Charlotte Gill

What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

Research Summary Just four decades ago, the predominant narrative in crime prevention and rehabilitation was that nothing works. Since that time, criminologists have accumulated a wide body of evidence about programs and practices in systematic reviews. In this article, we summarize what is known in seven broad criminal justice areas by drawing on 118 systematic reviews. Although not everything works, through our “review of reviews,” we provide persuasive evidence of the effectiveness of programs, policies, and practices across a variety of intervention areas. Policy Implications It is time to abandon the idea that “nothing works,” not only in corrections but also in developmental, community, and situational prevention; sentencing; policing; and drug treatment. Nevertheless, key gaps remain in our knowledge base. The results of systematic reviews should provide more specific guidance to practitioners. In many areas few randomized evaluations have been conducted. Finally, researchers, through their studies and systematic reviews, must pay more attention to cost–benefit analysis, qualitative research, and descriptive validity.

Improving the Success of Reentry Programs: Identifying the Impact of Service–Need Fit on Recidivism

Returning citizens face significant barriers to reintegration after incarceration, yet evidence for the effectiveness of reentry programs is limited. A possible explanation is the lack of specificity in matching services to individuals’ unique risk and need profiles. To assess the impact of this “service–need fit” on both self-reported and official recidivism, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) evaluation using propensity score modeling and logistic regression. Increased fit was significantly associated with reduced recidivism for both types of outcome. We also found that fewer than half of the participants received the services they said they needed. Our findings are based on self-reported needs and services rather than clinical risk assessments. However, service–need fit appears to be an important determinant of successful reentry. Future research should focus on optimizing the combination and tailoring of services and integrating perceived need with actuarial assessments.

Service brokerage for improving health outcomes in ex‐prisoners

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: This review aims to assess the effectiveness of interventions including a service brokerage component for people transitioning out of prison, on health outcomes post-release.

Juvenile curfew effects on criminal behavior and victimization. A systematic review.

A juvenile curfew has common sense appeal: keep youth at home during the late night and early morning hours and you will prevent them from committing a crime or being a victim of a crime. In addition, the potential for fines or other sanctions deter youth from being out in a public place during curfew hours. Juvenile curfews have received numerous legal challenges. The constitutional basis for infringing the rights of youth rests on the assumption that they reduce juvenile crime and victimization. This review synthesizes the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth. What studies are included? Included studies test the effect of an official state or local policy intended to restrict or otherwise penalize a juveniles presence outside the home during certain times of day. This must have been a general preventive measure directed at all youth within a certain age range and not a sanction imposed on a specific youth. Twelve quantitative evaluations of the effects of curfews on youth criminal behavior or victimization are included in the review. Do curfews reduce crime and victimization? The pattern of evidence suggests that juvenile curfews are ineffective at reducing crime and victimization. The average effect on juvenile crime during curfew hours was slightly positive - that is a slight increase in crime - and close to zero for crime during all hours. Both effects were not significant. Similarly, juvenile victimization also appeared unaffected by the imposition of a curfew ordinance. However, all the studies in the review suffer from some limitations that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Nonetheless, the lack of any credible evidence in their favour suggests that any effect is likely to be small at best and that curfews are unlikely to be a meaningful solution to juvenile crime and disorder. Other studies have suggested curfews may be ineffective as juvenile crime is concentrated in hours before and after school, and that under-resourced police forces focus on more urgent demands than enforcing curfews. What do the results mean? Contrary to popular belief, the evidence suggests that juvenile curfews do not produce the expected benefits. The study designs used in this research make it difficult to draw clear conclusions, so more research is needed to replicate the findings. However, many of the biases likely to occur in existing studies would make it more, rather than less, likely that we would conclude curfews are effective. For example, most of these studies were conducted during a time when crime was dropping throughout the United States. Therefore, our findings suggest that either curfews don’t have any effect on crime, or the effect is too small to be identified in the research available.

Conclusion: What Works in Crime Prevention Revisited

Just four decades ago, the predominant narrative about the effectiveness of crime prevention was simply that nothing works. In this concluding chapter, we ask whether systematic reviews of evidence in interventions in crime and justice have changed our overall understanding of what works. Our assessments of systematic reviews show that there is strong evidence of the effectiveness of crime prevention and rehabilitation programs, policies, and practices across a wide variety of intervention areas. That array of findings is broad and persuasive. It is time to abandon the nothing works idea not only in corrections, but also in developmental prevention, community prevention, situational prevention, policing, sentencing and deterrence, and drug treatment interventions. The reviews also suggest that not everything works, and that criminologists, practitioners, and policymakers must look to the evidence to identify effective programs. Having synthesized the evidence gained from our book, we turn to key gaps in the existing knowledge base. We observe that the crime prevention and rehabilitation reviews provide general evidence that crime prevention and rehabilitation programs work, but they do not provide the kind of everyday guidance to practitioners and policymakers that an evidence base needs to become useful to practice. In turn, we note the paucity of experimental studies, and a growing problem in what we compare our treatments to. We also argue, drawing from chapters in the volume, that crime prevention and rehabilitation studies and reviews need to give greater attention to cost-benefit analysis, qualitative methods, and descriptive validity.

Collaborative problem-solving at youth crime hot spots: a pilot study

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a case study of a pilot program in which a collaborative problem-solving approach was implemented at hot spots of juvenile and youth crime in downtown Seattle, Washington. Design/methodology/approach Two matched pairs of youth crime hot spots were allocated at random to treatment (“non-enforcement problem-solving”) or comparison (“policing-as-usual”) conditions within matched pairs. In the treatment condition, police collaborated with community and local government partners to develop problem-solving strategies that deemphasized arrests and other traditional law enforcement approaches. Impacts on crime incidents, calls for service, and police activity were assessed using difference-in-differences Poisson regression with robust standard errors. Findings No significant impact on crime or calls for service was observed at one site, where several problem-solving approaches were successfully implemented. However, crime and calls for service were significantly lower at the other site, where some enforcement activity took place but non-enforcement problem-solving was limited. Research limitations/implications The authors find mixed support for non-enforcement problem-solving at hot spots. The enforcement may be necessary for stabilization, and must be balanced with the risks of justice system involvement for youth. Political support at the city level is necessary for collaboration. Limitations include the small number of sites in this pilot study and key differences between treatment and comparison locations. Originality/value This study is one of the first to assess the impact of primarily non-enforcement problem-solving specifically at youth crime hot spots.

A systematic review of the efficacy of alcohol interventions for incarcerated people

Aim The aim of this current study was to systematically review the literature on brief alcohol interventions for incarcerated individuals to ascertain the efficacy or effectiveness in making changes to either consumption of alcohol or other social outcomes. Short summary Levels of risky drinking and dependency are high amongst incarcerated individuals. Eleven studies from nine articles were included in the systematic review. Six of the studies included brief intervention and three extended interventions. Interventions have the potential to positively impact on risky drinking. More studies are needed in this setting. Introduction It has been shown that around three times as many incarcerated individuals are risky drinkers and alcohol dependency is ten times higher than in the general population. Methods Systematic review of randomised controlled trials or matched group trials of the efficacy of psychosocial alcohol interventions for incarcerated individuals: we searched seven databases, with no restrictions on language, year or location from inception through to August 2017. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist was used to ascertain intervention descriptions. Results Nine studies from 11 papers were included in the analysis. Six of the studies included brief interventions and three extended interventions. Every study used a different measure of alcohol consumption. Three of the studies that looked at brief interventions and all of the three extended intervention studies found significant reductions in relation to alcohol outcomes. Conclusions Results show that interventions in the prison setting have the potential to positively impact on alcohol use; however, because of small numbers and the use of different outcome measures we could not conduct a meta-analysis or generalise findings. Future studies are needed to standardise approaches to ensure greater rigour and efficacy.

Can school policing be trauma-informed? Lessons from Seattle

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe Seattle’s School Emphasis Officer (SEO) program, a distinctive approach to school policing that aims to connect at-risk students with services and has potential to incorporate a trauma-informed approach. Design/methodology/approach Using qualitative data collected from a process evaluation of SEO, including interviews, observations, and analysis of activity logs and program documentation, the authors explore elements of the program that could be adapted for the development of a trauma-informed policing (TIP) model and highlight some potential pitfalls. Findings SEO activities align well with trauma-informed principles of safety, promoting collaboration, and impulse management and are delivered in a context of trust-building, transparency, and responsivity. However, the program is poorly defined and has limited reach, has not been rigorously evaluated, and faces serious threats to sustainability. Research limitations/implications This study does not assess the effectiveness or appropriateness of TIP. A rigorous evaluation is needed to improve upon and test the model to ensure that increased contact between police and youth is effective and does not contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. Originality/value To the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to describe a potential framework for TIP and lay out an agenda for further research and policy development around this idea.

Introduction: What Works in Crime Prevention?

Just four decades ago, the predominant narrative in crime prevention and rehabilitation was that nothing works. Since that time, criminologists have accumulated a wide body of evidence about programs and practices in systematic reviews. In this book we summarize what is known in seven broad criminal justice domains, drawing upon systematic reviews of over 3,000 studies. While not everything works, our “review of reviews” provides persuasive evidence of the effectiveness of programs, policies, and practices across a variety of intervention areas and highlights the need to improve the utility of systematic reviews for policymakers.

Theories of Crime and Place

In the previous chapter, we showed that crime is concentrated at very small geographic units, substantially smaller than neighborhoods, and that these concentrations, on average, are relatively stable. This is true whether examining high- or low-crime neighborhoods. Although high-crime places do cluster, they seldom form a homogeneous block of high-crime places. Rather, interspersed within concentrations of high-crime places are many low- and modest-crime places. Why is crime concentrated in a relatively small number of places? Standard criminology has not asked this question, largely because standard criminology focuses on criminality and implicitly assumes that the density of offenders explains crime density. Recognition that place characteristics matter is the starting point for this chapter. We look at two perspectives on crime place characteristics. We use the term “perspective” because each type of explanation is comprised of multiple theories linked by a common orientation. The first perspective arises from opportunity theories of crime. The second perspective arises from social disorganization theories of crime. We begin by contrasting two ways of thinking about how a place becomes a crime hot spot and suggest that the process by which high-crime places evolve must involve place characteristics. In the next sections, we examine opportunity and social disorganization explanations. In the final section of the chapter, we examine possible ways researchers might link these two perspectives. PROCESSES THAT CREATE CRIME PLACES Before we look for explanations of why places become hot spots of crime it is important to consider two processes that might lead to such an outcome. Criminologists have generally proposed two generic models to account for the processes that lead to variation in place susceptibility to crime. One model suggests that places may start with reasonably similar risks of an initial criminal attack, but once attacked the risk of a subsequent attack on the place rises. Over time, places diverge in their crime risk, and consequently in their crime counts. This temporal contagion model is also known as a boost model (see Chapter 2) or a state-dependence model. It puts the emphasis on offenders’ willingness to return to a previously successful crime site (Johnson et al. 2007; Townsley et al. 2000). It suggests that irrespective of initial crime risk the occurrence of a crime will lead to changes in risk of crime at a place.