Citation

Nagin DS. Crime Justice 2001; 28: 347-384.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, University of Chicago Press)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Three changes need to be made in economic evaluations of the crime-reductive effects of developmental prevention programs. The changes address three questions concerning the appropriate unit of analysis: Individuals or crimes? Society or government? The crime rate and its social consequences or the criminal event and its consequences for the victim? Concerning the first question, the conclusion that developmental prevention is a cost-effective alternative to criminal sanctions for averting crime events cannot be convincingly sustained. Instead, a more holistic, individual-level approach is necessary that values benefits across multiple domains of individual functioning. Concerning the second question, analyses that have valued more than crime benefits, by and large, measure financial effects on the public treasury. This is too narrow a focus. Finally, estimates of the costs of crime focus on victim consequences rather than on aggregate social consequences. While consequences for victims are important, they do not capture the full effects of crime on society. Estimates of the costs of crime should value tangible consequences to nonvictims and victims alike.

Language: en