Fishman, Robert

English

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 70Issue 4 Winter Article 14Winter 1979A Response to Roesch and CorradoRobert FishmanFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclcPart of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice CommonsThis Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationRobert Fishman, A Response to Roesch and Corrado, 70 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 542 (1979)990 1-4 l69/79/7004.0542S02.00/0TIE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGYC)pyrighi @ 1979 by Northwstern L'niversity School of LawA RESPONSE TO ROESCH AND CORRADOROBERT FISIMAN*Roesch and Corrado have raised a number ofissues in a detailed critique' of the article,2 whichis a summary of part of a study3 about the effectson criminal recidivism of rehabilitation and diver-sion services. This is a response to those criticismsdeemed most important.REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THESAMPLERoesch and Corrado state that the sample of2,860 male clients "may be ... completely unrepre-sentative of the eighteen projects, the fifty-threeprojects, and especially the criminal justice systemas a whole. '4 They argue that the possibility ofunrepresentativeness follows from two factors.First, the sample was "nonrandom" because"[n]either random sampling nor representativesampling techniques were employed." 5 Second, the2,860 clients in the sample represented less than 10percent of possible clients."Random sampling" of the clients (by theirStandard Intake Forms), in the sense of attemptingto obtain only part of the universe to be measured,was not used because "the universe of all forms fromthe 18 projects was used for all clients who met... criteria as to age, sex, and twelve month dura-tion ... and for ... data needed for police recordretrieval .... 6 Attempting to obtain the total uni-* Independent Consultant. Requests for reprintsshould be addressed to the author at 175 West 72 Street,New York, New York 10023.'See Roesch & Corrado, The Polic Implications of Eval-uation Research: Some Issues Raised by the Fishman Study ofRehabilitation and Diversion Services, 70 J. GRIM. L. & C. 530(1979).2 See Fishman, An Evaluation of Criminal Recidivism inProjects Providing Rehabilitation and Diversion Services in NewYork Cty, 68 J. GRIM. L. & C. 283 (1977)."See R. FISHMAN, CRIMINAL RECIDIVISM IN NEW YORKCITY: AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF REHABILITATIONAND DIVERSION SERVICES (1977). The summary article,Fishman, note 2 supra, omitted certain material containedin the book. The material must be referred to in order torespond adequately, and in some cases to respond at all,to criticisms and issues raised by Roesch and Corrado.Roesch & Corrado, supra note 1, at 531.5 Id. at 531 n.9.*'Fishman, supra note 2, at 289 (emphasis in original).The Evaluation selected forms from one project. YCB,by a method of random selection. Id. at 289 n.28.verse of subjects who meet criteria is, in principle,a stronger method of maximizing the likelihood ofthe representativeness of the group obtained thana method of "random sampling" from that uni-verse. Methods of random sampling are intendedordinarily to include only part of a universe in asample because of an inability to include or mea-sure the whole universe. Since the exclusionarycriteria that further reduce sample size would bethe same in both methods (e.g., no females orincomplete addresses), the sample which resultsfrom "random sampling" would contain fewermembers and consequently less likelihood of rep-resentativeness than the sample resulting from theselection procedure used by the Evaluation.Roesch and Corrado's use of the term "nonran-dom sample" may be misleading and is not perti-nent to the question of the representativeness ofthe sample.7 The fact that the sample included lessthan 10 percent of the total project population isnot significant because it is not possible to assesssolely from the proportion of the population in-cluded, be it 1 percent or 10 percent, whether asample is representative. Such factors as the sizeand the composition of the sample must be takeninto account. Whatever its percentage, the sampleconsists of 2,860 people from an atypical popula-tion. That is not a small number when comparedwith the less than 100 subjects contained in manyimportant studies in criminology.Further, important comparisons can be made'The Evaluation can be viewed as having used essen-tially two different types of criteria to exclude clients.The first type excluded clients who were defined as notbeing qualitatively part of the target population or uni-verse, e.g., females. The second type excluded clients whowere qualitatively part of the target population but for,vhom outcome could not be determined because ofincomplete or incorrect information, e.g., those with anincorrect name on a form that prevented retrieval ofpolice records. Since the second type of criterion excludedmembers of the target universe, the clients obtained area sample of the universe despite the attempt to measurethe total universe. Nevertheless, this sample would belarger and more likely to be representative of the universethan a sample obtained by "random sampling" giventhat the exclusionary criteria are the same for bothmethods and that there is no demonstrable sampling biasin the method used by the Evaluation..542Vol. 70. No. 4Printed in ". ARESPONSE TO ROESCH & CORRADObetween the sample and the population withoutformal statistical analysis. The arrest population inNew York City, particularly for violent crimes, isprimarily young, male, black, and Hispanic, withprior arrest histories, generally undereducated, andpoor.8 The 2,860 in the sample were all male,undereducated and poor. Ninety-three percentwere black and Hispanic, 87 percent were twenty-nine or younger, and 90 percent had prior arresthistories? It is possible that a statistical comparisonof education, for example, would show them to besignificantly more or less undereducated than thepopulation of the projects or the criminal justicesystem, but any relationship to recidivism wouldbe unclear.If prior criminal history is considered, then thesixteen (or thirteen) 0 subgroups of the samplerepresenting levels of severity by age ranged fromgroups of first offenders to groups with extensiveand severe charges, which is also similar to thetarget groups of the projects. Such factors alsosupport the representativeness of the sample evenwithout formal statistical comparison. It should bestressed that the Evaluation is primarily general-izing from each of the sixteen types of clients in thesample to only similar types in the projects and thecriminal justice system."Roesch and Corrado also contend that possibleunrepresentativeness may have resulted from someunknown systematic bias, such as selective record-keeping by projects that would have producedmore extensive or detailed records on more "diffi-cult" clients. The only record items needed by theEvaluation for retrieving police arrest records weresuch identification items as name, address, andage. There seems to be little if any reason and noevidence to suggest that these would be more ac-curate for "difficult" than for "easy" clients.'2Roesch and Corrado's reservations about therepresentativeness of the sample appear to reduceto how much confidence there can be, in theabsence of statistical demonstration, that the sam-ple is not unrepresentative. To be sure, this cannot beruled out in this case, or even where there is astatistical demonstration. But given the character-istics of the population and of the clients in the8 Fishman, supra note 2, at 283.9 Id. at 289, Table 3 at 296.t1 Id. at 293, Table 3 at 296." Id. at 289 n.30.12The methods used by the Evaluation in collecting,analyzing, and reporting its findings are described in anappendix to the book. FisHMAN, supra note 3, at 95-179.sample, it takes quite a leap of faith, on their part,to assume that it probably is unrepresentative.OUTCOME MEASURERoesch and Corrado accept the use of arrest asa measure of outcome, but criticize the failure touse outcome measures of noncriminal behavior aswell, stating that they were just as important andalso may have been affected by project services.They illustrate such a measure: "Other projectsattempted to provide job counseling and referral;increases in employment would be a measure ofsuccess for these programs." 3 But one cannot useoutcome measures of noncriminal behavior to as-sess the effectiveness of these projects because to doso assumes or implies that these measures are de-pendent variables. In the Evaluation, such mea-sures cannot be validly classified as dependentvariables.As documented in the original article, the basicgoal of the enabling legislation and the LEAA wasthe reduction of the high incidence of crime.Therefore... the basic goal of CJCC's LEAA-funded"people projects" would be to reduce the incidenceof crime .... Accordingly, a particular program'sservices would be measured criminologically. Theseservices were treated as the methods (the indepen-dent variables) by which the goal of reducing crimewas to be reached. The common [sharedi measure ofachievement of that goal (the dependent variable)was criminal behavior .... 14as measured by the amount and type of arrestrecidivism.In other words, for LEAA funded projects pro-viding some combination of remedial educationand job training, such results as an increased abilityto read or placement in a job become methods bywhich the projects proposed to reduce the criminalbehavior of their clients. But these results could notbe justified logically as ends in themselves or de-pendent variables unless, for example, the projectswere funded by the Department of Labor or theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfarethrough their enabling legislation.Furthermore, confusing independent variables,and dependent variables is the same as confusingtreatment and outcome or cause and effect. Withthe "success" measure of increased employmentrecommended by Roesch and Corrado for theEvaluation, a "deductive chain" that would linkthe hypothetical construct to the dependent vari-"a Roesch & Corrado, supra note 1, at 532.14 Fishman, supra note 2, at 285.19791ROBERT FISHMANable would have to be long, intricate, and of doubt-ful validity.THE EVALUATION DESIGN, CONTROL GROUPS, ANDRECOMMENDATIONSRoesch and Corrado argue that the design of theEvaluation is fundamentally flawed because oflimitations of the control group used. Conse-quently, unsupported conclusions are reached bythe Evaluation and the results are of limited utilityand "generalizability." They state that: "A validcontrol group for all eight projects cannot be se-lected by only one project.','5 Roesch and Corradoare wrong. One project may obtain a valid controlgroup for eight other projects. The validity of acontrol group is ascertained by determiningwhether significant characteristics of its membersare the same as those of the members of the exper-imental groups. By chance alone, the control groupmay be valid despite a questionable method ofclient assignment, or invalid despite a textbookapplication of random assignment; this holds foreight or eighty treatment or experimental groups.Roesch and Corrado suggest that the most im-portant shortcoming of the design was that therewas no control group composed of clients who,instead of diversion, were continued through theusual criminal justice system and were exposed tocourt processing, probation, or incarceration. Thetheoretical desirability of such a control group isevident. On the other hand, success in obtaining avalid control group of this type by use of methodssuch as "random" assignment is very difficult, andall too often impossible, for many field evaluations.Despite this, I do not share Roesch and Corrado'sconclusion that without such a control group,16useful or valid conclusions cannot be drawn fromeither this Evaluation's design and results or, im-plicitly, from those of any other evaluation.Suppose that in this Evaluation it had beenfound that all clients recidivated, or that none did,and there was no control group of any kind. It isclear that the relevant policy makers could andwould have been able to translate such a findinginto an appropriate policy. Their decision wouldhave been based on an implicit comparison withexisting criminal justice system recidivism rates,which would, in effect, constitute the equivalent ofa control group.This is not meant to deny that in the great15 Roesch & Corrado, supra note 1, at 534.'6 Id. at 536.majority of outcomes formal control or comparisongroups are necessary if outcomes are to be unam-biguous. The point is that the decision has to bemade not by the rote application of an inflexiblerule, but by a more sophisticated assessment ofwhat can be accomplished, under the circum-stances, with the data that can be obtained.The central fallacy of Roesch and Corrado'sargument is their forced assumption that the mostnecessary comparison is between the projects andthe present criminal justice system, which Roeschand Corrado consider as the "nontreated" controlgroup. The Evaluation suggested in the article andexplicated in the book that the appropriate com-parison group would have to stem from basic re-visions of the criminal justice system. The keyrevisions recommended were the implementationof adequate, immediate, consistent, and certainincarceration by mandatory minimum sentencingof those convicted of violent crimes againststrangers and the institution of preventive deten-tion for those charged with such a crime.' 7 Theo-retically, the most pertinent and useful compari-sons would be of arrest recidivism and violent crimemeasured between the projects and the recom-mended criminal justice system approaches and,most important, between the approaches presentlyused by the system and the recommended ap-proaches.In principle, it should not be necessary to haveto go through the procedures of establishing the"control group" just to make this point, since interms of the key factor of comparison-recidi-vism-the group is obviously self-defining. Itwould, by virtue of detention or incarceration, beincapable of recidivism.This point also answers another of Roesch andCorrado's main criticisms. Roesch and Corradonote that the high costs imposed on society by therecidivists was one of the primary reasons that theEvaluation recommended discontinuing the pro-grams."8 Roesch and Corrado dispute this point byarguing that the program did not cause any in-creased incidence of crime. They point out that ifthe Evaluation's assertion that relatively few of-fenders are incarcerated in New York City is truethen those offenders ... eligible for diversion wouldprobably be even less likely to be sent to prison ...since the selection criteria usually excludes seriousoffenders. The fact that these individuals were di-verted did not cause the subsequent crimes as it is17 FiSHMIAN, supra note 3, at 72-77, 83-85.s Roesch & Corrado, supra note 1, at 536.[Vol. 70RESPONSE TO ROESCH & CORRADOlikely that they would not otherwise have beenimprisoned. Thus abolishing these programs maynot decrease the number of crimes .... 19But let it be assumed that none would have beenimprisoned by the present criminal justice system,that the recidivism would have been significantlyhigher with the present system's diversion policyand no diversion projects, and that the recidivismrates of the projects would be significantly lowerthan the present system. Even then, the actual 41percent rate of recidivism, which represented 2,072arrests for 1,182 of the 2,860 clients, and especiallythe fact that of those arrests, 605 or 29 percentwere for the violent crimes of murder, rape, rob-bery, and assault,2° would have and did lead theEvaluation to conclude that the services providedby the projects failed as effective means of control-ling and preventing crime, particularly violent'9 td. at 535-36 (footnote omitted).20 Fishman, supra note 2, at 299.crime. As has been stated before, the appropriatecomparison group would be one derived from theproposed revisions to the criminal justice system.Since the proposed revisions would result in a muchhigher rate of incarceration, the actual 41 percentrate of recidivism does provide a reason to concludethat the projects failed.Finally, it should be pointed out that "abolish-ing" or abandoning these programs was not theactual recommendation of the Evaluation. TheEvaluation actually recommended continuing andperhaps expanding the programs in the sense ofeducational and employment services but fromnoncrime control sources, e.g., the Department of La-bor,2 1 and that diversion services be continued forclients with nonserious present or past criminalcharges, but not for those with present or pastcharges of violent crimes against strangers.22-' Id. at 305.22 FISHMAN, supra note 3, at 85, Errata.19791

A Response to Roesch and Corrado

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6147&amp;context=jclc

A Response to Roesch and Corrado

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons