Martin Horn is currently a Distinguished Lecturer in the Department of Law & Police Science at John Jay College. He is the former Commissioner of NYC Department of Correction and Department of Probation and Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
What’s your first impression of the idea of shedding more light on failure in criminal justice?
Paying attention to failure is important. I don’t think that’s unique to criminal justice, though. And it’s not a new concept. If you haven’t failed, you haven’t tried. And if you don’t try, you can’t succeed. If you’re willing to look at failure, you can create successes from the ashes of failures.
Can you think of specific examples of successes built from the ashes of failures?
I can think of a couple of information technology (IT) projects that were able to raise from the ashes. RCMS, the web-based Reusable Case Management System, is one such example. It emerged after previous failed efforts to improve how probation cases were tracked. Electronic monitoring is another example that had enormous failures at first but has since become quite effective. Another good example is city probation risk tracking. Initially, the program grouped probationers into lots of risk levels, but it was too confusing. Ultimately, it worked best to have just two groups: high-risk and low-risk. There was a noticeable recidivism drop after that change.
What do those successes have in common?
I think successes come from some combination of timing and leadership. Timing is important for innovations like the IT projects I mentioned because technology advancements made so much more possible than when the ideas were originally conceived. As for leadership, I think building something from the ashes requires the humility to adapt the work of others. You can’t be focused on recognition or ownership.
Do some programs fail simply due to a lack of funding?
Funding is certainly important, but my experience has been that good ideas get funded. I think grants, however, are difficult to work under because of the time constraint of the funding period. It’s much better to get the government buy-in early on to guarantee that a successful program can be written into the budget for years to come.
In addition to the humility you mentioned, what other leadership traits are relevant to this discussion?
Attention to failure is certainly a function of leadership. Some leaders are more receptive to innovation than others and convey that importance to their staff and supporters. That ensures the buy-in and continuity that is needed for sustainable programs. To do so, you have to be approachable. You need to be visible and let your staff touch your robe, so to speak. It’s not all charisma though. It’s like the saying: leadership without accountability is just cheerleading. There’s plenty of cheerleading involved to keep your staff energized, but you have to have substance behind it all and understand that it’s a slow and steady process.
Do you think there’s a stereotype about what criminal justice leaders are like?
Absolutely, but it’s the wrong one. The stereotype is some tough cowboy with a big belly. When I first became commissioner, I thought I was a hotshot. I was soon humbled by the caliber of the leadership around the country. Criminal justice leadership has gotten very sophisticated. On a similar note, I think there’s an incorrect stereotype that corrections staff are not interested in rehabilitation. I’ve seen that they truly do want to be part of something bigger and take the task of ‘corrections’ quite literally.
How can leaders create an environment for innovation?
I think an important first step is to make sure the basics are running smoothly before attempting to innovate. Make sure your prisons are safe before turning to reentry. That may mean you need to rebuild the ABCs of operations first. If you ignore that, though, it will catch up with you. A program that might have worked will come back to bite you.
Do you think part of the problem with addressing failure is the difficulty in defining what success looks like?
Maybe, although I think there are only two acceptable goals to criminal justice: public safety and efficiency. Some people say we should be focusing on creating a more just society, but it’s hard to know how to translate that into practice and evaluation metrics. But defining the success metrics of public safety success is not easy. If you increase policing to promote success, you’ll see a corresponding failure in probation because the probationer who smoked weed on his doorstep is more likely to get arrested. You can’t just focus on recidivism, which in itself is hard to define. You also can’t focus on arrest because arrests are just a function of policing.
Once the system does deem an intervention to be a success, what are the challenges of replication?
Implementing any program requires commitment – both in the concept of the program and the time-commitment to see it through. You can’t force a program concept on unwilling professionals. The program has to match their agenda. The real key to replication is understanding why the original model was successful in the first place. Too often we stop after deciding that the program is successful without asking why. Most programs have a simple nub underlying the innovation, and that’s what you should replicate. For example, I think the nub of drug courts’ success is judge involvement. A drug court without buy-in from the judge will fail. Proper replication must also be place-specific.
How about the challenges to program sustainability?
A program has to have a consistent vision. This can be difficult due to staffing and political turnover. A successor with great leadership skills is still going to have his own priorities. For example, I’m worried that the current focus in New York on juvenile probation may ruin the improvements we made in adult probation.
Despite its importance, why is program evaluation so difficult?
Outside, independent evaluation is very important, but it’s also the hardest stage to get funding for. Unlike the medical field, there’s no science yet to criminal justice work. It’s also highly visible, highly political, and susceptible to influence by anecdotal evidence, like high-profile crime.
Given that high-profile crime is probably inevitable, what can leaders do to plan for it?
Leaders have to assume that tragic events will happen. Anytime I start a new program, I prepare myself to deal with the worst tragedy that could result. We also have to get the political masters on that boat. Policymakers should understand that we’re not in the risk-elimination business; we can only minimize risk. It’s difficult though because of the media’s involvement. The press loves government failure and incompetence. There’s nothing you can do about that.
Do you think the public’s focus on high-profile tragedies hides other failures in criminal justice?
Absolutely. No one documents the mundane. The press would never cover a story about a parolee who is struggling to find a job or a drug court participant who was clean for two years but just relapsed. The recent evaluation of Harlem’s reentry work is a great example. There probably won’t be much media attention for it, even though there should be.