Violence prevention can’t be bought – Wirepoints

By: Matt Rosenberg

Last month in Chicago, and to great applause, a new study was unveiled showing the supposed benefits of a violence prevention program called READI. It accents subsidized jobs and counseling to prevent violence among at-risk young men. After 20 months it substantially cut the odds participants will get arrested anew for murder or shootings. Advocates say now’s the time to spend up to a billion annually – in taxpayer money on programs like READI. There’s a frank admission baked into all this. That we should try to buy with public resources something that parents, pastors, and politicians can’t manage to achieve: a Chicago where young black men don’t shoot at and kill each other so often. 

There’s a big problem, though. The research that’s being hailed as proof of concept is anything but that. The study itself, authored by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, flat out admits that READI – which stands for Rapid Employment And Development Initiative – has no overall net positive effect. 

That’s because while the report shows the program reduces the likelihood participants will be arrested for or victimized by murders or shootings, participants “are not any less likely to be arrested for other…forms of violence” including criminal sexual assault, armed robbery, and aggravated assault and battery. 

Sorry. Like Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters said: you’re either on the bus – or off the bus. If you’re going to still be jacking cars, phones and wallets while brandishing a knife or gun, or beating people harshly or raping them, you’re still violent and a menace to society. 

Another problem with the READI study is that the 20-month time frame currently being used to measure the program’s effectiveness is too short; and will still be too short even after a planned 40-month evaluation is completed. 

Of participants in the study, 98 percent had previous arrests, with an average of 17. There’s ongoing debate over the best way to measure whether habitual criminals have reformed, or not. Long story short: timeframes for assessing repeat offenses, also known as recidivism, range from 3 to 9 years among criminal justice policy experts. Different yardsticks of relapse are used, ranging from mere arrests to convictions plus sentencing.

In any case, for the sake of political expediency, the three-year measure is greatly preferred by those with a vested interest in declaring the success of corrective programs funded at taxpayer expense. But for society’s protection it’s best to take the long view. That’s not what researchers looking at READI have yet had an opportunity to do within their current study framework. 

A time frame of 20 months tells us next to nothing, and even 40 will quite arguably fall short. 

Here’s why. The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) reports there’s a felony recidivism rate – including technical violations of terms of release – of 38.5 percent after three years for adult offenders released in 2018. 

But with a longer measure, the percentage jumps greatly. A 2018 report from the state’s Sentencing Policy Advisory Council (SPAC) shows that 62 percent of freed felony offenders who were behind bars in 2007 were convicted and sentenced anew within nine years. The figure was 51 percent for former adult felony and misdemeanor offenders sentenced to probation rather than prison. So, the average of the three groups was 56 percent.

Some readers might note that the methodologies are slightly different; READI emphasizes re-arrests while SPAC and IDOC measure re-convictions. True, but the basic point holds. The more time that passes, the greater the odds that previous offenders will reoffend.

The stakes are high, and one must admire the initiative of the Crime Lab for digging into how to go at the vexing problem of predatory violence which threatens Chicago’s future. They’ve also done important data analysis in recent years, including documenting the staggering murder rates in specific black Chicago communities. 

But we need solutions that actually work, and keep working over the long haul. So how about dispensing actual criminal justice in Cook County courts more often? And letting Chicago Police actually be police again. The idea being to arrest, prosecute, convict, and deter. 

That 62 percent of released adult felony prisoners in Illinois were within nine years convicted and sentenced for new crimes, could mean the “tough on crime” approach is a lousy deterrent. Or it could mean just the opposite: that punishment as currently dispensed isn’t strong enough. Or that some chose an ongoing life of crime, no matter the consequences.

The real issue is how best to change behavior. Violence prevention programs including READI go at it partly through something called “cognitive behavioral therapy.” One big aspect of CBT, as it’s called, is learning how to control quick angry emotions and wounded pride. So that you don’t shoot someone for showing you disrespect. You grow stronger and more effective in the end by mastering your anger.

Too many young men at risk aren’t getting the message. Listening to bereaved mothers and siblings on the news several times weekly imploring city leaders to “do something, now” about the violent crime wracking Chicago, there’s no cogent response at hand. So it’s tempting to throw money and good intentions at intractable problems. 

But foundation and government money are transitory. These interventions never last. Dial it back to Ground Zero. This all starts with the tone and tenor of life in the home.

It’s about being raised with a moral code. 

Money can’t buy that. But our political leaders could certainly advocate for that. And strenuously. 

If they had the courage.

Read more from Wirepoints: