Prevention Works

Dating: A New Crime Prevention Strategy?

A new report has found that teens in serious dating relationships are less likely to commit crime than peers who date casually. But before we ask our crime prevention officers to become matchmakers, let’s examine why those relationships may reduce crime. The authors of the study believe the key reason is the connection and sense of responsibility to another person that develops in a committed dating relationship. In these romantic relationships, young people can develop empathy and concern for their significant other’s well-being. They have a sense of generosity and a desire to help and support that other person. Young people are also prompted to think about the effects of their actions on others.

It is these attributes, then, not merely the presence of a girlfriend or boyfriend, that serve as a deterrent for committing crime. The good news for crime prevention practitioners is that these qualities are not just nurtured by committed dating relationships. They can be developed when youth have committed relationships with family members, mentors, teachers, coaches, faith leaders, and other caring adults in their lives. In your work with young people, continue to provide opportunities for youth to connect with others in positive ways through sports, clubs, job training programs, volunteering, or tutoring or mentorship programs. Make a list of what opportunities for youth exist in your community, and keep it handy. You never know when you may be able to match a young person with a great opportunity.

Your Teens, Whose Responsibility?

Mathmatica Policy Research Inc. was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to initiate a long-term study of the effects of abstinence-only education programs.  The first findings were published this year with striking results (PDF).  The study found that teens in abstinence programs were just as likely to engage in the same risky behaviors at the same rates as teens not enrolled in them.  For example, only 49 percent of teens in these programs remained abstinent.  Forty-nine percent of teens not enrolled in these programs remained abstinent.  Of those who didn’t, 16 percent had one partner, 11 percent had two partners, and 8 percent had three partners.  These numbers exactly match the numbers for teens not in abstinence programs.

This study shines some light on a problem that our nation regards as being very serious. If confronting risky behaviors by calling for abstinence produces such poor results, how do we know what is actually best for our youth?

Answering this question can be tricky because you first must define what ‘best’ means.  For now, let’s assume that ‘best’ means that should our teens engage in risky behaviors, they are educated enough to ensure their safety.  Then we have to identify what behaviors they are taking that would be putting them in danger, and compare these results with things that we might actually be able to influence. 

For example, we now know that there is no difference between the actions taken by teens in abstinence programs vs. teens not in these programs in almost every area from abstinence to protection.  Whether this is because the programs are bad, or it is the fault of the students, we don’t really know.  So abstinence may still be a worthy cause to promote because it appeals to the ideals and morals that some teens hold, but obviously not to others.  What may be best for our teens is for adults to realize that some teens are going to engage in adult activities. Adults should attempt to instill morals and values in teens, but leave teens with a fall back position so that they can have the knowledge they need to at least protect themselves. 

Another perspective from which to approach the problem is to identify the things that adults are trying to prevent that seem to be violations of traditional morality.  Traditional morality suggests this is indecent, lewd, or dangerous behavior.  However, contemporary reality suggests that teens will indulge in this behavior even when we attempt to instill traditional values.  Perhaps the better idea would be to accept the contemporary reality no matter how much we do not like to hear about it, and minimize the dangers of risky behaviors by teaching teens how to protect themselves. 

We know for sure that these programs have not produced the results that we would like to see.  This is why it’s important for parents to take responsibility and talk with their teens about what the parents see as important, rather than just what teens hear from society or institutions. Parents don’t really know what society or schools are telling their teens about various behaviors.  I would also recommend that no matter what you think is important, realize that your child’s safety is paramount.  This goes for all behaviors ranging from sex to drugs, crime or alcohol.  So in your conversations be honest.  Treat your teens like people.  Show them you care.  Talk about their options, especially those that you feel are important.  Try not to get mad when teens are honest as they are not likely to be honest again if you do.  Give teens the knowledge they need to protect themselves.  Caring involvement in their lives is often all it takes for teens to make the best choices, or at least be safe when they don’t.

America Behind Bars - Part 4

As part of our America Behind Bars series, we have been discussing the increasing number of Americans flowing in and out of our prisons; many find themselves back behind bars within three years of being released. What is there to say about these repeat offenders? It is that prison time alone isn’t enough to keep convicts out of trouble. However, faith-based initiatives and institutions across the country seem to be making a difference. They combine church and state, which inevitably makes them controversial, but let’s look at the results.

In 1997, Prison Fellowships introduced its own faith-based initiative, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative for prison inmates, with support from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (under then-Gov. George W. Bush), as part of a new rehabilitation program chartered by the state legislature. So how is this program different from other rehabilitation programs?

The most effective rehab programs include academic and vocational training, cognitive skills programs, and drug abuse treatment, according to a 2003 University of Pennsylvania study. The difference between InnerChange and other programs is that InnerChange inmates participate in Bible study groups and support groups to help improve their relationship and communication skills. They also get regular mentoring and a Bible education.

The study evaluated a group of 177 inmates participating in the Texas InnerChange program. We can see a difference between the two approaches in the numbers. The study compared the InnerChange inmates with those who met the criteria but didn’t enter the program. A total of 17.3 percent of InnerChange inmates were arrested within two years of release, compared with 35 percent from a group from the general inmate population. Eight percent of InnerChange inmates and 20.3 percent from the matching group were incarcerated within the same time frame. Of course, the program is entirely voluntary and around 25 percent of those in the study either quit or were pulled out by prison staff. Still, the recidivism rate for those in the program is low when compared to similar programs.

However, the organization, which has expanded its programs into Arkansas, Minnesota, Kansas, and Iowa, has taken a hit since its loss in a lawsuit brought to court by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) against its Iowa facility. AU had claimed that the programs violate the establishment clause in state and federal constitutions. The Associated Press recently reported that Iowa Gov.Chet Culver cancelled further state funding past June 30 to comply with the court’s decision. There has been no word yet on whether Prison Fellowships will continue operating that facility. Private donations will certainly play a large role in that decision.

The question here is not just whether faith-based initiatives should have access to taxpayer money, but also how to reconcile this controversial state funding with what we want as a society: to turn our languishing, tax-guzzling inmates into productive (and taxpaying) citizens. The debate is between our church and state clause in the Constitution and another one of our founding principles: the Puritan work ethic. However we choose to rehabilitate inmates, America would gain more from investing in human capital than from shuffling its citizens in and out of prisons.   

Faith-based Prison Programs Face Legal Battles

Many of the millions of people in the United States who consider themselves to be members of a community of faith seek to live out their faith by making their neighborhoods better and safer places to live. They work to prevent crime from happening by participating in a wide variety of efforts, including focusing on the situations of offenders and prisoners by offering prison ministries and reentry programs that seek to break the cycle of crime and incarceration.  The people who are involved in these programs come from different faith traditions, but they have something in common: they want to prevent the suffering caused by crime and to provide healing where crime has occurred.

Some of these programs have recently been causing controversy due to the sources of their funding. Federally funded religion-based rehabilitation programs in prisons are facing several legal challenges.  While the primary stated aim of most faith-based prison programs is to reduce recidivism after release, critics charge that they blur the legal line separating church and state. The federal Bureau of Prisons has cancelled its solicitation for private service providers willing to operate pilot pre-release programs that would offer counseling according to a single faith. A recent article in the New York Times highlights this issue, and The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy offers some interesting background on the legal battles these programs are facing.   

Crime finds less opportunity wherever religious communities weave networks with criminal justice organizations and they work together to make good things happen. The faith community provides an enormous resource of highly motivated volunteers and professionals who work to prevent crime by offering mentoring and education programs. Organizations looking to apply for federal funding should read the White House Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government before applying, to make sure a federal funding partner is the best resource for the kind of work they want to do. Although faith-based organizations are eligible to receive federal funding for their programs, these latest legal issues highlight the fact that these partnerships must operate carefully and responsibly.