letter from current president, lorriane mazzerole · letter from current president, lorriane...

Winter 2015 | Volume 10

Letter from current president, Lorriane MazzeroleWelcome to the DEC Newsletter! As Chair of the DEC for the last two years, I have had the pleasure of continuing the work of the foundation DEC committee, forging ahead with some new initiatives, and leaving some unfinished work for the incoming committee, to be led by Susan Turner. The foundation DEC committee, led by David Weisburd, put the DEC in a fantastic position. Awards, strong membership, and institutional donations were all in place when my DEC committee took over the reins at ASC in 2013. Our DEC Executive Committee (Cynthia Lum, Charlotte Gill, Susan Turner, Chris Koper and Akiva Liberman, with Adrian Raine and Peter Greenwood participating as the Academy of Experimental Criminology President and Vice President respectively) set forth to focus on the following goals: • grow the membership base, • secure the DEC financial position, • continue with the DEC Awards, • improve outreach and communications, • institutionalize the integration of JOEX with the DEC, and • develop a DEC experiments registerOur committee has worked tirelessly across these six goals over the last two years. We are pleased with our accomplishments on some of the goals, yet feel there is much work to be done on some other goals. Here is my summary on where your DEC is at:Membership: We have, for the first time in the history of the DEC, exceeded 200 members in any one year (213 members at last count). We are exceptionally pleased with this accomplishment, particularly given the strong growth in ASC Divisions in recent years. It is very hard to make an ASC Division attractive to ASC members and to get a stable base of Division members who re-engage across multiple years. A strong membership base is at the heart of what our Committee sought to accomplish and our results are very pleasing. We set in place a few initiatives to make the DEC attractive to our members. These initiatives included offering a lunch at the ASC Annual General meeting, decreasing the membership fees (by having an “opt-in” approach for members to receive the hard copy version of JOEX), and engaging with members to secure multiple year memberships. We truly believe strong membership of 200+ members is strategic important for the ASC to continue to see the DEC as a long term, viable Division. DEC financial position: The DEC has an average income of $5,000 per year. Dropping membership fees and offering a free ASC lunch might seem counter intuitive, but the DEC continues to be in a strong financial position for several reasons: first, the cost of shipping out hard copies of JOEX has significantly reduced (thanks to the “going green” opt-in approach); second, having 200+ members in the Division has created a critical mass needed to gain economies of scale; and third, the institutional membership generosity from the University of Cambridge, University of Queensland, George Mason, Rutgers and Temple over many years provides the foundation for the DEC to engage in some strategically important initiatives, such as the register of experiments (see below).

(continued on next page)

Contents3 Note from incoming president,

Susan Turner

4 DEC Sessions of Interest, ASC Annual Meeting

9 Jordan Hyatt | Outstanding Young Experimental Criminologist

10 Jerry Ratcliffe | AEC Fellow

10 Barak Ariel | AEC Fellow

12 Denise Gottfredson | Jerry Lee Lifetime Achievement Award

13 Sara Heller | Outstanding Experimental Field Trial

13 Angela Jones | Student Paper Award

14 Meet the 2015-2016 DEC Executive Board!

15 Extreme Abstracting

Sponsored by:

Letter from current president, Lorriane Mazzerole (continued from previous page)

2

DEC Awards: Division Awards are incredibly important for a range of reasons: they acknowledge the hard work of Division members, are valuable for people to cite to when they apply for new positions or promotion, and create a sense of aspiration amongst Division members. Who doesn’t want to be recognized for their hard work? We remain indebted to Jerry Lee for his ongoing support of the Jerry Lee Lifetime Achievement Award and for the engagement with the Academy of Experimental Criminology for continuing with the AEC Awards alongside the DEC Awards. As experimental criminologists, we have many awards to aspire to. Outreach and Communications: The DEC continues to produce quarterly e-newsletters that are distributed to all DEC members. Our DEC committee has sought, however, to do more. We have set up a Facebook site (facebook.com/expcrim), we have set up a Twitter account (@DivExpCrim), developed a mentoring program and created our Annual Lunch at ASC as a highlight for face-to-face communications. Yet we need to do much more. I would say that our Outreach and Communications are in their infancy and there is much to be done. Susan Turner, as the incoming Chair of the DEC, is poised to take our Communications and Outreach to the next level.

The Journal of Experimental Criminology: Delivering a high quality, accessible journal to our DEC membership was made possible for a range of reasons. The outgoing, foundation Editor-in-Chief David Weisburd left JOEX in excellent shape for me, as the incoming Editor-in-Chief, which was fantastic on the one hand, but challenging on the other to maintain the upward trajectory of the Journal. Since taking over as Editor-in-Chief, I have worked with my Editorial Team (David Wilson as the Editor, Systematic Reviews, the Associate Editors – Angela Higginson, Cynthia Lum, Sarah Bennett and Emma Antrobus, and Managing Editor, Adele Somerville) to create a 10th Anniversary Special Issue (to be released very soon), foster the growth of Short Reports (2-3000 word papers) and create a mutual review process alongside the Campbell Collaboration. I will continue in my role as Editor-in-Chief of JOEX for the next 4 years (perhaps beyond) and continue to work with the DEC Board to ensure the JOEX continues to meet the needs of the DEC membership. DEC Experiments Register: One of the initiatives of my DEC Board was to set up a register of criminology experiments. We have not yet finished the work on this initiative, but Susan Turner, as the incoming Chair of the DEC, is equally committed to bringing this initiative to fruition. What we have done, so far, is to take over the Cambridge “CrimPort” registry of experiments (our thanks to Professors Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang for handing this over to the DEC to populate and maintain). Our next goal is to revisit past criminological experiments (across policing, courts, corrections and early interventions) to get the basic experimental protocol information uploaded from these historical experiments into a web-searchable database. We also seek to create a gateway experiments register (a simplified version of the full CrimPort) to foster the habit of experimental criminologists to register, a priori, their experiments before rollout. Overall, our DEC committee has worked tirelessly over the last two years to create some tangible outcomes for the DEC membership. This was not possible without the dedication of the DEC Board and my sincere thanks to Cynthia, Charlotte, Chris, Akiva, Susan and Peter for their patience with the challenges of me living and working “Downunder” (making it somewhat challenging to schedule telephone conference calls), for their dedication to volunteering their time and energy, and for their ideas for making your DEC, we hope, a Division that is worth your investment.

Lorraine MazerolleBrisbane, Australia

3rd November, 2015

3

Note from incoming president, Susan TurnerAs incoming Chair for the DEC, I want to commend Lorraine Mazerolle and the outgoing Committee for all the success they have had in meeting our organizational goals. I look forward to working with the new Executive Committee members and DEC members over the next two years. As Lorraine notes in her piece, there are several initiatives that have gathered steam during the past two years, which should continue to be nurtured. We have now more than 200 members in DEC; however, I think there are opportunities to bring in many others conducting experimental work. I will work with the Committee and members to encourage scholars from a wider range of research areas to join the DEC. In addition,

outreach and communication continue to be central to engaging with our members and promoting our work. Our Committee has already been busy creating fresh ways we will be communicating in the future. Get your Twitter accounts in order and see you in Washington, D.C.

Title Time Day Room Event Type

Laboratory Experiments for Criminology 12:00 PM-4:00 PM Tuesday Georgetown East, Concourse Level Workshop Experiment

A Blind Randomized Controlled Trial: Testing Police Response in Property Crime Micro-Time Hot Spots 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Wednesday Dupont, Terrace Level Individual

Presentation Experiment

Fear of Crime, Biased Information Processing, and Social Categorization 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Wednesday Columbia 12, Terrace Level Individual


Drug Use Among Peruvian Young Offenders: Research and Intervention from a Developmental Approach 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Wednesday Columbia 11, Terrace Level Individual

Presentation Quasi-Experiment

Evaluation in Criminology and Criminal Justice 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Wednesday Cabinet, Concourse Level Panel Session Experiment

An Evaluation Study on a Jail Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Wednesday Columbia 3, Terrace Level Individual


Technology and Militarization: New Directions in Policing Research 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Wednesday Northwest, Lobby Level Panel Session Experiment

Antisocial and Prosocial Lie-Telling in Children with Severe Conduct Problems 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Wednesday Columbia 11, Terrace Level Individual


Improving Forensic Officer Responses to High Volume Crime: The Unlawful Entry Experiment 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Wednesday Holmead East, Lobby Level Individual


Increasing Cognitive Capital to Enhance Police Legitimacy: Experimental Evidence on Police Supervision and Procedural Justice

9:30 AM-10:50 AM Wednesday Gunston East, Terrace Level Individual Presentation Experiment

Social Media: A Transforming Agent for Extremist Groups? 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Wednesday Columbia 3, Terrace Level Individual


Victim Reactions to Restorative Policing vs. Court by Race of Offender 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Wednesday Morgan, Lobby Level Individual


MAPIT: Exploring Preliminary Data among Substance Using Probationers 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Wednesday Jefferson West, Concourse

Level Panel Session Experiment

The Effect of Patrol Strategies on the Public's Perceptions of the Police 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Wednesday Columbia 12, Terrace Level Individual


Lessons from Evaluating Policing Technologies 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Wednesday Holmead West, Lobby Level Panel Session Experiment

Moderators of Antisocial Behavior Treatment Outcomes in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Omega-3 Supplementation in Children

11:00 AM-12:20 PM Wednesday Jefferson East, Concourse Level

Individual Presentation Experiment

Crime and Place: Place Concentration Compared to Concentration in Offending and Victimization-Three Systematic Reviews

11:00 AM-12:20 PM Wednesday Lincoln West, Concourse Level Panel Session Systematic Review

Selection or Influence? A Meta-Analysis of the Association between Peer and Personal Offending 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Wednesday Room D, 2nd Floor Individual

Presentation Systematic Review

Division of Experimental Criminology Lunch & Awards Ceremony 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Wednesday International Ballroom West,

Concourse Level Special Event

The Effects of Punishment on Recidivism: A Quasi-Experimental Approach 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Wednesday Jay, Lobby Level Individual


State of the Art in Agent-Based Modeling of Urban Crime: Overview, Critical Questions and Next Steps 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Wednesday Columbia 2, Terrace Level Individual


Juvenile Secure Confinement and Risk of Recidivism: A Propensity Score Matching Approach 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Wednesday Columbia 3, Terrace Level Individual


The Joan McCord Award Lecture and the Academy of Experimental Criminology Awards Ceremony 2:00 PM-3:20 PM Wednesday International Ballroom West,

Concourse Level Special Event

Could Computing and Network Configurations Shape Hackers' Online Behaviors During System Trespassing Events?

2:00 PM-3:20 PM Wednesday Columbia 2, Terrace Level Panel Session Experiment

A Meta-Analysis of the Predictive Validity of Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments 2:00 PM-3:20 PM Wednesday Monroe, Concourse Level Individual


The Effects of Criminal Sanctions for Intimate Partner Violence: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Level Effects 2:00 PM-3:20 PM Wednesday Fairchild East, Terrace Level Individual


Evaluating the Impact of a Parolee Call-In Intervention on Community-Level Firearm Violence 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Wednesday Jefferson West, Concourse

LevelIndividual Presentation Quasi-Experiment

Changing the Street Dynamic: Evaluating Chicago's Group Violence Reduction Strategy 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Wednesday Lincoln West, Concourse


DEC Sessions of Interest, ASC Annual Meeting

4

Title Time Day Room Event TypeSustaining Directed Police Patrols to Crime Hot Spots: Reflections from Portland's Recent Field Experiment 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Wednesday Holmead East, Lobby Level Panel Session Experiment

The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study: New Developments in the Age-80 Follow-Up 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Wednesday Cabinet, Concourse Level Panel Session Experiment

It's Time: Revisiting the Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime (2000-2010) 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Wednesday Columbia 10, Terrace Level Individual


Police Body Cameras 5:00 PM-6:20 PM Wednesday Gunston East, Terrace Level Panel Session Experiment

Evaluating the Use of Body-Worn Cameras: Randomized Control Trials in Four Jurisdictions 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Thursday Lincoln West, Concourse


An Experimental Approach to Measuring Crime Foraging Behavior 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Thursday Columbia 3, Terrace Level Individual


Exploring the Polygenic Architecture of Antisocial Behavior: A Genome-Wide Association Meta-Analysis by the Broad Antisocial Behavior Consortium (BroadABC)

8:00 AM-9:20 AM Thursday Columbia 10, Terrace Level Individual Presentation Systematic Review

Shedding Light into the "Black Box" of Intensive Supervision Programs for Youth: A Meta-Analysis 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Thursday Morgan, Lobby Level Individual


Aggression Replacement Training (ART) for Medium- and High-Risk Juvenile Offenders 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Thursday Morgan, Lobby Level Individual


Legitimacy and Procedural Justice in the Context of Airport Security: The Case of Ben-Gurion Airport, Israel 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Thursday Holmead West, Lobby Level Panel Session Quasi-Experiment

"Assault in the City": Police Recruit Perceptions of Prejudiced Motivated Crime 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Thursday Gunston East, Terrace Level Individual


Results from the HOPE DFE Four-Site Randomized Control Trial 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Thursday International Ballroom East,

Concourse Level Panel Session Experiment

Understanding Punitiveness and Support for Rehabilitation 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Thursday Jefferson West, Concourse


Preventing Antisocial Peer Associations: A Meta-Analysis of Peer-Based Youth Interventions 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Thursday Room C, 2nd Floor Individual


Citizens' Attitudes Toward Sex Offender Housing: Results from an Experiment 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Thursday Georgetown East, Concourse

LevelIndividual Presentation Experiment

Examining the Impact of the Lethality Assessment Program on Victim Service Utilizaion and Empowerment

11:00 AM-12:20 PM Thursday Jefferson East, Concourse Level

Individual Presentation Quasi-Experiment

A Bayesian Analysis of the Effect of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) on High-Risk Probationers' Recidivism Rates

11:00 AM-12:20 PM Thursday Columbia 11, Terrace Level Individual Presentation Experiment

The Empirical Status of General Strain Theory: A Meta-Analysis 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Thursday Gunston West, Terrace Level Individual


Crowd-Sourcing and Cognitive Testing, and Experiments in the CES 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Thursday Lincoln West, Concourse


Thinking, Fast and Slow? Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Thursday Columbia 11, Terrace Level Individual


Youth Violence among At-Risk Youth: Outcomes and Prevention 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Thursday Columbia 11, Terrace Level Panel Session Experiment

Implicit Identities in Criminals and Victims: Evidence for Underlying Cognitive Developmental Processes and Behavioral Consequences

2:00 PM-3:20 PM Thursday Columbia 10, Terrace Level Panel Session Experiment

Drawing the Line: Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Relative Benefits of Designating Specific Age Cutoffs for Adult Court Processing

2:00 PM-3:20 PM Thursday Northwest, Lobby Level Individual Presentation Quasi-Experiment

Assessing Various Aspects of Policing Various Communities 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Thursday Holmead West, Lobby Level Panel Session Experiment/QE

Exploring the "Black Box" of Focused Deterrence Strategies: Changes in Sanction Risk within an Experimental Trial

3:30 PM-4:50 PM Thursday Dupont, Terrace Level Individual Presentation Experiment

Race and Restorative Policing: A 13 to 18-Year Followup of Criminal Histories by Race of Random Assignment to Court vs. Restorative Policing

3:30 PM-4:50 PM Thursday Cabinet, Concourse Level Individual Presentation Experiment


5

Title Time Day Room Event TypeIdentifying Core Components of Effective Juvenile Drug Court Programs 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Thursday Columbia 3, Terrace Level Panel Session Systematic Review

Does the Type of Counsel Matter in Sentencing? A Meta-Analysis 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Thursday Fairchild East, Terrace Level Individual


Race, Policing, and the Life-Course: A Ten-Year Followup, by Race, of Interviews of Offenders in Restorative Policing Experiments

5:00 PM-6:20 PM Thursday Gunston East, Terrace Level Individual Presentation Experiment

Genetic Susceptibility to Deviant Peer Influences in a Group-Based Intervention for Conduct Problems 5:00 PM-6:20 PM Thursday Columbia 10, Terrace Level Individual


A Meta-Analysis of Neurological Activation and Connectivity in Psychopathy 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom

Center, Concourse Level Poster Systematic Review

Deterrence in Cyberspace: Investigating the Relationship of Login Banners Amongst System Trespassers 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom

Center, Concourse Level Poster Experiment

Examining the Relationship between Fear of Terrorism and Similarity to Victims' Backgrounds 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom


Perception Shaping Policy: Preventing School Shootings 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom Center, Concourse Level Poster Experiment

Reducing Recidivism: A Long Term Evaluation of the Reintegration & Recovery Program in El Paso County, Colorado

6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom Center, Concourse Level Poster Quasi-Experiment

Seeing Race: Understanding Disorder Perceptions with and without Racial Neighborhood Stimuli 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom


Visual Search Strategies of Offenders Ambushing Law Enforcement 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom


The Use of Big Data in the Criminal Justice Field 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom Center, Concourse Level Poster Systematic Review

Theorizing Cyberbullying: A Review of the Theoretical Explanations for Cyberbullying Victimization and Perpetration

6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom Center, Concourse Level Poster Systematic Review

Evaluating Corrections-Based Work and Vocational Educaion Programs: A Meta-Analysis 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Thursday International Ballroom


Gender Differences in Treatment Effect: A Systematic Review in Drug Courts 7:15 PM-8:15 PM Thursday International Ballroom


The More Things Change, the More they Stay the Same? Estimating the Effect of the Floyd et al. v. NYC on Stop-and-Frisk Patterns

8:00 AM-9:20 AM Friday Holmead East, Lobby Level Individual Presentation Quasi-Experiment

Who "Sees" More Disorder? An Experiment on Perception of Disorder between Police, Residents, and Ex-Offenders

8:00 AM-9:20 AM Friday Holmead West, Lobby Level Individual Presentation Experiment

Police Officers Who Will "Pull" the Trigger 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Friday Room A, 2nd Floor Roundtable Systematic Review

A Multi-Jurisdictional Sudy on Kiosk Supervision 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Friday Room C, 2nd Floor Panel Session Quasi-Experiment

Juror Decision Making and Sentencing Recommendations 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Friday Dupont, Terrace Level Panel Session Experiment

A Field Experiment to Test the Effectiveness of Unsolicited Alerts by a Prescription Monitoring Program 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Friday Columbia 3, Terrace Level Individual


The Effects of Jail and Prison Confinement on Cohabitation and Marriage 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Friday Cabinet, Concourse Level Individual


The Harlem Parole Reentry Court: A Randomized Controlled Trial 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Friday Lincoln West, Concourse


Using Meta-Analysis under Conditions of Definitional Ambiguity: The Case of Corporate Crime 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Friday Jay, Lobby Level Individual


An Experimental Test of the Expressive Theory of Punishment 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Friday Embassy, Terrace Level Individual


Implementation, Outcomes, and Considerations of Body Worn Camera Systems 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Friday Lincoln East, Concourse

Level Policy Panel Experiment

Applying Group Audits to Problem-Oriented Policing 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Friday Lincoln West, Concourse Level

Individual Presentation Systematic Review

Examining Sanction Effects in Community Corrections 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Friday Holmead East, Lobby Level Panel Session Experiment/QE


6

Title Time Day Room Event TypeNeed or Greed? The Role of Motivational Attributions on White-Collar Crime Sentencing 12:30 PM-1:50 PM Friday Room A, 2nd Floor Roundtable Experiment

Helping and Cooperation in Heavy Inter-Group Hostility, Verbal Violence, Alienation and Conflict Conditions: Exposure to Empathy by the Other Party as a Facilitator of Perceived Helping Schema among Jews and Arabs in Academic Settings in Israel

12:30 PM-1:50 PM Friday Inernational Terrace East #1, Terrace Level Roundtable Experiment

A Systematic Review of Campus Sexual Assault Prevalence Raes in the United States: Findings from the Last 15 Years

12:30 PM-1:50 PM Friday Holmead West, Lobby Level Individual Presentation Systematic Review

A Natural Experiment on Residential Change and Recidivism: Eight-Year Follow-Up 2:00 PM-3:20 PM Friday Jefferson East, Concourse

LevelIndividual Presentation Natural Experiment

Prevention and Mitigation of Computer-Assisted Crimes: An Evidence-Based Human-Focused Approach 2:00 PM-3:20 PM Friday Jay, Lobby Level Panel Session Experiment

Students-Meet-Scholars: Applying Experimental and Evaluation Designs to Inform Theory and Practice 2:00 PM-3:20 PM Friday Room A, 2nd Floor Roundtable Experiment

Counselor Knows Best? Examining Clinician Assessments of In-Prison Substance Abuse Treatment 2:00 PM-3:20 PM Friday Room B, 2nd Floor Individual


Long Term Effects of Drug Court Participation: Evidence from a 15-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2:00 PM-3:20 PM Friday Room D, 2nd Floor Individual Presentation Experiment

Assessing the Macro-Level Relationship between Immigration and Crime Rates: A Meta-Analysis 2:00 PM-3:20 PM Friday Jefferson West, Concourse

LevelIndividual Presentation Systematic Review

Body Cameras and Other Police Recording Technologies 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Friday Holmead East, Lobby Level Panel Session Experiment

The Impact of Cognitive-Behavioral Programming and Aspects of Cognitive Change on Institutional Misconduct

3:30 PM-4:50 PM Friday Northwest, Lobby Level Individual Presentation Quasi-Experiment

The Juvenile Transfer Heuristic: An Experimental Test of Criminal Justice Professionals' Sentencing Preferences 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Friday Columbia 12, Terrace Level Individual


Growing Pains: Are there Differences Between Successful Juvenile and Adult Reentry Programs? 3:30 PM-4:50 PM Friday Oak Lawn, Lobby Level Individual


Characteristics and Outcomes of Gang-Involved Youth in Mental Health Treatment 5:00 PM-6:20 PM Friday Columbia 3, Terrace Level Individual


Cameras and Police Legitimacy: Preliminary Results from an RCT 5:00 PM-6:20 PM Friday Columbia 1, Terrace Level Individual


Evidence-Based Crime Policy I 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Saturday International Ballroom Center, Concourse Level Panel Session Systematic Review

Youth Mobility and Recidivism 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Saturday Columbia 2, Terrace Level Individual Presentation Quasi-Experiment

A Meta-Analysis of Serial Murder in Criminology Journals: 1985 to 2015 8:00 AM-9:20 AM Saturday Jay, Lobby Level Individual


Evidence-Based Crime Policy II 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Saturday International Ballroom Center, Concourse Level Panel Session Systematic Review

International Perspectives on Community Corrections 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Saturday Coats, Terrace Level Panel Session Quasi-Experiment

A Multisite Quasi-Experimental Evluation of Two Veteran Treatment Courts 9:30 AM-10:50 AM Saturday Cardozo, Terrace Level Individual


Innovations in Correctional Programming 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Saturday Northwest, Lobby Level Individual Presentation

Experiment/Systematic Review

The Impact of Urban Upgrading on Crime in Polokwane, South Africa 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Saturday Cardozo, Terrace Level Individual

Presentation Natural Experiment

The Child Response Initiative: Secondary Prevention for Police-Involved Children Exposed to Violence 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Saturday Jefferson West, Concourse


A Systematic Review of Yoga Interventions in the Incarcerated Setting 11:00 AM-12:20 PM Saturday Northwest, Lobby Level Individual



7

Jordan Hyatt | Outstanding Young Experimental CriminologistDrexel University, Philadelphia, PA

I am honored to have received this award from the AEC, especially at this point in my career. At the start of my studies in criminology, I was fortunate enough to join a graduate program that encouraged a strong focus on experimental and applied research, even when it was the not the most

expedient path towards a degree. Given how long completing a field experiment can take, it was good to get a head start. Over the last few years, I have worked on a number of trials, most with good colleagues well-steeped in experimental methods. These studies- on cognitive-behavioral therapy, intensive probation, supervision technology, restorative justice, reenty programming and drug treatment- show the flexibility of experimental designs. More practically, it highlights the demand from decision-makers and agency heads for the kind of data that an experiment can provide: clearly explainable (and causal) results. This work has taught me the challenges inherent in implementation, a part of the research process often overlooked- and rarely reflected in our publications. Working with justice-involved populations can be challenging on many levels: from sample recruitment and treatment delivery to retention and data collection. Spending an extended period of time as an embedded researcher in a large community corrections agency- in addition to developing the foundation for a long-term collaboration- showed me how complex criminal justice agencies can (and cannot) function and the role that we, as researchers, can play in that machine.

A renewed consideration of the balancing act between punishment and justice and the raw costs of an aggressive policy of incapacitation has focused more attention on the reenty and community correctional spaces. At the same time, evidence-based policies have become increasingly tolerated, if not yet truly embraced, within those same areas of the correctional systems. Taken together, this offers an enticing opportunity for experimental researchers. Less common research designs- including blocked assignment, cluster randomized trials, mixed-methods and waitlists, among many others- can be integrated into existing agency protocols without disturbing many of the SOPs already in place. Though not always easy, it is possible to sell chiefs and commissioners on the up-front expenses and delayed results from an RCT with the promise of rigorous findings and longer-term collaboration.

I would not have had the opportunities to develop my experimental chops without the support of strong mentors through my travails. I would particularly like to thank (alphabetically) Geoff Barnes, Bob Boruch, Anthony Braga, Steve Chanenson, John MacDonald, Lawrence Sherman & Adrian Raine, for their guidance. None of these studies would have been possible without the support of our agency partners, Chief Hoyt & Dr. Ellen Kurtz from APPD, Mark Bergstom at the PCS, and Drs. Bucklen & Bell the from PA DOC, among others.I look forward to continuing to randomize in the future and genuinely appreciated the AEC’s recognition.

9

FOLLOW DEC ON THE WEB AND SOCIAL MEDIAVisit DEC at http://expcrim.org, “Like” our page at https://www.facebook.com/expcrim and follow us @DivExpCrim. Please send us news items, photos, event information, and ideas for new content. We also welcome your contributions to this newsletter—please email them to Charlotte Gill at [email protected] before the 15th of each month.

“ Spending an extended period of time as an embedded researcher in a large community corrections agency- in addition to developing the foundation for a long-term collaboration- showed me how complex criminal justice agencies can (and cannot) function and the role that we, as researchers, can play in that machine. ”

Springer.comNew Editorial Team Lorraine Mazerolle, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia Editor‐in‐Chief David B. Wilson, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA Editor, Systematic Reviews

www.springer.com/11292

The Journal of Experimental Criminology focuses on high quality experimental and quasi‐experimental research in the development of evidence based crime and justice policy. The journal is committed to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and experimental methods in criminology and criminal justice. The journal publishes empirical papers, reviews of substantive criminal justice problems, and methodological papers on experimentation and systematic review. Coverage ranges across the broad array of scientific disciplines that are concerned with crime and justice problems.

Submit Online

For author instructions and to submit a manuscript online, please visit:

http://www.editorialmanager.com/joex For Editorial Inquiries, please contact the journal editorial office at: [email protected]

Forthcoming Special Issue

In 2015 JOEX is having its Tenth Birthday! To celebrate, we will be publishing a Special Issue in December 2015, featuring articles by distinguished international criminologists who have made important contributions to experimental criminology. The goal of the Special Issue is to highlight the key contributions of experimental criminology to both theory and/or policy over the last ten year period.

Editorial Board

Associate Editors: Emma Antrobus, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld,

Australia Sarah Bennett, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld, Australia

Angela Higginson, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld, Australia

Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

Editorial Board: Mimi Ajzenstadt, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Richard Berk, UCLA, USA Howard Bloom, MDRC, USA Robert Boruch, University of Pennsylvania, USA Anthony Braga, Harvard University, USA Chester Britt, Northeastern University, USA Gerben Bruinsma, NSCR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Shawn Bushway, SUNY Albany, USA John Eck, University of Cincinnati, USA David Farrington, University of Cambridge, UK Denise Gottfredson, University of Maryland, USA Peter Grabosky, Australian National University, Australia Brian Johnson, University of Maryland, USA Hans‐Jürgen Kerner, University of Tübingen, Germany Martin Killias, University of Zürich, Switzerland Simcha Landau, Hebrew University, Israel Mark Lipsey, Vanderbilt University, USA Friedrich Loesel, University of Cambridge, UK Michael D. Maltz, Ohio State University, USA

David McDowall, University at Albany, USA John McDonald, University of Pennsylvania, USA Kristina Murphy, Griffith University, Australia Daniel Nagin, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Anthony Petrosino, Harvard University, USA Alex Piquero, University of Maryland, USA Hannah Rothstein, Baruch College, City University of New York, USA Lawrence Sherman, University of Cambridge, UK; University of Pennsylvania, USA Faye Taxman, George Mason University, USA Richard Tremblay, University of Montreal, Canada David Weisburd, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel and George Mason University, Virginia, USA Founding Editor: David Weisburd, Hebrew University, Israel and George Mason University, Virginia Managing Editor: Adele Somerville, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia

Jerry Ratcliffe | AEC FellowTemple University, Philadelphia, PA

Well this is really quite marvelous and I am both humbled and honored to join the ranks of Academy of Experimental Criminology Fellows, all of whom are a great deal smarter than I am. I have a tendency to suspect that such awards and successes are largely an accident, as that trait has

marked most of my career! Having joined London’s Metropolitan Police as a 17 year old cadet, I thought my working life would be spent there until, a decade later, I threw myself down 200 feet of Scottish mountainside courtesy of an ice-climbing accident. Subsequently armed with a PhD in geography, I moved to Australia and ended up coordinator of Australia’s National Strategic Intelligence Course, to some degree by accident of being the only person in the office when my predecessor resigned. And then I met George Rengert, again largely by accident, at a conference in Perth that I hadn’t planned to attend- and where he invited me to Temple University for a position that didn’t exist at the time and for which he was not authorized to offer! That happy circumstance allowed me to find a home in a department with people who, unlike me, are actually trained in experimental methods, people from whom I have been able to learn and enjoy tremendous collegiality, guidance, teamwork and camaraderie. Colleagues such as George Rengert, Ralph Taylor, Liz Groff and Jen Wood, and practitioner police collaborations with Charles Ramsey, Rich Ross, Kevin Bethel and Nola Joyce, have kept me on track in Philadelphia. Academic collaborations with marvelous scholars at places such as George Mason, the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge, and the Police Foundation, have kept me on track in the wider world. If there has been any success, it is founded on being lucky enough to have generous friends willing to share their insight, methodological rigor and expertise with a former cop from the East End of London with delusions of academia. With these folks around, it’s easy to be accident prone.

Barak Ariel | AEC FellowCambridge University, Cambridge, UK

It is a great privilege to be elected a Fellow of the AEC. As a proud new Fellow, I would like to take the opportunity to share my thoughts with this vibrant community about the global place for experimental criminology, while considering my work in this exciting area of research. I believe

our community is shifting within four general areas. On the one hand, we see a greater proliferation of the use of randomized trials to inform policy, coupled with a diversification of research questions and populations, which only a few years ago were not the subject of experimental research. On the other hand, it seems that we are experiencing the limits of efficiency by the very nature of our social networks, and far greater collaborative efforts will be required to drive more experiments forward. In similar ways, there is an inherent and institutional inability to mainstream randomized trials, when operational requirements, funding cycles, publication speed and different agendas conflict. Dealing with the latter will necessarily improve the former. I will briefly reflect on some of these vectors.Proliferation. As our community grows, and more researchers apply experimental methods to the study of crime and crime policy, the sheer number of randomized trials is rapidly accumulating1). Rigorous evaluations are increasingly required, particularly at an age of austerity. We simply cannot afford doing the same ‘things’ that may not provide any benefit, especially in light of budget cuts to crime program. This is a global phenomenon. Yet these financial crises should not be wasted and can be viewed as an opportunity2). My experience with policymakers in Uruguay throughout the United States, Israel and Great Britain, is that they all recognize that practices must be put through rigorous tests. Expensive policies and tactics that only a decade ago would be implemented based on hunches and good will are now required to undergo piloting, impact evaluations and academic assessment prior to full deployment. At this juncture, experimental criminology shines. As more police forces, justice departments, judiciaries, and treatment providers undergo similar processes, more collaborations between agencies and experimentalist emerge, and the number of research projects increases. Diversification. With the proliferation and infiltration of experimental criminology into decision-making comes an increasingly wide range of research questions. As shown by George Mason’s excellent Centre for Evidence-Based Crime Policy3), we see an expansion of the units of analysis, population types and treatment categories under investigation. This is true for all research methods, but seems particularly true for experimental designs. For instance, proactive, rather than reactive crime policies – embodied chiefly in mature police departments such as West Midlands Police and Philadelphia Police Department – seems to introduce a new model for policymaking: “test first, apply later”. New methods of preventing crime, managing criminals, caring for vulnerable populations, and focusing on hotspots are constantly mushrooming, and within this general movement, it is not a particular wonder that experimental criminology is rapidly increasing all over. Randomized trials provide valid causal estimates of treatment effects, which is why there remains a strong consensus that experiments are the gold standard for

10

evaluation research in criminology4). That which works, does not work, or is (currently) only promising given limited evidence, can be effectively demonstrated through proper tests5). The number of research questions – mirroring the various tactics that can be effectively analyzed experimentally – are put to the test prior to procurement or force-wide implementation. Body worn videos, recruiters of criminal networks, honeypots, soft policing in hotspots, parental patrols in hotspots, harmspots rather than hotspots, GPS and WiFi tracking of officers, legitimacy in counter terrorism, etc. – mirror this diversification.

More Collaborations are needed. However, the state of the art of experimental criminology can improve in two major areas. As evident by Braga et al.’s work on experimentalists’ networks6), the ‘neighborhoods’ are small and disconnected. Compared to experimental psychology7), the size of co-authorship and the number of cross-institutional collaborations must grow. The quantity of ties each node – or experimentalist – is associated with is often limited, except those neighborhoods associated with Professors Lawrence Sherman and David Weisburd. I believe that with new experimentalists covering new grounds, the networks will expend and include a larger number of degrees of connections between institutions and researchers. The more we talk to one another, the better. The Division of Experimental Criminology is a great place to get things started. Yet to do this, we need more tutoring and a greater willingness by supervisors to work with junior experimentalists on their trials. The Jerry Lee Centres for Experimental Criminology (crim.cam.ac.uk/research/experiments) and Cambridge University’s MSt in Applied Criminology and Police Management (crim.cam.ac.uk/courses/police) are exactly the kinds of models we need in order to expand more globally. Mainstreaming Experiments. Linked to our need for more nodes and influential nodes in experimental criminology, we must also face the misalignments between many of the moving parts associated with randomized controlled trials. As we all know, experiments require a great(er) attention to proper planning and design, even before the first participant is enrolled into the study. In field trials, where the stakes are high, this process can take months, possibly years of piloting and recalibrating until the proper ‘cookbook’ is established. Yet this process does not always correspond with institutional processes, procurement cycles and how long the decision-maker has before taking on a new role within the organization. As important, funding cycles almost never match the needs of the experiment, which in many ways leave the game to senior experimentalists who can shepherd available research (and discretionary) funds into new projects. If a Chief of Police would ask me to conduct an experiment on body worn cameras and I had to wait for a funding agency to provide resources in 12-18 months, the opportunity to conduct the experiment would almost certainly vanish. The funding issue could be solved by having a collective pot, possibly under the management of the Division, which could provide the bare minimum for low-cost experiments or seed money for more expansive projects. Such a grant, continuously maintained by

the research institutions that are interested in experimental criminology, could assist researchers with set-up costs, travel and accommodation and planning meetings. For very little money from each donor, experimental criminology could grow very quickly.Finally, a stronger link between research institutions and in-house pracademics8) is required. It will not only widen the network of interested partnerships, or concretize our role in evidence-based policy, but will help to streamline experiments. My experience with the British Transport Police (BTP) and

the leadership of ACC Mark Newton is an example of an incredible academic-practitioner relationship. BTP have implemented Sherman’s model of a Totally Evidence-Based Policing Agency9), and, with more experiments under way, have a strong focus on the use of a scientific approach to

policing10) and continuous learning. This is the Scientification of policing. A strong and dedicated team of analysts constantly seek ‘testable’ questions within the policing environment, and then design, conduct and analyse the results prior to deployment. To be sure, not every research project can be the Holy Grail of Criminology; even day-to-day operations and seemingly mandate administrative tasks can be tested and re-tested, with tremendous benefits for applied criminology. In fact, seemingly boring research questions can inform wider theoretical questions. The Rialto Body Worn Videos Experiment11) started off with Chief Tony Farrar’s vision to reduce the time officers spend writing reports, but later evolved into something much grander and arguably more substantive than simply recording cases. Nevertheless, a strong(er) collaboration between researchers and practitioners can aid in mainstreaming experiments, which will ultimately increase the practitioners’ toolbox of ‘what works.’ With these thoughts in mind, I particularly want to (alphabetically) express my gratitude to my mentors, Lawrence Sherman and David Weisburd. Their incredible guidance has brought me to where I am today; thank you.

11

1. Farrington DP, Welsh BC. Randomized experiments in criminology: What has been learned from long-term follow-ups. Experimental criminology: Prospects for advancing science and public policy. 2013:111-40.

2. Neyroud P. Future Perspectives in Policing: A Crisis or a Perfect Storm: The Trouble with Public Policing? Police Services: Springer; 2015. p. 161-5.

3. Lum C, Koper CS, Telep CW. The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2011;7(1):3-26.

4. Weisburd D, Petrosino A, Fronius T. Randomized experiments in criminology and criminal justice. Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice: Springer; 2014. p. 4283-91.

5. Sherman LW, Gottfredson DC, MacKenzie DL, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway SD, editors. What Works? What Doesn’t, What’s Promising: a report to the United States Congress, National Institute of Justice; 1998.

6. Braga AA, Welsh BC, Papachristos AV, Schnell C, Grossman L. The growth of randomized experiments in policing: the vital few and the salience of mentoring. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2014;10(1):1-28.

7. López-Ferrer M. Social Network Analysis Tools to Understand How Research Groups Interact: A Case Study. Collaborative and Distributed E-Research: Innovations in Technologies, Strategies and Applications: Innovations in Technologies, Strategies and Applications. 2012:290.

8. Heaphey JJ. Legislatures: political organizations. Public Administration Review. 1975:479-82.

9. Sherman LW. A Tipping Point for “Totally Evidenced Policing” Ten Ideas for Building an Evidence-Based Police Agency. International Criminal Justice Review. 2015:1057567715574372.

10. Weisburd D, Neyroud P. Police science: Toward a new paradigm. Australasian Policing. 2013;5(2):13.

11. Ariel B, Farrar WA, Sutherland A. The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2014:1-27.

“ ...far greater collaborative efforts will be required to drive more experiments forward.”

Denise Gottfredson | Jerry Lee Lifetime Achievement AwardUniversity of Maryland, College Park, MD

I am a Professor at the University of Maryland Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology. I received a Ph.D. in Social Relations from The Johns Hopkins University, where I specialized in Sociology of Education. My research interests include delinquency and delinquency prevention,

and particularly the effects of school environments on youth behavior. I have contributed to the literature of school-based crime prevention over the past 35 years by testing approaches to reducing crime and disorder and by summarizing research literature. My earliest experimental evaluation was Project PATHE, a school-based preventive intervention conducted in Charleston, South Carolina public schools (Gottfredson, 1986), followed by several subsequent tests of approaches to reduce crime in schools. I co-directed (along with Gary Gottfredson, PI) the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, which described the nature and quality of the school-based prevention practices as they are implemented in typical school settings. This study demonstrated that the quality of prevention programming in U.S. schools is poor (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002; G. Gottfredson et al., 2004), and that aspects of the school environment contribute to the level of disorder experienced in schools (G. Gottfredson et al., 2005; Payne et al, 2003). Over the years I provided several useful summaries of the literature on school-based prevention. These efforts include a report to the U.S. Congress on what works, what doesn’t work, and what is promising in school-based crime prevention (a chapter in the “Maryland Report”), and several subsequent articles and chapters that have re-evaluated this literature using meta-analysis (Wilson et al, 2001; Gottfredson and Wilson, 2003). My most recent review of school-based prevention is a chapter co-authored with Phil Cook and Chongmin Na (Cook, Gottfredson, and Na, 2010). I am continuing to study school influences on crime by directing a new NIJ-funded comparative time series design study of the effects of placing SROs in school on crime reporting behavior as well as the level of school and community crime (Gottfredson, Cross, and Harmon, 2015).

My career has focused on bringing sound evidence to bear on public policy decisions in a variety of settings. I have worked closely not only with schools, but also with community-based organizations, the justice system, and State government agencies to help them to design and carry out the most rigorous possible research to answer important questions. In addition to the school-based work mentioned above, I completed randomized experiments to test the effectiveness of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (Gottfredson et al. 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007), the Strengthening Families Program in Washington D.C. (Gottfredson et al. 2006), and the effects of after school programs on academic and behavioral outcomes (Cross et al., 2009, Gottfredson et al. 2010a, 2010b). In the context of this work on after school programs, then graduate student Melissa Rorie and I studied how unstructured after school setting can increase deviant behavior through peer encouragement, or “deviancy training” (Gottfredson, 2010, Rorie et al., 2011). My most recent experimental work is an ongoing collaboration with colleague Terrence Thornberry, researcher partners from Temple University, and graduate students Brook Kearley, Molly Slothower, and Deanna Devlin. It tests the effectiveness of a family therapy intervention with court-involved juveniles who live in Philadelphia neighborhoods with high levels of violence and gang involvement (Kearley and Gottfredson, 2015). This study will begin to fill the knowledge gap about how gang membership can be prevented, and how violent crime can be reduced among current gang members.

12

Cook, P. J., Gottfredson, D. C, and Na, C. (2010). School Crime Control and Prevention. In Tonry, M. (ed). Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Cross, A. B., Gottfredson, D. C., Wilson, D. M., Rorie, M., and Connell, N. (2009). The Impact of After-School Programs on the Routine Activities of Middle School Students: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 391-412Gottfredson, D. C. (1986). An empirical test of school-based environmental and individual interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behavior. Criminology, 24, 705-731.Gottfredson, D. C. (2010). Deviancy Training: Understanding How Preventive Interventions Harm. The Academy of Experimental Criminology 2009 Joan McCord Award Lecture. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6 (3), 229-243. (DOI: 10.1007/s11292-010-9101-9).Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A. B., Wilson, D. M., Rorie, M., and Connell, N. (2010a). An Experimental Evaluation of the All Stars Prevention Curriculum. Prevention Science, 11, 2, 142-154. (DOI: 10.1007/s11121-009-0156-7).Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A. B., Wilson, D. M., Rorie, M., and Connell, N. (2010b) Effects of Participation in After-School Programs for Middle School Students: A Randomized Trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3 (3), 282-313Gottfredson, D.C., Crosse, S. and Harmon, M. (May, 2015). Police in Schools: A New Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington DC.Gottfredson, D. C. and Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of School-Based Prevention Programs: Results from a National Survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 1, 3-35. Gottfredson, D. C. and Exum, M. L. (2002). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: One-Year Results from a Randomized Study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 337-356. Gottfredson, D. C., Kearley, B., Najaka, S. S., and Rocha, C. (2005). Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Three-year self-report outcome study. Evaluation Review, 29 (1), 42-64. Gottfredson, D.C., Kearley, B., Najaka, S.S., and Rocha, C. (2007) How drug treatment courts work: an analysis of mediators. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 3-35.

Gottfredson, D. C., Kumpfer, K., Polizzi-Fox, D., Wilson, D., Puryear, V., Beatty, P., and Vilmenay, M. (2006). The Strengthening Washington D.C. Families Project: A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of Family-Based Prevention. Prevention Science, 7, 57-76.Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., and Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of Drug Treatment Courts: Evidence from a Randomized Trial. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 171-196. Gottfredson, D.C., Najaka, S.S., Kearley, B., and Rocha, C. (2006) Long-Term Effects of Participation in the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Results from an Experimental Study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 67-98Gottfredson, D. C. & Wilson, D. B. (2003). Characteristics of Effective School-Based Substance Abuse Prevention. Prevention Science, 4, 27-38.Gottfredson, G. D. Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S. B. and Hantman, I. (2004). Research in Brief: Toward Safe and Orderly Schools: The National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., and Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School Climate Predictors of School Disorder: Results from the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, (4), 412-444.Kearley, B. and Gottfredson, D.C. (May, 2015). Using an Existing Funding Stream to Test the Effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy Modified for a Gang Population. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington DC.Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., and Gottfredson, G. D. (2003). Schools as Communities: The Relationship among Communal School Organization, Student Bonding, and School Disorder. Criminology, 41, 749-778.Rorie, M., Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A., Wilson, D. M., and Connell, N. (2011). Structure and Deviancy Training in After-School Programs. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 105-117. (DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01.007).Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001). School-Based Prevention of Problem Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(3), 247-272.

Sara Heller | Outstanding Experimental Field TrialUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Youth crime and violence, especially among disadvantaged minority youth, is a pressing social problem. Homicide kills more young black men than the 9 other leading causes of death combined, and almost 70 percent of African-American male dropouts spend time in prison by their mid-30s.

My study, a partnership with the City of Chicago, evaluates a government program designed to address this problem called “One Summer Plus” (OSP). The program provides summer jobs to disadvantaged high-school students (ages 14-21). In 2012, youth were offered a part-time job (25 hours per week for 8 weeks) at Illinois’ minimum wage ($8.25 per hour). Jobs were in non-profit and government agencies, including work in summer camps, urban renewal projects, and alderman’s offices. Youth were also assigned an adult job mentor at a ratio of about 10:1. The mentor helped teach youth how to be good employees and how to deal with barriers to employment, from family demands to transportation to conflicts with supervisors.

Like many summer jobs programs across the country, OSP is over-subscribed; far more youth apply than there is funding to serve. This creates an ideal setting for a randomized controlled trial – slots have to be allocated in some way, and a lottery creates a fair and transparent allocation mechanism that has the added benefit of allowing for rigorous causal inference. I tracked all 1,634 OSP applicants in administrative data sources such as school and arrest records. Almost all applicants were African-American and eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches (a proxy for household poverty). They lived in neighborhoods with an average unemployment rate of 19 percent, and about 20 percent of applicants already had an arrest record.The effects of the program are striking: Sixteen months after the initial lottery, youth offered OSP were arrested for 43 percent fewer violent crimes than the control group (about 4 fewer per 100 youth). This drop occurred largely after the end of the program, suggesting it is not just a mechanical result of keeping youth busier during the summer. There were no changes in other types of crime, nor in schooling outcomes like GPA or days present. But the study establishes that summer jobs alongside a mentor – at least in this context – can have a dramatic impact on youth violence. I am immensely grateful and honored to be recognized with the Outstanding Field Trial award, and I hope that the project will inspire more jurisdictions to partner with researchers and learn from the work they are already doing.

Angela Jones | Student Paper Award Barnard College, New York, NY

Among documented exonerations, erroneous eyewitness identifications have contributed to 33% of all wrongful convictions and 71% of wrongful convictions for adult sexual assault cases (National Registry of Exonerations, 2015). The New Jersey Supreme Court recently conveyed their concern about eyewitness misidentifications stating, “Recent studies-ranging from analyses of actual police

lineups, to laboratory experiments, to DNA exonerations—prove that the possibility of mistaken identification is real, and the consequences severe (p. 881).” Troubled by these findings, the Court commissioned new eyewitness jury instructions to assist jurors in evaluating eyewitness evidence and suggested the implementation of these instructions would reduce the need for expert testimony (New Jersey v Henderson, 2011). However, instead of drawing attention to the quality of eyewitness evidence, initial studies indicate Henderson instructions produce skepticism for all identifications (Berman, Bergold, Jones, Hui, & Penrod, 2015; Papailiou, Yokum, & Robertson, 2014). We argue that the potential success of instructions and expert testimony on eyewitness identification depends on whether these safeguards can assist jurors in developing a cohesive story. According to the Story Model, story construction is central and determines one’s verdict choice (Pennington & Hastie, 1992). If more than one story is constructed, jurors will choose the story that has the best explanation, and is the most consistent, complete, plausible, and unique (Levett, Danielsen, Kovera, & Cutler, 2005). The addition of either instructions or expert testimony can guide jurors in determining which story has these characteristics. However, hearing both instructions and expert testimony provides jurors with two opportunities for a consistent, plausible, and potentially unique story concerning witnessing and identification conditions. Thus, we hypothesized that the combination of safeguards would be more influential than either safeguard alone in inducing sensitivity to eyewitness factors. The current study tested the efficacy of Henderson instructions compared to a research-enhanced set of instructions, expert testimony, and the combination of instructions and expert testimony. A total of 451 jury eligible community members and students were randomly assigned to a condition that varied in the quality of estimator (e.g., exposure duration) and system (e.g., lineup instructions) variables, and safeguard type. None of the instructions influenced verdicts. Expert testimony resulted in skepticism by reducing convictions regardless of the quality of estimator or system variables. Jurors were somewhat sensitive to system variables on their own, increasing convictions when police used good practices and reducing convictions when police used poor practices. This relationship was mediated by assessments of eyewitness credibility. Identification procedures influenced how credible jurors perceived the eyewitness which, in turn, influenced verdict decisions. These findings suggest jurors understand and can apply system variable knowledge to their verdict decisions. However, jurors were not sensitive to estimator variables, such as weapon focus, exposure duration, and time delay. Furthermore, neither expert testimony nor instruction safeguards in their current form induced sensitivity to witnessing conditions. Overall, it appears the Henderson Court overestimated the effectiveness of these instructions. Future research should address additional ways to improve jurors’ evaluations of estimator variables.

13

“ I hope that the project will inspire more jurisdictions to partner with researchers and learn from the work they are already doing.”

1. Berman, M., Bergold, A., Jones, A., Hui, C., & Penrod, S. (2015). Judicial instruction and eyewitness identification. Manuscript in preparation.

2. Levett, L.M., Danielsen, E.M., Kovera, M.B., & Cutler, B.L. (2005). The psychology of jury and juror decision making. In N. Brewer & K.D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 365-406). NY: Guilford Press.

3. National Registry of Exonerations. (2015). Retrieved August 18, 2015, from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/learnmore.aspx

4. New Jersey v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (2011). 5. Papailiou, A.P., Yokum, D.V., & Robertson, C.T. (2014). The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces

skepticism but not sensitivity. Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 14-17. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.24752176. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189

14

Meet the 2015-2016 DEC Executive Board!

Chair: Susan TurnerSusan Turner (PhD, Social Psychology, University of North Carolina) is a Professor and Graduate Director in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine. She also serves as Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections and an appointee of

the President of the University of California to the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board. She received her M.A. and Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Turner’s areas of expertise include the design and implementation of randomized field experiments and research collaborations with state and local justice agencies. She can be reached at [email protected] or 949 824-6943.

Vice Chair: Elizabeth GroffElizabeth Groff (PhD, Geography, 2006, University of Maryland) is an associate professor in the Criminal Justice department at Temple University. She is an applied researcher who was the first GIS Coordinator at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and a former Director of the

National Institute of Justice’s Crime Mapping Research Center. Her research interests include: place-based criminology; modeling geographical influences on human activity; role of technology in police organizations; and the development of innovative methodologies using geographic information systems, agent-based simulation models, and randomized experiments. She was elected a fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology in 2010. She can be reached at [email protected].

Secretary-Treasurer: Jordan HyattJordan Hyatt (PhD, Criminology, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 2013, JD, Villanova Law, 2008) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology & Justice Studies, Drexel University. Prior to joining Drexel, he was a Research Associate at the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania.

His research focuses on the back-end of the criminal justice system, specifically reenty and community corrections, sentencing, program evaluation and (of course) the innovative use of randomized experiments. He can be reached at [email protected].

Executive Counselor: Charlotte GillCharlotte Gill (PhD, Univ. of Pennsylvania, MA in Law and MPhil in Criminology, University of Cambridge) is Deputy Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy and Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University. Her research

interests include community-based crime prevention and place-based approaches, community policing, program evaluation, and research synthesis. Dr. Gill has over ten years of experience in applied experimental and quasi-experimental research. She is the co-editor of the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group, and received the Academy of Experimental Criminology’s Young Scholar Award in 2012. She can be reached at [email protected].

Executive Counselor: Elise SargeantElise Sargeant (PhD, Criminology, The University of Queensland) is a University of Queensland Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) in Queensland, Australia. Her research agenda considers the policing by consent model and the individual and neighborhood

factors that help us to understand citizens’ perceptions of police. Elise is also interested in neighborhoods and the ecology of crime, comparative research, experiments in policing and multilevel modelling. Elise is a Chief Investigator on the Voice4Values project an experimental study of police training; and an Associate Investigator on the Australian Community Capacity Study. She can be reached at [email protected].

Executive Counselor: Cody Telep.Cody Telep (PhD Criminology, Law and Society, 2013) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. While at George Mason, he worked as a research associate at the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy. His research interests include rigorously

evaluating the impact of police strategies on crime and disorder, synthesizing research to advance evidence-based practice, and examining police officer receptivity to research. His recent work has appeared in Journal of Experimental Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Police Quarterly. He can be reached at [email protected] or 602.496.1295.

15

Extreme Abstracting

To kick off ASC and the new DEC social media accounts, we invite you to participate in a contest that we are calling… EXTREME ABSTRACTING. As we all know, research articles tend to be long and there is hardly enough time to read all of the exciting, new experimental studies, let alone the classics from the discipline. This contests will solve all of that.

We have asked the AEC fellows to provide a brief (no more than 140 characters, a la Twitter) summary of a new or classic experiment that they have been a part of. The first eight of these submissions are below. The first individual to correctly identify all eight of the AEC fellows will win a fabulous prize, courtesy of the DEC and AEC. Completed submissions can be turned in to Charlotte Gill or Jordan Hyatt.

Abstract Fellows

Intensive supervision increases technical violations and jail terms

Giving crime maps to citizens produces less fear than crime statistics

The miracle of the cells

Hot spots patrol works. Period.

These cops were definitely not caught flat-footed.

Deferred prosecution of first offenders to voluntary, police-led “Turning Point” program didn’t increase crime but saved money.

Fish for felons? Omega-3 supplementation reduces antisocial behavior.

Continued enthusiasm for drug treatment courts is warranted

Stay tuned to the DEC/AEC Twitter and Facebook accounts- this is only the first round! Good luck and happy experimenting!

Winter 2015 | Volume 10

Division of Experimental CriminologyAmerican Society of Criminology1314 Kinnear Road, Suite 212Columbus, OH 43212

To:

affixpostage

here

letter from current president, lorriane mazzerole · letter from current president, lorriane...

Documents