SUP-710: What Works and Why

SUP-710: What Works and Why

Examining Effective Criminal and Juvenile Justice Strategies
in the United States and Abroad

Spring 2015

Mondays and Wednesdays, 11:40am-1:00pm
Weil Town Hall

Instructor:Thomas Abt

Faculty Assistant:Gina Abbadessa

Office Hours:Tuesdays, 2:30-5:00pm, Taubman 456

NOTE: THIS SYLLABUS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS
AND WILL BE UPDATED PERIODICALLY

Overview

Historically, criminal and juvenile justice policies have been resistant to scientific inquiry.In recent years, however, that has begun to change.The supply and demand for sound research, evaluation, and statistics has increased, buzzwords such as “evidence-based” and “data-driven” are now part of the policy lexicon, and programs supported by rigorous evidence of effectiveness are delivering real results.

That is the good news.The bad news is that while researchers have provided policymakers with increasingly solid guidance about “what works,”they have offered less direction as to “why” such programs are effective and how they canbe implemented inreal-world policy scenarios. An additional challenge is thatmuch of the knowledge and understanding related to criminal and juvenile justice is fragmented across disciplines and jurisdictions.All this leavespolicymakers with little concrete guidance as to when, where, and how evidence-based programs should be implemented; how to coordinate or align them with other efforts; and how they can be sustained over time.

In this course, we will ask ourselves “what works and why” in the context of onereal-world policy challenge that spans criminal and juvenile justice here and abroad: the high rates of interpersonal violence, particularly among youth, that have resulted in nearly half a million deaths annually and are increasingly influencing the international development agenda. After introductory sessions on evidence-based policy and youth violence, we will methodically work our way through the evidence on how to address such violence, topic by topic, critically assessing and synthesizing material as we go.We will approach our work primarily as pragmatic problem-solvers, translating theory, evidence, and data into workable policy solutions.

I have threehopes for students taking this course.First, as a matter of substance, students should complete the coursewithan awareness and understanding of the key policy issues related to the prevention and reduction of youth violence. Second, as a matter of process, students should gain the skills necessary to gather, assess, analyze, synthesize, and present evidence and data in an efficient yet sophisticated manner, from the perspective of a policymaker. In short, I want to help students to “play the game” at the highest level possible, both as a matter of substance and process, so that they can advise senior policymakers or become one themselves. Third and lastly, I’m hoping that students will have some fun as we tackle these interesting topics and materials together.

Course Requirements

All course requirements are intended to mimic the often crude policymaking process in the real world, where there may be little time to prepare, and where clear communication, both verbally and in writing, is at a premium.

Policy Papers. At some point during the semester, students will produce 1 or 2 short (2-3 page) policy papers, with little notice, on a subject of the instructor’s choosing.This exercise is intended to simulate a frequent real worldpolicy scenario where seniordecision makers, often reacting to emerging events and needing to act quickly, seek guidance at the last minute.These papers will account for 25% of a student’s final grade.

At the end of the semester, students will also produce a longer (10-15 page) policy paper proposing a course of action related to youth violence reduction of their own choosing (after consulting with the instructor). This exercise is intended to simulate another real world scenariowhereseniordecision makers look for guidance at prescribed points in their administration, such as during the transition process or for their inaugural or annual “state of the union/state/city” speeches.This paper will account for 30% of the final grade.

Papers will be graded on their mastery of the material, the quality of the ideas presented, and the strength and clarity of the writing. Students should also follow the HKS Academic Code.

Class Presentation. At some point during the semester, students will be expected to make a 1-2 short (5-10 minute) presentations to the class based upon assigned reading materials and offering policy recommendations accordingly. This exercise is intended to simulate the real world, where decision makersoften provide small windows of time for briefings on new information and recommended courses of action.As with papers, presentations will be graded on their mastery of the material, the quality of the ideas presented, and the strength and clarity of the presentation. Presentations will account for 20% of the final grade.

Class Reading, Attendance, and Participation. Students should complete all required readings prior to class.Optional readings will also be provided tofurther enhance the student’s knowledge and preparation.

Students are expected to be present and on time for every class. If a student cannot be present or will be late, advance notice with an explanation should be provided in advance. Please follow the HKS classroom rules of conduct.

Every student has an obligation to be an informed, active, and constructive participant in class discussions. Class discussions are critical to the success of this course and should be exercises in group learning and problem-solving. As might be expected from a course on evidence-based policy, students should be prepared to set aside ideology and advocacy and be prepared to follow wherever their understanding of the facts, evidence, and data lead. Class participation will account for 25% of the final grade.

Class Schedule

NOTE: this schedule IS a work in progress AND WILL BE UPDATED PERIODICALLY.The topics below illustrate the issues to be covered week by week, with time left at the end of semester to make up for lost time or to address new issues. There will be a number of guest speakers throughout the course and the schedule may change in order to accommodate them.

There is no required text for this course at this time. Specific articles, reports, book chapters, and other materials will be made available through the course web page.Representative readings are provided to give the student a sense of what materials will be covered.Readings will be finalized well in advance to give students plenty of time to complete their assignments. Final class dates and assignments are clearly marked below. Where possible, readingsshould be reviewed in the order listed.

Week 1: Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Policy. The evidence-based policy (EBP) movementis a relatively recent effort to integrate scientific research, evaluation, and statistics more assertively into social policy. During Week 1, students will critically both assessthe strengths and limitations of EBP in the context of criminal and juvenile justice, as well as become familiar with the basic techniques necessary to assess the strength and validity of scientific evidence and data, from the perspective of a senior policymaker.

FINAL Required Readings – January 26, 2015:

-None. This is will be introductory class where students introduce themselves and an overview of the course will be provided.

FINAL Required Readings – January 28, 2015:

-Laurie Robinson and Thomas Abt. 2015. Opportunities and Obstacles for Integrating Science and Criminal Justice Policy, in Blomberg, T.G. & Mestre, J. (Eds.), Advancing Criminology and Criminal Justice Policy, London and New York: Routledge [publication forthcoming].

-Larry Sherman, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn D. Bushway. 1998. Preventing crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-Jeffrey Butts and John Roman. 2011. Better Research for Better Policies, in Francine Sherman and Francine Jacobs (Eds.), Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-LisbethSchorr. 2012. Broader Evidence for Bigger Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review: 10, 4. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-Anne Milgram. 2012. Moneyballing Criminal Justice. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved on January 20, 2015 from

-John Bridgeland and Peter Orszag. 2013. Can Government Play Moneyball? The Atlantic Monthy. Retrieved on January 20, 2015 from

FINAL Required Readings – February 2, 2015:

-Anthony Petrosino. 2014. Integrating Evidence on Violence Prevention: An Introduction, in IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council), The evidence for violence prevention across the lifespan and around the world: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press: 87-94.

-Review of evidence-based program registries including the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Campbell Collaboration, CrimeSolutions.gov, Evidence-Based Policing Matrix, Top Tier Evidence, and the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, available at and respectively.

-Mary Poulin, Stan Orchowsky, and Jason Trask. 2011. Is This a Good Quality Outcome Evaluation Report? A Guide for Practitioners. Justice Research and Statistics Association and Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on January 15, 2015 from

-W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 2004. Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation: 1-15.

FINAL Optional Readings:

-Alfred Blumstein. (2013). Linking Evidence and Criminal Justice Policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 12: 721–730.

-Robert Sampson, Christopher Winship, Carly Knight. 2013. Translating Causal Claims. Criminology & Public Policy, 12: 587–616.

-U.S. Department of Justice. 2010. Being a Good Consumer of Research materials.

Week 2: Youth Violence Here and Abroad. High rates of interpersonal violence, particularly among youth, have been an ongoing concern in the United States and are increasingly recognized internationally as one of the most significant barriers to social and economic development. During Week 2, students will examine the size, scope, and nature of the youth violence challenge, learning to define the issue, distinguish it from other types of crime and violence, andmeasure its significance both domestically and abroad.

FINAL Required Readings – February 4, 2015:

-Mark Moore. 2002. Creating Networks of Capacity: The Challenge of Managing Society's Response to Youth Violence, in Securing Our Children's Future: New Approaches to Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence, ed. Gary S. Katzmann. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

-Thomas Abt. 2014. Integrating Evidence to Stop Shootings: New York's GIVE (Gun-Involved Violence Elimination) Initiative. Translational Criminology, 7: 11-13. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2013. Global Study on Homicide 2013.Vienna, Germany: UNODC. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from Read Chapters 1 and 2, pgs. 9-37.

FINAL Required Readings – February 9, 2015:

-Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). 2006. Youth Gangs in Central America: Issues in Human Rights, Effective Policing, and Prevention. Washington, DC: WOLA. Available at

-Robert Muggah. 2105. Fixing Fragile Cities: Solutions for Urban Poverty and Violence. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved on January 15, 2015 from

-United Nations Development Programme. 2013. Citizen Security with a Human Face: Evidence and Proposals for Latin America, Executive Summary. Panama: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved on January 20, 2015 from

FINAL Optional Readings:

-World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development.Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved on January 15, 2015 from Read Overview, pgs. 1-44.

-United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2013. Global Study on Homicide 2013.Vienna, Germany: UNODC. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from Read non-required chapters of study.

Week 3: Enforcement and Evidence-Based Policing. Police in the United States and Great Britain have played lead roles in developing and adopting evidence-based approaches to crime and violence reduction, especially those that focus on the micro-locations, i.e. “hot spots,” where most crime and violence occur.During Week 3, students will examinethe leading evidence-based enforcement strategies and consider their relevance to the challenge of youth violence.

Representative Readings:

-Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy. Evidence-Based Policing Matrix. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-Malcolm Sparrow. 2011. Governing Science. New Perspectives in Policing, Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management and National Institute of Justice. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-David Weisburd and Peter Neyroud. 2011. Police Science: Towards a New Paradigm. New Perspectives in Policing, Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management and National Institute of Justice. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-David Weisburd. 2008. Place-Based Policing. Ideas in American Policing, 2008:9. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

Week 4: Prevention and the Public Health Framework. Violence reduction is increasingly viewed as a matter of public health, where the primary goal to prevent violence before it occurs, rather than to punish it as a crime after the fact. During Week 4, students will explore the public heath modeland consider its strengths and limitations for reducing youth violence.Students will also be introduced to leading evidence-based prevention strategies.

Representative Readings:

-Corinne David-Ferdon and Thomas Simon. 2014. Preventing Youth Violence: Opportunities for Action. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-David Hemenway. 2015. The Public Health Approach to Violence Prevention, in Lydia Voigt, Dee Wood Harper, and William E. Thornton (Eds.), Preventing Lethal Violence in New Orleans, a Great American City [publication forthcoming].

-Jens Ludwig and Anuj Shah. 2014. Think Before You Act: A New Approach to Preventing Youth Violence and Dropout. The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-U.S. Department of Justice. 2012. Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-Steve Aos and Elizabeth Drake. 2013. Prison, police, and programs: Evidence-based options that reduce crime and save money. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from (24)

• What is different about the WSIPP in terms of evidence-based program registries?
• Legislature as primary audience – why is that significant?
• Cost/Benefit Analysis
• Risk Analysis
• What are the limitations of the WSIPP?
• Look at ResultsFirst for domestic replication.
• Could WSIPP be implemented outside the U.S.? How? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

Week 5: Intervention, Focused Deterrence, and Streetwork. Focused deterrence and the use of “streetworkers” or “violence interrupters” are two of the most well known examples of evidence-based violence reduction strategies. Additionally, as strategies they are generally considered to fall between pure prevention and enforcement into the area known as intervention, among other labels.During Week 5, students will learn about these two strategies, consider the evidence supporting their effectiveness, and contrast and compare them in a variety of domestic and international perspectives.

Representative Readings:

-Anthony Braga, David Weisburd. The effects of “pulling levers” focused deterrence strategies on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2012:6. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-Jeffrey Butts. 2014. Denormalizing Violence: Evaluation Framework for a Public Health Model of Violence Prevention. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-U.S. Department of Justice. CureViolence. CrimeSolutions.Gov, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

Week 6: Implementation, Capacity, Sustainability. Even programs that are well-supported by evidence often fail to sustain and repeat success. During Week 6, students will study the key challenges related to effective implementation, building capacity, and planning for sustainability, along with the especially difficult task of adapting evidence-based programs developed in the United States for use abroad.

Representative Readings:

-Karen Blase and Dean Fixsen. 2013. Core Intervention Components: Identifying and Operationalizing What Makes Programs Work. ASPE Research Brief, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

-Sharon Mihalic and Katherine Irwin. 2003. Blueprints for Violence Prevention: From research to real world settings – Factors influencing the successful replication of model programs. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 307-329. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

Week 7: Gangs, Guns, and Drugs. Violence associated with gangs, guns, and drugs is highly related to, but not the same as, youth violence. Being reasonably familiar with these challenges will aid students in understanding the broader context of violence here and abroad.During Week 7, students will survey these issues, explore their commonalities and differences, and consider their impacts on violence among youth.

Representative Readings:

-Phillip Cook, Anthony Braga, and Mark Moore. 2011. Gun Control, in James Wilson and Joan Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

-Global Commission on Drug Policy. 2014. Taking Control: Pathways to Drug Policies That Work. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from file:///Users/thomasabt/Desktop/AF_global_comission_Ingles.pdf.

-National Gang Center. 2010. Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model. National Gang Center, Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from

Week 8: Faith, Community, and Legitimacy. The support and trust of communities is a critical ingredient to success in reducing violence sustainably.During Week 8, students will explore several of the best known models for building support among communities impacted by youth violence, including faith-based partnerships, community policing, collective efficacy, procedural justice, racial reconciliation, and implicit bias.

Representative Readings:

-Anthony Braga, David Hureau, and Christopher Winship. Losing Faith? Police, Black Churches, and the Resurgence of Youth Violence in Boston. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(141), 142. Retrieved on January 11, 2015 from