Cost–Benefit Analysis of Crime Prevention Policies

• Date: 01 November 2015
• Author: Daniel S. Nagin
• Published date: 01 November 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12168

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

ROLE OF THE COST-OF-CRIME

LITERATURE

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Crime Prevention

Policies

Daniel S. Nagin

Carnegie Mellon University

Cost–benefit analysis of crime prevention policies was once unusual, typically

performed as an afterthought to an analysis conducted for other reasons, and

limited to studies by economists. All of this has changed. Cost–benefit analysis

is now routine in crime policy analysis, a central feature of the analysis, and conducted

by noneconomists. This remarkable turnabout was the catalyst for my commissioning

the article by Patricio Dom´

ınguez and Steven Raphael titled “The Role of the Cost-

of-Crime Literature in Bridging the Gap Between Social Science Research and Policy

Making: Potentials and Limitations” featured in this special issue of Criminology & Public

Polic y.

I had two rationales for commissioning this article by Dom´

ınguez and Raphael (2015).

One was to endorse the value of cost–benefit analysis of crime policy.I am a strong proponent

of the principle that policy choices should be based on a conscious and explicit balancing

of the costs and benefits of alternative policy options. Had policy choices on the use of

prison over the past four decades been made in this fashion by the 50 states and the federal

government, many of the disastrous policy choices that led to the fivefold increase in the

U.S. incarceration rate might have been avoided.

Cost–benefit analysis is intended to provide an analytical apparatus for an explicit

balancing of costs and benefits. In the context of criminal justice policy, some of the

required entries in the cost–benefit social accounting calculus are relatively straightforward

to calculate. An example is the cost of a police officer. Others, however, such as the cost

of crime to victims, their families, and society at large or the cost of punishment to the

perpetrator, his or her family members, and again society at large are exceedingly difficult

to measure.

Direct correspondence to Daniel S. Nagin, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue,

Hamburg Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (e-mail: dn03@andrew.cmu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12168 C2015 American Society of Criminology 583

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 4