Advancing Criminology and Criminal Justice Policy

Thomas Blomberg, Julie Brancale, Kevin Beaver, William Bales, Thomas G. Blomberg, Julie Mestre Brancale, Kevin M. Beaver, William D. Bales

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317571995
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Advancing Criminology and Criminal Justice Policy is a definitive sourcebook that is comprised of contributions from some of the most recognized experts in criminology and criminal justice policy. The book is essential reading for students taking upper level courses and seminars on crime, public policy and crime prevention, as well as for policy makers within the criminal justice sphere.

There has been a growing recognition of the importance of evidence-based criminal justice policies from criminologists, policymakers, and practitioners. Yet, despite governmental and professional association efforts to promote the role of criminological research in criminal justice policy, political ideologies, fear, and the media heavily influence criminal justice policies and practices. Bridging the gap between research and policy, this book provides the best-available research evidence, identifies strategies for informing policy and offers direct policy recommendations for a number of pressing contemporary issues in criminal justice, including:

• 
  
  

• Delinquency, intervention programs and community crime prevention,

• 
  
  

• Problem-oriented policing and the science of hot-spot policing,

• 
  
  

• Sentencing and drug courts,

• 
  
  

• Community corrections, incarceration and rehabilitation,

• 
  
  

• Mental illness, gender, aging and indigenous communities.

Part I

Introduction

Introduction

Evidence, evaluation, and strategies for moving criminal justice policy forward

Thomas G. Blomberg, Julie Mestre Brancale, Kevin M. Beaver and William D. Bales

The growing recognition of the importance of criminal justice policies that are efficient, cost-effective, and evidence-based has been reflected in the actions of local, state, and national policymakers, and researchers. With increasing frequency, especially since the economic recession that began in 2009, policymakers have sought to incorporate evidence-based research into their criminal justice policy and practice decisions. Further, a growing number of criminologists have responded to this emerging evidence-based receptivity by entering into research partnerships with practitioners, conducting evaluations of criminal justice programs, and delivering testimony to legislative bodies. While the search for causality in the field of criminology will continue, criminal justice policy can benefit significantly from the application of best available research evidence. The chapters in this section demonstrate that strategies for implementing evidence-based criminal justice should be incremental, thoughtful, and altogether scientific.

Laurie Robinson and Thomas Abt (Chapter 1) trace the growing influence of science in criminal justice policy, identify obstacles to further growth, and present strategies to overcome these obstacles and sustain progress. Although the current national nonpartisan sentiment favors evidence-based criminal justice policies, it is possible that momentum may slow due to political and social changes. Therefore, strategies to maintain the progress that has been established must focus on cultural changes at all levels of the criminal justice system. To do so, Robinson and Abt detail a series of seven recommendations that include the proactive, objective, and sensitive handling of popular and highly politicized events because they have the potential to polarize and divide the nation and criminal justice community. Additionally, the authors advocate continued federal support and leadership for science and building collaborations between researchers and policymakers. They conclude that these researcher and policymaker collaborations will help to bridge the gap between research and policy and sustain support for evidence-based policy over time; as new research is conducted and validated it can be translated directly to the researcher’s partners in policy and practice.

In Chapter 2, Daniel P. Mears notes that policy evaluation and assessment is critical for developing effective criminal justice policy. Policies that are deemed to be “evidence-based” should not be equated merely with impact evaluations. Rather, they should be equated with each of the five steps of the evaluation hierarchy: (1) policy need, (2) theory, (3) implementation, (4) impact, and (5) cost-efficiency.

Francis T. Cullen and Cecilia Chouhy (Chapter 3) reflect on where the criminal justice system has been and in what direction it is headed using criminological theory, ideology, and ethics as frameworks. The authors note that the last several decades of criminal justice policies can be characterized as overly punitive and centered on race. However, both liberal and conservative lawmakers alike have begun to realize that the punitive policies of the past are no longer sustainable nor are they effective. With regard to criminal justice policy, the authors argue that criminological theory has been either ignored altogether or largely incorrect when it has been applied to policy decisions. Although changes are beginning to occur, the ideology behind many criminal justice policies has been hegemonic, conservative, and punitive. Lastly, when reflecting on the once-popular punitive criminal justice policies, ethics have been disquieting and, to a degree, in the eye of the beholder. Conservative policymakers have tended to believe that it is their ethical obligation to punish offenders harshly because they owe it to victims to hold wrongdoers accountable. Conversely, criminologists tend to empathize more with offenders and believe they should be treated humanely.

Rather than relying on popular public opinion, or one’s political ideology about crime control, Cullen and Chouhy emphasize the importance of using empirically validated theories to guide crime control policies. However, the process of applying empirically proven criminological theory to criminal justice policy is not always simple or straightforward. The authors note that even if theories are correct, they often provide little guidance for policymakers and practitioners on the most effective means for crime control. Therefore, for the most effective criminal justice policies, it is suggested that criminologists focus on factors closer to the individual and situation in which the crime is committed. In other words, criminological theories and criminal justice policies should focus on identifying and addressing factors that can be changed. Treating the alterable conditions or characteristics of crime can be compared to addressing one’s symptoms as medical doctors frequently do if the underlying cause is uncertain or untreatable.

John H. Laub and Nicole E. Frisch (Chapter 4) describe the concept of “translational criminology” as a way to address the disconnect between criminological research and criminal justice policies and practices. Translational criminology provides a mechanism to bridge the gap by considering the processes by which scientific evidence is converted to policies and by forming interactive relationships between policymakers and criminologists. Understanding and divulging any limitations of the research and effectively disseminating findings in ways that are meaningful are important components of translational criminology. Much criminological research does not reach its intended audiences, especially if published exclusively in academic journals. Therefore, a multifaceted approach may be most effective for reaching policymakers; for example, publishing in diverse locations and developing an online and social media presence. Additionally, the authors suggest that the federal government and funding agencies should support rigorous program and policy evaluation and direct funding to programs that have been deemed effective and evidence-based. For example, the Bureau of Justice Administration’s SMART programs establish researcher–practitioner partnerships to develop and evaluate data-driven programs in policing, criminal courts, and corrections. Lastly, the authors suggest that academic institutions earnestly consider the value of applied research in their graduate programs and integrate criteria to reward policy relevant work in faculty tenure and promotion decisions.

Historically, criminal justice policy and practice has been too often devoid of empirical evidence, which has contributed to expensive and ineffective policies and an unprecedented number of individuals under correctional control. However, more recent fiscal constraints and changes in public opinion have fueled calls for accountable and evidence-based criminal justice policies. As Cullen and Chouhy (Chapter 3) highlight, overly punitive polices of mass incarceration are no longer feasible or favored by the public. To sustain the current sentiment of an evidence-based criminal justice system, researchers must be transparent about what is known and what is not and provide policymakers with research that is relevant, impactful, timely, and understandable (Blomberg et al., 2013; Robinson and Abt, Chapter 1). To do so, it is advisable that researchers use the evaluation hierarchy described by Mears in Chapter 2 to conduct timely policy research and follow the steps of translational criminology (Chapter 4) to deliver the best available research knowledge directly to policymakers in the most effective ways.

Chapter 1

Evidence-informed criminal justice policy

Looking back, moving forward

Laurie O. Robinson and Thomas P. Abt

Criminal justice in our country defies easy description. It is a complex ecology of separate but interconnected institutions operating collectively to reduce and control criminal behavior, governed by an equally complex set of formal and informal controls. Rooted in traditions older than the nation itself, it has evolved and expanded organically over time according to the needs of history and consistent with a distinctively American brand of federalism that emphasizes local autonomy and control.

Decentralization and variability are defining features of the American system. Every one of the 50 states, 3,031 counties, and 19,519 municipalities (U.S. Census, 2012) plays a role in criminal justice, along with thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of every stripe and color. While generalizations across jurisdictions are possible, important structural and operational distinctions among them remain. As the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice observed more than 45 years ago, “All of them operate somewhat alike. No two of them operate exactly alike” (Commission Report, 1967).

Policy controls this vast and diverse system with a multitude of laws, regulations, rules, budgets, cultures, customs, and norms generated by institutions in all branches and at all levels of government, and by those outside government as well. Policy is not one thing, but a composite of many things, influenced by factors inside and outside the criminal justice system. It derives from a continuous process that is inherently complicated, messy, and erratic.

As the National Research Council has observed, “Success at promoting science depends on grasping the complexity of the policy world” (NRC, 2012). Historically, criminal justice policy has been relatively impervious to scientific inquiry. In recent years, this has begun to change. As crime rates have decreased, both the supply of and demand for scientifically sound research, evaluation, and statistics have increased. Buzzwords such as “evidence-based” and “data-driven” are now part of the policy lexicon. In short, the chasm between policy and science has begun to be bridged.

This chapter traces the growing influence of science over criminal justice policy, describes the federal, state, local, and non-governmental contributions to this trend, notes obstacles to further growth, and identifies opportunities to overcome these barriers and sustain progress. It is important to note that the objective here is not policy based exclusively on science, but instead policy that is fully informed by the best scientific theory, evidence, and data currently available (Blomberg et al., 2013). Policy should be consistently evidence-informed, if not always evidence-based. “In the domain of justice, empirical evidence by itself cannot point the way to policy.” (NRC, 2014). Absolutes in this area are neither feasible nor desirable. Criminology should work to improve public policy, not replace it.

Looking back: the growth of evidence-informed policy

Just 20 years ago, 49 percent of Americans cited crime as the most important issue facing the country (Gallup, 2005). Today, only 2 percent of Americans feel the same way (Gallup, 2014). Violent crime has declined by 46 percent and property crime is down 41 percent, with current crime levels approximating those experienced by Americans in the 1960s (FBI, 2014). Despite a recent increase in homicide in several cities, the United States is a dramatically safer country than it was two decades ago.

At the same time, our scientific understanding of criminal behavior and “what works” in reducing crime has advanced significantly. For example, hot-spots policing has revolutionized our geographic understanding of crime and demonstrated how targeted police patrols can significantly reduce offending (Braga et al., 2012). DNA testing has expanded dramatically, resulting in increased convictions of the guilty, exonerations of the innocent, and – in more recent years – innovations such as identifying suspects in property crimes (Roman et al., 2008). Cognitive behavioral therapy has been proven to reduce crime, delinquency, and recidivism in a wide variety of settings (Lipsey et al., 2007). Correlation does not prove causation when it comes to crime, science, and policy, as contemporaneous increases in scientific knowledge cannot be directly linked to reductions in crime, but it is encouraging that both trends are moving in the right direction at the same time.

Landmark studies have also had impacts extending beyond academia to alter the policy landscape and shape the field. A study detailing racially discriminatory and potentially criminogenic school discipline policies in Texas, produced by the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG) in partnership with the Texas A&M University (Fabelo et al., 2011), helped launch the national Supportive School Discipline Initiative, led by U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, among others, to end the “school to prison pipeline.” “Redemption” studies conducted by Professors Alfred Blumstein and Kiminori Nakamura have identified when ex-offenders are statistically “redeemed,” i.e. no more likely to be arrested than a person without a criminal record (Blumstein and Nakamura, 2009). This work continues to reverberate in the field of reentry and was influential in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s decision in 2012 to advise employers against blanket exclusions of individuals with criminal records (EEOC, 2011). And numerous studies (Chandler et al., 2009; Martin et al., 1995; Mitchell et al., 2012) going back some 20 years have shown the efficacy of drug treatment in reducing recidivism and drug use among substance abusing offenders, leading to support from policymakers across the political spectrum for both drug treatment courts and mandated drug treatment in prisons.

Out in the field, criminal justice practitioners and policymakers are increasingly reliant on evidence and data, with practitioners significantly more open to partnerships with researchers and policymakers consulting them far more frequently before major decisions. Key criminal justice constituencies have embraced evidence-informed approaches – for instance, in 2003, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest law enforcement membership association in the world, created a Research Advisory Committee to provide guidance on law enforcement policy research and evaluation. Engagement has been deeper among police, corrections, and juvenile justice than with prosecutors or the courts, but the overall progress is real.

Several factors have contributed to the increasing influence of scientific evidence and data in criminal justice. First, as we have noted, the demand for scientific evidence and data is rising. Today’s criminal justice practitioners are increasingly sophisticated and open to learning fr...