Don Weatherburn, director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, has a terrific op-ed in today's SMH, castigating governments who are evidence-based in name only (shall we call them ENO administrations?).
You would never be able to market a pharmaceutical drug in Australia without rigorous evaluation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. But state and territory governments routinely spend large sums of taxpayers' money trying to reduce crime and re-offending without subjecting the measures to any evaluation. Where evaluations are undertaken, the results are often ignored.The promise to appoint additional police and impose tougher penalties on crime are staples at nearly every election; yet no Australian state or territory government has ever promised to evaluate and publicly report on the effects of additional police and tougher penalties.
And it isn't just those old staples that escape critical scrutiny. The list of policies shown by my office to have no effect on re-offending in NSW includes high fines for drink drivers, supervision of offenders on good behaviour bonds, detention for juvenile offenders, the forum sentencing program (a restorative justice program for young adult offenders) and the circle sentencing program (under which Aboriginal offenders are brought before community elders for sanctioning).
Despite the negative results, all these policies remain in place. Meanwhile, programs that have been known for years to be effective, such as the NSW Drug Court Program, are only now being expanded.
- Mark Kleiman's terrific book, When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (HT: Rob Wiblin)
- A talk I gave to the 40th anniversary symposium of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
- The motion on evidence-based criminal justice policy I moved in parliament last November
Do you like this post?