Dollars and Sense Prevention Instead of Prison

1. Dollars and Sense Prevention Instead of Prison Doing Juveniles Justice in Minnesota Juvenile Justice Forum June 18, 2008 Trisha Beuhring, Ph.D. University of Minnesota College of Education & Human Development Institute on Community Integration and The Ohio State University College of Social & Behavioral Sciences Department of Psychology

2. Overview • Policy Makers’ Dilemma • Prisons versus Prevention • Solution – WA State Institute for Public Policy • Benefit/Cost Tradeoffs • In principle – Three options for calculating • In practice – What costs/benefits? Who pays/reaps? • Key Points for Practitioners • When replicating a model program • When tailoring or designing an intervention ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

3. Overview • Strange but True – Counterintuitive Findings • Interventions can do harm • Effective programs can be a poor investment • Biggest B/C ratio may not be best investment • Implications • Evidence-based progress not practice • B/C ratio changes the prevention question ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

4. Policy Makers’ DilemmaPrisons versus Prevention • Social Values • Protect the community • Save a child • Cost/Benefit Issues • Protect the community – Prisons are expensive, overcrowded, and don’t prevent re-offending • Save a child -- Interventions mismatched to task, not evidence-based, more likely to fail than work ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

5. Prisons Not Working • Deterrence in principle, revolving door in practice • Chronic, serious and/or violent offenders • Few in number (5-8% of all delinquents) • Disproportionately costly • Crime, drug use, lost productivity = $1.4 to $1.7million for each chronic offender over their lifetime • Lifetime cost can rise to $1.7 to $2.4 million each for early-onset delinquents ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

6. Violent sexual offenders most expensive of all • In 2003, treatment cost Minnesota taxpayers $206,225/year each • Politically unacceptable to release them back into the community • Lifetime treatment costs $2.1 to $10.3 million each ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

7. Young offenders scare the community, too • Half of all children who have police contact before age 13 become chronic, serious and/or violent offenders by age 18 “The new First Grade Reader” ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

8. Community Response Lowering the Age of Adjudication Age 6 years: North Carolina Age 7 years: Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York Age 8 years: Arizona Age 10 years: Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin The remaining 34 states do not have a minimum age. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

9. Need Options Developmentally Appropriate Fit • Prison (residential placement) does not fit • Child delinquents don’t have the cognitive development to plan ahead, think of consequences, participate in their own defense. • Teenage brain still maturing (executive function). • Peer influences enhance child’s risk, not resiliency • “Preventive intervention” is best hope • Save the child • Protect the community • Break the cycle ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

10. UnfortunatelyPrevention Not Working Much Better • As of 2007, found only 11 model programs and 18 promising programs out of 600 programs reviewed “To date, most of the resources ... have been invested in untested programs based on questionable assumptions and delivered with little consistency or quality control. Further, the vast majority of these programs are not being evaluated. This means we will never know which (if any) have had significant deterrent effect; we will learn nothing from our investment … to improve our understanding of the causes of violence or to guide our future efforts to deter violence ...” Center for Study and Prevention of Violence www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

11. Watching the Bottom LineWA State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) • Model for Minnesota • www.wsipp.wa.gov (prison & prevention options) • Policy-relevant research with University partners • State legislature mandates and helps fund studies • Developing “diversified portfolio” of interventions • Model programs that work when brought to scale • Various target populations (universal, at-risk, indicated) • Matches interventions to risk profiles (aligns current costs with future benefits) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

12. Benefit/Cost TradeoffsDefining Terms • Cost = dollars spent now (per child, on average) • Benefit = future expenses avoided (per child, onaverage) • Like insulating your house to avoid future heating expenses • Benefit/Cost ratio = return on investment • $2,500 future expenses avoided / $500 cost now = 5:1 ratio • $5 in future expenses avoided for every $1 spent now • To break even, the intervention must achieve • Complete success with oneoutoffive children served • Partial success with each child served ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

13. In PrincipleThree Calculation Options • Longitudinal study comparing outcomes • Follow intervention children and comparable children who don’t get the intervention for years • Meta-analysis of studies already done (Aos, 1998, 2004) • Cost of hypothetical child saved (Cohen, 1998) • If right target population, can estimate B/C ratio • B/C ratio of hypothetical program (Anton & Temple, 2007) • If program fits target population, estimates program value ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

14. In PracticeEstimating the Pieces is Complex • Which costs/benefits? • Costs include everything the program depends on • Direct service, facilities, oversight committee • Grant support, ancillary services provided “free” by other programs (someone is paying for the child to receive them) • Benefits depend on who is asking • Tangible expenses avoided by taxpayer / local business • Intangible suffering avoided / business climate improved • One outcome (delinquency) or many (drug, pregnancy) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

15. Who pays / reaps? • Cost of early intervention typically paid by local government, community agencies, foundations • County coffers reap only some of future benefits • State and Federal government – reduced court, incarceration, welfare expenses • Businesses – Reduced security costs, higher productivity • Individual taxpayers – improved safety, reduced insurance costs, less suffering/lost property ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

16. Key Points for PractitionersReplicating Model Programs • Match the target population carefully • Lower risk target population means lower payoff • Monitor fidelity of implementation! • “Tailor to your needs” can backfire and do harm • The most effective models monitor you • Expect to be half as effective as the model • Less if wrong target population, poor fidelity • Evaluate ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

17. Key Points for PractitionersImplementing New or Promising Programs • Must be theory-based, consistent with research • Define target population carefully • Risk assessment to restrict enrollment • Risk assessment to estimate future expenses avoided • Partner with a University researcher • Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate • Expect program development to take years ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

18. Why Risk Assessment MattersSame Offense but Different Risk Profile Means Different Intervention Challenge / Payoff Jim (8)—Extreme Risk • Hyperactive (no meds), peer rejection • Expelled for threats to kill • Single mother is recovering addict with criminal history • Father is violent career criminal (murder, rape, kidnapping) • Domestic violence • Older siblings are all violent delinquents • Chronic and pervasive neglect • High crime neighborhood • Changes home/school every 6-9 mos. Tommy (9)—Very Low Risk • Mild tempered, liked by peers • Few behavior problems • Single mother works, no criminal or drug history • Father is drug addict and schizophrenic (no criminal history) • No domestic violence • Siblings no behavior problems • Grandfather helps • Borderline neighborhood • Stable home & school (3 yrs)

19. Strange but TrueCounterintuitive Findings • Interventions can harm • Group interventions for juvenile delinquents • Boot camps • Model interventions done without fidelity • Four model programs to scale (WSIPP) • Maybe a developmental issue? • “SNAP” intervention for children 7-11 • “Developmental Repair” for children age 3 to grade 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

20. Strange but TrueCounterintuitive Findings • Ineffective programs can save money • Boot camps less expensive than incarceration • Effective programs can be a poor investment • Program costs more than future expenses avoided • $15,000 cost but only $14,000 future expenses avoided • $1.5 million per crime prevented (Texas study) • Future expenses avoided not the ones that matter • Replicated with wrong target population ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

21. Strange but TrueCounterintuitive Findings • Biggest benefit/cost ratio may not be the best investment • Aggression Replacement Therapy -- $11 saved for every $1 invested but targeted to lower risk juvenile delinquents with few family risk factors • Functional Family Therapy -- $7 saved for every $1 invested but appropriate for higher risk juvenile delinquents who cost the community more ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

22. Implications • Focus should be on evidence-based progress • Relatively few effective programs • Center Study & Prev. Violence has most rigorous criteria • Largely limited to low and moderate risk youth • Risk assessment is not yet refined (target populations vary and results vary accordingly) • Generality of effective programs largely unknown • Components of effectiveness largely unknown ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

23. Implications • B/C ratio may change the policy perspective • Before - How many will benefit from intervention? • Favors programs that serve large numbers • Favors programs that are cheapest (easily achieve success) • Now - Who will benefit the community most? • Favors programs that serve the highest risk children and families • Favors programs that are expensive (success requires greater scope, duration, intensity of services) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008

24. Benefit/Cost Research isChanging the Prevention Question • Small numbers with disproportionately large impact • Early interventions need to succeed with only a few to repay program costs for all children served • Full or partial success with remaining children is community’s “return on investment” • Payoff compounds over generations (virtuous cycle) It is not who will benefit most (or most easily), it is who will benefit the community most if change is achieved —that makes the community’s highest risk children and families the best, not worst, investment ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Beuhring uJuvenile Justice Forum – Juvenile Justice Coalition of Minnesota u June 18, 2008