CJ/Public Policy Exam 1

evaluation hierarchy

• 1 → needs evaluation: whether the need for a policy exists

• 2 → theory evaluation: whether the theory underlying the policy is logical, coherent, and supported by research

• 3 → implementation/process evaluation: how well the policy’s implemented

• 4 → outcome/impact evaluation: whether the policy’s associated w/ the intended outcomes and whether it likely causes the outcome

• 5 → cost-efficiency evaluation: whether the benefits outweigh the costs

  • whether the benefits (relative to costs) are substantially greater than those of another policy

  • cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis

• problem: cj policy typically proceeds WITHOUT using these steps compared to someone’s daily decision-making

policy context/stakes involved

• crime rates

• correctional system growth

• prison re-entry

• cj expenditures

• evidence for current cj policies

  • too little research exists to support these implemented policies

crime rates

• part of policy context and the stakes involved

  • offender/victimization surveys good ways to know if crime rates have gone up compared to arrests

    • more serious crimes (ex: homicide) usually follows arrest trends → decline (exception between 1986-1994)

      • people more likely to report these crimes (exceptions: SA)

    • property crimes has been decreasing over the years

correctional system growth

• part of policy context and the stakes involved

  • unprecedented growth despite crime trends

    • increase in probation population

    • hard to undo what was done once it’s done even if they may want to to shrink (ex: correctional population)

prisoner re-entry

• part of policy context and the stakes involved

  • individuals trying to re-enter to communities but still committing crimes for different types of reasons

    • have to address these situations

cj expenditures

• part of policy context and the stakes involved

  • total of cj expenditures have exploded over the years

    • burden has fallen mostly on the local/state jurisdictions over the federal one

      • they pay the majority of these fees compared to the federal level

politicization of crime

• type of influence on cj policy

  • policy makers focus in on it in a way that furthers their agenda

    • doesn’t mean it’s always bad, but these policy makers talk about crime and target crime in a way that furthers them

  • can enhance state power/interests of the elite at the expense of the poor

false dichotomies

• type of influence on cj policy

  • media may make it seem there’s only one view or another view instead of a mix of both

    • may lead to ineffective policies being pushed if we focus on this idea

• ANOTHER INFLUENCE

  • swings from one extreme to another

    • society holds one view → people think it’s not working → they go to policies that are the complete opposite of these

bad cases = bad policies

• type of influence on cj policy

  • there will always be a few extremes in every policy; people will take that and use it to call for change in their own way

    • sensational cases drive cj policy/system, not the everyday ones

symbolic gestures

• type of influence on cj policy

  • policy makers may feel pushed to respond to a situation

    • respond in some type of extreme way over taking the time to do their research and get a good policy

policy maker’s misunderstanding of public opinion

• type of influence on cj policy

  • lack of knowledge by the public; their views are complicated and nuanced

  • policy makers may over-/underestimate certain beliefs the public holds because of this

belief in “silver bullet” causes/solutions to crime

• type of influence on cj policy

  • the belief that there is one type of policy that will end up magically solving all the issues of crime that arise in a society

  • conditions rarely hold true for this

    • policy makers continue as if this isn’t true, though

limited production of policy research

• type of influence on cj policy

  • research isn’t as funded as other areas of cj policy system

  • sometimes the policy research translation doesn’t get to policy makers in a great way for them to understand

  • evaluations may sometimes take years → policy makers want it faster than that/want to do things faster than that

public policy

• system of laws, regulatory measures, courses of action, funding, priorities enacted by a government entity and its representatives to address societal issues

  • societal issues → anything we want to instill in society that wouldn’t naturally be there

cj policy

• lives inside the sphere of public policy

• defining criminal behavior (laws)

• responses to crime/victimization

  • punishments → what’s in the books

  • resources → funds, programs, etc.

• operations of cj system → laws/rules that help them operate smoothly throughout the day

  • law enforcement

  • courts

  • corrections

• way we conceptualize social problems; shapes how we think about solutions

• policies we choose reflect web of assumptions about human nature, crime, definitions of justice

retributivism

• philosophical justification for punishment

  • punishment justifies only on moral grounds

    • this is uniform/lacks bias

    • impartial compared to revenge

  • proportionate punishment restores moral balance/communicates condemnation of act

    • reaffirms what’s correct/not correct

  • holding people accountable treats them as moral agents (treats them w/ respect)

  • Immanual Kant

    • framed this as view that punishment’s only justified as response to crime itself/shouldn’t be dependent on good consequences

  • all about respect and accountability

  • doesn’t care about outcomes

consequentialism

• philosophical justification for punishment

  • punishment’s justification lies in its good consequences

    • only concerned w/ outcomes

  • a lot of research falls under this idea

  • “punishment justified only when it promises to exclude some greater evil”

    • only justifiable if doing it reduces something bad

  • deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation (fall under consequentialism)

    • utilitarian; focused on effectiveness of sanctions/policy

retribution

• punishment philosophies

  • assumptions/appropriate punishment?

    • punishment reflects the severity of crime; proportionality

  • challenges w/ implementation?

    • morality’s subjective

    • not concerned w/ utility

    • proportionality dilemma

    • public perception

deterrence

• punishment philosophies → this one is a rational choice framework

  • assumptions/appropriate punishment?

    • rewards outweigh risks

    • harsher, unfavorable view of crime

      • harsh punishment just enough for justifiability of it

  • challenges w/ implementation?

    • offender may not care for the punishment

    • doesn’t address the root causes that may lead to someone committing crime in first place

    • this is hard to measure

    • uncertain effectiveness

    • severity vs. certainty

      • certainty of punishment the biggest predictor of stopping someone from committing crime

    • ethical concerns

incapacitation

• punishment philosophies

  • assumptions/appropriate punishment?

    • physically stopping people

  • challenges w/ implementation?

    • overcrowding

    • high costs

    • doesn’t address root causes of people committing crime

    • may undermine individuals placed in there

    • potential for injustice

    • personal/society costs (potentially)

rehabilitation

• punishment philosophies

  • assumptions/appropriate punishment?

    • addressing underlying issues

    • tailored individual needs

  • challenges w/ implementation?

    • may reject treatment

    • too many people = hard to tailor individual needs

    • resource intensive

    • varying effectiveness

    • public/political resistanve

history of national trends in cj policy

• colonial/early republic era (1600s/most of 1700s)

  • local moral order/community prosecution

    • typically banishment, fines, or death → public spectacles

    • retribution-type style

  • Jacksonian/reconstructive era (1790s/mid-1800s)

    • state building/arrival of the penitentiary

      • more utilitarian perspectives

    • focus on discipline, solitude, work (conditions still harsh)

    • rehab (through discipline)

  • progressive era (1890s-1920)

    • “scientific” treatment ideas emerge

    • postbellum Jim Crow in South

  • prohibition/depression/WWII era (1920s-1940s)

    • federalization/prefessionalization

    • started becoming more political in the ways we see today

  • ******postwar “penal welfarism” (late 1940s-1960s)******

    • rehabilitative ideal (psychological/treatment-oriented)

crime control era

• began 1970s

• increased arrest/more likely incarceration

  • crime actually increasing, but policies are also changing

  • focus on “street” crime and drugs → visible for police

    • most likely you got caught during this time period

  • increased penalties for parole violations

• tougher sentencing → all those make sentences longer

  • determinate sentencing → certain amount of time must be served

  • truth-in-sentencing

  • three strikes

• prison construction

  • increased funding/legislation for building prisons in many states

• war on drugs

  • in response to crack-cocaine epidemic

  • more resources for law enforcement to enforce drug laws (directed to do so)

  • more prison space for drug offenders

  • tougher sentences for drug offenses

conditions leading to crime control era

• social conditions

  • more crime

  • complacency w/ crime (i.e. crime’s something to be controlled, not prevented)

  • increasing segregation/economic security (i.e. changing job landscapes)

• criminological conditions

  • increasing skepticism that rehabilitation “works”

  • criminology of the “other” vs. “self”

  • what then, are driving correctional philosophies?

• political conditions

  • crime/justice as central political issue

    • rehabilitative/high-discretion policies allows for discrimination

    • such policies resulted in too lenient of punishments

  • preference for “expressive” policies

history of evaluation research

• not until the 1930s that these started taking place

• WWII escalated this b/c of federally funded initiatives meant to alleviate social ills (ex: poverty, disease)

  • people wanted to know if these policies worked

• 1950s

  • program evaluation commonplace

• evaluation divisions exist in many levels of government

  • problem is that they lack the funds to conduct/contract for evaluations

evaluation research

• use of social research methods to systematically investigate effectiveness of social intervention programs in ways that are adapted to political/organizational environments

• designed to inform social action to improve social conditions

  • methodologies serve to achieve specific evaluation research goals

• empirically-based research on policy over anecdotes

evaluation hierarchy extra

• layers build upon each other

  • if previous layer’s shaky, then the rest on the top will be as well

• ongoing effort over a one-time activity

  • much broader view of policy-relevant dimensions

    • not just implementation, but whether the need for the policy exists

needs evaluation

• first step in the evaluation hierarchy

  • a lot of the time, cj policy creates policy w/out seeing if it’s actually needed (ex: building another prison)

    • absent need for a policy, little sense to fund it

  • point of this step is to see if there’s a problem and if the policy is needed

    • this is before any policy even gets implemented

    • what’s the goal?

  • problem: people might think they understand the problem and skip this step entirely

theory/design evaluation

• second step in the evaluation hierarchy

  • what policy will do/how it can contribute to the desired outcome

    • helps serve a credible policy theory exists for tackling a problem

      • ideally built on prior theory/research about precise scope/nature of problem being targeted

  • is the policy logical/based on research (causal)

    • address how a policy can treat/affect need

      • theories that inform a policy

implementation evaluation

• third step in the evaluation hierarchy

  • how well policy’s implemented

    • provide critical information about level/quality of policy implementation

    • possible causes of/solutions to inadequate implementations

  • this can only work if the policy’s been implemented correctly

    • how well are practitioners following the protocol?

outcome/impact evaluations

• fourth step in the evaluation hierarchy

  • showing that the policy implemented is the reason for the identified change, not something else

    • counterfactual condition — what would have occurred in the absence of the policy

    • outcome evaluations measure policy outcomes but don’t claim to establish whether policy’s the cause

      • good for measuring organization’s performance

    • impact evaluations measure outcome/assess whether policy’s the cause for it

cost-efficiency evaluation

• fifth/final step in the evaluation hierarchy

  • determine if the cost’s worth it

  • can be done once all the prior types of evaluations were established

  • cost-effectiveness → comparing strategies of effectiveness between two ideas; good when one strategy’s needed

  • cost-benefit → seeing which policy allows the expenditure to go farthest while targeting issues

    • what would yield the most benefit between the two routes?

accountability view

• a way evaluation works

  • this occurs when the government delivers on its promises

    • more specific to the hierarchy → government adopts policies needed and grounded in theory/research; policies have intended effects; cost-efficient manner

evidence-based policy

• a way evaluation works

  • programs/practices subject to impact evaluation that establish effectiveness in achieving particular outcomes

    • more specific to hierarchy → empirical research guiding development, implementation, assessment of everything that collectively makes the cj system

performance monitoring

• analysis of process/outcome indicators

  • doesn’t establish effectiveness, various services/activities, in achieving particular outcomes

  • documents trends over time

  • can be used to increase accountability

    • problem: doesn’t ensure policies actually needed, cost-effective, etc.

benefits of evaluation research

• powerful foundation on cj policy; imposes check on irrational policy

• direct influence → clear framework provided for establishing what accountable/evidence-based policies look like

• indirect influence → help overcome many barriers of rational cj policies

  • policymakers would have to show why there’s a need due to the unrepresentative cases (this would be harder to do)

defining the problem

• part of needs evaluation

  • size

  • trends

  • locations

  • causes

size

• part of defining the problem in needs evaluation

  • magnitude of the problem

    • could be measured in various ways depending on what’s being measured

trends

• part of defining the problem in needs evaluation

  • absolute/relative changes in magnitude over time

    • seeing if some trends may be changing over time

      • ex: crime is high, but it is going down

locations

• part of defining the problem in needs evaluation

  • distribution of the problem

    • different places have different problems → means they may need to be solved in different ways

causes

• part of defining the problem in needs evaluation; hardest part

  • potential drivers of the absolute numbers

why are needs evaluations important?

• determine the scope and nature of the problem

  • how pressing the problem is/who it affects

• assist debates on existing policies

  • what kinds should be considered, abolish/retry certain policies

• guide prioritization of policies

  • comparing which problems are more pressing redirecting resources, etc.

• identify critical assumptions/knowledge gaps

  • what assumptions we’re making/if they’re true

  • what we still don’t know/what we still need to measure

• establishing relevant criteria for evaluation effectiveness

  • measure the relevant criteria to what the policy we created is supposed to target

    • ex: measuring gang violence = studying gang violence, not something like robbery

incarceration and crime

• two primary ways to study the “effectiveness” of incarceration:

  • individual-level (incarceration/recidivism)

    • process by which incarceration affects people after they’re released

  • macro-level (incarceration rates/aggregate crime rates)

    • processes by which incarceration affects people (communities, states)

      • how many people are recidivating/people that are offending for the first time

• reduced recidivism constitutes the central justification for use of incarceration

• Mears et al. (2015) → the state of research on incarceration/recidivism is…

  • “incarceration likely has variable effects”

    • incarceration effects depend on key factors that are often overlooked when researching

• individual-level

  • we care if incarceration affects recidivism (reduction)

    • we don’t know if it does, though

    • ****we know less than we think we know****

      • likely has variable effects

comparing incarceration rates to crime rates

• reducing crime rates

  • the removal of people from society to prison

    • incapacitation? → away from society

  • the return of people to society from prison

    • specific deterrence? → individual may have gotten deterred

    • rehabilitation (i.e. “corrections”)? → got treatment while in prison maybe

• increasing crime rates

  • the removal of people from society to prison

    • destabilization of communities? → macro-level (disruption)

  • the return of people to society from prison

    • criminogenic impacts? → increased recidivism?

    • post-release marginalization → lack of opportunities (job, school, etc.)

diminishing returns

• the more people you incarcerate, the less the per person benefit is

  • each dose of incarceration does NOT have the same impact on crime

  • the higher the incapacitation rates, the more it diminishes the impact

• most estimates suggest the rise in incarceration accounts for 6%-35% of crime drops in the 1990s → doesn’t fully explain it though

  • some policy changes could also be a reason as to why crime rates are dropping

• using incarceration rates have “diminishing returns” on crime rates

• criminal justice saturation effects

• most of crime-reduction benefit seems to stem from incapacitation rather than reduced recidivism upon release

  • not much evidence on experiencing incarceration having a big impact on recidivism

criminal justice saturation effects

• as incarceration becomes overly prevalent, marginal benefits of incapacitation diminish, while its costs/harms increase

informal social control in communities

• incarceration as coerced mobility

• imprisonment so prevalent and clustered that it can disrupt residential communities

  • not all communities are affected by this the same way the ones with higher rates of arrest become more diminished

  • could also work against some of the incapacitation benefits

• undermine less coercive forms of social control?

changes to informal social control

• how communities can be impacted based off of high rate of incarceration in one community

  • reduced marriageability of men

  • weakened economic institutions

  • families less effective specializing agents

    • you don’t have 2 parents at home

  • removing people form networks that mobilize community to prevent crime

    • collective efficacy is diminished

  • disillusionment with the government/reduced participation in local political institutions

  • reduction of stigma associated with incarceration

  • introduction of prison subculture into communities

variable effects of incarceration

• incarceration constitutes as a heterogeneous type of sanction

  • intervention could mean a variety of things; it’s not all the same thing

    • not the same treatment is given every time or to every person

• incarceration effects may vary by population

  • some areas/communities have higher incarceration rates compared to other areas/communities

recidivism question

• widely cited 2/3 statistic → 2 out of 3 people will recidivate (probably higher)

• review of research (Nagin, 2009) suggests many studies are not “rigorous” enough to make claims

• more rigorous studies find that it increases recidivism

• Loeffler/Nagin (2022) review

  • negative (decreased) recidivism seen when there was a rehabilitative programming while incarcerated

  • recidivism-reducing effects more likely in areas whose prisons have better rehabilitative/educational opportunities compared to those who don’t have much of those

counterfactual/heterogeneity of sanctions

• incarceration compared to what?

  • heterogeneity in prior sanction experiences

    • there’s only a certain number of other sanctions that a judge could give

      • ex: murder wouldn’t really have other alternative sanctions after incarceration

  • heterogeneity of in-prison experiences

    • being clear on what we mean when we say “imprisonment”

  • heterogeneity of post-release experiences

    • depending on where people live, it may affect the opportunities they have post-release

      • ex: those released into urban areas may have more opportunities to get better compared to those released in rural areas

heterogeneity in incarceration experiences

• treatment/programming

• levels of staff/supervision

• staff cultures/interactions w/ staff

• inmate cultures/in-prison networks

• external contact (visits, phone calls)

• in-prison punishments

• victimization/safety

• food, healthcare, privileges