This, right here, is the opportunity cost issue of policing laid bare.
The best cost-benefit estimate of policing is ~1.6 to 1 ($1 in budget cuts crime costs by $1.60).
These behavioral interventions? 5-to-1 to 30-to-1.
Policing DOES work. But other stuff often works BETTER.
The best cost-benefit estimate of policing is ~1.6 to 1 ($1 in budget cuts crime costs by $1.60).
These behavioral interventions? 5-to-1 to 30-to-1.
Policing DOES work. But other stuff often works BETTER.
It's both bad on the facts and bad on the politics, I think, to yell "policing doesn't work!" It does, and everything thinks it does.
But might the extra dollar, especially now, do even more good if spent on something else? Almost certainly true.
But might the extra dollar, especially now, do even more good if spent on something else? Almost certainly true.
Moreover, most of these interventions have unaddressed positive spillovers (slowing down thinking not only reduces crime, but likely makes all sorts of other decisions better).
And fewer downside risks (Becoming a Man can't execute no-knock warrants).
And fewer downside risks (Becoming a Man can't execute no-knock warrants).
It's like this @BrookingsInst piece on drug treatment, Medicaid Expansion and crime.
Not only does drug treatment/ME have bigger returns JUST on crime than policing, but it does all sorts of other great stuff, like ... making ppl healthier and happier.
brookings.edu/blog/up-front/…
Not only does drug treatment/ME have bigger returns JUST on crime than policing, but it does all sorts of other great stuff, like ... making ppl healthier and happier.
brookings.edu/blog/up-front/…
Anyway, I get that "The Opportunity Cost of More Police Spending Is Hard to Defend, Given Current High Budgets, Moderate Rates of Return, and More Viable Alternatives" does not fit well on a poster.
But... it should.
But... it should.
This is why I hate being asked "does policing work?" or "did prisons reduce crime?"
It misframes the question. Simplistically, the answer to both is yes, at least in the short(ish) run. But that doesn't mean they reduced them WELL, or as EFFECTIVELY or HUMANELY as alternatives.
It misframes the question. Simplistically, the answer to both is yes, at least in the short(ish) run. But that doesn't mean they reduced them WELL, or as EFFECTIVELY or HUMANELY as alternatives.
If a financial planner said "I can get a return of 2 cents on the dollar. Give me all your money!" would we?
No, of course not. We'd want to see if someone could get us 5, or 10, or 25 (tho that's likely a Ponzi).
But for policing/prisons, we never seem to frame it like that.
No, of course not. We'd want to see if someone could get us 5, or 10, or 25 (tho that's likely a Ponzi).
But for policing/prisons, we never seem to frame it like that.
This is a fair caveat.
It seems like a better comparison would perhaps be to hot spot policing or focused deterrence, which are more carefully aimed at specific groups/locations.
Unfortunately, hard to find the cost-benefit numbers there:
It seems like a better comparison would perhaps be to hot spot policing or focused deterrence, which are more carefully aimed at specific groups/locations.
Unfortunately, hard to find the cost-benefit numbers there:
https://twitter.com/AaronChalfin/status/1493626648482168832?s=20&t=33FsnX_ySagurKNcJvCKxw
The Campbell Collab review of hot spot policing reports just one cost-benefit analysis, and that is budget spending vs. prison: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
The CC review of focused deterrence doesn't even discuss cost benefit analyses: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
The CC review of focused deterrence doesn't even discuss cost benefit analyses: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
And I DEF agree w @AaronChalfin’s second concern, that all our results rest on keeping constant what we want to change (tho I am, for now, more optimistic than he is in this thread):
https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/status/1487137442574520320
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
