on Facebook
on Twitter
on YouTube
RAND Review
Wouldn’t It Be Lovely?
British Policy on Antisocial Behavior Can Take Cues from Studies Near and Far
By Jennifer Rubin and Lila Rabinovich
Jennifer Rubin and Lila Rabinovich are analysts at RAND Europe. Rubin is a social and political scientist. Rabinovich is a social anthropologist.
Antisocial behavior is a costly and growing concern in the United Kingdom, with Britain’s Home Office logging around 66,000 reports of antisocial behavior each day. Vandalism alone is estimated to cost victims and the criminal justice system around £1.3 billion ($2.5 billion) annually. Other commonly reported forms of antisocial behavior include intimidation, drunkenness, begging, drug dealing, prostitution, rowdiness, graffiti, littering, and dumping rubbish in public places.
The British government has responded by introducing new laws and policy initiatives. They range from Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (court orders that forbid offenders from continuing the behavior, spending time with particular people, or visiting certain areas, with each breach punishable by a fine or jail time) to cognitive behavioral programs and parent training programs. Research shows that punitive interventions, such as detention and imprisonment, tend to produce nil or even negative effects in reducing recidivism among young offenders. However, several studies from around the world have found that certain alternative interventions can significantly reduce the rate of recidivism.
Despite growing interest in nonpunitive measures, there is a paucity of data on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in Europe. For this reason, the United Kingdom’s National Audit Office commissioned RAND Europe to conduct an international review of the literature as part of a wider evaluation of policies designed to counteract antisocial behavior.
Based on the data available, the best value in reducing antisocial behavior appears to come from parent training and early childhood interventions, including prenatal support. Also showing positive results are many developmental or rehabilitative programs, such as cognitive behavioral programs, interpersonal skills training and counseling, and family-based interventions. Restorative justice programs, which bring offenders into direct contact with the consequences of their actions, merit further evaluation. Even keeping neighborhoods clean and free of litter or improving street lighting can reduce the incidence of crime and antisocial behavior.
AP IMAGES/CATHAL MCNAUGHTONBritain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair unveiled plans in November 2006 for nearly 80 “supernannies” to help parents tame unruly children. In addition, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have become the British government’s main weapon against loutish behavior, such as petty crime, vandalism, and hooliganism. The orders have been used to ban thousands of people, some as young as ten, from shouting, swearing, spray painting, playing loud music, associating with certain individuals, and walking down certain streets. |
Cost Benefit and Beyond
Everyone agrees that antisocial behavior and crime are expensive. There are direct costs, such as property damage, that are relatively easy to quantify, as exemplified by the data suggesting that vandalism alone costs in excess of £1 billion a year in the United Kingdom. There are also wider, indirect costs to the community, victims, and local businesses that are less readily quantifiable. At the same time, U.S. data suggest that diverting just one individual from a life of antisocial behavior and crime saves society between $1.7 million and $2.3 million. These significant costs and potential savings highlight the importance of implementing and evaluating effective interventions. Programs reviewed by RAND economist Lynn Karoly reveal a range of cost-benefit ratios, from a benefit of just $1.26 for every dollar spent to a return of as much as $17.07.
But cost benefit should not be the whole story. While certain interventions may yield benefits that are difficult to quantify, the interventions might be deemed worthy of pursuing in any case. For example, a program for low-risk children could generate a “lower yield” than the same program would for high-risk children, because fewer low-risk children might ultimately end up as offenders. Targeting expenditures solely at higher-risk populations could trigger a higher cost-benefit ratio, but policymakers may nonetheless decide that it is also worth investing in low-risk children for the benefit of the few who might otherwise go on to become offenders. It is also possible that so-called “high-yield” programs might actually be more difficult or less desirable to implement because of political sensitivity, high start-up costs, or other issues.
Restoring Civility
RAND research conducted in the United States has found that early childhood interventions and educational incentives for at-risk youth offer the best value in reducing crime and antisocial behavior. According to this research, the benefits of parent training and early interventions, including prenatal support, have been proven to persist into adulthood, producing the highest cost-benefit ratios. A range of educational incentives, such as student cash allowances and graduation payments in the United States and the United Kingdom, also appear quite cost-effective.
Several developmental interventions show promising results in reducing recidivism. A Scottish study has demonstrated initial success with cognitive behavioral programs, which view dysfunctional behavior as a product of personal and external factors and seek to address the ways in which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are interrelated. In the United States, evaluations show that individual counseling and interpersonal skills training have reduced recidivism by about 40 percent among juvenile offenders, with the largest effects on those offenders who have committed the greatest numbers of offenses. In the United States, Canada, and Norway, similar interventions that are targeted not just at the offenders but also at their entire families have been proven to reduce future delinquency, including sibling delinquency.
Situational interventions can also reduce offenses. Designed to remove opportunities for crime and to encourage positive behavior, these measures include keeping neighborhoods clean, improving street lighting, avoiding the simultaneous closure of pubs, substituting glasses and bottles in pubs with plastic, and making taxis more accessible after dark.
Finally, restorative justice merits further evaluation. In restorative justice programs from the Netherlands to New Zealand, offenders meet directly with crime victims and learn of the extent of property damage. This type of intervention is meant to provide an opportunity for the offender to acknowledge his or her antisocial behavior and recognize its negative impact on others. In some cases, restorative justice programs require offenders to compensate for the harm, either by repairing the damage or by engaging in community service. Apart from the possible benefits for offenders, restorative justice programs might also improve the lives of victims by giving them a sense of control and redress, thereby reducing the psychological ramifications associated with being a victim. 
Top