The variety of findings of program effects through 40 spans the domains of education, economic performance, crime prevention, and family and health (Schweinhart et al. 2005).
Education and economic status
The program group significantly outperformed the no-program group on various intellectual and language tests from their preschool years up to 7; school achievement tests at 7, 8, 9, and 14; and literacy tests at 19 and 27 (Schweinhart et al. 1993; Schweinhart and Weikart 1980; Schweinhart et al. 2005). The program group had significantly better attitudes towards school than the no-program group at 15 (seven items, rα = 0.634) and 19 (16 items, rα = 0.799). The program group significantly outperformed the no-program group on highest level of schooling completed (77 vs. 60 % graduating from high school or adult high school or obtaining a GED certificate). A much larger percentage of program than no-program females graduated from regular high school (88 vs. 46 %). This difference was related to earlier differences between program versus no-program females in the rates of treatment for mental impairment (8 vs. 36 %) and retention in grade (21 vs. 41 %).
Significantly more of the program group than the no-program group were employed at 27 (69 vs. 56 %) and 40 (76 vs. 62 %). Oddly, this advantage favored females at 27 (80 vs. 55 %) but males at 40 (70 vs. 55 %). The program group had significantly higher earnings than the no-program group, with medians of $12,000 versus $10,000 at 27 and $20,800 versus $15,300 at 40, as well as monthly at both ages.
Significantly more of the program group owned their own homes at 27 (27 vs. 5 %) and at 40 (37 % vs. 28 %). At 40, program males paid significantly more per month for their dwelling than did no-program males. Significantly more of the program group than the no-program group had a car at 40 (82 vs. 60 %), especially males (80 vs. 50 %), and at 27 (73 vs. 59 %). Indeed, at 27, a significantly larger percentage of the program group than the no-program group had a second car (30 vs. 13 %), especially males (36 vs. 15 %). At 40, significantly more of the program group than the no-program group had a savings account (78 vs. 50 %), especially males (73 vs. 36 %). At 27, significantly fewer of the program group than the no-program group reported receiving social services at some time in the previous 10 years (59 vs. 80 %).
Self- and teacher-reported misconduct
According to the ratings of kindergarten through third-grade teachers, the program group engaged in personal and school misconduct significantly less frequently than the no-program group at 6 through 9 (p < 0.05, one-tailed). Personal misconduct (called personal behavior in some other reports of this study) had six items—absences or truancies, inappropriate personal appearance, lying or cheating, stealing, swearing or using obscene words, and poor personal hygiene (rα = 0.754). School misconduct had 12 items, such as blaming others for trouble, being resistant to teacher, attempting to manipulate adults, and influencing others toward troublemaking (rα = 0.762). All the items on both scales were scored very infrequently, infrequently, sometimes, frequently, or very frequently.
Arrests and crimes cited at arrest, by age by group
Self- and teacher-reported misconduct over time complements this presentation of findings based on official criminal records. No one source of information on antisocial behavior is without challenges to its validity. Some see arrests as indicating more about the behavior of police towards various racial and ethnic groups than about the behavior of those arrested. In its simple form, this argument is tangential to the validity of the findings reported here because all study participants were African American. To apply, the argument would have to maintain that the program group engaged in behavior less likely to prejudice police than did the no-program group. Criminal behavior is the parsimonious explanation. On the other hand, it is obvious that many people commit crimes for which they are not arrested, and self-report is the reasonable way to count such crimes—if, and it is a big if—those committing such crimes report them accurately to the interviewer. However, social desirability encourages respondents to undercount crimes, and memory becomes less precise as the number of crimes exceeds two or three. In addition, the best self-reported indicator of crime is number of arrests; asking respondents to characterize actions for which they were not arrested as criminal or not requires them to make judgments for which they are neither legally competent nor particularly disposed to make.
The study presents strong evidence of a lifetime effect of the HighScope Perry Preschool program in preventing total arrests and arrests for violent, property, and drug crimes and subsequent prison or jail sentences.
55 % of the no-program group but only 36 % of the program group were arrested five or more times in their lifetimes
29 % of the no-program group but only 7 % of the program group were arrested five or more times as adults by 27
48 % of the no-program group but only 32 % of the program group were arrested for one or more violent crimes.
58 % of the no-program group but only 36 % of the program group were arrested for one or more property crimes.
34 % of the no-program group but only 14 % of the program group were arrested for one or more drug crimes.
Arrests and crimes cited at arrest by age 40, by gender by group
Compared to no-program males, program males had significantly fewer arrests overall and significantly fewer arrests for property and drug crimes. Compared to no-program females, program females had significantly fewer arrests for violent and property crimes. Arrests for property crimes showed a significant difference among males and females separately. The biggest difference was for female arrests for violent crimes, 8 % for program females versus 27 % for no-program females. While the group difference in arrests for violent crimes by 40 was not significant for males, it was significant for males from 28 to 40, with 21 % of program males with one such arrest versus 43 % of no-program males with one or more such arrest (odds ratio = 0.14, p < 0.01).
Adult criminal sentences, by age by group
The program group had less sentencing than the no-program group on every measure of sentencing, but not to a statistically significant extent for any other single measure—undropped misdemeanor cases, convicted felony crimes, sentenced to prison for felonies, months sentenced to probation, or months served in prison.
25 % of the no-program group but only 7 % of the program group were sentenced to prison for felonies from 28 to 40.
43 % of the no-program group but only 19 % of the program group were sentenced to prison or jail from 28 to 40.
21 % of the no-program group but only 9 % of the program group served time in prison from 28 to 40.
Several questions can be raised about the evidence presented herein. The first is whether it truly leads to the conclusion that this program prevented crime. The second is what such a conclusion really means. Table 2 shows that the evidence is strong, but not totally consistent with this conclusion. It is always possible to focus on variation rather than central tendency. While significant group differences were found for lifetime arrests and types of crimes, they were not found for juveniles and varied for adults to 27 and at 28 to 40. The percentage-point arrest advantage of the program group over the no-program group varied from 9 to 16 points between 19 and 40. Similarly, the percentage-point advantage of the program group over the no-program group on self-reported misconduct was 22 points at 15, but nine points or less at 19, 27, and 40. However, this emphasis on differences and statistical significance misses the broader pattern: every single odds ratio of arrests, crimes, or sentences by 40 favored the program group over the no-program group. The same was true of all but three of the odds ratios of arrests, crimes, and sentences by 27 and from 28 to 40. In these three instances (other crimes from 28 to 40, sentenced to prison for felonies by 27, and months sentenced to prison or jail by 27), the unadjusted percentages were lower for the program group than for the no-program group. The consistency of this pattern is strong evidence of a crime prevention effect.
With respect to the meaning of this conclusion, Table 2 suggests that the preschool program's crime prevention effect centered on violent, property, and drug crimes. Regarding specific types of crimes, the program effect was strongest for assault and/or battery, larceny under $100, dangerous drugs, and disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. These types of crimes signal a lack of impulse control. Use of dangerous drugs also indicates a serious disregard for long-term consequences. With its daily routine of children planning, doing, and reviewing their activities, the preschool program focused on strengthening their abilities to make decisions and plan their lives intelligently. Many violent, property, and drug crimes result from bad decision-making, disregard for consequences, and a lack of impulse control. It would seem that the preschool program helped children develop these traits to a greater extent than they would have otherwise.
For this explanation to apply, impulse control must be a behavioral trait that can be influenced by preschool experience and then remain stable until the onset of opportunities for criminal activity. The preschool curriculum-based explanation above focuses on variables that are proximal to the antisocial behavior that is antecedent to crime, the type of variables often featured in crime theorizing. As such, it could apply both in the preschool setting and in their families of origin, influenced by home visits. Family and preschool setting may be seen as mutually reinforcing pathways for the behavioral complex in which people’s social and antisocial behavior is embedded. Then the question is not which one is responsible for the development of antisocial behavior, but rather how much each of them contributes. Parents’ involvement in home visits and subsequent childrearing places family as a potential mediator of the program effects. The involvement of some of the study participants in the preschool program makes it a potential fountainhead for recurrent cycles of success, motivation for success, and avoidance of misconduct portrayed in the causal model.
Why were the violent and property crime prevention effects somewhat stronger at 28 to 40 than up through 27? Close examination of the statistics shows that a few more preschool participants than non-participants stopped engaging in personal and property violence after 28. Perhaps the impulse control they learned by preschool participation combined with their middle adult life circumstances to reduce such crime.
We developed a causal model that takes into account the temporal ordering of the variables (Schweinhart et al. 2005). The relatively small sample size limited the number of terms to eight or so and renders the model suggestive rather than definitive. The structural equation model was estimated with the AMOS program (version 4.1, Arbuckle 1999). It traces the significant relationships between pairs of variables and does not account for the variance attributable to the preschool program itself other than the direct effect of preschool experience on postprogram IQ.
Preschool experience directly improves study participants' early childhood intellectual performance, which is also positively predicted by family socioeconomic status.
Their early childhood intellectual performance improves their school motivation in elementary school.
Their early childhood intellectual performance and school motivation in elementary school reduce the number of years they spend in programs for children with mental impairment.
Because of study participants' early childhood intellectual performance and years spent in programs for children with mental impairment, they have higher literacy scores as they leave high school.
Study participants' school motivation leads them to complete a higher level of schooling.
Because they have completed a higher level of schooling, they have higher monthly earnings at 40 and fewer lifetime arrests.
Heckman et al. (2013) conducted another analysis of childhood mediators of adult effects in the study. They conducted separate analyses for males and females and did not focus on the preschool intellectual boost at its peak at 5, preferring to wait until it settled down at 7 to 9. Their analysis found that the preschool program improved children’s intellectual performance, which later led to their improved school achievement and reduced use of welfare assistance by females. It decreased males’ misconduct, thereby reducing their crime as adults. It improved females’ social relationships while reducing their misconduct, improving their adult lives in various ways. They concluded that while intellectual development remains a goal of a high-quality preschool program, so are improving social relationships and reducing misconduct, especially for boys.
These mediator analyses do indicate that cognitive and school achievement are part of the explanation of preschool crime prevention, but so are various personality factors, such as social relationships and misconduct. The HighScope Curriculum itself suggests additional mediators such as curiosity, critical thinking, independent decision-making, and responsibility. Current thinking in this domain has expanded to executive function, impulse control, and anticipation of consequences. Preschool improvement in these traits may be inferred from the existing data in this study, but could be more directly measured in future research.
In constant 2013 dollars discounted at 3 %, the return to society was $341,732 per participant on an investment of $20,019 per participant ($11,273 per participant per year) – $16.14 per dollar invested (Belfield et al. 2006). Of that return, 80 % went to the general public – $12.90 per dollar invested, and 20 % went to each participant – $3.24 per dollar invested. Of the public return, 88 % came from crime savings, and the rest came from education and welfare savings and increased taxes due to higher earnings. A full 93 % of the public return was due to the large program effect of reduced crime rates for program males. Male program participants cost the public 41 % less in crime costs per person, $967,420 less in undiscounted 2013 dollars over their lifetimes. Preschool program participants earned 14 % more per person than those who did not attend the preschool program – $206,567 more over their lifetimes in undiscounted 2013 dollars.
Of particular interest in this article is the calculation of crime costs. Reductions in crime produce savings in victims’ costs; criminal justice costs for policing, arrest, and sentencing; and incarceration and probation costs. These costs vary according to the type of crimes (e.g., murder, burglary) and the seriousness of the crime (felony or misdemeanor). Multiplying the incidence of each crime by its unit cost yields the total burden of crime. The crime incidents identified in this study were used to estimate numbers of lifetime crimes, including predictions of crime beyond 40 based on national data on arrest rate frequencies by age, even though criminal activity up to 40 represents 73–92 % of total lifetime criminal activity, with percentage depending on type of crime (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2002).
Many crimes do not result in an arrest. In the U.S. in 2002, 5.34 million violent crimes were reported by victims, but led to only 0.62 million arrests (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2002; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2002). We used these data to estimate that there were 3–14 crimes per arrest, depending on the type. We then estimated the costs of each crime to the victim and to the criminal justice system. Victim costs include expenses for medical treatments and to replace property or assets (even with insurance claims); lost productivity at work and at home; and reduced quality of life from pain, fear, and suffering. Estimates for these costs were derived from Miller et al. (1996). Criminal justice system costs for arrests, trials, and sentencing were adapted from Cohen (1998) and Cohen et al. (2004). Policing costs were estimated per crime, while sentencing and trial costs were estimated per arrest.
Heckman et al. (2010a) conducted a reanalysis of the costs and benefits of the Perry Preschool program that examines dozens of assumptions and produces hundreds of estimates of return on investment. It confirms and adds scientific confidence to the study’s basic economic finding that the preschool program’s economic benefits to taxpayers and program participants far exceed the cost of the program. Like the general reanalysis, the cost–benefit one builds on statistical procedures that correct for the study’s small sample size and departures from random assignment. Unlike earlier analyses, it presents standard errors of the statistics and systematic sensitivity analysis and includes the deadweight costs of taxation. It finds a social rate of return of 14.3 % and a benefit–cost ratio of 7.1 to 1. These estimates are smaller than our most recent estimate, about the same as earlier estimates, statistically significantly different from 0 % for both males and females, and above the historical rate of return on the U.S. stock market.
Narrative Report for Criminology
2091 WordsSep 21st, 20139 Pages
On the Job Training At The
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
A Narrative Report Presented
To The Faculty of the College of Criminology
Data Center College of the Philippines
In Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Damo, Dionicio B.
March 12, 2013
Table of Contents
Report on Daily Activities
Problems Encountered and Possible Solutions
The criminology student wishes to convey his heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to the following for their invaluable assistance and for sharing their time, effort, and knowledge which made possible to him an opportunity to…show more content…
18, 2013 8:00 am 5:00 pm OOA 0800 h OJT Damo reported this and assigned as cell gater to control volumes of inmates to go out their respective cells during visiting days and others
9 hours 46 hours
Jan. 20, 2013 8:00 am 5:00 pm OOA 0800 h out Damo rendered duty this jail as front gater
9 hours 54 hours
Jan. 21, 2013 7:40 am 12:40 pm OOA 0740 intern Damo rendered duty this jail as cell gater
5 hours 59 hours
Jan. 22, 2013 8:00am 5:00 pm OOA 0810 h this date OJT Damo, Fiesta and Gayrama assigned as tower guard to serve as eyes on top of the jail facility and outside
9 hours 68 hours
Jan. 23, 2013 8:01 am 12:10 pm OOA 0915 h OJT Damo and Lived with SJO3 Guillermo escorted the four(4) detainee’s at Marcos Hall of Justice
9 hours 77 hours Jan. 27, 2013 8:03 am 5:15 pm OOA 0810 h OJT Damo rendered duty this jail as cell control
9 hours 86 hours
Jan. 28, 2013 12:15 am 5:10 pm About 1215 h OJT Damo, Fiesta and Albano assigned as front gater and searched this jail.
5 hours 91 hours
Jan. 29 , 2013 8:10 am 5:05 pm OJT Damo and Fiesta reported to the jail about 0810 as tower guard
9 hours 100 hours
Jan. 30, 2013 8:00 am 5:10 pm About 0930 h OJT Damo, Gayrama and Albano escorted the three inmates at the Marcos Hall of Justice for the promulgation of their cases.
9 hours 109 hours
Jan. 31, 2013 8:15 am
5:10 pm OOA 0815 h OJT Damo rendered duty at BJMP-LCJ as cell control and maintain security of the main and annex bldg.