Criminal justice policymakers and practitioners are better served by evaluations that identify both an intervention's benefits and resource requirements. Reviewing a sample of policing evaluations, we found few reports that contain the information necessary for either a cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis. After describing the study methods and findings, we make recommendations for future evaluations and propose a research agenda for criminal justice input and outcome measurement and monetization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerM. (2005). QALYs and policy evaluation: A new perspective. Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
2.
AosS.PhippsP.BarnoskiR., & LeibR. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime, Version 4.0. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
3.
CareyS., & FiniganM. (2003). A detailed cost analysis in a mature drug court setting: A cost-benefit evaluation of the Multnomah County drug court. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
4.
CavanaghD. P., & KleimanM. A. R. (1990). A cost benefit analysis of prison cell construction and alternative sanctions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice
5.
CohenM.A. (1988). Pain, suffering, and jury awards: A study of the cost of crime to victims. Law and Society Review, 22(3), 537–555.
6.
CohenM. A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14(1), 5–33.
7.
GoldM. W.SiegelJ. E.RussellL. B., & WeinsteinM. W. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
GreenwoodP. W.CaulkinsJ. P.WongJ. S., & CicchettiS. (2003). The Deschutes County community youth investment program: An experiment in delinquency prevention financing. Agoura, CA: Greenwood and Associates.
9.
GreerW. W. (1984, January). What is the cost of rising crime?New York Affairs, 6–16.
10.
KocieniewskiD. (1999, February 15). Success of elite police unit exacts a toll on the streets. The New York Times, A1.
11.
MooreM. H.ThacherD.DodgeA., & MooreT. (2002). Recognizing value in policing: The challenge of measuring police performance. Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
PrzybylskiR. K. (2004). Cost-benefit analysis: A brief on the current state of practice. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the National Institute of Justice.
14.
ShermanL. W., & RoganD. P. (1995). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: ‘Hot spots’ patrol in KansasCity. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 673–694.
15.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (1992). Circular A-94 rev. (October 29). Washington, DC: Author.
16.
WaysonB. L., & FunkeG. S. (1989). What price justice? A handbook for the analysis of criminal justice costs. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
17.
ZedlewskiE. (1985). When have we punished enough?Public Administration Review, 45, 771–779.
18.
BragaA.KennedyD.WaringE., & PiehlA. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston's Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 195–225.
19.
BynumT. S., & WordenR.Police drug crackdowns: An evaluation of implementation and effects. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
20.
CarterD. L.BucquerouxB., & KatzA. J. (2002). Community policing in Lansing, Michigan. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
21.
DeckerS. H., & RosenfeldR. (2001). From problem solving to crime suppression to community mobilization: An evaluation of the St. Louis Consent-to-Search Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
22.
EasterlingD.HarveyL.Mac-ThompsonD., & AllenM. (2003). Evaluation of SACSI in Winston-Salem: Engaging the community in a strategic analysis of youth violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
23.
Institute for Law and Justice. (2002). Evaluation of community policing in Tempe, Arizona. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
24.
KatzC. M.WebbV. J., & SchaeferD. R. (2001). An assessment of the impact of quality-of-life policing on crime and disorder. Justice Quarterly, 18(4), 825–876.
25.
MazerolleL. G., & RoehlJ. (1999). Controlling drug and disorder problems: A focus on Oakland's Beat Health Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
26.
McGarrellE., & ChermakS. (2003). Problem solving to reduce gang and drug-related violence in Indianapolis. In DeckerS. (Ed.), Policing gangs and youth violence (pp. 77–101). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
27.
McGarrellE.ChermakS., & WeissA. (2002). Reducing gun violence: Evaluation of the Indianapolis Police Department's Directed Patrol Project. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
28.
MindelC.DangelR. F.CarsonW., & MaysM. L. (2000). An evaluation of the Dallas Police Department's Interactive Community Policing Program—1995–1999. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
29.
PennellS., & BurkeC. (2002). Centralized response to domestic violence: San Diego County sheriff. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
30.
ShermanL. W., & WeisburdD. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime ‘hot spots’: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.
31.
TitaG. K.RileyJ.RidgewayG.GrammicC.AbrahamseA. F., & GreenwoodP. W. (2003). Reducing gun violence: Results from an intervention in East Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
32.
UchidaC. D.PutnamC. A.MastrofskiJ.SolomanS., & DawsonD. (2001). Evaluating a multi-disciplinary response to domestic violence: The DVERT Program in Colorado Springs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
33.
WeisburdD.GreenL. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 711–736.
