![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This Bruce Smith, Sr. Award Address discusses the various types of public criminologies and highlights both advantages and disadavantages associated with public engagement. Two case studies are utilized as examples of public criminology, one focused on early childhood prevention and a second on immigration and crime. The crux of the argument advanced is that public policy can be smart on crime by being smarter on people. The common theme linking these two areas are the vulnerability of children and immigrants.
Acknowledgement
This paper formed the basis of the author's 2019 Bruce Smith, Sr. Award Lecture to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Baltimore, MD. The author wishes to thank Frank Cullen, Scott Decker, Jack Greene, Nicole Piquero, Zachary Powell, and Charles Wellford for their comments and suggestions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributor
Alex R. Piquero is Ashbel Smith Professor of Criminology and Associate Dean for Graduate Programs in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at The University of Texas at Dallas. His research interests include criminal careers, criminological theory, and quantitative research methods. He is Fellow of both the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. In 2014, he received The University of Texas System Regents' Outstanding Teaching Award and in 2018 he was elected to The University of Texas System Academy of Distinguished Teachers. In 2019, he received the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Bruce Smith, Sr. Award for contributions to criminal justice.
Notes
1 Let me also be very clear that during my graduate studies in Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland at College Park I had the good fortune of seeing two of the field’s most prominent public criminologists, broadly defined, in Larry Sherman and Charles Wellford—both of whom continue to inspire me to this day.
2 Gans (Citation1989) offers the term ‘public intellectual’ as one who applies social scientific ideas and findings to broadly defined social issues and serves as a bridge between academics and the rest of society. There are many examples of these individuals, including Cornel West among others.
3 Of course, academics do not own the ‘public’ space of their disciplinary expertise nor should their voice be the only ones to influence, shape, and/or make public policy. Other social scientists, intellectuals, writers, political and policy makers, as well as members of the general public can—and should—contribute to larger policy debates. I thank Charles Wellford for his insight on this point.
4 I make an analogy to a label on a wine bottle—sometimes people buy a bottle because the label looks good. Of course, I am not suggesting to put bad wine into a bottle that has a nice label, but instead to have good wine in a great label that will attract many more people to the science within the bottle!
5 The Scholars Strategy Network is another resource that links academics to journalists, policymakers, and civic leaders to improve policy and strengthen democracy (https://scholars.org/about).
6 In 2016, the American Sociological Association (Citation2016) released its final report on the evaluation of social media and public communications in sociology chaired by Leslie McCall from Northwestern University. It provides a great many set of suggestions, but one of the most important is on how tenure and promotion committees may consider public scholarship.
7 Badgett’s (Citation2016) book, The Public Professor: How to Use Your Research to Change the World, provides academics with an excellent set of strategies to become more publically engaged across many different forum.
8 While the NRC (2012) observed that scientific evidence does not have a great impact on public policy, it does report some limited but meaningful impact in certain areas. As a member of a National Academy of Sciences panel evaluating the research portfolio of the National Institute of Justice (2010), we were tasked specifically with providing support, if there was any, for areas in which the Institute’s funding may have led to research that was both policy-relevant and affected policy. One of the prominent examples of a ‘success story’ so to speak was hot-spots policing strategies. Other success stories include Petersilia’s work in California’s correctional system and the MacArthur Foundation’s Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice whose members’ research was cited prominently in the three U.S. Supreme Court cases that help to roll back draconian juvenile offender policies. Finally, my own research on the effect of adverse fines on juvenile recidivism (Piquero & Jennings, Citation2016) received prominent attention from The New York Times, various local and state agencies, and policymakers in helping to reconsider the use of fines in some jurisdictions. My work was part of a wonderful partnership with the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, who works directly with policymakers, practitioners, and the public on pressing juvenile justice matters. Alexes Harris’ (Citation2016) work on monetary penalties is groundbreaking in this space.
9 Pesta et al. (Citation2017) also provide examples from the public health field which has seen more success with respect to knowledge translation. The most useful model is the interaction-exchange model which encompasses relationships, partnerships, and bi-lateral communication between researchers and practitioners. Regular interaction between the two parties establishes trust, credibility and reciprocity with ideas and research. The other two models are the user push model where academics push their work to others and the user pull model which has policymakers or practitioners bringing their inquiries to researchers.
10 Of course, crime prevention is not just about persons or places, as it also includes sentencing, correctional, and drug treatment strategies. These are all ‘after-the-fact’ and can be considered to be more intervention than prevention per se. It is likely true that Beccaria’s comments, while probably focused on preventing crimes at the individual-level, would also hold true for crime prevention efforts aimed at places (and situations) such that a comprehensive crime prevention strategy would be one that entails efforts at both places and persons. Effective, evidence-based crime prevention strategies aimed at these two spheres can, therefore, help our policy response be both smart on crime and smarter on people. In his recent book on crime policy, Kelly (Citation2016) makes the case for various reforms within the criminal justice system and how punishment is meted out. A key point he made was for the need of moving beyond concerns of being too soft on criminals and instead to “focus on being smarter about crime and criminals” (p. 221). His focus lies more on criminal justice policies per se rather than the prevention-focused manner within which I think about being smart on crime, smarter on people.
11 A cautionary note about these programs has recently come to light through a recent meta-analysis by Gardner et al. (Citation2018, forthcoming) which focused on age effects of parenting interventions. Their results showed that there was no evidence that intervention earlier in childhood was more effective than later in childhood. Therefore, it may never be too late, a point I return to later in the section on public opinion.
12 To be sure, there are many other evidence-based, early prevention programs that focus on reductions in problem behaviors and delinquency including, for example: dropout prevention programs, school-based social and emotional learning programs, targeted truancy interventions, to name a few. The www.crimesolutions.gov website lists many of these (and other) programs rated as effective. Fagan and Buchanan (Citation2016) also provide a very competent comparison of crime prevention registries.
13 On April 12, 2019, I delivered the Polykarp Kusch Lecture, “Nothing Fake Here: Debunking the Immigration/Crime Relationship” at The University of Texas at Dallas as part of the annual lecture program with the theme “Concerns of the Lively Mind” in honor of Dr. Polykarp Kusch, Nobel Laureate in Physics at UT Dallas.
14 Esther Cepeda. (February 13, 2019). “Cepeda: Latino Travelers Report Feeling Discriminated against by Border Agents.” Chicago Tribune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-cepeda-column-st-0214-story.html (accessed February 15, 2019).
15 Ann Coulter (July 15, 2015; “Every Pro-Immigration Claim is a Lie”; http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-07-15.html; accessed February 15, 2019).
16 I am indebted to Jack Greene for this insight.