The new study the prison guard union will hate with all its black heart!

[madmusic]

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-10-1201.pdf">EVIDENCE-BASED PUBLIC POLICY OPTIONS TO REDUCE FUTURE PRISON CONSTRUCTION, CRIMINAL JUSTICE COSTS, AND CRIME RATES (PDF)


We find that if Washington can successfully
implement a moderate-to-aggressive portfolio of
evidence-based options, then a significant level of
future prison construction can be avoided, state and
local taxpayers can save about two billion dollars,
and net crime rates can be lowered slightly.

This isn't bleeding heart liberal propaganda. This is a study done by Washington State for Washington State. The prison guard union is going to have a hell of a time calling them liars. For that matter, so is the whole "tough on crime" propaganda machine.

[LiberalFighter]

1. What are moderate-to-aggressive portfolio of evidence-based options?

[madmusic]

4. I'm just reading it, but...

What Does “Evidence-Based” Mean?
At the direction of the Washington legislature, the
Institute has conducted a number of systematic
reviews of evaluation research to determine what
public policies and programs work, and which
ones do not work. These evidence-based reviews
include the policy areas of adult and juvenile
corrections, child welfare, mental health,
substance abuse, prevention, K-12 education, and
pre-K education.

The phrase “evidence-based” is sometimes used
loosely in policy discussions. When the Institute is
asked to conduct an evidence-based review, we
follow a number of steps to ensure a rigorous
definition. These criteria include:

1. We consider all available studies we can
locate on a topic rather than selecting only a
few studies; that is, we do not “cherry pick” the
studies to include in our reviews. We then use
formal statistical hypothesis testing
procedures—meta-analysis—to determine
whether the weight of the evidence indicates
outcomes are, on average, achieved.

2. To be included in our reviews, we require that
an evaluation’s research design include
control or comparison groups. Random
assignment studies are preferred, but we allow
quasi-experimental studies when the
comparison group is well-matched to the
treatment group. We then discount the
findings of less-than-randomized comparisongroup
trials by a uniform percentage. We also
require that the groups be “intent-to-treat”
groups to help guard against selection bias.

3. We prefer evaluation studies that use “real
world” samples from actual programs in the
field. Evaluations of so-called “model” or
“efficacy” programs are included in our
reviews, but we discount the effects from
these types of studies by a fixed percentage.

4. If the researcher of an evaluation is also the
developer of the program, we discount the
results from the study to account for potential
conflict of interests, or the inability to replicate
the efforts of exceptionally motivated program
originators in real world field implementation.
Our additional criteria are listed in Appendix A.

[LiberalFighter]

10. A lot of big words I think to hide something

[madmusic]

12. And is this supposed to make sense, unhide something?

I don't get it.

[madmusic]

5. Portfolios are plans...

We conducted a systematic review of all
research evidence we could locate to identify
what works, if anything, to reduce crime. We
found and analyzed 571 rigorous comparison group
evaluations of adult corrections, juvenile
corrections, and prevention programs, most of
which were conducted in the United States.
We then estimated the benefits and costs of
many of these evidence-based options.
Finally, we projected the degree to which
alternative “portfolios” of these programs
could affect future prison construction needs,
criminal justice costs, and crime rates in
Washington.

We find that some evidence-based programs
can reduce crime, but others cannot. Per dollar
of spending, several of the successful
programs produce favorable returns on
investment. Public policies incorporating these
options can yield positive outcomes for
Washington.

We project the long-run effects of three
example portfolios of evidence-based options:
a “current level” option as well as “moderate”
and “aggressive” implementation portfolios.
We find that if Washington successfully
implements a moderate-to-aggressive portfolio
of evidence-based options, a significant level of
future prison construction can be avoided,
taxpayers can save about two billion dollars,
and crime rates can be reduced.

[ret5hd]

2. By "evidence based" do they mean...

no more locking up innocent people beaten into signing a confession?

Yeah, i'm to lazy to read the link.

[madmusic]

6. LOL, let's hope so!

[spindrifter]

3. Washington State has been

working hard on this for several years. Every level of government has been hit by the skyrocketing costs of incarceration. State Senator Adam Kline (D) has been active with his Senate Judiciary Committee in trying to identify solutions. Similarly, King County and the City of Seattle have implemented a number of innovations in the way criminal justice dollars are spent. When you have to decide whether you need to spend billions on warehousing people vs. billions on education, infrastructure and public health needs, there is some pretty clear incentive.

[madmusic]

7. Hat's off to them. However...

It only seems logical they would want to have the most fair, effective and efficient system for the money they can, even if they had money to burn. But, of course, not. California wastes every dime it can.

[madmusic]

8. This one is really good - grab it, feminists!

A third example is a prevention program called Nurse
Family Partnership (NFP), a program that has also
been implemented in Washington. This program
provides intensive visitation by nurses to low-income,
at-risk women bearing their first child; the nurses
continue to visit the home for two years after birth.
Thus far, there is evidence that NFP reduces the
crime outcomes of the mothers and, many years later,
the children born to the mothers. Both of these
effects are included in our analysis of the program.
Our analysis of the NFP studies indicates that the
program has a large effect on the future criminality of
the mothers who participate in the program, reducing
crime outcomes by 56 percent. NFP also reduces the
future crime levels of the youth by 16 percent
compared to similar youth who did not participate in
the NFP program.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. Scared Straight INCREASES crime by .106!

am I reading this right?

pg. 25

[madmusic]

11. From exhibit 4: Scared Straight +6.8% (10)

So, according to 10 studies, increases it by 6.8.

That's on page 9.

EDITED out my stupidity after looking at p 25 better.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. that's outrageous!

I never saw it as a very effective way of getting kids to straighten up, but I never thought it would actually be detrimental!

[madmusic]

14. Who's going to believe someone that belittles and scares them?

Without having read those studies, it is likely the kids took it as a challenge because they considered it more like war than genuine concern. Scared Straight, despite good intentions, is symbolic of the prevailing Big Brother mentality.

[madmusic]

15. Justice Department to investigate L.A. County youth camps

The U.S. Justice Department plans an investigation into conditions at L.A. County juvenile facilities, authorities say.
By Susannah Rosenblatt, Times Staff Writer
November 15, 2006

The U.S. Justice Department plans to investigate dangerous conditions at Los Angeles County probation camps for teens, county officials said Tuesday.

The probe, announced to the Board of Supervisors last week, comes after years of federal scrutiny of county juvenile halls, and could lead to a lawsuit or consent decree, officials say.

Although details of the investigation, expected to begin early next year, remained confidential, Supervisor Gloria Molina alluded to problems with use of force and restraints of inmates during Tuesday's supervisors meeting.

"You don't pop somebody in the face just because you had a bad day," Molina said of probation officers. She described the pending investigation as "very troubling" and expressed surprise at the Justice Department's planned oversight. "I was sort of shocked by it because I thought we had been doing better."

more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-probation15nov15,1,4794632.story?coll=la-headlines-california

[madmusic]

16. The Scam of the California Prison Guards Union

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/05/26/359/29521