Abstract
Linked article:
2.0 Background
Sentencing options may include a range of interventions, for example, pre-trial diversions (i.e., the diversion of offenders from custody to a community and/or treatment programme), probation supervision and/or intensive supervision programmes in the community, boot camps (i.e., army style regime camps with intensive training), jail or imprisonment. Many of the available sentencing options are now used in combination, with the ultimate aim of reducing re-offending. In order to make decisions on which sentencing option may be preferable to another the cost-benefits or cost-effectiveness of the sentencing option should be addressed.
Cost effectiveness informs us about the costs of the resources used and the non-monetary benefits and/or disbenefits associated with the use of those resources. Thus, taking intensive supervision as an example, this sentencing option might be deemed to be cost effective when compared to imprisonment because its costs might be less whilst the outcomes (reducing recidivism, for example) might be comparable in both cases. Cost-benefit analyses however incorporate both the monetary costs of the intervention and monetary value of outcomes, so allowing calculation of a cost-benefit ratio which provides a means of comparison across different kinds of intervention. This method of analysis is more comprehensive as it does not, for example, use a simple measure such as reconviction data as an outcome, but can additionally include such values as monetary calculations of pain and suffering to victims.
Until recent times, few studies of effectiveness of sentencing have incorporated cost-benefit analyses in their evaluations. Some studies detail the costs of a sentencing strategy, and outcome measures, in an analysis of cost-effectiveness but omit any estimates of the monetary benefits and disbenefits of that particular strategy so that, as Welsh and Farrington (2000) point out, incomplete information is presented. Other studies infer economic efficiency on the basis of comparative costs of interventions without reference to whether one or other is more effective in terms of reducing crime, eg cost of prison compared to cost of a community penalty. Increasingly information on costs and benefits of interventions is required by policy-makers and funding bodies.
It is recognized that such a value for money approach can raise questions of principle and ethics. This is to misunderstand what a cost-benefit analysis is trying to achieve. A good cost-benefit analysis will attempt to capture the total benefits and costs to society of implementing a particular intervention or sentencing option (Cohen 2000). This includes what is effective in changing offending behavior or in reducing reconvictions; indeed a benefits calculation goes further than a simple numerical count of reconvictions. It will incorporate the nature of the offending and degree of seriousness, and weight the ‘benefits’ in terms of the savings in victim costs. This approach highlights, not only whether numbers of reconvictions have been reduced, but also whether the severity of the re-offending has been reduced. A cost-benefit analysis therefore gives a more complete assessment of the impact of an intervention by including a victim perspective.
Of course, there are inherent problems in trying to provide appropriate estimates for a complete financial picture of crime and responses to it. For example, it is possible to estimate the cost-benefits of incapacitation by calculating savings from crimes avoided, less the costs of that incapacitation and other associated criminal justice expenditures. However, relatively little is known about the cost-benefits associated with deterrence and retribution so that estimates of these are frequently omitted from the picture even though all three elements (incapacitation, deterrence and retribution) are regarded as social benefits of imprisonment (Piel and Dilulio, 1995). Given such difficulties, it is not surprising that for many years there have been conflicting views about the efficacy and efficiency of various sentencing options. The United States for instance, continues to create more prison capacity despite the fact that several researchers (c.f. Marvell, 1994) suggest that imprisonment is unlikely to be cost-effective and despite the fact that crime and fear of crime continue to rise. However, other researchers view imprisonment as an effective strategy (Zedlewski, 1989). A lack of rigorous scientific research in the criminal justice field (cited in Sherman et al., 1997; 2002) has exacerbated the problem of trying to reach definitive conclusions overall.
In a review of correctional interventions Welsh and Farrington (2000) found only seven studies (all carried out in the USA) which presented information on monetary costs and benefits. All seven studies had omitted indirect/intangible costs to victims (cf. Cohen, 1998) and three of them had utilized a less rigorous method of investigation than was desirable. The studies enabled certain conclusions to be drawn about correctional interventions, chiefly that benefits outweighed costs, but several important questions remained unanswered. For instance, there was no clarification as to whether community treatment was more cost-beneficial than institutional treatment or vice versa or whether treatment was more economically efficient than punishment.
This work highlights the need for continued efforts to be made to evaluate the sentencing of offenders in order for policy and decision making to become as effective as possible. A systematic review involving a broad-based search of several databases and other sources of information, is needed to further assess the overall weight of the evidence to-date on the cost-benefits and cost-effectiveness of sentencing alternatives.
3.0 Objectives of the review
The overall aim of the research is to investigate the cost-benefits and cost-effectiveness of different sentencing options in relation to the prevention of re-offending in the community.
A further objective of the research is to review studies of sentencing which incorporate cost-benefits and/or cost-effectiveness analyses in order to provide evidence-based research information to those working in the criminal justice field and to identify future research needs.
4.0 Methods
4.1 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the review
Types of studies
Only studies which specify the costs and benefits and/or cost-effectiveness of sentencing options will be included in this review (i.e., scoring either level 2 or 3 and above on the economic analysis rating scale discussed below). Ideally, these studies will have an experimental or quasi-experimental design as rated on the Scientific Methods Scale (Sherman, et al., 1997; 2002). A brief summary of excluded studies and the reason why the study was excluded from the review will be presented in tabular format. Studies whose main focus is a comparison of privately versus publicly run institutions will not be included since it is the sentencing option per se. which is the concern of this review, though studies will be included where privately and/or publicly run institutions are compared with other sentencing options, eg community penalties.
Types of participants
Male and female, juvenile and adult offenders who have committed any type and number of offences will be included in the review.
Types of sentencing option and cost-benefits and/or cost-effectiveness involved
Sentencing options may include a range of interventions from pre-trial diversions, community orders, fines, probation, participation in drug treatment programs, victim-awareness and anger-management programs, to boot camps, jail and imprisonment. The various options may aim to incapacitate, rehabilitate, restrain or punish the offender or to deter him/her and other potential offenders from future criminal behaviour. Additionally, some sentencing options may aim to carry out a combination of these objectives (c.f. (Piel and Dilulio, 1995; Mackenzie, 1997).
The costs of sentencing options may include police and courts time, the costs of supervision, imprisonment, treatment and private and social costs in relation to welfare payments to offenders’ families, and indirect/intangible costs such as the suffering incurred by victims and any other relevant costs. Associated cost-benefits and/or cost-effectiveness may include the monetary savings of crimes prevented or deterred as well as savings to public health and welfare and savings to the criminal justice system of reduced recidivism as well as any other additional benefits.
Types of outcome measure
The interest of this review is in studies that assess the economic costs and benefits and/or cost-effectiveness of sentencing options.
Cost-Benefit Studies
A particular court sentence is economically efficient if its monetary benefits exceed its monetary costs. The most succinct measure of economic efficiency is a benefit-cost ratio which is a measure of the benefit derived from the investment of a single monetary unit (1 dollar; 1 pound, Sterling). The review will select studies which either report this ratio or which enable a calculation of it.
Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Cost-effectiveness studies provide cost information of an option, and outcomes in non-monetary terms. The most usual outcome measures used in cost-effectiveness studies are reduction in recidivism, offending or the prevention of a specific type of crime. These studies will be incorporated in the review in a separate section.
4.2 Search strategy for identification of relevant studies
Both published and unpublished work including ‘grey’ literature will be considered eligible for the review. Attempts will be made to review material in languages other than English whenever possible. The search will be conducted on the following databases and publications: Criminal Justice Periodicals Index Criminal Justice Abstracts Social Science Citation Index (Social SciSearch) Applied Social Science Indexes and Abstracts (ASSIA) Public Administration Information Service International (PAIS) Psychological Abstracts (PsycINFO) Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC) Social, Psychological, Education and Criminological trials register (SPECTR, currently being developed by the UK Cochrane Centre and the University of Pennsylvania) HMSO Publications (especially Home Office Research Studies)
The following search terms will be used singly and/or in appropriate combinations:
Sentencing; Crime; Corrections; Penalty; Punishment; Offending; Custodial; Penal; Sanction; Reparation; Prevention; Reduction; Court; Prison; Program; Disposal; Probation; Diversion;; Community; Alternative; Public safety; Evaluation; Cost; Benefit; Efficiency; Estimate; Model; Effective; Economic; Analysis; Meta-analysis;
A search will also be made of bibliographies for references to the cost-benefits and/or cost-effectiveness of court sentences and to major reviews of research on crime interventions, including, but not limited to, Sherman's 1997 Report to the US Congress (Sherman et al., 1997; 2002).
Two independent reviewers will carry out pre-screening of titles and abstracts identified from the database searches. One of these will be an economist, and the other a psychologist. A second screening of selected articles will be conducted before any hard copies of the final selection are obtained.
4.3 Assessment of methodological quality
For each study an assessment of methodological quality will be made firstly, on the basis of the economic information presented. If both costs and benefits and/or cost-effectiveness of the sentencing option are not contained in the selected article then the article will be rejected without further review. However, if the economic criteria are satisfied then an assessment will be made of the scientific method employed. Both sets of criteria are described below:
Rating of Economic Information
Economic information can range from simple cost analysis which attempts to detail the costs involved in implementing a particular sentencing option, to comprehensive cost-benefit analysis which attempts to evaluate the monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits of that sentencing option. For the purposes of the review, the economic analysis of a sentencing option has been rated from 1, low, to 5, high, on the following rating scale developed for this systematic review, which we have named the Cost-Benefit Validity Scale.
Level 1 Cost Studies
Relevant program costs (or averted program costs) are fully assessed in monetary terms.
Level 2 Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Relevant program costs (or averted program costs) and effectiveness measures are included, but the effectiveness measures are not monetized.
Level 3 Partial Cost-Benefit Analysis
A cost-benefit ratio is included in the study, but costs and benefits are incomplete; hence, there is lack of confidence in the direction of the ratio.
Level 4 Valid Cost-Benefit Analysis
A cost-benefit ratio is included, with sufficient costs and benefits information to rate a valid analysis with confidence in the direction of the ratio.
Level 5 Complete Cost-Benefit Analysis
A cost-benefit ratio is included based on calculation of all appropriate costs and benefits, giving a complete analysis with confidence in the direction and the size of the ratio.
Rating of Scientific Method
Since cost-benefit analysis and/or cost-effectiveness is best restricted to those studies that employ an experimental or quasi-experimental design (Weimer and Friedman, 1979; Welsh and Farrington, 2000), the review will seek to rate studies on the investigative method employed. The Scientific Methods Scale of Sherman et al. (1997; 2002) which was also employed by Welsh and Farrington (2000) will be used to categorize the study designs. The scale is scored from 1, low, to 5, high, and its core criteria are as follows: Reporting of a correlation coefficient denoting the strength of the relationship between, for example, a particular sentencing option and its effectiveness at preventing re-offending at a given point in time. Reporting of a comparison group present but this might lack comparability to the target group. Alternatively, where no comparison group is present, before and after measures, of, for example, offending behaviour have been obtained for the target group. Reporting of a controlled experimental design with comparable target and control groups present, for example, one group of offenders sentenced to imprisonment with a particular treatment intervention and a comparable group of offenders sentenced to imprisonment only, with pre-post comparisons being made and experimental-control comparisons on (a) specific variable/s Reporting of a controlled experimental design, as in 3 above, but with additional controlling for other variables that might pose a threat to the interpretation of results. Examples of controlling extraneous variables may include, but are not limited to, the use of statistical procedures or matching of individuals. Reporting of a fully randomized experimental design in which target and control groups consist of randomly assigned individuals and appropriate measures are taken to test for the effects of the sentencing option.
4.5 Description of study coding categories
The two independent reviewers will extract information from the hard copies of the selected articles using a specially designed data extraction sheet, shown in Appendix 1. If the reviewers agree on their ratings of the papers and the coding of the data extracted, the data will be entered into Microsoft Access for compilation and analysis (see Appendix 2). Any disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved through meetings and discussion. Where resolution cannot be reached, a third, qualified independent reviewer will be called upon to arbitrate. The final report will include details of the studies selected for inclusion in the review, as well as a narrative summary of the overall findings.
4.6 Statistical procedures and conventions
The results of the review will be discussed and a narrative summary of the findings will be presented. Where sufficient data is available the effect sizes for each study will be calculated along-side the cost-benefit ratio. Independent findings will only be reported separately when the information in the study is available to do so. For example a study by Roberts and Camasso, (1991) presents separate cost-benefit ratios for a juvenile and family offender treatment programme.
5.0 Timeframe
Most of the proposed work has already been completed and has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (McDougall, et al., 2003) and as an addendum report to the Home Office (McDougall, et al., 2002). Tasks to be completed are incorporating the cost-effectiveness studies into the cost and benefits review. Given the extensive work already completed on cost-effectiveness (21 coded studies representing over 6 different sentencing options), we anticipate completion of the Campbell review by the end of 2003.
6.0 Updating the review
The review will be updated on a two-three year basis with the assistance of the University of Pennsylvania. As part of this update we will need to code any new studies identified and re-run the analysis.
7.0 Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the help of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, at the University of York for there help with the database searches.
8.0 Potential conflict of interest
None