You will locate and describe a criminal justice policy of your choice, and think through the important components of that policy’s context, intentions, pro

4

Needs Evaluations

F EW OF US WOULD BUY SOMETHING IF WE DID NOT NEED IT FOR SOME

purpose. We might be impulsive perhaps, but even impulsive pur- chases typically meet some real or perceived need. Of course, our reasoning may be flawed. But that in no way detracts from the notion that real or perceived needs drive much of our decision making, especially when the decisions entail large amounts of resources or sums of money.1

A similar assertion can be made about criminal justice policies. That is, they presumably emerge from concern about a real problem, such as an increase in crime, or at least from what policy makers perceive to be a prob- lem. Even so, what does it mean to say that there exists a sufficiently large problem, or that there exists a small but nonetheless important problem, as to create a need for a particular policy response, such as more prisons? What criteria should we use for assessing the amount of a social problem or the need for a particular policy response?

This chapter examines these questions by describing needs evaluations and what they entail. As will be detailed in this chapter, needs evaluations help to identify whether a problem exists and, in turn, whether and what type of a policy response is indicated. They provide guidance on prioritizing dif- ferent problems. They point to research gaps that must be addressed before it can be determined that a policy response merits implementation and, if a response is warranted, which type. They highlight the dimensions relevant to assessing success. And, more generally, they clarify policy discussions. The chapter describes these benefits and provides two case studies – one focused on mass incarceration and the other on sex crime laws – to illustrate needs evaluations. Drawing on these case studies and other examples, the chapter concludes with a discussion of whether the prominent crime policies that populate today’s current criminal justice landscape are needed.

51

52 AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

What Is a Needs Evaluation?

Needs Evaluation: Step 1 in the Hierarchy

A needs evaluation constitutes the first step in the evaluation hierarchy, as shown in Figure 2.1 and described in Chapter 3. The reason should be clear: without an established need – that is, without clear evidence of a social problem – why proceed to develop and implement a policy? To use an analogy, if we don’t have cancer, why spend money for a treatment that we don’t need, that may draw funds away from real problems that we may have, and that may actually cause more harm than good in the absence of the disease? The answer? No good reason exists to do so. Treatment should be reserved for real diseases. So, too, with social policies – we should intervene only when a real social problem exists. To do otherwise risks misallocating scarce resources and failing to address as forcefully as we could real or pressing problems.

Crime clearly constitutes a social problem, so there perhaps would seem to be little risk involved in misdiagnosing it. In reality, and as will be dis- cussed throughout this chapter, defining need can be quite complicated. How much crime exists, whether crime has increased, and what types of crimes have increased are all critical considerations. In addition, needs may arise that center around specific facets of the criminal justice system. For example, perhaps prison officers receive insufficient training for work with maximum-security inmates. Perhaps caseloads among defense counsel, pro- bation officers, prosecutors, or judges greatly exceed reasonable amounts. Many other problems exist in criminal justice, some of them directly involv- ing crime (e.g., an insufficient response to dramatic increases in violence) and some reflecting the specific demands and activities of components of the criminal justice system (e.g., inmate attacks on prison officers). An effective response requires first identifying these specific problems and their contours.

Given their importance, needs evaluations would seem to be likely can- didates for the “most common type of evaluation” award, if such existed. Unfortunately, no census of types of evaluation exists. However, even a cur- sory review of the literature reveals that needs evaluations rarely occur in criminal justice. By contrast, implementation and impact evaluations, dis- cussed in subsequent chapters, occur more frequently. Why?

A number of factors may be relevant. Many researchers lack any formal training in evaluation research and so hew to the two types that they most frequently see in journals and reports. Criminal justice administrators, too, may lack training in evaluation research and so not be sensitized to the

NEEDS EVALUATIONS 53

importance of assessing the wide range of potential problems within their purview. In addition, policy makers have little to no training in evaluation research. Perhaps more important, they appear to be propelled toward action even when doing so is unnecessary or a mistake, what medical re- searchers term action bias.2 For example, rather than slow down and evalu- ate a problem or refrain from acting until and unless a compelling case for a particular intervention emerges, a physician makes a diagnosis and starts treatment. Similarly, policy makers or criminal justice administrators may proceed with promoting a new policy or increasing an existing one (e.g., incarceration) even though they lack evidence about the precise nature of the problem they wish to address, its causes, or how best to reduce it.

Other factors may come into play as well. For example, each year thou- sands of new criminal justice policies and programs emerge. Because they already exist, researchers might reasonably prioritize implementation or impact studies rather than step back and examine whether a need for the policies existed in the first place. Within the scholarly community, research that simply describes a problem rather than explains its occurrence may not be viewed as an important endeavor. The more prestigious criminol- ogy and criminal justice journals tend to emphasize theoretical work, and tenure and promotion frequently depend on publication in such journals.3

As a result, many researchers may feel pressured to avoid conducting studies that “merely” describe a social problem. Still other factors may be relevant as well. Regardless, needs evaluations can serve a critical – indeed, a foun- dational – role in improving criminal justice policy.

Defining the Problem: Size, Trends, Location, Causes

Social policies serve to address problems or what alternatively can be called needs. Crime constitutes one prominent social problem or need. Because it is ubiquitous, we might conclude that no assessment of need is warranted. Would that matters were so simple. Defining a social problem involves many considerations, including reference to the (1) size, (2) trends, (3) location, and (4) causes of it.

AN ILLUSTRATION. To illustrate this point, consider the differences in the following two scenarios, depicted in Table 4.1, that assume cities with the same population size and characteristics. In City A, the number of homi- cides rose from sixty to ninety during a two-year period, an increase of thirty homicides, or, alternatively, a 50-percent increase in homicides. Assume that forty-five of the year-2 homicides involved some type of gang-related

54 AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

TABLE 4.1. The crime problem in two cities

City A City B

Year Year Change Change Year Year Change Change 1 2 (No.) (%) 1 2 (No.) (%)

Homicide 60 90 +30 +50 20 30 +10 +50 Gang Homicide 10 45 +35 +350 1 1 None None Burglary 1,000 700 −300 −30 1,500 2,400 +900 +60

activity, up from ten the year before. In this scenario, gang-related homi- cides increased by 350 percent from one year to the next. Assume that almost all of the gang-related homicides occurred in three neighborhoods. Finally, assume that during the same time period (i.e., from year 1 to year 2), burglaries declined by 30 percent, from 1,000 to 700.

In City B, let us assume that the number of homicides rose from twenty to thirty during the same two-year period, an increase of ten homicides and an overall increase of 50 percent. Almost none of the past-year homicides appear to be linked to gang-related activity, and no evidence of a trend in gang-related homicides exists. However, three of the homicide events accounted for ten of the thirty year-2 homicides. These were events in which one person killed four people and the two other killers murdered three peo- ple each. In prior years, few homicide events involved the death of more than one person. Notably, most of the homicides seem to be relatively evenly dis- persed throughout the city. Finally, during the same time period, burglaries increased by 60 percent, from 1,500 to 2,400.

A number of patterns in this highly simplified example can be identified. City A clearly suffers from a large violent crime problem relative to City B. Whether we look at year 1 or year 2, City A reported more homicides. In addition, in absolute terms, City A experienced a much greater change in the number of homicides – an increase of thirty homicides from one year to the next as compared with the increase of ten homicides during the same time span in the other city.

In this example, observe that despite the larger increase in homicides in City A, both cities experienced a comparable percentage change – a 50 percent increase – in the number of homicides. How could that be? City A experienced a greater number of homicides overall as well as a greater number of new homicides from one year to the next. However, City B had a relatively small number of homicides (twenty) in year 1. The result in such

NEEDS EVALUATIONS 55

situations is that a city can experience a relatively small absolute increase in homicides from one year to the next (from twenty to thirty in the case of City B), and yet report a dramatic percentage increase in such crime.

Review of the two cities’ crime statistics shows that, in City A, gang activity is implicated in the increase in homicides and that much of the gang-related murder occurred in a small handful of neighborhoods. In City B, however, the homicide increase does not appear to be readily linked to a single factor such as gang activity nor do the homicides appear to be concentrated in one area. Indeed, closer inspection of City B’s crime statistics reveals a different story entirely – a large proportion of City B’s year-2 homicides, one-third of them, resulted from just three events. That fact suggests that, in reality, no dramatic increase in violent killers occurred in the city.

Finally, we can see that City A experienced a decrease in burglary during the two-year period. By contrast, in City B, burglary not only increased, but it did so more than homicide, whether measured in absolute or relative terms. Specifically, from year 1 to year 2, there were nine 900 more burglaries, or a 60 percent increase in such crime.

This illustration serves to highlight a number of considerations related to evaluating whether a social problem exists and, by extension, whether there is a need for a policy response of some type. First, numbers matter. More formally, the size of the problem matters. A big problem calls for more attention, whereas a smaller problem calls for less. City A experienced a large increase, in absolute and relative terms, in homicides, which would suggest a need to respond. Ideally, of course, we could address every problem. In reality, however, society typically must make triage decisions, focusing on the more urgent problems first and then turning to those deemed to be less urgent.

That challenge confronts City B, which faced an increase in both violent and property crime. Yet how we should proceed is less clear. Yes, homicide increased, but in absolute terms the increase of ten homicides is relatively small – indeed, it is considerably smaller than the thirty additional homicides that City A experienced. And it appears that most of the increase stemmed from three offenders. In fact, if we count crime events rather than specific victims, one might dispute whether any increase in violence occurred. At the same time, any increase in homicide victims stands as cause for concern. But what about the increase in burglary? City B was confronted by 900 more burglaries from year 1 to year 2, an increase of 60 percent. Burglary does not compare with murder in terms of severity. Yet it would be odd to allow such a dramatic increase in the frequency of property crime to go unchecked.

56 AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

Second, absolute and relative changes in the magnitude of a problem should be taken into account. One or the other by itself can be misleading. For example, if we focused purely on absolute numbers, City B has little basis for focusing on homicide as aggressively as City A. However, if we focused on trends over time, then both cities appear to be facing comparable prob- lems in terms of increased violent crime. Consider the matter from a state level. Both cities may claim that they have a comparable social problem – an increase of 50 percent in homicides. State policy makers might be inclined to treat the two cities equally, given this claim. However, when viewed in absolute terms, City A unquestionably has the far more pressing homicide problem. Which standard should local or state policy makers or law enforce- ment agencies use to guide their decision making? If they use both, how do they jointly consider the absolute and relative changes in homicide, relative to burglary, in quantifying the scope of the problem? No simple solution exists. Yet quantifying such dimensions as the absolute and relative magni- tude of a problem – and comparing them over time across different areas within and across cities – can ground policy discussions in a better under- standing of the problems at hand.

Third, knowing something about the distribution of a problem in social and geographic space can help us to delimit the contours of it and perhaps in turn guide our thinking when developing a policy response. For example, City A’s increased homicide rate appears to stem from gang-related activity in a few select areas. That in turn suggests that a focus on gangs could help reduce homicides and, more specifically, that a focus on gangs in those areas could help reduce violent crime. Closer analysis of the problem may prove these inferences to be false, but we at least have some reasonable basis for creating a more targeted response. We could, of course, ignore such information. However, we then would risk dispersing our efforts in a diffuse manner to populations and areas that have not contributed to the violent crime increase.

City B faces a potentially more difficult situation in that the increase does not appear to stem from an underlying factor or to be concentrated in one area. Thus, should the city decide to step up its efforts to combat violent crime, it will want to develop a better understanding of what set of factors has contributed not only to homicides in general but also to the increase in homicides. At the same time, the fact that much of the increase may stem from three homicide events suggests that caution should be exercised in making too much out of the seemingly large percentage increase in violent crime. For example, a large investment in fighting gangs would appear unlikely to achieve much if anything by way of a reduction in homicides.

NEEDS EVALUATIONS 57

The two-city illustration highlights the essence of needs evaluations. Briefly, such evaluations aim to define a problem by (1) describing the nature and extent of it in absolute and relative terms, including (2) how the problem has changed, if at all, over time; (3) the distribution of the problem among different populations and places; and (4) what caused it.4 Providing insight into the possible causes of the problem is important not only because doing so helps to describe the nature of the problem but also because it helps to establish whether there is a need for a particular type of policy response.

This last point bears elaboration. In the illustration, we can see that a more refined analysis of City A’s crime statistics shows (1) gang activity to be a significant contributor to violent crime and (2) particular areas to be host to such gangs. Such information suggests that a more accurate depiction of the crime problem in the city is not that homicides have increased but rather that gang-related homicides in a select few areas have increased. That framing of the situation describes a quite different social problem from one where we say simply that “violent crime has increased in the city.” The former depiction provides an arguably more accurate account of the problem and it also provides guidance about how we might intervene to reduce homicide. By contrast, the latter treats homicides in general as a social problem, which seems to downplay that a more precise problem (i.e., gang-related violence) exists. And, to make matters worse, it provides no guidance about how to intervene.

Investigation of the causes of a problem can, of course, go much deeper. For example, what caused the surge in gang activity? Was it a change in drug market activity? An influx of new gangs? Increased competition in the illegal drug market? A shift in the law enforcement department’s approach to intervening with gangs or a shift in its emphasis on gangs to, say, one on domestic violence or to sex crimes? Should clear answers emerge in response to these questions, policy makers can develop more precise descriptions of the problem and, in turn, how to respond. For example, if one gang was the predominant instigator of gang-related violent crime, that suggests a very different problem (and the need for a very different response) from one where multiple gangs have been involved. In short, assessing the causes of a problem is an essential step both in defining what the problem is and in determining how best to respond.

THE NEED FOR ASSESSING MANY TYPES OF NEED. The previous example focused on homicide and burglary. In reality, of course, many more crimes exist. In addition, many problems arise in the criminal justice system that relate not only to crime but also to providing justice and, more mundanely, to

58 AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

executing everyday tasks (e.g., making arrests, defending and prosecuting individuals).

The problems in criminal justice defy any simple categorization. Even so, clarity about the types and levels of problems can help place policy on a more rational foundation. At the broadest level, there is, of course, the fact of crime. The two-city example underscores, however, that we typically will want to disaggregate the problem of crime by examining specific types (e.g., violent, property, drug). We also will want to map crime and its change over time as well as its distribution across different populations and places. For example, are there “hot spots” of criminal activity? Or populations that are “hot” in the sense that more crime occurs among them than others? At the least, we will want to identify what, in each instance, has caused it.

The same observations hold for individual-level offending. As with eco- logical-level crime (e.g., rates of homicide or burglary among cities), con- siderable variation in individual-level offending exists, which has implica- tions for describing what constitutes a “problem.” Here, consider the range of ways in which we can measure individual-level crime problems. Partici- pants in a program aimed at reducing recidivism could be asked whether they committed any crime in the year after release. The outcome in this instance is a simple binary one – a crime was committed or it was not. We can measure offending in other ways, though. We could, for example, exam- ine types of recidivism (e.g., violent, property, drug). We also could examine the frequency of offending. Did participants in the program experience a greater reduction in the amount of crime they committed compared to sim- ilar inmates not exposed to the program? The diversity of offending might be of interest to us. Did participants commit less violent crime compared to similar inmates, or was the effect more diffuse, with the program reduc- ing the occurrence of all types of recidivism? Criminologists increasingly have become interested in examining the onset and desistance of offend- ing, and, more broadly, trajectories of offending.5 So, a natural question is whether programs that deal with offender populations effectively alter these trajectories, such that participants become more likely to transition from higher-offending trajectories to lower-offending ones.

Beyond the focus on crime, there exists, of course, the entire criminal justice system and the varied set of policies and practices that constitute it. These aim not only to reduce crime but also to mete out justice and, more simply, to process large numbers of cases. Many types of problems can be found in criminal justice. To illustrate, law enforcement agencies may lack the resources to respond in a timely manner to 911 calls. They may focus too much attention on some crime and not enough on another. Some

NEEDS EVALUATIONS 59

officers may abuse their authority. Others may be overworked. Domestic violence victims may be reluctant to contact law enforcement agencies for assistance. Communication and cooperation within and between units of these agencies may be minimal. And so on.

Narrowing our focus somewhat, we can see that much the same can be said of the courts – that is, a wide range of diverse problems can exist that can undermine their effectiveness and efficiency. Prosecutors may lack the resources to target high-impact crimes or they may expend resources on questionable cases. They may be overly aggressive in seeking tough sanc- tions or too lenient. Probation officers may produce low-quality case reports for judges. They also may suffer from morale problems stemming from an inability to execute the many and varied expectations placed upon them. Defense counsel and public defenders may have caseloads that preclude adequate representation of clients, and they may even refuse to take new cases or may delay acting on them for many months. Judges within a given jurisdiction may vary dramatically in how they sanction particular types of cases. Victims may receive little attention or assistance from court personnel. And so on.

Many problems also pervade, in varying degrees, correctional systems and their component parts. Prison officers may be poorly trained for managing violent inmates. The classification of inmates may rely on unvalidated assess- ment instruments and there may be too few facilities for accommodating different types of inmates. Prison graft may go largely unchecked. Unrealis- tic policy makers’ demands may be placed on prison administrators. Parole officer caseloads may be so high as to limit “face time” with parolees to minutes each month. And so on.

“And so on” constitutes the operative phrase here. Each stage of the criminal justice system entails enormous potential to do good and also to cause harm. Many possible problems exist. In each instance, the size of the problem may vary from the negligible to the large; it may have decreased or increased over time (in small or large absolute or relative amounts); it may be widely dispersed or may be concentrated among a few select groups, units, places, and the like; and it may stem from a few specific causes or a wide range of them. In such a context, operating without any systematic needs evaluations of actual or proposed policies amounts to flying an airplane at night without any equipment and with one’s eyes covered – an accident almost inevitably will occur. More concretely, it results in many problems going unidentified and unaddressed and it means that policy makers likely place too little or too much emphasis on the few problems that do get documented.

60 AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

Determining the Type and Level of Response Needed

ASSESSING THE NEED FOR AN EXISTING OR PROPOSED POLICY

RESPONSE. To this point, the discussion of need assumes a focus on some type of social problem. That is, we begin with determining whether a social problem exists and whether, by extension, a need exists that should be addressed by policy. Consider, however, a situation where we approach the matter from the opposite direction. Specifically, we begin with an existing or proposed policy and we determine whether a need for this specific policy exists. This is the second major type of needs evaluation. Here, rather than determine whether a social problem exists and then proceed to a broad- based focus on possible policy responses, we instead determine whether a particular policy is warranted. We end up examining similar issues. However, conceptually the task entails a different approach because we begin with a policy rather than a problem.

At first blush, this approach may seem odd. Presumably, legislators implemented the policy because of a real need. As the previous discus- sion highlights, however, and as the following case studies will reinforce, that assumption frequently may be incorrect. Regardless, investigation of whether existing or proposed policies are needed can provide critical infor- mation for determining whether a shift in direction is indicated. On the basis of the findings from a needs evaluation, we might determine, for example, that the policy should be terminated, that it should be modified, or that a different policy might better address the existing problem.

THREE QUESTIONS WHEN EXAMINING THE NEED FOR AN EXISTING OR

PROPOSED POLICY. A policy-focused needs evaluation entails answering three related questions. First, are existing efforts insufficient to address some social problem? It defies common sense to create a policy merely for the sake of doing so, especially if other policies that address the problem exist. Consider the typical situation in criminal justice – most states have numerous policies in place to sanction offenders and to provide diversion and treatment services. A lawmaker may propose new legislation to toughen penalties for some class of offender. But any such effort assumes that the range of sanctions currently in place somehow are insufficient and that diversion or treatment services somehow do not work or are inadequate. Why else go to the trouble of creating more complexity in a system already overburdened by complexity? In short, to determine whether a particular policy is needed requires, in part, first determining how, if at all, existing policies fall short.

NEEDS EVALUATIONS 61

Second, are existing efforts to address some social problem not only insuf- ficient but also not amenable to correction? Here, contemplate preparation for an exam, because most of us have had to take a test at some time or another. Perhaps someone comes along and tells you to adopt an entirely new approach to preparing for your exam. That’s well and fine, but really, do you need to undertake a whole new strategy? The person responds by observ- ing that you flunked in all of your previous efforts and so clearly something new is warranted. The logic seems self-evident. It is, nonetheless, specious. It may be that the strategy you used was entirely appropriate and that you simply failed to implement it well. That does not mean that you should continue with it as a strategy. For example, if the strategy was to study two hours every night, and if that strategy was unrealistic given competing obli- gations, another strategy might well be indicated. However, it may be that the poor implementation can be easily remedied. Perhaps, for example, you simply need to shift the time of day when you study, or spread the study time out over different periods of the day. In this situation, you might simply want to revise your current approach to exam p

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.