a fairer method than leaving
such decisions to subjective judgements about what is effective.
Public opinion about sentencing should be surveyed
in a way that does not obtain ill thought-through answers. Surveys
that use "Willingness to pay" methods, that encourage
thought about the relative costs of different strategies to reduce
crime, have been shown to obtain less punitive views on prison
from members of the public. Such surveys should be conducted in
the U.K. and the results publicised to make policy decisions on
reducing the prison population more acceptable to the general
public.
If fewer people are to be sent to prison, then
there needs to be a wider range of credible community penalties,
based on research evidence, and they should be cost-beneficial.
Evidence suggests that there may be less intensive ways of managing
larger numbers of offenders in the community, involving agencies
and organisations outside of the criminal justice system, based
on the costs and benefits to society of the range of options.
Ultimately this economic approach might achieve
a fairer and more manageable system for society, for victims,
the offender and also be cost beneficial for the criminal justice
system.
THE ECONOMIC
MANAGEMENT OF
OFFENDING
This invited submission presents a case for
managing offenders in the criminal justice system in a way that
is cost-beneficial with a realistic vision of what can be achieved
in reducing re-offending. We are never going to find a "cure
for crime"; crime will always exist. An alternative approach
is therefore to "manage crime" in a way that meets the
needs of society and is a just system for the offender.
Benefit-cost analyses in the criminal justice
system
It has long been accepted in the National Health
Service (NHS) that there is a finite amount of money to spend
on the nation's health, and it is fairer to base spending on what
is most effective for the majority of people, based on the ratio
of costs to benefits. Hence, though a major surgical operation
may bring benefit to a small number of people in need, it is possibly
more cost beneficial to assist larger numbers of people with a
treatment at a lower cost.
Benefit-cost analyses are rarely applied in the criminal
justice system, either in the UK or internationally, and there
is some resistance to economic restraints being placed on the
administration of justice. Yet the application of benefit-cost
analyses to the criminal justice system could offer similar opportunities
to those found in the NHS. A benefit-cost analysis could compare
the costs of different criminal justice interventions to reduce
crime with the monetary benefits, based on reduced reconvictions.
The cost of a conviction would take account of police and court
costs, and also the cost to victims, such as loss of earnings,
cost of medical treatment or therapy, and the non-tangible costs
of pain and suffering. Benefits would be calculated in terms of
offences saved by a particular intervention, balanced against
the cost of the intervention. The resulting benefit-cost ratio
would allow a comprehensive comparison between different interventions
on the basis of effectiveness, and costs and benefits, which is
difficult to achieve with other forms of analysis.
The costs and benefits of sentencing
The implementation of benefit-cost analyses
would be of particular value in sentencing. It is known that the
costs of imprisonment are high, but no restriction is placed on
the use of prison, even when there are few available prison places
and prisoners must be retained in police cells. Sentencing is
mainly based on a justice model which does not take account of
the cost of a sentence or that there is a finite budget from which
to dispense justice. The criminal justice system is expected to
expand infinitely to meet the needs of the judicial process. This
is an unrealistic and ultimately unfair system, as it imposes
ever larger demands on the criminal justice system, which necessitates
compromise on the requirements on prisons to ensure "decency"
and to provide "rehabilitation" for prisoners.
The main aims of sentencing are to administer punishment,
to deter the offender and others from offending, and to provide
rehabilitation in order to reduce re-offending. It is the emphasis
on punishment that makes the argument against taking an economic
view of sentencing, as there is little evidence that punishing
offenders in itself makes the community safer (McGuire, 2000).
Punishments that depend on "tough" regimes' have consistently
been shown to be ineffective in reducing re-convictions when compared
to less punitive regimes (Farrington et al, 2002) and have,
in the case of the "Scared Straight" intervention (Petrosino,
Turner-Petrosino, & Finckenauer, 2000), been shown to increase
the rate of convictions for those who received the intervention.
Although some people may be deterred from crime by the sentences
given to others, re-offending rates remain persistently high for
a large proportion of offenders who have been sentenced to imprisonment.
There is evidence that rehabilitation is more cost-beneficial,
however, the criminal population is heterogeneous and all interventions
do not work for all offenders. It is important therefore to find
out "what works", "for whom" and at "what
cost".
Despite the potential value of an economic approach
to sentencing, few studies have taken costs and benefits into
account. A systematic review of benefit-cost studies of sentencing
conducted internationally between 1991 and 2001 found only nine
studies that met the quality criteria for inclusion in the review
(McDougall, Cohen, Swaray & Perry, 2003). Six of these nine
showed valid or comprehensive benefit-cost analyses, with three
having incomplete benefit-cost data, making the conclusions unreliable.
Additionally, the underlying research design of these studies
was generally poor. There is therefore a need for a much more
rigorous approach to examining the costs and benefits of sentencing.
A major issue facing those responsible for sentencing
is whether an offender should be sent to prison or given a community
penalty. There are real difficulties here, as the concept of punishment
in the mind of the public appears to be mostly related to imprisonment,
with community penalties being seen as an easy option. Also, little
research has been conducted to explore the optimal length of imprisonment
to have a deterrent effect, and to compare outcomes of imprisonment
and of community penalties.
Development of a Benefit-Cost Scale for Sentencing
A good benefit-cost analysis of prison and community
penalties should consider the full costs of each sentence, including
all staff and administration costs. An important cost for a community
penalty that must be included is the cost accrued from additional
offences committed while the offender is at large, ie, police,
court and victim costs. In the case of imprisonment, a benefit
of imprisonment would be in "offences saved" while in
prison, based on the predicted amount of offending for that offender,
given his or her past offending history. Of course a community
penalty is much cheaper to administer than prison, but the additional
costs of further offences during the sentence might change the
direction of a benefit-cost ratio. The size of this change of
direction would depend on the number and seriousness of the further
offences. Some offences cost much less than others, ie, shoplifting
as opposed to rape or violent assault. So, although it is costly
to keep an offender in prison, it may be less costly to keep a
violent offender in prison than in the community, as criminal
justice costs and victim costs might far exceed the costs of imprisonment.
It is therefore possible to work out at which point
a prison sentence becomes cost beneficial. This economic approach
was demonstrated by Piehl and Dilulio (1995). In their benefit-cost
study, Piehl and DiIulio examined the self-report of offending
of a random sample of 4% of the male entrants to New Jersey state
prisons in 1993. Their conclusion was that "prison pays for
most state prisoners" who comprised either violent or repeat
offenders who presented a real danger to the physical safety or
property of their communities. However Piehl and DiIulio also
concluded that for 25% of this sample group, essentially made
up of offenders committing high-rate auto thefts at a rate of
three a year, burglaries at a rate of six a year, and petty thefts
at a rate of 24 a year, costs of imprisonment outweighed the social
benefits of imprisonment. This was particularly true of drug offenders.
Piehl and Dilulio concluded that there could be cost savings of
25% if this prison sample were given a non-custodial sentence.
It can be concluded therefore that major savings
can be made by reducing the prison population. There is no question
that our most violent offenders should be imprisoned. However
there is a need to have more community solutions available for
those who are currrently imprisoned, but for whom this option
is not cost-beneficial.
Development of Community Penalties
There are at least two main problems with giving
a community penalty to offenders who might otherwise be imprisoned.
The first problem is public opinion, as a high proportion of members
of the public regard community penalties as an easy option. Secondly,
there have to be credible community penalties available to sentencers
if they are not to resort to imprisonment.
On the first concern about public opinion, my colleague
Professor Mark Cohen, an economist from Vanderbilit University,
Tennessee, conducted a survey on the public's "willingness
to pay" for various crime prevention and control strategies.
When asked to put their opinions in monetary terms, responses
from members of the public were not as expected. In a nationally
representative sample, Cohen and colleagues found overwhelming
support for increased spending on youth offence prevention, drug
treatment for non-violent offenders, and the police. The average
respondent would not allocate any new money to building more prisons
and would not request a tax rebate if the money were spent on
youth offence prevention, drug treatment, or the police. When
there was a financial limit placed on their decisions, results
were therefore very different than from surveys that simply ask
if more offenders should be imprisoned. This result suggests that
public opinion may not be as punitive as it is sometimes portrayed
in surveys and the media, and it would be very useful to conduct
a "willingness to pay" survey in the UK and to publicise
this information generally to the public and specifically to those
making sentencing decisions.
In terms of finding additional and credible
community sentences, part of the problem in addressing offending
is that we try to deal with all factors associated with offending
simultaneously. I would suggest that we need to tackle the re-offending
problem in a more systematic way, by involving the community and
breaking down offending into manageable categories.
Community Involvement
Firstly, crime is not just a criminal justice
system problem. It is a community problem and should take into
account, not just the offender and what we do with him or her,
but also the impact of the environment and how many opportunities
for crime are presented. Crime can be viewed as either opportunistic,
ie, the offender responds to a presenting opportunity such as
a window being left open, or the crime may be committed by a persistent
offender, ie, the offending is inherent to the offender rather
than presented by the environment.
For offences which are opportunistic, these are best
dealt with by using environmental methods, so reducing the opportunities
presented in the community. This is therefore not a task solely
for criminal justice agencies. We need to involve all parts of
the criminal justice system with the community.
Management of offending
An example of how this can be achieved is being
explored in Durham Probation area, under the direction of Russell
Bruce, the Chief Probation Officer. Durham Probation Area's most
frequent offence each month is shoplifting. Offending in the area
could therefore be reduced substantially by impacting on this
particular group of offenders. Currently Durham is planning to
work with the police and retail shops, building on research evidence
of how to decrease this form of offending by shop re-design and
monitoring.
For the persistent offender whose re-offending is
related to his or her personal circumstances, then that intervention
is better conducted at an individual level. Although this intervention
may be most appropriately conducted by probation staff, if the
problems are due to lack of accommodation or employment, then
these could be considered to be problems that also involve the
community.
If more offenders are to be given community
penalties, then the Probation Service needs to be able to handle
larger numbers of offenders more effectively. We in Durham have
turned to the research evidence to find a solution. Most research
suggests that intensive probation supervision does not reduce
offending (Sherman, Farrington, Welsh & MacKenzie, 2002).
There is substantial evidence that the traditional forms of probation
work better. In Durham we have already begun to restructure supervision
by introducing and evaluating a Citizenship programme for all
offenders, that encourages more integration with community support
agencies. Additionally, it is intended to test whether probation
supervision can be further streamlined to cope with the increasing
numbers of offenders, either by supervising groups of offenders
or by shortening the intervention. Although it would be the aim
to find a more effective intervention, in a cost-benefit analysis,
if the streamlined version is equal in effectiveness to the traditional
probation intervention but is much cheaper to administer, then
this approach would be found to be cost-beneficial. This leads
to a different way of thinking about offending. It is not feasible
to expect offending to be eliminated, hence offending should be
recognised as an ongoing problem that needs to be "managed"
in a cost-beneficial way, rather than "cured".
More community sentencing options are needed,
and in Durham we are beginning to test a range of offender management
options which are cost-beneficial. An update on the systematic
review of the costs and benefits of sentencing examining studies
between 2001 and 2006 shows pre-court diversions to treatment
are being explored. We are particularly interested to find if
diversion interventions can be provided within the community,
rather than by the criminal justice agencies. If we can separate
offenders from the criminal justice system and impact on social
exclusion by beginning to integrate offenders more into the community,
then we will have begun to tackle criminal justice costs and offender
management in a meaningful and cost-beneficial way.
REFERENCESCohen,
M A, Rust, R T, & Steen, S (2006). Prevention, crime control
or cash? Public preferences towards criminal justice spending
priorities. Justice Quarterly, 23, 3; 317-335.
Farrington, D P, Ditchfield, J, Hancock, G, Howard,
P, Jolliffe, D, Livingston, M S, et al (2002). Evaluation
of two intensive regimes for young offenders. Home Office Research
Study 239. London: Home Office.
McDougall, C, Cohen, M, Swaray, R, & Perry A
(2003). The Costs and Benefits of Sentencing: A Systematic Review.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 587, 160-177.
McGuire, J (2000). What works in reducing criminality.
Conference on Reducing Criminality: Partnerships and Best Practice.
Convened by Australian Institute of Criminology.
Petrosino, A, Turpin-Petrosino, C, & Finckenauer,
J O (2000). Well-meaning programs can have harmful effects: Lessons
from experiments of programs such as Scared Straight. Crime
and Delinquency, 46 (3), 354-379.
Piehl, A M, & DiIulio, J J Jr (1995). Does Prison
Pay? Revisited. The Brookings Review. Vol 13 (winter):
21-25.
Sherman, L W, Farrington, D P, Welsh, B C, &
MacKenzie, D L (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. London:
Routledge.
|
