{"title":"减少再犯和鼓励戒酒:一种社会创业方法","authors":"R. Wright","doi":"10.1108/jepp-05-2022-0058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper, which is both case study and conceptual in nature, presents a relative cost-benefit model to explain why people engage in criminal activity. It then uses the model to motivate a discussion of the major policy approaches to recidivism reduction and desistance, or decreasing the frequency and severity of criminal activity, a more nuanced measure of harm reduction than the binary concept of recidivism typically used to evaluate program success. Several private programs have successfully reduced recidivism and improved measures of desistance but remain applicable only to those who self-select into them. Changed policies and incentives, however, could stimulate social entrepreneurs to search for programs applicable to additional segments of the prison population.Design/methodology/approachThis paper describes case studies informed by economic theories of crime and incentive alignment. Most approaches to recidivism reduction/desistance have failed, but several programs, including the DOE Fund and PEP, have proven extremely effective: the first by employing former convicts in starter jobs and the latter by teaching inmates about entrepreneurship and general business skills and mentoring them after release.FindingsSuccessful cases cannot simply be scaled up because inmates self-select into the programs. Instead, policymakers should encourage further competition and innovation in the field by paying NGOs each week they manage to keep the formerly imprisoned persons in their charge alive and out of the criminal justice system.Research limitations/implicationsCase study and theoretical. Not yet tried in the real world.Practical implicationsLower recidivism, more desistance for the same budget.Social implicationsHumans will be better treated than currently.Originality/valueInstead of offering a specific recidivism reduction panacea, this paper suggests that incentive alignment and competition for funding will encourage nonprofit NGOs to discover which programs work best for different types of inmates.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing recidivism and encouraging desistance: a social entrepreneurial approach\",\"authors\":\"R. Wright\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jepp-05-2022-0058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis paper, which is both case study and conceptual in nature, presents a relative cost-benefit model to explain why people engage in criminal activity. It then uses the model to motivate a discussion of the major policy approaches to recidivism reduction and desistance, or decreasing the frequency and severity of criminal activity, a more nuanced measure of harm reduction than the binary concept of recidivism typically used to evaluate program success. Several private programs have successfully reduced recidivism and improved measures of desistance but remain applicable only to those who self-select into them. Changed policies and incentives, however, could stimulate social entrepreneurs to search for programs applicable to additional segments of the prison population.Design/methodology/approachThis paper describes case studies informed by economic theories of crime and incentive alignment. Most approaches to recidivism reduction/desistance have failed, but several programs, including the DOE Fund and PEP, have proven extremely effective: the first by employing former convicts in starter jobs and the latter by teaching inmates about entrepreneurship and general business skills and mentoring them after release.FindingsSuccessful cases cannot simply be scaled up because inmates self-select into the programs. Instead, policymakers should encourage further competition and innovation in the field by paying NGOs each week they manage to keep the formerly imprisoned persons in their charge alive and out of the criminal justice system.Research limitations/implicationsCase study and theoretical. Not yet tried in the real world.Practical implicationsLower recidivism, more desistance for the same budget.Social implicationsHumans will be better treated than currently.Originality/valueInstead of offering a specific recidivism reduction panacea, this paper suggests that incentive alignment and competition for funding will encourage nonprofit NGOs to discover which programs work best for different types of inmates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-05-2022-0058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-05-2022-0058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reducing recidivism and encouraging desistance: a social entrepreneurial approach
PurposeThis paper, which is both case study and conceptual in nature, presents a relative cost-benefit model to explain why people engage in criminal activity. It then uses the model to motivate a discussion of the major policy approaches to recidivism reduction and desistance, or decreasing the frequency and severity of criminal activity, a more nuanced measure of harm reduction than the binary concept of recidivism typically used to evaluate program success. Several private programs have successfully reduced recidivism and improved measures of desistance but remain applicable only to those who self-select into them. Changed policies and incentives, however, could stimulate social entrepreneurs to search for programs applicable to additional segments of the prison population.Design/methodology/approachThis paper describes case studies informed by economic theories of crime and incentive alignment. Most approaches to recidivism reduction/desistance have failed, but several programs, including the DOE Fund and PEP, have proven extremely effective: the first by employing former convicts in starter jobs and the latter by teaching inmates about entrepreneurship and general business skills and mentoring them after release.FindingsSuccessful cases cannot simply be scaled up because inmates self-select into the programs. Instead, policymakers should encourage further competition and innovation in the field by paying NGOs each week they manage to keep the formerly imprisoned persons in their charge alive and out of the criminal justice system.Research limitations/implicationsCase study and theoretical. Not yet tried in the real world.Practical implicationsLower recidivism, more desistance for the same budget.Social implicationsHumans will be better treated than currently.Originality/valueInstead of offering a specific recidivism reduction panacea, this paper suggests that incentive alignment and competition for funding will encourage nonprofit NGOs to discover which programs work best for different types of inmates.
期刊介绍:
Institutions – especially public policies – are a significant determinant of economic outcomes; entrepreneurship and enterprise development are often the channel by which public policies affect economic outcomes, and by which outcomes feed back to the policy process. The Journal of Entrepreneurship & Public Policy (JEPP) was created to encourage and disseminate quality research about these vital relationships. The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of the political discourse about entrepreneurship and development policies. JEPP publishes two issues per year and welcomes: Empirically oriented academic papers and accepts a wide variety of empirical evidence. Generally, the journal considers any analysis based on real-world circumstances and conditions that can change behaviour, legislation, or outcomes, Conceptual or theoretical papers that indicate a direction for future research, or otherwise advance the field of study, A limited number of carefully and accurately executed replication studies, Book reviews. In general, JEPP seeks high-quality articles that say something interesting about the relationships among public policy and entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and economic development, or all three areas. Scope/Coverage: Entrepreneurship, Public policy, Public policies and behaviour of economic agents, Interjurisdictional differentials and their effects, Law and entrepreneurship, New firms; startups, Microeconomic analyses of economic development, Development planning and policy, Innovation and invention: processes and incentives, Regional economic activity: growth, development, and changes, Regional development policy.