Study Finds Aid Outdoes ‘3 Strikes’ in Crime Fight

A program that offers youths cash and scholarships to stay in high school averted five times as many serious crimes, dollar for dollar, as California’s “three strikes” law, according to an analysis that for the first time attempts to measure the cost-effectiveness of social programs aimed at reducing youth crime.

The study released this week by the Santa Monica-based Rand Corp. found that for each dollar spent, the graduation incentives and intervention programs that monitored high school delinquents and targeted parents of high-risk youth for training were far more effective at stemming crime than simply incarcerating people who already have committed crimes.

A previous Rand study estimated that the “three strikes” law, which mandates long prison terms for repeat offenders, might reduce serious crime by 21%, but at a cost of $5.5 billion per year. The new study indicates that a combination of the graduation incentives and parent training could cut crime just as much for less than $1 billion.

The authors of the study caution that the new findings are based on a limited number of pilot projects scattered around the country and concede that their analysis employs long-range projections of who is likely to commit crimes, and sometimes makes “educated guesses.” But they contend that the data are persuasive enough to warrant spending money for larger-scale demonstrations.

“None of this suggests that incarceration is the wrong approach, but the question is: Do you want to devote all the money for solving these problems to that one approach?” said the study’s principal author, Peter W. Greenwood.

The new study is unique because it attempts for the first time to quantify theories about the benefits of social welfare programs.

“The new wrinkle is that it pits treatment programs in head-to-head competition with punishment programs, making assumptions about effectiveness of each--in other words how much bang you will get from modestly effective treatment versus building X number of new jail cells. And it comes out with a relatively rosy-looking cost analysis,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a professor of law and director of the Earl Warren Legal Institute at UC Berkeley.

Critics have contended that a previous Rand analysis of the “three strikes” legislation understated its cost savings. Greenwood said the new study is likely to be equally controversial given the politically charged debate on crime prevention.

And he conceded that budgetary constraints could hamper attempts to implement broad-scale social programs, even on a trial basis.

A spokesman for Gov. Pete Wilson said the study seemed to be weighing “apples and oranges” in its analysis of the most cost-effective crime programs.

“That having kids graduate from high school keeps them from committing crimes is stating the obvious,” said Wilson aide Sean Walsh. “High school kids are not going to jail on the ‘three strikes’ law. We readily acknowledge that having a two-parent family and things like mentoring programs are valuable, and the state has proposed those. But it seems a lot gray matter and ink went into studying something that was readily apparent.”

But other proponents of California’s “three strikes” law cautiously supported the findings.

“Prevention programs have a role, especially for young people, and we’re supportive of that,” said California Secretary of State Bill Jones. Jones is a former state assemblyman who co-authored the “three strikes” legislation. “I think both approaches are appropriate, and I think Rand would agree. However, you cannot argue that we are spending too much money on incarceration or that you need to take away money for one program to fund the other.”

A spokesman for California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren echoed that support.

“Obviously prevention is important, but we have to have both,” said Steve Telliano. “Prevention programs by themselves can’t work without the threat of punishment.”

The Rand study focused on four different types of early intervention program targeting the children of poor, single mothers. Research has shown that these children are at greater risk of engaging in criminal activities.

One group of programs involved home visits by counselors to help families resolve problems in child rearing, personal relations and community involvement, and provided day care. Follow-up studies of one such program sponsored by Syracuse University found that 6% of the experimental group ended up on probation compared with 22% of a matched control group. This program was found the least cost-effective, mainly because the impact on the young children it serves is unlikely to be apparent for many years.

The second type of program was aimed at parents already having trouble with their children and offered training in how to monitor their child’s behavior and respond with appropriate rewards and punishments. Short-term evaluation of one of these programs showed that the training particularly reduces stealing and other anti-social behavior.

A third type of program offered intensive supervision and counseling of youngsters who have already begun to accumulate an arrest record. Analysis of one Orange County pilot project aimed at youth under 15 year of age and their families found that a combination of support services could reduce recidivism rates as much as 50%. This was found to be the third most effective way to reduce crime for the money spent.

The most successful approach studied by the Rand team provided cash and scholarships to keep youths in high school. The largest program in this group is an effort funded by the Ford Foundation and the U.S. Department of Labor that began as a pilot project in 1988. Student participants earn money for extracurricular academic studies, community activities and work.

Over a four-year period, students in the program could earn a maximum of $7,500 in stipends plus a matching amount in scholarship funds. The average was $2,300 in stipends and college money. But the incentives were found to significantly increase graduation rates and college enrollment. Seventy-three of the 100 young people in the initial project are still in college, said program director Ben Lattimore.

“The research suggested that 60% to 75% of these kids would not have finished high school, would have been involved in crimes, would be pregnant or substance abusers,” said Lattimore. “I’m happy the Rand study paints a positive picture, but I personally think these programs are important no matter what the cost and can have a huge impact.”

One graduate of the incentive program, 21-year-old Vincent Coleman, used the money to enroll at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and is now a sophomore majoring in accounting. Some of the friends he hung out with in the rough north Philadelphia neighborhood where he grew up are now in jail or dead. The incentive program probably turned his life around, he said.

“I’d probably be right there myself,” said Coleman, who has returned to the program to help counsel a new crop of participants.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Payoffs of Crime Deterrents

Crime might be reduced more economically by programs that keep high-risk youth out of trouble than by longer prison sentences, according to an analysis by the Rand Corp. Here are comparative deterrent effects of four types of preventive programs and California’s “three strikes” law, expressed in serious crimes prevented per million dollars spent.

* Home visits, day care: 11 crimes prevented

* Delinquent supervision: 72 crimes prevented

* Parent training: 157 crimes prevented

* Graduation incentives: 258 crimes prevented

* “Three strikes” law: 60 crimes prevented