Paying people stipends to "not" commit crimes. Good idea or not?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

Washington, D.C. is considering a program intended to cut recidivism rates among violent offenders. This program is modeled after one that is already in place in Richmond, CA. But... and this is a big BUT... Washington, D.C. is not Richmond, CA. and the Richmond program and the D.C. proposal both have their critics.

Speaking of critics, one thing I found interesting while reading about the Richmond program is that many articles lauded the program and extolled its virtues while being dismissive of any criticism, if they mentioned criticism at all. Is this a case of a good program being put into place where critics viewpoints are generally unfounded? Or could there be some bias in these reports, refusing to acknowledge real problems with the program?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CRIME_STIPENDS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-02-13-17-17

Associated Press wrote:DC BILL WOULD PAY PEOPLE STIPENDS NOT TO COMMIT CRIMES

WASHINGTON (AP) -- They say crime doesn't pay, but that might not be entirely true in the District of Columbia as lawmakers look for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders.

The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It's based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.

Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.

The bill doesn't specify the value of the stipends, but participants in the California program receive up to $9,000 per year.

Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, a Democrat who wrote the legislation, said it was part of a comprehensive approach to reducing violent crime in the city, which experienced a 54 percent increase in homicides last year. Homicides and violent crime are still down significantly since the 2000s, and even more so since the early 1990s when the District was dubbed the nation's "murder capital."

McDuffie argued that spending $9,000 a year in stipends "pales in comparison" to the cost of someone being victimized, along with the costs of incarcerating the offender.

"I want to prevent violent crime - particularly gun violence - by addressing the root causes and creating opportunities for people, particularly those individuals who are at the highest risks of offending," McDuffie, a former prosecutor, said in a letter to constituents last week.

Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has not committed to funding the program, which would cost $4.9 million over four years, including $460,000 a year in stipend payments, according to the District's independent chief financial officer. Without the mayor's support, it would be up to the Council to find money for it through new taxes or cuts to existing programs.

The program would be run independently of the police department, and participants would remain anonymous. Its goal would be to recruit people who are at risk of violence but don't have criminal cases pending.

In Richmond, 79 percent of "fellows" participating in the program have not been suspected of involvement in any gun crimes since joining the program, and 84 percent have not been injured by gunfire, the program's executive director, DeVone Boggan, said in a report to the Council.

Richmond experienced a 77 percent drop in homicides between 2007, when the program was launched, and 2014, although how much can be specifically attributed to the stipends is unclear.

The proposal in Washington has generated scant debate as lawmakers have focused on other crime-fighting tools included in the bill. Longtime civic activist Dorothy Brizill was the only person to testify against the stipend program at a lengthy hearing last fall, saying it would waste taxpayer dollars.

"These incentive programs don't work," Brizill said Tuesday.

**Grey Templar**

What if they commit crimes and just don't get caught? This just seems stupid all around.

That said, I as a model citizen will gladly take $9,000 a year to not commit crimes.

**Kilkrazy**

Grey Templar wrote:
What if they commit crimes and just don't get caught? This just seems stupid all around.

That said, I as a model citizen will gladly take $9,000 a year to not commit crimes.

How would anyone know? It seems a bit of a red herring. You couldn't possibly get data to analyse.

How about if you as a model citizen get your $9,000 and commit various crimes but don't get caught. Would that invalidate the idea of giving model citizens money?

There is so little information about how this programme is supposed to work that it's impossible to get any idea of how to assess its possible effectiveness.

**Breotan**

Grey Templar wrote:
That said, I as a model citizen will gladly take $9,000 a year to not commit crimes.

Part of the process is to enter into a rehabilitation program. The stipend only gets paid while the offender is in the program.

Kilkrazy wrote:
There is so little information about how this programme is supposed to work that it's impossible to get any idea of how to assess its possible effectiveness.

Actually, there's quite a bit on the internet about the Richmond program, but as I said most of it is heavily slanted in favor with little information against. Proponents claim a 70% reduction in violent crime while opponents say (as you noted) that it's difficult to get actual data in light of other factors such as gentrification.

**Kilkrazy**

Have you got any links to the Richmond info?

**Xenomancers**

This might be a stupid thought. Wouldn't this encourage people to commit crimes so one day they can receive cash for NOT committing them?

Seems kind of backwards to me. I think the right Idea here would be to give people money for not committing crimes before they commit them. That's something that could actually work on a much larger scale. I can't imaging how much crime that paying people for not being criminals would prevent but I'm sure it would be noticeable. I know it's far fetched but wouldn't this make more sense on the same line of thinking?

**Kilkrazy**

The purpose of the programme is to identify people who haven't yet committed crimes but are thought likely to, and persuade them not to.

**d-usa**

1.Nobody is getting money to "not commit crimes".
2. People are getting stipends to participate in therapeutic programs aimed at reducing recidivism.
3. Committing a crime gets you kicked out of your program, which results in no longer getting a stipend.

Grey Templar is already getting paid for not committing crimes unless he has a job where he has enough leave build up so that he can take vacation while sitting in jail. Same with everybody else that would be fired if they get arrested.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

d-usa wrote:
1.Nobody is getting money to "not commit crimes".
2. People are getting stipends to participate in therapeutic programs aimed at reducing recidivism.
3. Committing a crime gets you kicked out of your program, which results in no longer getting a stipend.

You know, it's almost as if the title of this thread is click-baity and not accurate...

**d-usa**

I give Breotan a lot of crap for click-baiting and trolling, but he actually copied the AP title who did some surprisingly bad copywriting there IMO.

**Breotan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Have you got any links to the Richmond info?

First one is by Motherjones, a "commielib" organization usually

but this is a pretty decent background into the program itself, it's goals, and the reasoning behind it all.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/richmond-california-murder-rate-gun-death

I don't know anything about Citylab but here's their take on it.

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/06/paying-people-not-to-be-violent/394661/

And everybody's favorite news agency, ~~FoxNe~~ er, wait. No. Al Jazeera.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/6/6/a-city-that-payscriminalstobehave.html

What I wasn't able to find was any "right wing" commentary on this from the usual suspects. It doesn't seem to have hit FoxNews' or Breitbart's radar. Or I just wasn't able to find their articles. Dunno.

**nkelsch**

One of the many reasons recidivism happens is 'crime' is one of the largest employers, and they don't check references or discriminate on felony status.

Take someone who served his time, is out of jail and back to the exact same spot he was. Now he has a felony and a record and can't get a job. "hey, you want some money? go sell on this corner for me"

Programs like this are for people who are on that edge to have extra supervision, and have the financial pressure eased while they work through the effort to make something of themselves. It may take some training and months to find a job fit which will accept his felony status. If a Stipend, counceling and social work can help someone for a few months via an income on a supervised program to end up re-integrating to society and never turning to crime again, maybe it has value?

How many people get to live rent-free in mom's basement, eat her food while they spend the first year of their adult life trying to find a skill or trade and get a job to support themselves? This is basically the equivalent of that for people who don't have family to mooch off of as they get started in life. It has to be cheaper than the result of crimes and prison and seems to give people a chance.

**Spacemanvic**

Provided this program works like d-usa listed, I dont see a downside to it. Provided there are results and it doesnt become another government cesspool of corruption, bribery and misappropriated funds.

**Howard A Treesong**

It's probably cheaper to give a crowd of people $9000 each than it is to pay for the clear up, prosecution and incarceration of just one of them committing a serious crime.

**Breotan**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
d-usa wrote:
1.Nobody is getting money to "not commit crimes".
2. People are getting stipends to participate in therapeutic programs aimed at reducing recidivism.
3. Committing a crime gets you kicked out of your program, which results in no longer getting a stipend.
You know, it's almost as if the title of this thread is click-baity and not accurate...

Swing and a miss.

d-usa's list is just a fancy way of noting that the stipend has two purposes. First is to encourage people to continue in the program. Second is to reward good behavior (i.e., not committing crimes). Both these are covered by the article I quoted, had you bothered to read it.

Also, while my title doesn't mention the social program, neither did the other articles I found out there on the internet, at least half of whom directly referenced 'payment for not committing crimes' in their titles. The others generally had titles about Richmond's crime rate, or how to stop crime, or something like that.

I also put a question in my title. Good idea or not? As I noted in my OP, D.C. is not Richmond. The city dynamics are different and so are the politics. Richmond has an "Office of Neighbourhood Safety" set up. I'm not sure what D.C. has. Still, if the claims are valid can we afford to ignore what Richmond is doing?

**SagesStone**

This sounds like something that will be abused and somewhat of a nightmare to manage.

**Ouze**

I don't philosophically have an issue with this since jailing people is really expensive and has a ripple of ill affects atop that, but of course the devil is in the details and it would depend how tight the metrics are.

**Mr. Burning**

Such programmes only work where all services involved are active participants - Not just the criminals they are supposed to target.
9k is not incentive enough if the providers of the programme are not engaged.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Breotan wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
d-usa wrote:
1.Nobody is getting money to "not commit crimes".
2. People are getting stipends to participate in therapeutic programs aimed at reducing recidivism.
3. Committing a crime gets you kicked out of your program, which results in no longer getting a stipend.
You know, it's almost as if the title of this thread is click-baity and not accurate...

Swing and a miss.

Not really. Just because you lifted the click baity and not accurate headline from the story doesn't make it any less of those two things.

d-usa's list is just a fancy way of noting that the stipend has two purposes. First is to encourage people to continue in the program. Second is to reward good behavior (i.e., not committing crimes). Both these are covered by the article I quoted, had you bothered to read it.

I did read it, but thanks for assuming I didn't. Isn't throwing that baseless accusation out frowned upon by the mods here?

Also, while my title doesn't mention the social program, neither did the other articles I found out there on the internet, at least half of whom directly referenced 'payment for not committing crimes' in their titles. The others generally had titles about Richmond's crime rate, or how to stop crime, or something like that.

"Because someone else did it, I did it, too."

I also put a question in my title. Good idea or not? As I noted in my OP, D.C. is not Richmond. The city dynamics are different and so are the politics. Richmond has an "Office of Neighbourhood Safety" set up. I'm not sure what D.C. has. Still, if the claims are valid can we afford to ignore what Richmond is doing?

If the city can find the money to try it, they should. Of course there is still a chance that the money won't be there for it.

**Breotan**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Breotan wrote:
d-usa's list is just a fancy way of noting that the stipend has two purposes. First is to encourage people to continue in the program. Second is to reward good behavior (i.e., not committing crimes). Both these are covered by the article I quoted, had you bothered to read it.

I did read it, but thanks for assuming I didn't. Isn't throwing that baseless accusation out frowned upon by the mods here?

Accusation? Seriously? Hang on while I look for my lolcopter gif.

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Also, while my title doesn't mention the social program, neither did the other articles I found out there on the internet, at least half of whom directly referenced 'payment for not committing crimes' in their titles. The others generally had titles about Richmond's crime rate, or how to stop crime, or something like that.

"Because someone else did it, I did it, too."

That's the way it's being reported = that's the way I wrote my title.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Breotan wrote:
Accusation? Seriously? Hang on while I look for my lolcopter gif.

Yeah, did not accuse me of not reading your article that I already knew about and read because this is a local news story to me or did you forget?

That's the way it's being reported = that's the way I wrote my title.

Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

**Grey Templar**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's probably cheaper to give a crowd of people $9000 each than it is to pay for the clear up, prosecution and incarceration of just one of them committing a serious crime.

Maybe, but that is assuming the payment actually stops them from committing any crimes. And I think there would be much more effective things than this.

**Compel**

So, it's basically "Jobseekers Allowance" but for (potential) criminals?

Considering various costs involbed, maybe if you get some outside funding to help -Insurance companies, perhaps?

It might not be that crazy an idea...

**Mr. Burning**

Compel wrote:
So, it's basically "Jobseekers Allowance" but for (potential) criminals?

Considering various costs involbed, maybe if you get some outside funding to help -Insurance companies, perhaps?

It might not be that crazy an idea...

Its payments for for attending courses and therapy which aid crime prevention and attempt to stop reoffending.

It could end up like JSA though....

**Grey Templar**

Compel wrote:
So, it's basically "Jobseekers Allowance" but for (potential) criminals?

Considering various costs involbed, maybe if you get some outside funding to help -Insurance companies, perhaps?

It might not be that crazy an idea...

Except do you really want to be labelling people as potential criminals? That could seriously hurt their chances of actually finding employment.

**Mr. Burning**

Grey Templar wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's probably cheaper to give a crowd of people $9000 each than it is to pay for the clear up, prosecution and incarceration of just one of them committing a serious crime.

Maybe, but that is assuming the payment actually stops them from committing any crimes. And I think there would be much more effective things than this.

The most effective thing -if you target ex offenders - is a network of support and real opportunity to move on with life. There is a tendency for such schemes to be run by agencies who have no interest other than getting heaps of government cash.

**d-usa**

Grey Templar wrote:
Compel wrote:
So, it's basically "Jobseekers Allowance" but for (potential) criminals?

Considering various costs involbed, maybe if you get some outside funding to help -Insurance companies, perhaps?

It might not be that crazy an idea...

Except do you really want to be labelling people as potential criminals? That could seriously hurt their chances of actually finding employment.

Everyone on the program is already a "potential criminal" because they have a record. That is one of the barriers to reintegrating into society.

That makes it hard to get a job, and the few options that are open often make it hard to attend programs aimed at reducing recidivism since people often have to choose between "getting paid" or "attend a program". Programs like this aim to address these kind of things, and completion of a program like this can be used as an example to future employers that "yes I have a record and I'm a potential criminal, but I have put in this time to reform, so please give me a chance."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's probably cheaper to give a crowd of people $9000 each than it is to pay for the clear up, prosecution and incarceration of just one of them committing a serious crime.

Maybe, but that is assuming the payment actually stops them from committing any crimes. And I think there would be much more effective things than this.

The most effective thing -if you target ex offenders - is a network of support and real opportunity to move on with life. There is a tendency for such schemes to be run by agencies who have no interest other than getting heaps of government cash.

There is a lot of money to be made from criminalizing everything in the US.

**Breotan**

Grey Templar wrote:
Compel wrote:
So, it's basically "Jobseekers Allowance" but for (potential) criminals?

Considering various costs involbed, maybe if you get some outside funding to help -Insurance companies, perhaps?

It might not be that crazy an idea...

Except do you really want to be labelling people as potential criminals? That could seriously hurt their chances of actually finding employment.

Most of the people targeted for this program are criminals. They've have contact with the law and not in a good way. Violence is also a factor, here.

The program is an attempt at reform vs. the revolving door of recidivism. They're trying to prevent 'high risk' first offenders from becoming violent career criminals.

**Compel**

Admittedly, I was predicating my statement on the theory of JSA as opposed to it's likely reality.

But yeah, when I was on JSA, there was this whole path / program of courses, seminars, regular check-in meetings, going over vacancies, preparing cv's etc...

sed s/'(potential) criminals'/'vulnerable members of society susceptible to criminal influences'/g

**feeder**

Sounds like a good idea. I suspect the massive criminal industrial complex in the US has a vested interest in revolving door recidivism.