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

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

Reducing Demand for Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Evaluation of the First Offender Prostitution Program 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology Michael Shively Sarah Kuck Jalbert Ryan Kling

Model of Prostitution & Sex Trafficking Market Traffickers, pimps Distribution Providers of Commercial Sex (prostitutes, victims of CSE) Consumers of Commercial Sex ( johns ) Supply Demand Source: Lederer, 2006 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 3

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 offenders. 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. Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 4

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 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 5

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 or adaptation elsewhere? Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 6

Data Collection Interviews (n = 184) Site visits (n = 9) Ride-alongs on SFPD reverse stings (n = 3) Structured class observations Pre- and post-class survey (n = 7 classes) (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 SFDA (the FOPP database) (n = 2.5 million) Cost data from SFDA, SFPD, SAGE Literature and Web reviews related to FOPP and potential replications Gathered program documents and administrative data Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 7

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. Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 8

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 of 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 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 9

Model of FOPP Impact on Rearrest Rates 0.14 0.12 Change in Re-arrest Rate attributable to FOPP: A - B = -0.054 A Predicted Proportion Re-arrested 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 B Change in Re-arrest Rate, CA excluding San Francisco = -0.014 Change in Re-arrest Rate, San Francisco = -0.067 0.02 0.00 San Francisco California excluding San Francisco 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 10

Key Cost Assessment Findings Select Totals for 1995-2007 Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 11

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. Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 12

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, DE 1 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, FL 4 37. Topeka, KS 5 38. Tucson, AZ 39. Waco, TX 40. West Palm Beach, FL 41. Worcester, MA 42. Wyandotte County, KS 43. Ypsilanti, MI Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 13

U.S. Sites Operating, Considering, or Planning John School Programs Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 14

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. Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 15

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 other models of john school, e.g. Sentence vs. diversion program Counseling vs. classroom format Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 16

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 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 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. Evaluation of First Offender Prostitution Program 17