[PPT] - U.S. Sites Operating, Considering, or Planning John School Programs PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

U.S. Sites Operating, Considering, or Planning John School Programs

SLIDE 2

Reducing Demand for Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Evaluation of the First Offender Prostitution Program

2008 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology

November 13, 2008

Michael Shively Sarah Kuck Jalbert Ryan Kling

SLIDE 3

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 3

Model of Prostitution & Sex Trafficking Market

Source: Lederer, 2006

Supply Demand Distribution

Traffickers, pimps Consumers of Commercial Sex (“johns”) Providers of Commercial Sex

(prostitutes, victims of CSE)

SLIDE 4

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 4

Overview of John School Evaluation: First Offender Prostitution Program (FOPP)

Diversion program began operating in March, 1995 in San

Francisco.

Police conduct “reverse stings” & the DA processes eligible

ffenders.

Case is dismissed if eligible men volunteer and:

Pay a fee ($1,000, sliding scale).
Attend one-day, 8 hour class (“John School”).
Avoid rearrest for one year.

Partnership of:

San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (SFDA).
S.F. Police Department (SFPD).
Standing Against Global Exploitation (SAGE).
Dept. of public health.
Community groups.

Prior to evaluation, FOPP assumed to be the first john school.

SLIDE 5

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 5

John School Curriculum Components

Prostitution Law and “Street Facts”
Health Education
Effect on Women and Girls Engaged in Prostitution
Pimping Dynamics
Community Impact
Sexual Addiction
Human Trafficking

SLIDE 6

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 6

Evaluation of the FOPP Research Questions

1. Process: Is the program well designed and implemented as

intended?

2. Outcome: Is the program producing its intended effects?
3. Cost: Are program costs justified by demonstrable benefits?
4. Transferability: Is there potential for program replication
r adaptation elsewhere?

SLIDE 7

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 7

Data Collection

Interviews

(n = 184)

Site visits

(n = 9)

Ride-alongs on SFPD reverse stings

(n = 3)

Structured class observations

(n = 7 classes)

Pre- and post-class survey

(n = 147 useable sets)

Johns School class evaluations

(n = 536)

Secondary data:

California Criminal Justice Statistics Center (CJSC)

All prostitution arrests of men 1930s to 2006

(n = 2.5 million)

SFDA (the FOPP database)

Cost data from SFDA, SFPD, SAGE Literature and Web reviews – related to FOPP and potential replications Gathered program documents and administrative data

SLIDE 8

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 8

Key Process Evaluation Findings

FOPP has been implemented as intended Logic model is solid. Program is stable, sustainable:

Operating with same structure, set of partners, & goals for 13 years.
Strong revenue stream, generally strong support, current MOU through 2008.

Program meets restorative justice goals by funding programs for

prostituted women and girls.

Relieves courts of misdemeanor case burden. Suggestions:

Police could respond to shifts in commercial sex market by conducting more

internet-based stings

John school class could provide more instruction on skill-building, relapse

prevention, replacement behavior, and approximations of aftercare.

SLIDE 9

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 9

Key Outcome Evaluation Findings

FOPP significantly reduces recidivism (approx. 30%)

–

Examined rearrest rates statewide, 1985-2005

–

Approx. 10,000 arrestees in S.F., 75,000 additional cases throughout rest
f California; all similar in offense type, criminal history, criteria for FOPP

eligibility

–

Regression discontinuity, General Effects Estimation

Potential explanations for observed effect:

–

John School teaches how to avoid rearrest.

–

Solicitation is displaced to other sites.

–

Solicitation is displaced indoors (e.g., brothels, web).

–

Program is effective in reducing solicitation.

Results corroborated in San Diego
Other studies find deterrent affect for arresting johns, but arrest

alone does not explain recidivism results for San Francisco.

–

We compared rearrest rates of men exposed to two conditions:

1. Arrest plus john school (FOPP participants)
2. Arrest only

SLIDE 10

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 10

Model of FOPP Impact on Rearrest Rates

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Predicted Proportion Re-arrested

San Francisco California excluding San Francisco Change in Re-arrest Rate, San Francisco = -0.067 Change in Re-arrest Rate, CA excluding San Francisco = -0.014 Change in Re-arrest Rate attributable to FOPP: A - B = -0.054 A B

SLIDE 11

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 11

Key Cost Assessment Findings

Select Totals for 1995-2007

SLIDE 12

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 12

Key Cost Assessment Findings

Number of John School attendees per class needed to cover:

External costs of john school class 1 Direct costs of john school class 4 SFDA case processing & program administrative costs 26 SFPD reverse sting costs 42

All costs *72

* The “external” costs are included in the “direct” costs, and should be excluded when computing the total.

Program is stable and self-sustaining, with fees paid by offenders

covering all dedicated program costs.

Program generates excess revenue used to support CSE survivor

programs.

SLIDE 13

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 13

Key Transferability Assessment Findings

U.S. Sites with Current “John School” Education or Counseling Programs

1. Brooklyn, NY
2. Buffalo, NY
3. Charlotte, NC
4. Chicago, IL
5. Cincinnati, OH
6. Columbus, OH
7. Dayton, OH
8. Denver, CO
9. Dover, DE1
10. Fife, WA
11. Fresno, CA
12. Grand Rapids, MI
13. Hartford, CT
14. Indianapolis, IN
15. Jackson County, KS
16. Lakewood, WA
17. Las Vegas, NV
18. Lenexa, KS
19. Los Angeles, CA
20. Madison, WI
21. Minneapolis, MN
22. Nashville, TN
23. New Hanover County, NC
24. Norfolk County, VA
25. Omaha, NE

2

26. Orange County, NY
27. Phoenix, AZ
28. Pierce County, WA
29. Pittsburgh, PA
30. St. Paul, MN

3

31. Salt Lake City, UT
32. San Diego, CA
33. San Francisco, CA
34. Seattle, WA
35. Tacoma, WA
36. Tampa, FL4
37. Topeka, KS5
38. Tucson, AZ
39. Waco, TX
40. West Palm Beach, FL
41. Worcester, MA
42. Wyandotte County, KS
43. Ypsilanti, MI

SLIDE 14

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 14

U.S. Sites Operating, Considering, or Planning John School Programs

SLIDE 15

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 15

Implications

FOPP is an intervention with little cost or risk, and evidence of potential

reward.

– FOPP is financially self-sufficient & effective, with little or no opportunity cost or risk to public.

By successfully curbing demand, the FOPP may impact:

– Local street prostitution – Underage prostitution (rape of children, statutory rape, sex trafficking) – Sex trafficking – Neighborhood blight, other crimes (“broken windows”)

Adds to mounting evidence that prostitution and sex trafficking can be

successfully fought by focusing on demand.

– Sweden – Ipswich, England – Brewer’s study of deterrent effect of arrest

Nothing aside from arresting and educating johns has been found to

work.

SLIDE 16

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 16

What We Don’t Know

Why the FOPP worked

– Which components of the intervention made the difference?

For whom the FOPP worked

– Which subsets of offenders responded, and why?

Whether the FOPP model is more or less effective than
ther models of john school, e.g.

– Sentence vs. diversion program – Counseling vs. classroom format

SLIDE 17

November 13, 2008 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 17

Contact Information & Acknowledgement

FOPP Evaluation Project Director

Michael Shively, Ph.D. Senior Associate Center on Crime, Drugs, and Justice Abt Associates, Inc. 55 Wheeler St. Cambridge, MA 02138 (617)520-3562 (617)386-7637 fax (781)258-4719 cell michael_shively@abtassoc.com

Support for the study underlying the evaluation results presented here was provided by grant #2005-DD-BX-0037 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the National Institute of Justice.

Findings, interpretations, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not represent those of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NIJ Project Monitor

Karen Bachar Social Science Analyst Office of Research and Evaluation National Institute of Justice 810 Seventh St., N.W. Washington, DC 20531 U.S. Department of Justice (202)514-4403 Karen.Bachar@usdoj.gov