Monetary Value of Early Developmental Crime Prevention and Its Policy Significance

Abstract

N o r t h e a s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y N e t h e r l a n d s I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e S t u d y o f C r i m e a n d L a w E n f o r c e m e n t David P. FarringtonC a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y I t does not seem so long ago that, while one of us (Welsh) was working on his doctoral dissertation at Cambridge University, we were invited to go to London to brief senior Treasury officials on new research on the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of crime-prevention programs. This was 1997 and the doctoral research had only just begun, amounting to several literature reviews on the costs of crime and the costs and benefits of some crime-prevention strategies (i.e., developmental and situational). 1 It seemed that this was enough to pique their interest. Under the new British government, the Treasury was spearheading an ambitious plan to review public expenditure across all areas of government activity (Dhiri, Goldblatt, Brand, and Price, 2001). The Treasury's involvement was a major factor in launching the British government's ambitious Crime Reduction Programme, which had an unprecedented level of funding of £250 million (US$400 million) up to its demise in 2002 (Maguire, 2004).Of course, we were neither the first nor the only researchers who were investigating the costs and benefits of crime prevention at that time. The RAND Corporation was engaged in pioneering modeling research on the cost-effectiveness of California's three-strikes law and alternative approaches (Greenwood, Model, Rydell, and Chiesa, 1996) as well as research on the monetary value of early childhood intervention programs (Karoly et al., 1998); Donohue and Siegelman (1998) published their influential thought experiment on the economics of imprisonment versus social programs; the Dutch Ministry of Justice had also begun some simulation modeling on the costs of various crime prevention strategies

Evidence comes by replication, but needs differentiation: the reproducibility issue in science and its relevance for criminology

“…An OR of 1.46 is also practically relevant: depending on the prevalence of behavior problems in a cohort, it could indicate a reduction from 20% to 15%, that is, of one-quarter (Wilson and Lipsey 2007). Since long criminal careers of young people are very costly (Cohen and Piquero 2009;Piquero et al 2013), even small effects of prevention programs can be cost-effective (Aos et al 2004;Welsh and Farrington 2015).…”

A Qualitative Analysis of Mentee Experiences in a Campus-Based Mentoring Program

“…Moreover, these delinquent behaviors impose a significant toll on our nation. A recent study estimates that the cost to society of a single serious offender aggregates to $5.7 million (Cohen & Piquero, 2007;Welsh & Farrington, 2015). Therefore, preventing first-time offending youth from repeating delinquent behavior is of particular interest and tremendous benefit to our society.…”

Victim Compensation Policy and White‐Collar Crime

“…Nonetheless, several prominent economists have been critical of this methodology for its ability to place direct monetary value on intrinsic public goods (e.g., Diamond and Hausman, ; Hausman, ). More recently, a special issue of Criminology & Public Policy devoted entirely to the topic of the costs of crime raises similar concerns about the utility of WTP estimates for cost–benefit analyses (Black, Solow, and Taylor, ; Manski, ), as well as articles in support (Dominiguez and Raphael, ; Welsh and Farrington, ). The present analysis circumvents this complicated and often contentious issue entirely, specifically by focusing on preferences for different policy alternatives rather than on direct valuation of these options.…”