Building Efficient Crime Prevention Strategies: Considering the Economics of Investing in Human Development.

The aftermath of the global recession has encouraged policy makers to confront the staggering public burden of crime (Cohen, 1988, 2005; Ludwig, 2010; McCollister, French, and Fang, 2010; Miller, Cohen, and Rossman, 1993). In this context, there is growing acceptance that many “tough-on-crime” policies have become primary drivers of crime’s increasing societal cost (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Artello, 2013; Becker, 1968; Braga and Weisburd, 2011; Cameron, 1988; Cohen, 2005; Paternoster, 2010; Rikard and Rosenberg, 2007; Vitiello, 2013). Policy makers have responded with growing interest in making strategic investments in youth that prevent the development of lifetime offenders, instead of continuing to institute harsher punishments that lead to costly mass incarceration (Dodge, 2001; Farrington, 1994; Heckman, 2006; Homel, 2013; O’Connell, Boat, and Warner, 2009). In response, innovative strategies for preventing crime and controlling costs are being engaged (Barnett and Masse, 2007; Guyll, Spoth, and Crowley, 2011; Welsh and Farrington, 2010). At the forefront are developmental prevention programs that intervene early in life to reduce risk factors for delinquent and criminal behaviors (Durlak, 1998; Eckenrode et al., 2010; Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992; Hawkins and Weis, 1985; Reynolds, Temple, White, Ou, and Robertson, 2011). As a growing body of evidence illustrates, when implemented appropriately, these developmental prevention efforts not only effectively prevent crime but also are cost-effective solutions that save public resources (Crowley, Hill, Kuklinski, and Jones, 2013; Crowley, Jones, Greenberg, Feinberg, and Spoth, 2012; Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, and Yavitz, 2010; Klietz, Borduin, and Schaeffer, 2010; Kuklinski, Briney, Hawkins, and Catalano, 2012; Reynolds et al., 2011). Manning, Smith, and Homel (2013, this issue) outline an innovative approach for valuing these programs to guide policy making. Their work draws on Saaty’s analytical hierarchy process (AHP), often used in the private sector, but less frequently in policy settings (Saaty, 1988). This method ultimately provides an important framework for discussing how to build effective and efficient crime prevention efforts informed by developmental science (Gifford-Smith, Dodge, Dishion, and McCord, 2005; Lerner et al., 2005; Osgood, 2005). In this essay, I expand on Manning et al.’s (2013) discussion by highlighting how this new approach can complement current efforts to value developmental crime prevention programs for evidence-based policy making. I then discuss the importance of considering local programming capacity when investing in prevention and the economic value of prevention approaches that invest in both youth and their families (i.e., dual-generation approaches). Next, I provide a forward look at two approaches policy makers can engage when seeking to fund developmental prevention. I then conclude with four action steps for research and policy that can facilitate the dissemination of effective and efficient developmental crime prevention efforts.