Podcast appearances and mentions of matt clarke

394: Great Ocean Road Marathon & Sydney 10 | Great Manchester Run | Tokyo Grand Prix    This weeks episode is sponsored by Precision Fuel & Hydration,  their free online planner has you covered! It calculates exactly how much carb, sodium, and fluid you need to smash your goals. Listen to the show for an exclusive discount.   Brad keeps his maintenance going. Julian recaps his week and his race at the Great Ocean Road Half Marathon. Brady checks in with the physio ahead of his new training program.   IRP Partner Offer: Saily have teamed up with Inside Running Podcast to offer an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans! It's an eSIM service app that lets you choose from a huge range of affordable data plans in over 190 countries and 8 regions Visit: https://saily.com/insiderunning    This week's running news is presented by Axil Coffee.   Brett Robinson placed 7th in the Great Manchester Run, running in 10km in 28:27 which was won by Selemon Barega in 27:49. Izzi Batt-Doyle placed 5th in 31:30 as Medina Eisa of Ethiopia won in 30:42. Lissy Duncan won the Great Manchester Half in 1:16:27 10k Results via World Athletics   Danielle Rogan won the Great Ocean Road Marathon in 3:08:55 with Caitlin Duncan second and Gemma Dennison in third. Dion Finocchiaro won another title in 2:34:42, followed by Sam Toll and Dylan Newell. The Half Marathon was won by Sebastian Asher in 1:10:12 ahead of Andre Waring and Brett Ellis. Amanda Wilson was the winner in 1:27:24 ahead of Maisie Bird and Frances Arnott. The 14km Paradise Run was won by Andre Waring in 40:23 and Charlotte Wilson 47:46, while Grace Tame went back-to-back winning the 60km Ultra Marathon. Official Results   Sydney 10 won by Holly Campbell 32:18 ahead of Jenny Blundell and Zoe Melhuish. Aidan Veltan won in 29:34 ahead of John Maguire and Michael Roeger. Results   Cara Feian-Ryan runs 9:38:07 in the 3000m steeplechase in the Doha Diamond League. Results   Jude Thomas won the men's 3000m in 7:39:69 at the Tokyo Grand Prix while Rose Davies did the same in the women's 3000m in 8:43.38. Georgia Griffith won the 1500m in 4:01.10, with Sarah Billings third in 4:06.75. Matt Clarke ran 8:23.60 for fifth in the Men's Steeplechase with Ben Buckingham scoring 8:27.44 for seventh. Results via World Athletics   James Hansen and Milly Clark won the 12k City to Casino in Hobart, Tasmania. Results   Grand Slam Track announced schedule changes ahead for Philadelphia, reducing the three day event to two, 5000m races axed. Press Release   Enjoy 20% off your first Axil Coffee order! Use code IRP20 at checkout. Shop now at axilcoffee.com.au   This episode's Listener Q's/Training Talk segment is proudly brought to you by Precision Fuel & Hydration. This week's listener question asks, at what point does an athlete reach a limit to high mileage training. Visit precisionhydration.com for more info on hydration and fuelling products and research, and use the discount code given in the episode.    Moose goes on the Loose on the overzealous massage therapist who potentially derailed his race, while Whispers about the discourse around the ultra run world record across Australia. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

389: Track & Field National Championships | After Dark Tour | Canberra Marathon   This weeks episode is sponsored by Precision Fuel & Hydration,  their free online planner has you covered! It calculates exactly how much carb, sodium, and fluid you need to smash your goals. Listen to the show for an exclusive discount.   Brad escapes Canberra to the coast amid some good progress with his injuries. Julian tests some offerings from Adidas then has an unfortunate mix up with his gels. Brady gets sidetracked in his whipping through his weekly recap. NordVPN has partnered with the Inside Running Podcast to offer you an amazing discount, head over to nordvpn.com/insiderunning to get a Huge Discount off your NordVPN Plan + 4 additional months on top! This week's running news is presented by Axil Coffee. Jess Hull takes out her third consecutive 1500m National Title in 4:11.36 at the Track and Field National Championships in Perth, surviving a fast finishing Sarah Billings and Georgia Griffiths. Cameron Myers won his maiden open National Title in the 1500m in 3:34.39 ahead of Adam Spencer and Oli Hoare https://runnerstribe.com/latest-news/redemption-for-cameron-myers-and-another-title-for-jessica-hull-at-nationals/  Peter Bol won the 800m Title in 1:43.79 to also reclaim the National Record, with Peyton Craig second and Luke Boyes in third. Abbey Caldwell 2:00.51 won the 800m national title to outlast Claudia Holllingsworth, with Tess Kirsop-Cole taking home the bronze medal. https://runnerstribe.com/latest-news/peter-bol-sets-australian-800m-record-on-his-way-to-victory-at-nationals/  Jess Hull backed up to win her second national title of the meet in the 5000m with her 15:02.74 over Georgia Griffith and Rose Davies. Seth O'Donnell shook things up to win the 5000m National Title in 13:49.30 ahead of Cam Myers and Ky Robinson. Cara Feain Ryan won the steeplechase in 9:29.19 ahead of Amy Cashin and Eva Pringle from New Zealand, while Matt Clarke claimed his title in 8:34.75 over Ben Buckingham with Ed Trippas in third. Official Results   Nike After Dark Tour launches with a Half Marathon on Saturday evening in Sydney, featuring Isobel Hume leading out Sinead Diver for the win. Results   Canberra Marathon won by local Myles Gough and former Kiwi Olympian Nina Rillstone. Results   Claudia Hollingsworth was announced as a Short Distance Challenger in the next round ofGrand Slam Track to be held in Miami. Press Announcement   European Running Championships features Jimmy Gressier of France celebrating across the line for his 59:45 victory in the half marathon and Ilias Aouani of Italy winning the marathon by three-second margin over Gashau Ayale of Israel in 2:09:05. Olympics.com Report   Geoffrey Kamwaror makes his comeback in the marathon by winning the Rotterdam Marathon in 2:04:33. Official Results   Sweat Elite founder Matt Fox arrested in Japan for drug smuggling charges. Canadian Running News Article   Enjoy 20% off your first Axil Coffee order! Use code IRP20 at checkout. Shop now at axilcoffee.com.au   Moose on the Loose then examines the fickle relationship between brands and influencers.   This episode's Listener Q's/Training Talk segment is proudly brought to you by Precision Fuel & Hydration.  This week's question asks whether it's possible to combine speed and hills into a single workout. Visit precisionhydration.com for more info on hydration and fuelling products and research, and use the discount code given in the episode.  Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

Sarah Black goes one on one with Matt Clarke. The Adelaide coach reveals just why he’s stepping away at the end of 2025. Subscribe to Credit to the Girls wherever you get your podcasts to never miss a momentSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jade Robran at Grange Golf Course, Opal Miner George at Cooper Pedy, Sean Fewster with Around the Courts, Matt Clarke & Adam on Prohibition Gin, AWU SA Acting Secretary Gary Henderson on Wyhalla situation, Treasurer Stephen Mullighan on Whyalla situation See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

THE REPOSS NON LEAGUE SHOW With Maidstone United and Redditch United Oliver Ash George Elokobi and Matt Clarke 

Matt Clarke arrives. but unfortunately that's led to the departure of Eiran Cashin! We discuss all the transfer news, chat about Cashin's time at Derby, play a bit of Academy Tenable, and get insight into Sheffield United (H) from The Sheff United Way! Featuring Jake Barker, Jack Doughty and Nick Drewett.--Donate to "RamsTalk Runs 3824km" for Derby Food 4 Thought Alliance: https://justgiving.com/campaign/ramstalkrunsfordf4ta--If you did enjoy the episode, please consider liking and subscribing, or rating us on Spotify and Apple Pods. It really helps us out. Up the Rams!--Get up to 35% off Derby County current and retro shirts with Fanatics (Kitbag) using our custom link: https://kitbag.evyy.net/RamsTalk--Find Our Other Content Here:Website: https://linktr.ee/ramstalkpodSpotify/Apple Pods: https://podfollow.com/ramstalkpodTwitter: https://twitter.com/RamsTalkPodTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@ramstalkpodYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ramstalkpod--Business Inquiries:RamsTalkPodcast@Gmail.com--Tags: #DCFC #DerbyCounty #EFLChampionship #EFL #BHAFC--Team/Crew:Jake Barker - Director/Producer/HostJamie Page - Assistant Host/CreativeCallum Boocock - Guest Host/CreativeAdam Titley - Guest Host/Producer/CreativeJacob Hackett - Guest Host/CreativeVik Singh Dosanjh - Guest Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Derby's 2019/2020 Player of the Season returns to the Rams on a deal until the end of the season! But how has he developed in his 5 years away? We're joined by Jonny from The Boro Breakdown Podcast to fill us in on everything! #DCFC--Tags: #DCFC #DerbyCounty #EFLChampionship #EFL #MiddlesboroughFC #Boro--Team/Crew:Jake Barker - Director/Producer/HostJamie Page - Assistant Host/CreativeCallum Boocock - Guest Host/CreativeAdam Titley - Guest Host/Producer/CreativeJacob Hackett - Guest Host/CreativeVik Singh Dosanjh - Guest Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ed Dawes is joined by Martyn Waghorn and Mark Drury to discuss Matt Clarke's return to Derby County.

Daniel Weiner and Matt Clarke share how KAYAK empowers travelers, explain how destinations utilize their services, and happily debunk common travel planning myths. Daniel Weiner is KAYAK's Senior Director of Ad Sales and Data Partnerships, and Matt Clarke is Vice President of North America Marketing.

More long-haul widebody planes will be able to operate at Wellington Airport following upgraded safety zones on its runway. It could mean Wellington could see direct flights to the United States and Asia for the first time ever. The energy-absorbing blocks at each end of the runway are part of a $500 million upgrade plan announced by the airport today, which includes terminal upgrades and community areas on airport-owned land near Lyall Bay. Wellington Airport chief executive Matt Clarke joined Nick Mills to discuss the plans. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“If the Ghostbusters and the Scooby-Doo gang got stoned together in Stanley Park and Frankensteined a high-larious single-camera sitcom, it would probably look something like Paranormal Solutions Inc.” That's how our valiant host Sabrina Rani Furminger opened an article she wrote in 2016 for the Westender newspaper about the first season of Paranormal Solutions Inc., a fabulous series from the funniest people in Vancouver. Eight years later – and nearly 10 years after visiting their set in Gastown where they filmed much of season one – the Paranormal Solutions Inc. gang is back, with season two. This time around, the PSI gang is even funnier, more of a collective hot mess, and getting themselves into even zanier and grosser paranormal situations than in season one, even serving up a delightful smorgasbord of homages to some of our favourite horror properties, from The Blair Witch Project to Halloween to The Shining to Cujo – and, for some reason, there's also a lot of kale. Paranormal Solutions Inc. stars David Milchard, Julia Benson, Nicholas Carella, Daniel Bacon, Diana Bang, Christina Sicoli, and Matt Clarke, with cameos from local favourites like Sara Canning and Jordan Connor. It's produced by Tilt 9 Entertainment and executive produced by another long list of our favourites: Milchard, Carella, Clarke, Michelle Ouellet, and Dylan Collingwood. In this rambunctious episode, Sabrina is joined by Nicholas Carella and Matthew Clarke to talk about the how's and why's and WTF's (including the joys and challenges of acting opposite a taxidermied rodent) of this side-splitting horror comedy series. Episode sponsor: UBCP/ACTRA

Processing so many things in week 1 of the NFL season, including the surprising victory by the New England Patriots as well as the broadcast debuts of Tom Brady and Bill Belichick with Matt Clarke. #indiesportsradio

West Coast list manager Matt Clarke is this week's Gettable guest. Clarke goes into the club's huge off-season plans and offers updates on the Eagles' interest in Tigers trio Liam Baker, Jack Graham and Shai Bolton, as well as the chase for Giants midfielder James Peatling. He also offers an update on what West Coast could ask for from Hawthorn for contracted defender Tom Barrass, whether Jack Darling will head to North Melbourne, and gives the latest on talks around Harley Reid's contract. Gettable co-hosts Cal Twomey and Riley Beveridge also provide plenty of news on the Trade Period's biggest names, including huge updates on Dan Houston and Jack Lukosius, as well as a couple of big re-signings.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode I'm joined by vocalist Dane Evans and bassist Matt Clarke of the band To The Grave.We talk all about their new album 'Everyone's A Murderer', breaking out of Australia, their graphic album artwork, leaning further into their ethos of veganism and animal rights, their pig mask and apron get up, having animal rights activist Sophie Wilcher on the record and its significance, and loads more.A new episode will be released every Thursday.-----HOW TO SUPPORT THE PODCAST:

354: Paris Olympics Week 2 | Sunshine Coast | City 2 Surf This episode is sponsored by Precision Fuel & Hydration, check out their free online planner that you can use to work out how much carb, sodium and fluid you need to perform at your best.  Click here then use the code at checkout as mentioned on the show for a discount. Brad hits the historical trail, then balances training with Lily's hockey. Julian's looking for fitness at the start of another marathon training block. Brady reckons he's got his racing shoes On for Chicago. Keeley Hodgkinson dominated the 800m to win the Gold Medal in 1:56.72, ahead of Tsige Duguma of Ethiopia and Mary Moora of Kenya. Emmanuel Wanyonyi of Kenya in 1:41.19, edging out Marco Arop of Canada for the Gold Medal by a hundredth of a second, with Djamel Sedjati of Algeria in third. Peyton Craig reached the semi-final, running the 3rd fastest Australian all-time of 1:44.11, while Peter Bol and Joseph Deng did their best to contest the heats and repechages. Cole Hocker of the USA slips through the inside to win the Gold Medal in 1500m Men's Final in an Olympic Record time of 3:27, with Josh Kerr taking the silver and Yared Nuguse of the USA taking the bronze. Defending champion and fancied favourite Jakob Ingebrigsten of Norway fell to fourth. https://runnerstribe.com/latest-news/cole-hockers-stunning-upset-in-the-1500m-at-paris-2024-olympics/    Jessica Hull handled expectation to take the silver medal in the 1500m final, with now three-time Olympic gold medalist Faith Kipyegon winning in an Olympic Record time of 3:51.29. Georgia Bell from the United Kingdom took home the bronze. Other Australians throughout the campaign featured Georgia Griffith who made it to the semi-finals, while Linden Hall competed strongly in the heat and repechage despite a torn calf sustained in the week leading to the event.   Jakob Ingebrigsten found redemption in winning the 5000m gold medal in 13:13.66, ahead of Ronald Kwemoi of Kenya, while Grant Fisher won another bronze medal to add to his earlier one from the 10000m. Stewy McSweyn was instated into the final as the result of a collision and pile-up in his heat and finished 18th, while Morgan McDonald finished 9th in his respective heat.   Rose Davies ran the fastest time by an Australian in the 5000m Olympics final with a time of 14:49.67, with Beatrice Chebet of Kenya winning the gold medal in 14:28.56 ahead of Faith Kipyegon who was controversially, temporarily disqualified from some interference with Guduf Tsegaye of Ethiopia before she was reinstated with the silver medal. Sifan Hassan of the Netherlands won the bronze medal.   Beatrice Chebet made it the double by also winning the 10,000m in 30:43.25, with Nadia Battocletti of Italy winning the silver medal and Sifan Hassan winning another bronze. Lauren Ryan placed 13th in 31:13.25, after backing up from the 5000m heat.   Soufaine El Bakkali of Morocco is the first man to win in 88 years back to back Olympic Golds while Kenneth Rooks from the USA was a surprise silver, with Abraham Kibiwot of Kenya taking bronze. The Australians in the heats included Ben Buckingham running 8:32.12 and Matt Clarke in 8:49.85. Winfred Yavi of Bahrain won the Women's Steeplechase, ahead of defending champion Peruth Chemutai of Uganda and Faith Cherotich of Kenya. Cara Feain-Ryan posted a personal best of 9:28.72 in her 3000m Steeplechase heat while Amy Cashin ran 9:32.93 in her respective heat.   Tamirat Tola of Ethiopia, after being called in as a reserve athlete, rose to win the Gold Medal in the Men's Marathon in an Olympic Record Time of 2:06:26. Bashir Abdi of Belgium upgraded his bronze in Tokyo to take the Silver Medal with Benson Kipruto of Kenya taking the Bronze Medal. Defending champion Eliud Kipchoge, was unable to finish the race. Pat Tiernan was the first Australian to cross the finish, placing 24th in 2:10:34 as the fastest performance in an Olympic Marathon, with Andy Buchanan 45th in 2:12:58 and Liam Adams 49th 2:13:33 Sifan Hassan made history winning the Women's Marathon in a kick-finish against Tigist Assefa of Ethiopia, in 2:22:55 which was another Olympic Record, with Hellen Obiri of Kenya taking the bronze medal. Jess Stenson was the top Aussie placing 13th in 2:23, while Gen Gregson was 24th, with both girls even leading the race at halfway. Sinead Diver unfortunately withdrew from the race. Olympics Athletics Results Domestic Results Leanne Pompeani takes the City 2 Surf in 45:38 ahead of Paige Campbell and Bronte Oates, Isaac Heyne 40:51 Ed Goddard and Tom Do Canto Results Lisa Weightman took out the Australian Half Marathon Championship in 1:10:23 at Sunshine Coast, ahead of Nat Rule and Tiana Cetta. Liam Boudin was the winner of the half marathon in 1:03:40 ahead of Seth O'Donnell and Jack Bruce. Milly Clark won the Sunshine Coast Marathon in a course record time of 2:37:07, with Robert Collins first male in 2:27:51 Results The show concludes with Moose on the Loose over clueless commentators well out of their field of expertise, then a listener from Spain calls to show and tell his gift from Eliud Kipchoge. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

347: The Race for Olympic Qualifiers | NSW XC Championships | Mizuno Wave Neo Vista Review   This episode of Inside Running Podcast is proudly brought to you by Aid Station, Australia's and New Zealand's leading online store for all things endurance sports nutrition and accessories, head over to www.aidstation.com.au   Julian pulls up sore from last week's trail half marathon win. Brad has an injury scare as the Gold Coast Marathon draws closer. Brady puts in a big week ahead of his pacing job at Gold Coast Marathon.   Izzy Batt-Doyle runs the fourth fastest of all time and an Olympic qualifier of 14:49.75 in the 5000m at d'Athletisme Province Liege in Belgium. Nat Rule was also in the 5000m running 15:13.42, while Ed Trippas posted a 8:38.85 in the 3000m steeplechase and Jesse Hunt ran 3:37.88 in the 1500m. Results   Peyton Craig runs 3rd all-time fastest 800m of 1:44.12 at the On Track Nights in Vienna, Austria with Joseph Deng 1:46.41, while Jenny Blundell 14:59.84 5000m for the 7th fastest of all time, with Holly Campbell running 15:09.92, Maudie Skyring in 15:16.56, Leanne Pompeani in 15:22.95, Paige Campbell in 15:42.23 and Olga Firsova 16:15.29. Bendere Oboya ran a lifetime best 1:58.56 in the 800m, with Claudia Hollingsworth running 2:00.02 and Jaylah Hancock-Cameron in 2:02.03. In the Men's 5000m, Ky Robinson ran 13:22.81 and Jackson Sharp 13:25.87. On Track Nights Vienna Results   Ben Buckingham posted an 8:21.34 in the 3000m steeplechase at the Paavo Nurmi Games in Finland. Catriona Bisset ran 2:00.61 and Claudia Hollingsworth a 2:01.36 in the 800m while Adam Spencer set a 3:43.55 in the 1500m. Results via World Athletics   Bendere Oboya runs 600m National Record of 1:24.53 in Bilbao Spain while Matt Clarke ran personal best of 8:20.06 in the 3000m Steeplechase. Results via World Athletics   Linden Hall ran 3:58.96 in the 1500m in Bydgoszcz, Poland coming second, ahead of Sarah Billings in 4:00.45 and Abbey Caldwell in 4:05.45. Cameron Myers ran 3:38.55 in his 1500m. Results via World Athletics   NSW XC Championships held at Willandra won by Ed Goddard in 31:47 over 10km, ahead Luke Hince and Ben St Lawrence. Kate Spencer topped the podium in the women's 10k race in 36:41, followed by Danette Sheehan and Laura Simon Results   Grant Fisher takes 10000m in the first week of the US Olympic Trials, with his soon to be teammates Woody Kincaid and Nico Young USATF Results   Mizuno have released their highly anticipated Wave Neo Vista and the boys finally get to talk about how they've been using it, what its specs are as well as what it compares to the super trainer category.   Listener Question asks what to do when you get sick right around raceday, then Moose goes Loose on the financial barrier to entry for the casual athletics fan. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

In this episode of Roofing Road Trips®, Heidi J. Ellsworth sits down with Matt Clarke to learn more about Progressive Materials and their amazing company culture. Matt shares how customer service and really caring about customer success is a core value for the company. Heidi and Matt then dive into the extensive resources the company offers to contractors, including comprehensive training programs and technical support. Tune in to learn more about how Progressive Materials is a leading force in the dynamic world of roof coatings offering a forward-thinking approach with a dedication to helping contractors succeed. Learn more at RoofersCoffeeShop.com!    Are you a contractor looking for resources? Become an R-Club Member today!  https://www.rooferscoffeeshop.com/rcs-club-sign-up    Follow Us!   https://www.instagram.com/rooferscoffeeshop/?hl=en  https://www.facebook.com/rooferscoffeeshop/  https://www.linkedin.com/company/rooferscoffeeshop-com  https://www.tiktok.com/@rooferscoffeeshop  https://www.pinterest.com/rcscom/  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAQTC5U3FL9M-_wcRiEEyvw  https://twitter.com/RoofCoffeeShop    #RoofersCoffeeShop #RoofingProfessionals #RoofingContractors #RoofingIndustry 

345: Haftu Strintzos | Oceania Athletics Championships | Aussies on the track This episode of Inside Running Podcast is proudly brought to you by Aid Station, Australia's and New Zealand's leading online store for all things endurance sports nutrition and accessories. Whether you're a seasoned pro or training for your first event, Aid Station has you covered for running, triathlons, and anything else that gets you moving. Your road to the finish line starts here – head to aidstation.com.au.   Julian rubs shoulders at the Nike Pacific Running Summit and wonders if he missed the chance to be a trail runner. Brad eases back after his half marathon win last week. Brady needs another gear as a parent helper at his son's Kindergarten.   Haftu Strintzos pops onto the show for a brief chat about taking out the 10000m Oceania Athletic Championships in Fiji, as well as his time racing and studying in the NCAA with Villanova University and his long-term relationship with coach Craig Mottram.   Haftu Strintzos won the Oceania Athletic Champs 10000m final in 29:17.97 with Andre Waring second and Joshua Phillips third. Dave McNeill won the 5000m in 14:02.23, with Haftu second in 14:08.03. Jenny Blundell won the 5000m in 15:26.29, with Holly Campbell second in 15:31.88 and Maudie Skyring third in 15:49.39. Amy Cashin won the 3000m Steeplechase in 9:41.54, Cara Feain-Ryan and Stella Radford making it a clean sweep on the podium. It was a similar story on the men's side, with Matt Clarke taking the 3000m Steeplechase title in 8:31.00, with Ben Buckingham and Ed Trippas taking the respective medals. Carley Thomas won silver in the women's 800m, while Peyton Craig edged out Luke Boyes in the Men's 800m with Jack Lunn taking the bronze. Oceania Athletics Championships Results   Ky Robinson placed third in the NCAA Outdoor Championships 5000m final, running 13:27.79 behind winner Nico Young and Parker Wolfe. Adam Spencer scored silver in the Men's Mile 4:01.92 behind winner Luke Houser, while Hayley Kitching ran 2:02.16 in the 800m Final. NCAA Track and Field Championships Results   European Championships featured Jakob Ingebrigsten cruising to victory in the 5000m. Yemen Crippa for Italy won the Half Marathon, while Karoline Grøvdal of Norway won gold in the half marathon as well as silver in the 5000m. Official Results   Sifan Hassan won the 5000m Portland Track Festival in 14:43.85 then doubled in the 1500m, while Lauren Ryan ran 14:59.99 and Nat Rule a 15:03.48. Sam McEntee ran the 5000m in 13:29.21. Results via World Athletics   Jake Wightman held off the field to win the 1500m at the NYC Grand Prix in 3:34.01 with Jesse Hunt coming in 3:36.17. Peter Bol ran 1:48.41 in the 800m. Results   Rhonex Kipruto of Kenya has been banned for six years for doping violations, found within anomalies of biological passport. The findings strip him of his results dating as far back as 2018, which include his 10k Road World Record set in Valencia 2020. Athletics Illustrated Article World Athletics Findings Report   Liam Adams has been officially announced as part of the Men's Olympic Marathon, after World Athletics reinstated his quota spot originally achieved during the qualification period. Athletics Australia Press Release https://runnerstribe.com/latest-news/liam-adams-secures-spot-in-paris-2024-olympic-marathon/   Listener Question asks what are the ideal watchfaces for training and racing, then Brady makes the wholesome observation on members of the On Athletic Club Oceania then Moose On The Loose bursts the Albert Park training bubble. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

337: 2024 National Track Field Championships | Adam Bishop This episode is sponsored by Precision Fuel & Hydration, check out their free online planner that you can use to work out how much carb, sodium and fluid you need to perform at your best.  Click here then use the code at checkout as mentioned on the show for a discount.   Ellie clarifies she's now tapering for the Hamburg Marathon and shares how she's shaping up in the final weeks. Brad gets out the door once as he spends the week sick. Brady hits the double ton as he reflects on his approach to the Ballarat Marathon.   Adam Bishop, the General Manager of Growth and Development for Athletics Australia, joins the show to talk about their new junior initiative, Next Athletics. Adam goes into detail the research that went into developing the program, what it aims to do in driving physical literacy and participation for children aged 3-12 years old, the format and how it will engage their motivation, how parents get involved and the plans for future expansion. Next Athletics   National Track & Field Championships held at Adelaide. Among the races, Adam Spencer took out a stacked 1500m field, kicking in the last 200m to win in 3:37.68 ahead of Oli Hoare and Jesse Hunt. Stewy McSweyn, having led for most of it, placed fourth. Jess Hull had a much more decisive victory, clearing the field with a lap to go for the Championship title in 4:01.39 with Georgia Griffith and Linden Hall on the podium. Claudia Hollingsworth had 19th birthday celebrations to remember, winning the 800m in an Olympic Qualifier of 1:58.40, ahead of Abbey Caldwell, Bendere Oboya and Catriona Bisset. Luke Boyes held off a fast-finishing Peter Bol to win the 800m title in 1:44.73, narrowly missing the Olympic Qualifier time, with Payton Craig taking third place. Rose Davies broke away to win the 5000m title in 15:21.62 ahead of Lauren Ryan and Maudie Skyring, while Matt Ramsden slipped in the inside to win the 5000m title in 13:39.61, ahead of Morgan McDonald and Jackson Sharp. Amy Cashin won the Steeplechase title in 9:39.53 ahead of Stella Radford and Cara Feain-Ryan, while Matt Clarke took out the title in front of the home crowd, winning 8:41.49 ahead of Ben Buckingham and Liam Cashin. National Track & Field Championship Results https://runnerstribe.com/len-johnson-articles/after-all-that-churn-cream-rises-to-the-top-a-column-by-len-johnson/    First round of Olympic selections: Claudia Hollingsworth - 800m Abbey Caldwell - 800m Peter Bol - 800m Jess Hull - 1500m Lauren Ryan - 10000m Athletics Australia Press Release   Rotterdam Abdi Nageye 2:04:45 in a new Dutch National Record at the Rotterdam Marathon, outkicking Amedework Walelegn of Ethiopia. Ashete Bekere was the women's winner, crossing the line in 2:19:30. World Athletics Report   Listener Question enquires about structuring a week of marathon training as the Gold Coast training block begins, then Crokes is on the Loose as the process around Olympic selection causes headaches.   Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

Vale Kelvin Kiptum | Adelaide Invitational | Australian Indoor Records This week's episode of Inside Running Podcast is proudly sponsored by On. The legend, leveled up. With more support, more comfort and more cushioning – for more fun on every run meet the new Cloudrunner 2. From toe to heel, each element of the Cloudrunner 2 is designed to support your foot during movement. A plush tongue means total comfort and easy step-in, while a durable heel clip helps to lock in extra stability and support. Visit On.com or your specialty running store to grab your pair today.   Ellie Pashley recaps the workout at Albert Park and how she's shaping up for Osaka Marathon. Brad spends time bonding with Lilli on the bike. Brady also dips into the speed workouts below marathon pace. Kelvin Kiptum, the marathon world record holder of Kenya aged 24 has died in a road accident alongside his coach, Gervais Hakizimana of Rwanda who was the national record holder in the steeplechase. Kiptum burst onto the athletics scene with his record debut in the 2022 Valencia Marathon in 2:01:35, then went to set the course record at the 2023 London Marathon in 2:01:25 before becoming the first man to run under two hours and one minute with his performance of 2:00:35 at the 2023 Chicago Marathon, which was just ratified as the world record just last week. He was set for an attempt to run under two hours at this year's Rotterdam Marathon. https://runnerstribe.com/news/marathon-world-record-holder-kelvin-kiptum-and-coach-gervais-hakizimana-died-tragically/    Luke Burrows won a tightly contested Victorian Mile Championship in 4:07.09 against Daniel Williams and Riley Bryce at Vic Milers Club, while Melissa Duncan was dominant in her 4:43.39 victory ahead of Lucy Cleveland and Eleanor Benson. Aths Vic Results Hub   Jenny Blundell took out the NSW 5000m State Championships in 15:40.48 over Paige Campbell and Gabrielle Schmidt, as did Ethan Wyatt-Smith in 14:19.32 over Stefan Music and Connor Latouf. Official Results   Racing at the Adelaide Invitational opened with Cara Feian-Ryan winning the Steeplechase in a meet record of 9:42.71 ahead of Stella Radford and Brielle Erbacher. Ed Trippas took out the Steeplechase in 8:32.24 ahead of Gudefaye Adugnaw of Ethiopia and Liam Cashin, with Matt Clarke withdrawing midrace. Abby Caldwell took out the 800m in 2:00.83 ahead of Bendere Oboya. Peyton Craig edged James Preston of New Zealand in a duel to beat his own U20 National Record in 1:45.41, with Jack Lunn in third place. Cam Myers ran 3:34.55 in the 1500m for a meet record, Jesse Hunt and Jye Edwards. Claudia Hollingsworth ran an U20 national record and meet record in 4:04.45 ahead of OAC teammate Maudie Skyring and Aynadis Mebratu of Ethiopia. Adelaide Invitational Results   Josh Kerr breaks the indoor two mile World Record running 8:00.67 at the Millrose Games, New York ahead of Grant Fisher who ran the American National Record in 8:03.62, while Morgan McDonald was 5th in 8:12.01. Jess Hull ran a new Indoor National Record of 4:19.03 in the Wanamaker Mile behind winner Elle St. Pierre, herself running an American National Record of 4:16.41. Yared Nuguse also set the American national record in the Wanamaker Mile running 3:47.83, while Adam Spencer was 6th with 3:52.70. Millrose Games Results via World Athletics   Mo Katir of Spain provisionally suspended after whereabouts failures. He will appeal the decision. Lets Run Article   Jack Anstey 2:16.95 1000m National Record at the BU David Hemery Valentine Invitational, while Lauren Ryan wins indoor 3000m at in a personal best time of 8:42.31 Results   Ky Robinson ran the #2 All time NCAA 3000m 7:36.69 in the Husky Classic in Washington, second-fastest Australian indoor 3000m. Results   Joyceline Jepkosgei and Kibiwott Kandie of Kenya win Barcelona Half Marathon. Kristian Ulriksen ran 1:11:21. World Athletics Report Brady gets on the Loose during Aussies performances splitting hairs between indoor and outdoor track records. Listener discussion revolves around the news that parkrun Global is to abandon publishing age category and course records, and the impact it ultimately has on runners. parkrun Official Statement       Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

During one of our first ever panel discussions at FyneFest, held way back in 2019, we spoke about the importance of independence in brewing. Not only were the results of the conversation inconclusive, two of the breweries represented in that discussion—Hawkshead and Harbour— have since sold out to larger corporations…With several years having passed since this talk took place, and the brewing landscape also having changed dramatically during this time, we felt it was time to return to it once again and ask: is independence more important than ever? Join Matthew Curtis for a debate featuring an expert panel to work out if there is still genuine value for both breweries and their customers in remaining independent, or if it's time to sell out and cash in, while there's still time.Featuring Darron Anley (Siren Craft Brew), Vik Stronge (Magic Rock), Matt Clarke and Michelle Gay (Lakes Brew Co.)We're able to produce The Pellicle Podcast directly thanks to our Patreon subscribers, and our sponsors Loughran Brewers Select. If you're enjoying this podcast, or the weekly articles we publish, please consider taking out a monthly subscription for less than the price of a pint a month. Get  your tickets to FyneFest 2024 here.

From 2006: Ian Woolf reports on fuel from waste, Lachlan Whatmore on the Portuguese Man-of-War, Matt Clarke on Roomba Sumo, Lachlan Whatmore explains how steroids work, and how they mess you up, Ian Woolf reports on magnetic implants, Lachlan Whatmore reports on a gel that protects against AIDS. Hosted by Matt Clarke, Produced by Ian Woolf Support Diffusion by making a contribution Support Diffusion by buying Merchandise

As the public and policy makers at various levels of government are pressured to double down on punitive status quo approaches, we hope everyone listens to this re-air of Crystal's robust conversation with criminologist Damon Petrich about the ineffectiveness of incarceration.  As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review's finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and reach Damon for more information about his research at dpetrich@luc.edu   Dr. Damon Petrich Dr. Damon M. Petrich is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Loyola University Chicago. He received his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati, and his Bachelor of Arts (Honors) and Master of Arts degrees in Criminology from Simon Fraser University. His research focuses on two interrelated areas. The first is the development of antisocial behavior across the life-course, specifically focusing on desistance from crime and the mechanisms by which exposure to community violence impacts self-regulation and behavior. Dr. Petrich's second area of research surrounds the effectiveness of sanctions and programs in the criminal justice system. Throughout these projects, Dr. Petrich uses a wide range of methodological approaches, including qualitative techniques, meta-analysis, machine learning, and marginal structural modeling.   Resources  “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice   Scott Hechinger Twitter thread   “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative   “Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada   “Let's Take a Hard Look at Who Is in Jail and Why We Put Them There” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog   Book - “Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect” by Robert J. Sampson   Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism: Why They Matter and How to Measure in Your Community”   “Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably the main one is the rehabilitation is not the greatest. So just as an example, substance abuse is a very strong predictor whether people are going to reoffend, unsurprisingly. About 50% of prisoners at the state and federal level in The States meet the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] criteria for having a substance use abuse disorder - so they meet the clinical criteria for substance abuse disorder. So half of them, and then more than that just use substances, but they don't meet the criteria for a disorder. But of that 50% who has a substance abuse disorder, only about 20% of those actually receives treatment for it while they're incarcerated. So, you're not dealing with a root cause of reoffending while they're in prison - so you're not deterring them, but you're also not rehabilitating them - so you're really not doing anything. And then in the rare cases where these people are provided with rehabilitation or reentry programming, it's often not based on any sort of evidence-based model of how you actually change people. So there's a lot of psychological and criminology theory and research on how you actually elicit behavioral change, and these programs really aren't in line with any of that. And I could give examples if you wanted, but - [00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. I think that's helpful, 'cause I think a lot of people do assume, and sometimes it's been controversial - wow, look at how much they're coddling these prisoners - they have these educational programs, and they get all this drug treatment for free, and if they don't come out fixed then it's their own fault because they have access to all of these treatment resources in prison. Is that the case? [00:21:43] Damon Petrich: No, I wouldn't say so - first of all, they don't have access, a lot of them, to any programs. And then, like I said, the programs that they do get really aren't that effective. So the big one that everybody loves to argue for is providing former inmates with jobs. If you look at any federal funding for program development, like the Second Chance Act or the First Step Act - I think that was one under Trump - and then under Bush, there was a Serious [and] Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative - pretty much all of these federal bills will be heavily focused on just providing offenders with jobs. And almost all of the evaluations of these programs show that they don't reduce reoffending. And it's not really that hard - again, if you go back to the literature on behavioral change and, criminology literature - it's not really that hard to understand why just providing a job isn't going to reduce or lead somebody away from a life of crime. A lot of these people have spotty work histories where they've never had a job at all, they believe and know that it's easier to gain money by doing illicit work than it is legal work, they have things like low self-control so they're very impulsive, they don't know how to take criticism or being told what to do by a boss. They live in neighborhoods with very poor opportunities for good jobs and education, and maybe there's a mindset around there that illegal work or whatever is just a better way to go - that's sort of ingrained. So there's a lot of different reasons why just handing somebody a job isn't going to lead them away from crime, 'cause they have all these other things that need to be dealt with first. So ideally, a rehabilitation program that's comprehensive would deal with all of those other background factors and then provide them with a job. Because if you make them less impulsive, better able to resist the influence of their antisocial friends, and get this thought out of their head that other people are being hostile towards them when they're really not - all these sorts of cognitive and behavioral biases that they have - if you deal with all of those things and then you give them a job, they're more likely to actually latch onto that job as something worthwhile doing. And then they're going to go on to get out of a life of crime. But if you just give them a job and you haven't dealt with any of those issues, you can't really expect that to work. And that is the model that we currently do - is something that we don't really expect to work that well. [00:24:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's - it's really interesting and I don't know that a lot of people actually know that, Hey, giving someone a job isn't sufficient - which is why I think it's so important to talk about studies like this, because some of what has become conventional wisdom, really is not accurate or reflects what has been studied and discovered. And I guess in that vein, what are the factors - you just talked about a few - but what does increase someone's likelihood of reoffending or recidivism, and what reduces it? [00:25:08] Damon Petrich: So those are probably two ends of the same, or two sides of the same coin, but this is pretty well known in criminology - a model called the risk-need-responsivity [RNR] model was developed by a couple of fellow Canadians, named James Bonta and Don Andrews, along with some of their colleagues in the '80s and '90s. And they, through again, other meta-analyses just like we did, found certain categories of characteristics of people who are more likely to reoffend. So you have things like having antisocial peers - so that one's pretty obvious - if you have a bunch of friends that are involved in crime, it's going to be pretty hard for you to get out of that life because you're surrounded by those people. Same with family members. If you have what are called criminal thinking patterns - so again, you might have what's called a hostile attribution bias, things like that, where somebody says something a little bit negative to you and you take that as a huge insult and you retaliate with anger and aggression - things like that. Or being impulsive - so you're again quick to anger, you're swayed by small little enticements in the environment and that sort of thing - so you're easily swayed one way or the other. Things like that are strong predictors of reoffending. Substance abuse - it's what I mentioned earlier. If you don't really have any sort of proactive leisure activities, like hobbies and stuff like that. So there's a bunch of well-known things that we know are strongly associated with recidivism, and a rehabilitation program should ideally deal with them. Now this model that Andrews and Bonta and all these other people came up with - this RNR risk-need-responsivity model - the risk part says that we should give people a risk assessment when they're entering prison or leaving prison and determine what level of risk are they from reoffending. And we assess these different criteria, like criminal thinking patterns and antisocial friends and substance abuse. So we determine what those factors are and then we design them a treatment program that actually deals with those factors at the individual level. So we're not just giving a blanket rehabilitation program to everybody, and you're providing the most amount of care to the people who most need it or who are the most likely to re-offend. And then once we've done all that, we need to make sure that we're addressing these problems in some sort of a format that we know actually works. The most well-known one, but not as often used, the most well-known within the sort of psychologist and criminological literature is cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]. So this is pretty popular for dealing with depression and all sorts of eating disorders and substance abuse problems in non-offender populations. Well, those programs also work in offender populations and they work pretty well. So the research shows - again meta-analyses - that when you deal with all these three factors - risk, need, and responsivity - you can reduce reoffending rates by about 26%. So it's a pretty sizeable amount - it's much greater than you're getting by just sentencing people to prison without doing anything. [00:28:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think you cover in your paper - those things are absolutely true. And you just talked about several administrations' attempts to implement programming and resources to try and help people get jobs, potentially - hey, there's even a CBT treatment, but if that treatment has twice as many people as are recommended being in a session and occurs over half the time that it's supposed to, you really are sabotaging the entire process or really setting it up for failure. And it just seems to be an expensive exercise that we aren't really getting anything out of. Does that seem to be consistent with how you've seen the attempts at introducing this programming within prisons and jails? [00:29:40] Damon Petrich: Yeah, for sure - this is a pretty common finding too - so it's not just about preaching that you're going to do these things. You actually have to implement them well. So just like you said, there's a number of studies that show this - so you've designed some really great program that deals with all of these risk factors that lead people back into reoffending, you give it to them in a cognitive behavioral setting. So all seems good on paper, but in practice, like you said - one of the famous studies there - can't remember the names of the authors offhand right now - but one of the famous studies there showed that they're providing it to people in groups of 30, as opposed to 15, and they're delivering it in a really short amount of time. And they're not maybe giving it to the highest-risk people - so they're just mixing random people in there at varying levels of risk. So when you do all these sorts of things - you implement the program poorly - you can't really expect it to work. And this is often the case - is the government pays people to come up with these great programs, and then not enough funding is provided to actually make sure that they're implemented and evaluated well. So the amount of funding that actually goes into that - developing the programs to begin with - is small, but when you do do that, you're not making sure that you're actually implementing things well. So it's just sort of shooting yourself in the foot, and probably making people come to the conclusion that these things don't work - when they do work, if you just implement them well. [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's also a lot of rhetoric - and you discuss this - there's a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, even coming from leadership within the Bureau of Prisons or leadership in our carceral system, saying we do want to rehabilitate people. We are trying to implement programming that does this. You see - we have these educational opportunities and we are doing evaluations of people. And it may be happening while they're understaffed or other challenges, but one of the biggest, I guess, red flags is that none of the evaluation of their programs and none of the incentives that arise are in any way tied to what is the actual result of what happens. Are you actually succeeding on reducing someone's likelihood for reoffense? It does not seem like any compensation is tied to that, any kind of evaluation of positions or regular reporting - to say, is this program having its intended effect? And if not, what do we need to do to correct for that? Is that what you found? [00:32:33] Damon Petrich: I would say that's probably a pretty fair assessment. A lot of the programs that are implemented are never evaluated at all. And then the ones that are - it's usually once - there's one evaluation of those programs. And then, like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a lot of self-reflection - I don't know what other word you would use - but these programs don't really change on the basis of these evaluations. So, it's kind of disheartening to hear about, I guess. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: It feels very disheartening to live in the middle of - and one of the big things about this is that this - we have these conversations and we talk about these studies and we're saying, yeah, it actually - we're not doing anyone any favors right now when it comes to reducing recidivism. And having these conversations oftentimes detached from the cost associated with what we're paying for these. And my goodness are we paying to incarcerate people? It's not just, well, we do lock them up and we keep them away. Or we do a good job of keeping them in - they reoffend, they go back to jail. And lots of people are like, we did our job, they went back to jail - boom, everything is fine. But we are paying through the nose and out the ear for this - just here, we're in the state of Washington, and right now the state spends about $112 per day, or over $40,000 annually, to incarcerate one individual - that's the cost per inmate. In King County - the county that we're in - they spend $192 a day, or $70,000 annually, to incarcerate an individual. That is a huge amount of the tax dollars that we spend - these come out of our general fund, meaning that these are dollars that every service, everything that is not a dedicated source of revenue, is competing for. So when we talk about things and have conversations like, well, we don't have the budget for that and we don't have the money - that is related to how much of that money we're spending on other things. And my goodness, I would think that we want to get our money's worth for that level of expenditure. And it really appears that if we're saying the goal of jail is to get people on the straight and narrow path and becoming contributing members of society and all of the implications of that, it doesn't seem like we're getting our money's worth. And so, if those aren't the goals and if we just want to punish people, it's not like we're punishing people for free. We're punishing people at the cost of $70,000 per day [year], and at the cost of all the other services and infrastructure needs that we have. So it really seems like we're punishing ourselves as much, or more, as others - particularly if we're bringing people back into society that are likely to reoffend in one way or another. And so if our goal is to keep our community safe and that is the North Star, it looks like we need to realign our processes and our expenditure of resources. I guess my question to you, after all that, is - how should we be moving forward? What should we be looking to do? What is shown to work? [00:36:24] Damon Petrich: Well, I would say - yeah, $70,000 a year as just a revenge cost per person seems like a lot. $80 billion in the country as a whole, for a revenge cost, seems like a pretty high price to pay, given we're not reducing reoffending. You could make the argument that these people aren't offending while they're in prison, but that's - there's other reasons why that might not be completely accurate, which I could talk about too, but - [00:36:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm interested in that. Why might that not be accurate? [00:37:03] Damon Petrich: So, obviously the person - if you incarcerate a particular individual, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So that's obvious, but there's a number of reasons why that might not, en masse, actually reduce crime a whole lot. The research on it - this is a little bit squishy - in terms of whether incarcerating more people leads to lower crime rates, because one influences the other. But for example, if you look at illegal drug markets - a lot of the homicides in the United States and other violent crime that people are really concerned about, and it's plastered all over the media is - homicides, gang-related stuff. So if you take key gang members out and you put them in prison, what ends up happening is that there's competition in that market to take over that person's place, either within the gang or other gangs coming in. So what ends up happening oftentimes is a spike in violence. So that's one reason why just incapacitating, particularly high-crime individuals, might not actually lead to lower crime rates overall. Again, you're lowering crime for that one person, but you might be increasing crime on a more systemic level. Beyond that, these things have broader societal and community level impacts - incarcerating a lot of people. Again, research shows that when you're incarcerating a lot of people in a particular community - so there's a bunch of really good work by Robert Sampson - he has a book that came out a few years ago called Great American City. And he looked at these individual neighborhoods in Chicago over time, and what he finds is that in communities where there's a higher number of people incarcerated in a particular community, this ends up increasing what's called "legal cynicism." And this is done in some other work as well with David Kirk and Andrew Papachristos - but they show that this increases legal cynicism, which means people are skeptical of police helping them out, the police doing a good job. And what ends up happening after that - when people are more cynical of the legal system, they're less likely to report crimes to the police, they're less likely to cooperate with the police. So what ends up happening? You incarcerate more people and people in that community end up being less willing to cooperate with law enforcement. And this leads to sort of an endless cycle where things sort of get out of hand. So there's all these unintended and nonfinancial consequences of incarcerating a lot of people that could potentially end up leading to more crime. [00:40:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and - speaking as a Black woman - obviously, looking at the impacts of mass incarceration in the Black community and in neighborhoods around the country - where it is almost like the community is responding to the actual outcome and that, Hey, this actually isn't making my community any better. I'm experiencing traumatic impacts from this - whether it's my relative went to prison or a sole breadwinner in the family and now we're thrown into poverty, or I'm in a situation where I don't have a parent who used to be there - who now is no longer there. Or causing instability and impacting the education that people get and the kind of job opportunity, watching someone who's come out have to struggle and be ostracized. And it looks like, Hey, this is just the first step on a long cycle of traumatic and undesirable events - and I don't want to participate in a system that is doing that. With that, as we look forward, and I think this is also related to conversations about just fundamental trust in our criminal legal system and relations with police and throughout the system. It's - if we think about how to turn that around - to me, seems related to thinking about the question of how do we get better outcomes for everyone? 'Cause it seems like right now where we're investing a lot in poor outcomes for people who were already, usually, in pretty poor spots leading to themselves being incarcerated, coming out and not necessarily improving, definitely not improving. And if anything, a chance that it gets a little bit worse. How do we change that entire outcome? And I know you're looking specifically in the incarceration space, but what should be, what could be done differently? Or do we just need a fundamental restructuring of the way we do this? [00:42:17] Damon Petrich: I don't know about a fundamental restructuring - I don't, I'm not great at that high-level thinking stuff, but what I do know is that - we're probably going to continue to incarcerate people. That's something that's done in every country and people seem to love here. So if we actually want to use prison for public safety - because 95% of inmates eventually get out - if we actually want to use it for public safety, then let's actually try wholeheartedly to rehabilitate them while they're in there. And again, there's a lot of theory and evidence-based principles on how we can do this, like the risk-need-responsivity model that I talked about earlier, cognitive behavioral therapy more broadly. If you use these types of things and continue to work on them and develop them over time, then yeah - prison might actually be helpful if people are going there and getting the help that they need. But that's not what's happening currently. So that's one level in incarceration terms - that's the area that I know best. So that's one way you could potentially alleviate some of this stuff is - if people are actually getting resources and stuff when they're in prison, and then when once they're reintegrating, they're not only going to reoffend less, but maybe they're going to contribute to their community more. They're going to be better able to connect with their family and stuff like that. So rather than being a hindrance, it could potentially be a help. Obviously, again, it's not ideal to remove people from their communities and their family and friends. And like I said earlier, if you have the option to sentence them to something community-based instead, I think that's the better route to go. But if you are going to send people to prison, which I think we're going to continue to do a lot of the time, then let's rehabilitate them while they're in there is the main point. And do so based on what actually works to do that. [00:44:23] Crystal Fincher: It's really the investment in the people who are there, and we're - I think up against a lot of societal attitudes and resistance where it just feels wrong to a number of people to be providing services and shifting that investment to things that are seemingly helpful for the inmate, because everything about how we've been conditioned to understand our prison system has been - the punishment is kind of the key, and they'll make rational decisions afterwards to avoid prison based on how bad the punishment is. When it comes to community supervision, things like probation, what are the differences there? If there are better outcomes from that, what accounts for the better outcomes when it comes to probation versus incarceration? [00:45:23] Damon Petrich: I wouldn't say the outcomes are better - they're just pretty much the same as they would be if they're sentenced to prison. So, probation costs less and then it also enables the people to be out in the community doing community things, like being with their friends and families and all that. I mean, you can't quantify, based on a recidivism percentage, what their family members and friends and employers are getting out of it. So that's something we can't really look at - or I guess you could, but something we don't often do - but so there's intangible things that you would get by keeping people in the community. Plus it doesn't lead to all that other stuff I talked about where people become cynical of the legal system and it leads to this cycle of whatever. [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so if we're were doing this programming in prison and helping people, I think your research shows it's extremely important to do both the structural, Hey, you need a place to live, you need to be able to pay your rent and your bills - so having a job, having housing, having healthcare, getting those very basic needs met is critical. But also addressing a number of the mental or behavioral health issues that are common among the incarcerated population - and dealing with that is as important. And basically those two things both need to happen hand-in-hand. How do we do a better job of that in our current system? [00:46:57] Damon Petrich: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that you're right there - I think maybe when I was talking earlier about employment, it might sound like giving people jobs is just a waste of time, but that's not the case. It needs - the two things need to be paired - you need to deal with the cognitive and behavioral problems in addition to giving them jobs and housing support and all that. In terms of how you actually go about doing that, there are examples in the literature of programs that do this, so there's examples out there. I think if you're a state or local or even federal correctional department and you're interested in doing this - implementing something that's evidence-based - or if you're just a concerned citizen that wants to rally your local officials to do that - go and talk to researchers like me, or people at universities that have criminology departments or criminal justice departments, because this knowledge is out there. It's widely available. You just have to go and seek it out. So at my university, for example, we have the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and under the guidance of Ed Latessa, he was - now passed - but he was, over the last 30 years, responsible for disseminating a lot of this evidence-based practices to some of the state and local criminal justice agencies. And they helped with implementation and evaluation in a lot of these places, so the help is out there. You just have to look for it a little bit. [00:48:38] Crystal Fincher: And another question I had - your analysis seemed to suggest that when we're talking about low-risk, medium, and high-risk offenders - or people who have done relatively minor crimes versus those who have done more serious crimes - that these interventions are particularly effective the more serious the offense or crime has been. And that perhaps even sometimes treating someone who is a really low-risk as if they're a high-risk, can worsen the outcomes for that person. Is that the case? [00:49:21] Damon Petrich: Yeah, that tends to be a finding in research - we're not exactly sure why, but providing a lot of really intensive services to people deemed to be low-risk can actually be harmful rather than helpful. We don't know based on research why, but there's a lot of pretty good hypotheses about why. So a low-risk offender is going to be somebody who's a first-timer who's committed some not-that-serious crime. So they probably have a job, they probably have pretty strong connections with their family and all that. So if you're taking them and you're putting them in a program where you have to be there 40 hours a week, they're probably going to get fired from their job, it's going to be harder to stay in contact with friends and families that are sort of tying you into a non-criminal life. And then you're probably going to be associating with all kinds of people who are high-risk, and maybe they're going to draw you towards, oh yeah, I could earn four grand going out tonight and stealing some laptops. There's a lot of reasons why just taking low-risk people and putting them in these programs is going to be harmful rather than helpful. [00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: And so with that in mind, and you talk about, Hey, if we're trying to influence local electeds - one of the interesting things about having a podcast and radio show that caters to extremely politically and civically inclined people is that we actually do have a number of policymakers and politicians who listen, and people who are enacting and in control of this policy. If you were to talk to them and give them advice about how to move forward, especially in the current environment that we find ourselves in, where over the past few years has been increasing awareness of some of the defecits of our system and pushes to change those. And also, as we have seen more recently, a real strong pushback from a lot of people who are invested in our current system saying, Hey, let's not change things too much. Maybe we need to jail more and for longer. And maybe we're just not doing enough incarceration, and that's the answer. In that kind of political environment, what would you tell people who are in charge of this policy, who may be facing pressure to keep going forward with the status quo, about how they should evaluate how they should move forward and the kinds of things that they should do? [00:52:07] Damon Petrich: I know a lot of these politicians get lobbied by correctional officer groups or whatever, and that's whatever, but ultimately you get voted in by voters. So, I'm not an expert on public opinion - I have other friends who are more into that kind of stuff, but I do know from talking with them and from reading that literature, that the public actually does support rehabilitation. So they have for a long time and it's shifted more towards being in support of rehabilitation over time. So right now, most Americans support providing rehabilitation programs to prisoners and offenders. So this is something that's going to please your constituency, people want this kind of thing. And it's not like you're going to be losing all kinds of jobs by getting rid of prison - there's going to be a need for skilled people who can provide these programs and probation officers and all these sorts of things. So it's not a net loss when you're getting rid of prisons. There's a lot of reasons to sentence people to community supervision and things like that - provide rehabilitation. There's public support for it, there's jobs involved, there's cost savings - big time, obviously - it's way cheaper to keep somebody out of prison than it is to keep them in prison. So there's a lot of different reasons why you would want to do that as a politician. [00:53:43] Crystal Fincher: I think that makes sense. Certainly it's a lot cheaper to keep someone out of prison versus in prison. I mean, we talked about the annual costs - in the state of Washington over $40,000, King County over $70,000 - comparing that to how much we invest in a student of $11,500 a year. If we focus more on investing in people, both inside and outside the system, it seems like we set ourselves up for a safer community, fewer people being victimized, and more people leading thriving, productive, tax-paying lives. And we're all happier than we are right now, I would think, I would hope - it seems like the research points in that direction. So I certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with us about this. Is there anything else that you want to leave with us, in thinking about this study and your research? [00:54:55] Damon Petrich: I think we covered it pretty well. Just to circle back to something you just said - I know this might put me out of a job since I focus on what happens when people's lives go awry, but you really are better off to invest in early prevention programs and giving people a good start on life than trying to correct the program or the problem afterwards. So yeah - politicians spend some money on prevention programs. I know the good effects of that are a long way out, but they're actually good on a societal level. So I guess I would add that, even though it's not good for criminologists, maybe, to put themselves out of a job like that. [00:55:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, much appreciated, and thank you so much for having this conversation with us today. [00:55:45] Damon Petrich: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on. I'm glad that there are people out there interested in this stuff, so thanks again. [00:55:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

311: Melbourne Marathon | Bridge To Brisbane This week's episode of Inside Running Podcast is proudly sponsored by On. On Track Night Series takes over the Zatopek:10 this December in Melbourne. Visit OnTrackNights.com for more information Brad takes some time off in Noosa before getting back into long runs. Julian navigates the crowds up in Melbourne for the marathon weekend. Brady ticks through the week and has some thoughts about the Melbourne Marathon. Melbourne Marathon was taken out by Reece Edwards in 2:14:34, just ahead of Ryan Gregson making his marathon debut in 2:14:54, with Liam Adams third in 2:15:37 after leading out for the majority of the race. Gemma Maini had a debut to remember, winning her maiden run in the distance in 2:35:25 with previous winner Milly Clark second in 2:41:27 and Cassie Little third in 2:43:15. Both the marathon winners Reece and Gemma, pop onto the show to give what their expectations were going into the race and how it all unfolded over the distance. The half Marathon was won by Gen Gregson 1:10:07, clear of podium getters Melissa Duncan and Isobel Hume. Jack Rayner won his third consecutive title in 1:03:09 to hold off an early challenge from Seth O'Donnell, with Matt Clarke in third. Dave McNeill won the 10km race over Zach Facioni, Dale Carroll, as did Olga Firsova of Queensland against Holly Campbell and Maudie Skyring. Melbourne Marathon Results   Eloise Wellings won the Bridge To Brisbane 10k race in 33:07, Cassie Fien, Richelle Hill. Tim Vincent was first overall in 29:29 ahead of Liam Boudin and Jack Bruce. Bridge to Brisbane Results   Listener Question asks about the boys' mobility routine and how flexible they are, Moose goes Loose on some of the fashion of the locals then Brady goes Loose on the lack of coverage and promotion of the elite field. Stay tuned for future details for the Surf Coast Track Night to be held at John Landy Field, Saturday January 6th 2024 Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

Benoit from Accounts has gone and won his first World Cup! KB & Red Dog are joined this week by GT Factory Racing mechanic Matt Clarke to break down the madness of the Les Gets World Cup, team rumours, gossip from the pits and more. Matt brings some (actual) knowledge from inside the paddock this week! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kieran-bennett4/message

303: Ellie Pashley | World Athletics Championships, Week 1 | Myrniong Ekiden Relay    This weeks episode of Inside Running Podcast is proudly sponsored by ASICS. Stability has never felt better than with the GEL-KAYANO™ 30 shoe. Updated with a 4D GUIDANCE SYSTEM™ for support right when you need it and PureGEL™ technology for softer landings every time. Visit ASICS.com or your specialty running store to grab your pair today. Ellie Pashley fills in for Brad has his heart procedure, catching us up on her race at Sunshine Coast Half and plans for the future. Julian tries to balance moving house along with marathon workouts. Brady has a tough race at the Myrniong Ekiden Relays The XCR23 Ekiden Relay was held at St Anne's Winery, Myrniong and the Men's Premier Division was won by Bendigo Region ahead of Western Athletics and Glenhuntly. The Women's Premier Division was won by Glenhuntly ahead of St Stephens Harriers and South Melbourne. AthsVic Results Hub https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR9sOTwHpqU    As of the conclusion of Day 2 of the World Athletics Championships in Budapest, Hungary Jessica Hull has advanced to the 1500m Final. Linden Hall and Abbey Caldwell reached the semi finals with Abbey running a personal best of 3:59.79. Adam Spencer and Matt Ramsden both made it to the Semi Finals, with Matt getting tangled up in his heat while Stewart McSweyn was unable to place out of the Heats stage. Joshua Cheptegei won his third consecutive 10000m World Championship in a time of 27:51.42 to just hold off Daniel Ebenyo of Kenya and Selemon Barega of Ethiopia. Sifan Hassan brought drama to the 10000m final, stumbling in the final straight as Ethiopian swept the podium with Gudaf Tsegay winning in 31:27.18 ahead of teammates Letesenbet Gidey and Ejgayehu Taye. Matt Clarke ran 8:40.92 for 12th place in his heat of the 3000m Steeplechase. World Athletics Championships Timetable & Results The team then give their preview of the National Cross Country Championships next weekend making their predictions to win the title.   Listener Question of the week asks how far out should you practise fueling for your goal marathon race, Moose goes on the Loose on creating anti-hero narratives for yourself. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

Crashing the Party! All new brain blastin' show debuts today with the beat an' blast of real-deal vocal groups and only real-deal vocal groups. Doo-wop slam, slop and bop, always well-lubed with grease, grit and GRIME! Catch Crashing 115 debut at www.luxuriamusic.com today, 6-8PM EDT and come check out traction at www.crashingtheparty.co tonite when we post playlists and ballyhoo. Crashing comes to you from the Kicksville crew with hosts Marc and Miriam, with our resident genius engineer Matt Clarke making us sound good! 

290: Craig Mottram Part 1 | Great Ocean Road, Runaway Sydney Half & races aplenty   This week's episode of the Inside Running podcast is proudly sponsored by Gold Coast Marathon. Run your next PB at the Gold Coast Marathon in 2023.  Fast, flat & scenic. There is an event distance for everyone – from the full marathon to the kids 2 & 4km junior dash.    Enter now at goldcoastmarathon.com.au   Brad checks into the hospital after last week's heart episode. Julian splits his time between Melbourne and Apollo Bay while navigating life's tribulations. Brady returns to host as he battles a bit of sickness before resuming his road to Gold Coast. Stewy McSweyn 3rd at Great Manchester Run 10k in 28:35 with Jack Rayner 4th in 28:41. Winner was Eyob Faniel in 28:27, ahead of Marc Scott in 28:31. Hellen Obiri won the women's race 31:14 backing up from her win at the Boston Marathon, ahead of Olympic Champion Peres Chepchirchir and Calli Thackery. Results The Seiko Grand Prix in Yokohama, Japan saw Rose Davies run 8:44.07 in the 3000m for  2nd, with Isobel Batt-Doyle clocking 8:53.81 for 4th. Matt Clarke came close to his personal best in the Steeplechase running 8:26.47 for fourth, while Jack Bruce and Jude Thomas both ran in the 3000m World Athletics Results   Great Ocean Road Running Festival kicked off with the 14km Paradise Run won by Andre Waring and Sarah Klein in dominant performances, then Andre defended his double victories from last year winning the 23km Half Marathon as well, ahead of Cameron Smith and Simon Hogan, while Amy Fawcett took the podium in front of Elise Beacom and Ciara Sullivan. Set against a constant headwind, the Great Ocean Road Marathon was won by Toby Menday ahead of Bayden Westerweller, Tom Hall in third, with Sara Coulter taking the win over Caitlin Duncan and Danni Rogan. Dion Finocchiarro and Alice Hall were the winners of the 60km Ultramarathon. Great Ocean Road Marathon Results   Marnie Ponton won the Runaway Sydney Half in a dominant 74:30, clear of Niamh Allen & Tara Prowse in second and third. Ed Goddard won the men's race in 65:21, ahead of Ben St Lawrence & James Nipperess Results   City To Casino over 12km in Hobart, Tasmania won by James Hansen & Melanie Daniels. Results   Brothers Jacob & Riley Cocks take the South Australia 10k Road Champs, both crossing the line in 30:19, with Thomas Dowd third in 31:08.  Brook Hines won the championship title in 35:34 just ahead of Zoe Toland, with Tiana Cetta third. Athletics SA Results   Night of 10000m PBs on the Parliament Hill Track in North London saw a staggering breadth and depth of performances, including winners Paul Chelimo in 27:12.73 and Mizan Alem Adane in 29:59.03. Results via Power of 10   Rhonex Kipruto provisionally suspended for abnormalities within his athlete biological passport. Lets Run Article This week's Listener Questions are sponsored by Gold Coast Marathon, asks how deep into a marathon campaign can you fit in a half marathon and the type of drinks on course. Then Moose is on the Loose over people finding the marathon “too easy”.   Craig Mottram joins Brady and Brad to look back on his well decorated and well storied career, going through the stories behind his official personal bests and his approach to pure racing, touching on how to get the general public engaged with athletics and how his London Marathon signified the end of his professional running career. He touches on growing up within such a sporting family, how he picked running over triathlon and how early development plays a role before telling the story of his dramatic selection into the Sydney Olympics. Craig discusses the impact of the coaches he's had at various stages and some of the significant races such as Short Course Cross Country Championships at Belgium and the bronze medal run at World Championships at Helsinki in the 5000m against Eliud Kipchoge.   Craig recounts the build-up to the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games, the roar of the crowd as he raced Augustine Choge and Ben Limo for the 5000m and how he remembers the race. He then talks about the lean years, battling achilles injuries towards the Beijing Olympics and the comeback at 2011 Zatopek, as well as the story of going back to Falls Creek to train and ultimately qualify for his fourth Olympics at London.  Craig goes into his approach to his mental game, developing and carrying confidence, what he would have changed looking back, longevity in the sport. He muses on how we would fare as an athlete in this current day and how he views the social media landscape, as well as the current state of athletics. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN  

287: Run The Tan | On Cloud Monster review | Gold Coast Training Series    Run your next PB at the Gold Coast Marathon in 2023. Fast, flat & scenic. There is an event distance for everyone – from the full marathon to the kids 2 & 4km junior dash. Enter now at goldcoastmarathon.com.au Brad tries to keep a lid on it as he enters race week for Sydney 10. Julian continues his good build before hurting his back in the most mundane way possible.  Brady develops a new training schedule ahead for Gold Coast Marathon. Jessica Hull sets the new record at Run The Tan, 11:31.53, supplanting Linden Hall who finished second in 11:36.92. Abby Caldwell finished 3rd in 11:46.36 to move to 4th fastest ever time. Jye Edwards took out the Elite Men's race in 10:23.00 for 7th all time over Matt Clarke in 10:26.09, with Archie Noakes third in 10:31.40. Michael Roeger set the elite para record, winning in 11:03.62 ahead of Jarryd Clifford 11:15.36, wth Annabelle Coleman winning the women's elite para race. Run The Tan Results   Jess Hull announces departure from the US-based Union Athletic Club to relocate closer to home. https://www.instagram.com/p/CrSHcq7PjYj/?hl=en    Brothers Riley & Jacob Cocks ran 65:39 & 65:40 respectively to take out the McLaren Vale Half Marathon, while Tara Palm was first female in 1:16:41. David Staehr and Indi Zammit were the winners of the Marathon. McLaren Vale Marathon Results   Adidas Adizero Road to Records saw Sebastian Kimaru Sawe run the 5th fastest road 10km ever in 26:49, ahead of Kibiwott Kandie. Results via World Athletics   The boys go on to review the On Cloudmonster on how they've found the design and comfort of the shoe, where it lines up in their rotation and well they get rolling in it.   Listener Question is sponsored by the Gold Coast Marathon, coming up on the 1st & 2nd  July, and asks the boys how to address the expected warmer conditions when training in the cooler seasons and regions. Moose on the Promo introduces Walking by TRC, a space for walkers to get fitted without any of the pressure that comes with entering a normal running store. https://www.instagram.com/p/Crr5cmovjBl/?hl=en  Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

283: Jess Hull | 2023 National Track & Field Championships   This week's episode of the Inside Running podcast is proudly sponsored by ASICS. Energise your runs with their SUPERBLAST™ shoe, stacked with their bounciest, lightest FF BLAST™ TURBO foam technology for a supercharged ride. Visit www.asics.com.au or your specialty running store to grab your pair today.   Julian continues to train with Ellie and considers different approaches to marathon training. Brady jogs through the week in managing a sore hamstring. Brad has his best week of the year jogging through the rain at Mulligan's. Jess Hull joins the podcast to recap her performances at the National Track & Field Championships up at Brisbane, winning both the 1500m and 5000m National Titles, adding to the 3000m Championship won at the Sydney Track Classic. Jess talks about race tactics of both races as well as the training setup while she's in Australia and the support she gets from her dad. Conversation rounds out with her plans and goals for the year ahead.   Jessica Hull won the Women's 1500m in a meet record of 4:04.19, taking the win ahead of Abby Caldwell and Linden Hall. Callum Davies over Cam Myers and Matt Ramsden Jessica Hull backed up by also dominating the 5000m ahead of Rose Davies and Leanne Pompeani. Callum Davies also won a second national title in the Men's 5000m in a tight contest, just ahead of Jack Bruce and James Hansen.  Catriona Bisset won the 800m title in 1:58.32 over Ellie Sanford. Riley McGowan won the men's 800m. Ben Buckingham took the national Steeplechase title edging over Matt Clarke to even the ledger from the Brisbane Track Classic. Cara Feain-Ryan took the title over Georgia Winkcup in a dramatic finish. Full 2023 National Track & Field Championship Results   Tim Vincent won the half marathon in the Hobart Airport Marathon in 63:52, ahead of Joel Tobin-White in his comeback race. Ruth Wilson was the first woman across in 85:05. Dion Finochiarro and Milly Clark were the first across the line in the marathon. Hobart Airport Marathon Results   Hellen Obiri was added to the Boston Marathon Elite Field after winning the NYC Half Marathon. Runners World   Eilish McColgan breaks the UK Half Marathon running 65:43 at Berlin Half Marathon, three weeks out from her impending debut in the London Marathon Moose is half on the Loose about the promotional material associated with sports governing bodies.   Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

282: Brisbane Track Classic | Zane Robertson suspended for EPO  This episode of inside running is proudly sponsored by the RACV Solar Great Ocean Road Running Festival. Secure your registration now at greatoceanroadrunfest.com.au Brad cops it from a passerby for running towards a hurt kangaroo. Julian paces Ellie for another long run in the lead-up to London. Brady's searching in the dark for places to run. Matt Clarke set the Meet Record in the 3000m Steeplechase at the Brisbane Track Classic breaking clear of Ben Buckingham. In the women's steeplechase Cara Feain-Ryan also set a meet record in 9:38.44 over Stella Radford and Brielle Erbacher. Catriona Bisset opened her season with a 1:59.74 in the Women's 800m ahead of Ellie Sanford & Linden Hall. James Preston took out the men's 800m in a tight field. Results via World Athletics https://www.runnerstribe.com/latest-news/marschall-raises-the-bar-and-page-sets-national-sprints-record-at-brisbane-track-classic/    Fleur Cooper and Connor Whitely take out the 1500m at the NSW Milers Meet. Athletics NSW Results   Zane Robertson suspended for eight years following a positive test to EPO and tampering infringements. https://www.runnerstribe.com/latest-news/zanerobertsonepo/    World Athletics set regulations to prohibit Transgender athletes who have undergone male puberty and athletes with differences in sex development (DSD). https://www.runnerstribe.com/latest-news/world-athletics-implements-changes-to-regulations-for-transgender-and-dsd-athletes/    Listener Question of the week asks how to apply the hilly tempo into your training, then Moose on the Loose goes into artificial crowd noise and the cost of living crisis into Season Membership. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

Another week, another episode.This week, we welcome fellow podcaster, Bobaphet.Bobaphet co-hosts the Splinterlands 101 podcast with Matt Clarke and Giotrix.Podcasts are an opportunity for people to learn, and boy did our IQs jump a notch today.Bobaphet kicks us off with a magical mystery tour of his home country, Australia.He then talks us through his time in the Navy, Archaeology, and a history lesson I promise you did not hear sat behind your desk at school.To round out the podcast, Boba throws down a freestyle rap especially for us here at the People's Guild. The perfect ending to a wonderful conversation.Ladies and Gentlemen…let's give a warm welcome to Bobaphet…a man of many talents!Enjoy!The People's Guild…Everyone's Welcome and the Due

Tony Golsby-Smith interviews, Matt Clarke, on the subject of slavery in the 21st century – and how the normal Christian model of retribution and justice can get in the way of innovative solutions. Matt has worked in this field for years and became frustrated at the short sighted interventions of many Not-for-profits in this space. He has just written a great book, called ‘Disrupting Mercy' about the topic which argues that we don't just need a more holistic approach – we need a new paradigm of mercy. This interview is a prelude to our upcoming series on ‘The Cross and Creation' where we will be examining the pros and cons of the controversial doctrine of ‘penal substitution'.

On this Hacks & Wonks midweek show, Crystal has a robust conversation with Damon Petrich about his research at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review's finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and reach Damon for more information about his research at dpetrich@luc.edu   Resources  “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice   Scott Hechinger Twitter thread   “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative   “Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada   “Let's Take a Hard Look at Who Is in Jail and Why We Put Them There” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog   Book - “Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect” by Robert J. Sampson   Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism: Why They Matter and How to Measure in Your Community”    “Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably the main one is the rehabilitation is not the greatest. So just as an example, substance abuse is a very strong predictor whether people are going to reoffend, unsurprisingly. About 50% of prisoners at the state and federal level in The States meet the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] criteria for having a substance use abuse disorder - so they meet the clinical criteria for substance abuse disorder. So half of them, and then more than that just use substances, but they don't meet the criteria for a disorder. But of that 50% who has a substance abuse disorder, only about 20% of those actually receives treatment for it while they're incarcerated. So, you're not dealing with a root cause of reoffending while they're in prison - so you're not deterring them, but you're also not rehabilitating them - so you're really not doing anything. And then in the rare cases where these people are provided with rehabilitation or reentry programming, it's often not based on any sort of evidence-based model of how you actually change people. So there's a lot of psychological and criminology theory and research on how you actually elicit behavioral change, and these programs really aren't in line with any of that. And I could give examples if you wanted, but - [00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. I think that's helpful, 'cause I think a lot of people do assume, and sometimes it's been controversial - wow, look at how much they're coddling these prisoners - they have these educational programs, and they get all this drug treatment for free, and if they don't come out fixed then it's their own fault because they have access to all of these treatment resources in prison. Is that the case? [00:21:43] Damon Petrich: No, I wouldn't say so - first of all, they don't have access, a lot of them, to any programs. And then, like I said, the programs that they do get really aren't that effective. So the big one that everybody loves to argue for is providing former inmates with jobs. If you look at any federal funding for program development, like the Second Chance Act or the First Step Act - I think that was one under Trump - and then under Bush, there was a Serious [and] Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative - pretty much all of these federal bills will be heavily focused on just providing offenders with jobs. And almost all of the evaluations of these programs show that they don't reduce reoffending. And it's not really that hard - again, if you go back to the literature on behavioral change and, criminology literature - it's not really that hard to understand why just providing a job isn't going to reduce or lead somebody away from a life of crime. A lot of these people have spotty work histories where they've never had a job at all, they believe and know that it's easier to gain money by doing illicit work than it is legal work, they have things like low self-control so they're very impulsive, they don't know how to take criticism or being told what to do by a boss. They live in neighborhoods with very poor opportunities for good jobs and education, and maybe there's a mindset around there that illegal work or whatever is just a better way to go - that's sort of ingrained. So there's a lot of different reasons why just handing somebody a job isn't going to lead them away from crime, 'cause they have all these other things that need to be dealt with first. So ideally, a rehabilitation program that's comprehensive would deal with all of those other background factors and then provide them with a job. Because if you make them less impulsive, better able to resist the influence of their antisocial friends, and get this thought out of their head that other people are being hostile towards them when they're really not - all these sorts of cognitive and behavioral biases that they have - if you deal with all of those things and then you give them a job, they're more likely to actually latch onto that job as something worthwhile doing. And then they're going to go on to get out of a life of crime. But if you just give them a job and you haven't dealt with any of those issues, you can't really expect that to work. And that is the model that we currently do - is something that we don't really expect to work that well. [00:24:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's - it's really interesting and I don't know that a lot of people actually know that, Hey, giving someone a job isn't sufficient - which is why I think it's so important to talk about studies like this, because some of what has become conventional wisdom, really is not accurate or reflects what has been studied and discovered. And I guess in that vein, what are the factors - you just talked about a few - but what does increase someone's likelihood of reoffending or recidivism, and what reduces it? [00:25:08] Damon Petrich: So those are probably two ends of the same, or two sides of the same coin, but this is pretty well known in criminology - a model called the risk-need-responsivity [RNR] model was developed by a couple of fellow Canadians, named James Bonta and Don Andrews, along with some of their colleagues in the '80s and '90s. And they, through again, other meta-analyses just like we did, found certain categories of characteristics of people who are more likely to reoffend. So you have things like having antisocial peers - so that one's pretty obvious - if you have a bunch of friends that are involved in crime, it's going to be pretty hard for you to get out of that life because you're surrounded by those people. Same with family members. If you have what are called criminal thinking patterns - so again, you might have what's called a hostile attribution bias, things like that, where somebody says something a little bit negative to you and you take that as a huge insult and you retaliate with anger and aggression - things like that. Or being impulsive - so you're again quick to anger, you're swayed by small little enticements in the environment and that sort of thing - so you're easily swayed one way or the other. Things like that are strong predictors of reoffending. Substance abuse - it's what I mentioned earlier. If you don't really have any sort of proactive leisure activities, like hobbies and stuff like that. So there's a bunch of well-known things that we know are strongly associated with recidivism, and a rehabilitation program should ideally deal with them. Now this model that Andrews and Bonta and all these other people came up with - this RNR risk-need-responsivity model - the risk part says that we should give people a risk assessment when they're entering prison or leaving prison and determine what level of risk are they from reoffending. And we assess these different criteria, like criminal thinking patterns and antisocial friends and substance abuse. So we determine what those factors are and then we design them a treatment program that actually deals with those factors at the individual level. So we're not just giving a blanket rehabilitation program to everybody, and you're providing the most amount of care to the people who most need it or who are the most likely to re-offend. And then once we've done all that, we need to make sure that we're addressing these problems in some sort of a format that we know actually works. The most well-known one, but not as often used, the most well-known within the sort of psychologist and criminological literature is cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]. So this is pretty popular for dealing with depression and all sorts of eating disorders and substance abuse problems in non-offender populations. Well, those programs also work in offender populations and they work pretty well. So the research shows - again meta-analyses - that when you deal with all these three factors - risk, need, and responsivity - you can reduce reoffending rates by about 26%. So it's a pretty sizeable amount - it's much greater than you're getting by just sentencing people to prison without doing anything. [00:28:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think you cover in your paper - those things are absolutely true. And you just talked about several administrations' attempts to implement programming and resources to try and help people get jobs, potentially - hey, there's even a CBT treatment, but if that treatment has twice as many people as are recommended being in a session and occurs over half the time that it's supposed to, you really are sabotaging the entire process or really setting it up for failure. And it just seems to be an expensive exercise that we aren't really getting anything out of. Does that seem to be consistent with how you've seen the attempts at introducing this programming within prisons and jails? [00:29:40] Damon Petrich: Yeah, for sure - this is a pretty common finding too - so it's not just about preaching that you're going to do these things. You actually have to implement them well. So just like you said, there's a number of studies that show this - so you've designed some really great program that deals with all of these risk factors that lead people back into reoffending, you give it to them in a cognitive behavioral setting. So all seems good on paper, but in practice, like you said - one of the famous studies there - can't remember the names of the authors offhand right now - but one of the famous studies there showed that they're providing it to people in groups of 30, as opposed to 15, and they're delivering it in a really short amount of time. And they're not maybe giving it to the highest-risk people - so they're just mixing random people in there at varying levels of risk. So when you do all these sorts of things - you implement the program poorly - you can't really expect it to work. And this is often the case - is the government pays people to come up with these great programs, and then not enough funding is provided to actually make sure that they're implemented and evaluated well. So the amount of funding that actually goes into that - developing the programs to begin with - is small, but when you do do that, you're not making sure that you're actually implementing things well. So it's just sort of shooting yourself in the foot, and probably making people come to the conclusion that these things don't work - when they do work, if you just implement them well. [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's also a lot of rhetoric - and you discuss this - there's a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, even coming from leadership within the Bureau of Prisons or leadership in our carceral system, saying we do want to rehabilitate people. We are trying to implement programming that does this. You see - we have these educational opportunities and we are doing evaluations of people. And it may be happening while they're understaffed or other challenges, but one of the biggest, I guess, red flags is that none of the evaluation of their programs and none of the incentives that arise are in any way tied to what is the actual result of what happens. Are you actually succeeding on reducing someone's likelihood for reoffense? It does not seem like any compensation is tied to that, any kind of evaluation of positions or regular reporting - to say, is this program having its intended effect? And if not, what do we need to do to correct for that? Is that what you found? [00:32:33] Damon Petrich: I would say that's probably a pretty fair assessment. A lot of the programs that are implemented are never evaluated at all. And then the ones that are - it's usually once - there's one evaluation of those programs. And then, like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a lot of self-reflection - I don't know what other word you would use - but these programs don't really change on the basis of these evaluations. So, it's kind of disheartening to hear about, I guess. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: It feels very disheartening to live in the middle of - and one of the big things about this is that this - we have these conversations and we talk about these studies and we're saying, yeah, it actually - we're not doing anyone any favors right now when it comes to reducing recidivism. And having these conversations oftentimes detached from the cost associated with what we're paying for these. And my goodness are we paying to incarcerate people? It's not just, well, we do lock them up and we keep them away. Or we do a good job of keeping them in - they reoffend, they go back to jail. And lots of people are like, we did our job, they went back to jail - boom, everything is fine. But we are paying through the nose and out the ear for this - just here, we're in the state of Washington, and right now the state spends about $112 per day, or over $40,000 annually, to incarcerate one individual - that's the cost per inmate. In King County - the county that we're in - they spend $192 a day, or $70,000 annually, to incarcerate an individual. That is a huge amount of the tax dollars that we spend - these come out of our general fund, meaning that these are dollars that every service, everything that is not a dedicated source of revenue, is competing for. So when we talk about things and have conversations like, well, we don't have the budget for that and we don't have the money - that is related to how much of that money we're spending on other things. And my goodness, I would think that we want to get our money's worth for that level of expenditure. And it really appears that if we're saying the goal of jail is to get people on the straight and narrow path and becoming contributing members of society and all of the implications of that, it doesn't seem like we're getting our money's worth. And so, if those aren't the goals and if we just want to punish people, it's not like we're punishing people for free. We're punishing people at the cost of $70,000 per day [year], and at the cost of all the other services and infrastructure needs that we have. So it really seems like we're punishing ourselves as much, or more, as others - particularly if we're bringing people back into society that are likely to reoffend in one way or another. And so if our goal is to keep our community safe and that is the North Star, it looks like we need to realign our processes and our expenditure of resources. I guess my question to you, after all that, is - how should we be moving forward? What should we be looking to do? What is shown to work? [00:36:24] Damon Petrich: Well, I would say - yeah, $70,000 a year as just a revenge cost per person seems like a lot. $80 billion in the country as a whole, for a revenge cost, seems like a pretty high price to pay, given we're not reducing reoffending. You could make the argument that these people aren't offending while they're in prison, but that's - there's other reasons why that might not be completely accurate, which I could talk about too, but - [00:36:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm interested in that. Why might that not be accurate? [00:37:03] Damon Petrich: So, obviously the person - if you incarcerate a particular individual, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So that's obvious, but there's a number of reasons why that might not, en masse, actually reduce crime a whole lot. The research on it - this is a little bit squishy - in terms of whether incarcerating more people leads to lower crime rates, because one influences the other. But for example, if you look at illegal drug markets - a lot of the homicides in the United States and other violent crime that people are really concerned about, and it's plastered all over the media is - homicides, gang-related stuff. So if you take key gang members out and you put them in prison, what ends up happening is that there's competition in that market to take over that person's place, either within the gang or other gangs coming in. So what ends up happening oftentimes is a spike in violence. So that's one reason why just incapacitating, particularly high-crime individuals, might not actually lead to lower crime rates overall. Again, you're lowering crime for that one person, but you might be increasing crime on a more systemic level. Beyond that, these things have broader societal and community level impacts - incarcerating a lot of people. Again, research shows that when you're incarcerating a lot of people in a particular community - so there's a bunch of really good work by Robert Sampson - he has a book that came out a few years ago called Great American City. And he looked at these individual neighborhoods in Chicago over time, and what he finds is that in communities where there's a higher number of people incarcerated in a particular community, this ends up increasing what's called "legal cynicism." And this is done in some other work as well with David Kirk and Andrew Papachristos - but they show that this increases legal cynicism, which means people are skeptical of police helping them out, the police doing a good job. And what ends up happening after that - when people are more cynical of the legal system, they're less likely to report crimes to the police, they're less likely to cooperate with the police. So what ends up happening? You incarcerate more people and people in that community end up being less willing to cooperate with law enforcement. And this leads to sort of an endless cycle where things sort of get out of hand. So there's all these unintended and nonfinancial consequences of incarcerating a lot of people that could potentially end up leading to more crime. [00:40:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and - speaking as a Black woman - obviously, looking at the impacts of mass incarceration in the Black community and in neighborhoods around the country - where it is almost like the community is responding to the actual outcome and that, Hey, this actually isn't making my community any better. I'm experiencing traumatic impacts from this - whether it's my relative went to prison or a sole breadwinner in the family and now we're thrown into poverty, or I'm in a situation where I don't have a parent who used to be there - who now is no longer there. Or causing instability and impacting the education that people get and the kind of job opportunity, watching someone who's come out have to struggle and be ostracized. And it looks like, Hey, this is just the first step on a long cycle of traumatic and undesirable events - and I don't want to participate in a system that is doing that. With that, as we look forward, and I think this is also related to conversations about just fundamental trust in our criminal legal system and relations with police and throughout the system. It's - if we think about how to turn that around - to me, seems related to thinking about the question of how do we get better outcomes for everyone? 'Cause it seems like right now where we're investing a lot in poor outcomes for people who were already, usually, in pretty poor spots leading to themselves being incarcerated, coming out and not necessarily improving, definitely not improving. And if anything, a chance that it gets a little bit worse. How do we change that entire outcome? And I know you're looking specifically in the incarceration space, but what should be, what could be done differently? Or do we just need a fundamental restructuring of the way we do this? [00:42:17] Damon Petrich: I don't know about a fundamental restructuring - I don't, I'm not great at that high-level thinking stuff, but what I do know is that - we're probably going to continue to incarcerate people. That's something that's done in every country and people seem to love here. So if we actually want to use prison for public safety - because 95% of inmates eventually get out - if we actually want to use it for public safety, then let's actually try wholeheartedly to rehabilitate them while they're in there. And again, there's a lot of theory and evidence-based principles on how we can do this, like the risk-need-responsivity model that I talked about earlier, cognitive behavioral therapy more broadly. If you use these types of things and continue to work on them and develop them over time, then yeah - prison might actually be helpful if people are going there and getting the help that they need. But that's not what's happening currently. So that's one level in incarceration terms - that's the area that I know best. So that's one way you could potentially alleviate some of this stuff is - if people are actually getting resources and stuff when they're in prison, and then when once they're reintegrating, they're not only going to reoffend less, but maybe they're going to contribute to their community more. They're going to be better able to connect with their family and stuff like that. So rather than being a hindrance, it could potentially be a help. Obviously, again, it's not ideal to remove people from their communities and their family and friends. And like I said earlier, if you have the option to sentence them to something community-based instead, I think that's the better route to go. But if you are going to send people to prison, which I think we're going to continue to do a lot of the time, then let's rehabilitate them while they're in there is the main point. And do so based on what actually works to do that. [00:44:23] Crystal Fincher: It's really the investment in the people who are there, and we're - I think up against a lot of societal attitudes and resistance where it just feels wrong to a number of people to be providing services and shifting that investment to things that are seemingly helpful for the inmate, because everything about how we've been conditioned to understand our prison system has been - the punishment is kind of the key, and they'll make rational decisions afterwards to avoid prison based on how bad the punishment is. When it comes to community supervision, things like probation, what are the differences there? If there are better outcomes from that, what accounts for the better outcomes when it comes to probation versus incarceration? [00:45:23] Damon Petrich: I wouldn't say the outcomes are better - they're just pretty much the same as they would be if they're sentenced to prison. So, probation costs less and then it also enables the people to be out in the community doing community things, like being with their friends and families and all that. I mean, you can't quantify, based on a recidivism percentage, what their family members and friends and employers are getting out of it. So that's something we can't really look at - or I guess you could, but something we don't often do - but so there's intangible things that you would get by keeping people in the community. Plus it doesn't lead to all that other stuff I talked about where people become cynical of the legal system and it leads to this cycle of whatever. [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so if we're were doing this programming in prison and helping people, I think your research shows it's extremely important to do both the structural, Hey, you need a place to live, you need to be able to pay your rent and your bills - so having a job, having housing, having healthcare, getting those very basic needs met is critical. But also addressing a number of the mental or behavioral health issues that are common among the incarcerated population - and dealing with that is as important. And basically those two things both need to happen hand-in-hand. How do we do a better job of that in our current system? [00:46:57] Damon Petrich: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that you're right there - I think maybe when I was talking earlier about employment, it might sound like giving people jobs is just a waste of time, but that's not the case. It needs - the two things need to be paired - you need to deal with the cognitive and behavioral problems in addition to giving them jobs and housing support and all that. In terms of how you actually go about doing that, there are examples in the literature of programs that do this, so there's examples out there. I think if you're a state or local or even federal correctional department and you're interested in doing this - implementing something that's evidence-based - or if you're just a concerned citizen that wants to rally your local officials to do that - go and talk to researchers like me, or people at universities that have criminology departments or criminal justice departments, because this knowledge is out there. It's widely available. You just have to go and seek it out. So at my university, for example, we have the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and under the guidance of Ed Latessa, he was - now passed - but he was, over the last 30 years, responsible for disseminating a lot of this evidence-based practices to some of the state and local criminal justice agencies. And they helped with implementation and evaluation in a lot of these places, so the help is out there. You just have to look for it a little bit. [00:48:38] Crystal Fincher: And another question I had - your analysis seemed to suggest that when we're talking about low-risk, medium, and high-risk offenders - or people who have done relatively minor crimes versus those who have done more serious crimes - that these interventions are particularly effective the more serious the offense or crime has been. And that perhaps even sometimes treating someone who is a really low-risk as if they're a high-risk, can worsen the outcomes for that person. Is that the case? [00:49:21] Damon Petrich: Yeah, that tends to be a finding in research - we're not exactly sure why, but providing a lot of really intensive services to people deemed to be low-risk can actually be harmful rather than helpful. We don't know based on research why, but there's a lot of pretty good hypotheses about why. So a low-risk offender is going to be somebody who's a first-timer who's committed some not-that-serious crime. So they probably have a job, they probably have pretty strong connections with their family and all that. So if you're taking them and you're putting them in a program where you have to be there 40 hours a week, they're probably going to get fired from their job, it's going to be harder to stay in contact with friends and families that are sort of tying you into a non-criminal life. And then you're probably going to be associating with all kinds of people who are high-risk, and maybe they're going to draw you towards, oh yeah, I could earn four grand going out tonight and stealing some laptops. There's a lot of reasons why just taking low-risk people and putting them in these programs is going to be harmful rather than helpful. [00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: And so with that in mind, and you talk about, Hey, if we're trying to influence local electeds - one of the interesting things about having a podcast and radio show that caters to extremely politically and civically inclined people is that we actually do have a number of policymakers and politicians who listen, and people who are enacting and in control of this policy. If you were to talk to them and give them advice about how to move forward, especially in the current environment that we find ourselves in, where over the past few years has been increasing awareness of some of the defecits of our system and pushes to change those. And also, as we have seen more recently, a real strong pushback from a lot of people who are invested in our current system saying, Hey, let's not change things too much. Maybe we need to jail more and for longer. And maybe we're just not doing enough incarceration, and that's the answer. In that kind of political environment, what would you tell people who are in charge of this policy, who may be facing pressure to keep going forward with the status quo, about how they should evaluate how they should move forward and the kinds of things that they should do? [00:52:07] Damon Petrich: I know a lot of these politicians get lobbied by correctional officer groups or whatever, and that's whatever, but ultimately you get voted in by voters. So, I'm not an expert on public opinion - I have other friends who are more into that kind of stuff, but I do know from talking with them and from reading that literature, that the public actually does support rehabilitation. So they have for a long time and it's shifted more towards being in support of rehabilitation over time. So right now, most Americans support providing rehabilitation programs to prisoners and offenders. So this is something that's going to please your constituency, people want this kind of thing. And it's not like you're going to be losing all kinds of jobs by getting rid of prison - there's going to be a need for skilled people who can provide these programs and probation officers and all these sorts of things. So it's not a net loss when you're getting rid of prisons. There's a lot of reasons to sentence people to community supervision and things like that - provide rehabilitation. There's public support for it, there's jobs involved, there's cost savings - big time, obviously - it's way cheaper to keep somebody out of prison than it is to keep them in prison. So there's a lot of different reasons why you would want to do that as a politician. [00:53:43] Crystal Fincher: I think that makes sense. Certainly it's a lot cheaper to keep someone out of prison versus in prison. I mean, we talked about the annual costs - in the state of Washington over $40,000, King County over $70,000 - comparing that to how much we invest in a student of $11,500 a year. If we focus more on investing in people, both inside and outside the system, it seems like we set ourselves up for a safer community, fewer people being victimized, and more people leading thriving, productive, tax-paying lives. And we're all happier than we are right now, I would think, I would hope - it seems like the research points in that direction. So I certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with us about this. Is there anything else that you want to leave with us, in thinking about this study and your research? [00:54:55] Damon Petrich: I think we covered it pretty well. Just to circle back to something you just said - I know this might put me out of a job since I focus on what happens when people's lives go awry, but you really are better off to invest in early prevention programs and giving people a good start on life than trying to correct the program or the problem afterwards. So yeah - politicians spend some money on prevention programs. I know the good effects of that are a long way out, but they're actually good on a societal level. So I guess I would add that, even though it's not good for criminologists, maybe, to put themselves out of a job like that. [00:55:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, much appreciated, and thank you so much for having this conversation with us today. [00:55:45] Damon Petrich: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on. I'm glad that there are people out there interested in this stuff, so thanks again. [00:55:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

On Snubs, film fans and co-hosts, Caroline Young and Chris Masciarelli, discuss their favorite films that were snubbed by the Oscars. On this episode, our titular hosts, along with special guest Matt Clarke, discuss John Patrick Shanley's Joe Versus the Volcano, and the 1991 Academy Awards it was ~noticeably~ absent from. Caroline sees the positives in The Godfather III, Chris is able to name every obscure character actor in this movie, and Matt decided to send things off the rails. Don't forget to follow on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/snubspod/ A High Tops Media Podcast You can follow for more High Tops Media content on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter: @hightopsmedia Check out more podcasts on our website https://hightops.media

Matt Clarke is an actor, writer and producer best known for his viral YouTube series "Convos With My 2 Year Old." He joined us to talk about producing the upcoming Jon Hamm film "Corner Office", the chaos of producing the movie during COVID, and his viral success of "Convos With My 2 Year Old."

Matt Clarke is a Splinterlands OG. Here for the first drops back in 2018, he has many a yarn to tell and wonderful perspectives on the game as a whole. Well known for cornering the Flesh Golem market, and acquiring 2 regions of land, he also has a wealth of knowledge regarding crypto and Splinterlands which is a must listen for all.

257: Nike Melbourne Marathon Festival 2022 |Brett Robinson's sub 2:10 London Marathon | Live with Matt Clarke   This episode of inside running is proudly sponsored by our locals at ERNIOLD, head over to ERNIOLD.com for quality running apparel made right here in Australia Brad bumps into Rory Hunter and Josh Johnson out on the long run at Mulligans.  Julian has a very quiet night in before pacing the 2:30 group at Melbourne Marathon. Brady sets some boys up for 2:20 before driving the 2:30 pace at the Melbourne Marathon. Timothy Rohnoh wins the Nike Melbourne Marathon in 2:09:12, setting a course record and the first sub 2:10 in the event's history. Reece Edwards was first Australian home in 2:14:41, taking third overall. Beatrice Cheptoo won the marathon in 2:27:58, just in front of Izzi Batt-Doyle who ran the fastest debut by an Australian in 2:28:10. Half Marathon won by Jack Rayner ahead of Matt Clare, and Jess Stenson ahead of Rose Davies. The 10K was won by Caitlin Adams and Dale Carrol. Full Nike Melbourne Marathon Results https://www.runnerstribe.com/latest-news/winners-2022-nike-melbourne-marathon-festival/ Brett Robinson runs 2:09:52 to take 8th place in the London Marathon, becoming the 6th fastest all time and the 6th to go under 2:10. Ed Goddard was unfortunately unable to finish, while previous guest Krishna Stanton set a new age group record for W55-59 running 2:48:06. Amos Kipruto won outright in 2:04:39 while Kenenisa Bekele 2:05:53 in 5th for the Masters record. Yalemzerf Yehaulaw of Ethiopia won in 2:17:26 after stumbling in a fall earlier. Official London Marathon Results https://www.instagram.com/p/CjOXZMGrac2/ Recorded live at Concrete Boots on Sunday afternoon, Brady and Julian are joined Matt Clarke, Steeplechaser in the 2020 Olympics who ran 1:03:26 to come second place in the Melbourne Half Marathon, to chat about his motivation for getting into the longer distances, recapping his battle against eventual winner Jack Rayner, staying with steeplechase for now and how moving to Adelaide from Melbourne improved running culture between the two Moose and Brady then recap their morning, as well as the impact of the congestion caused by the marathon and half marathon merging together. The boys then wrap up answering some listener questions about recovery, balancing high mileage and reloading for the next race. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN  

Jonny Drury and Lewis Cox bring you the latest Baggies Broadcast - as Steve Bruce's side get ready to kick start their campaign. This week the podcast goes back to normal as Lewis returns and the pair glance back at the success of the Clash of the Legends. They also talk at length about the length about the Albion Assembly minutes released last week, and talk ACVs, loans, director of football operations, directors and more. They also discuss the failed move for Matt Clarke, Daryl Dike and when we will see him, and touch on how many points Albion should be looking to get before the World Cup. Jonny takes on a quiz outside The Hawthorns with TJ Smithy and a special head to head guest, Lewis answers your questions and the boys discuss whether Tom Rogic could feature against Swansea. Want to have your say? Follow us on Twitter at @AlbionPoddy and do us a solid by submitting a review on your listening platform! Title Track: 'King Cyrille' by The King Dukes. (M.Griffiths) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

100 SHOWS! Crashing The Party hits show #100-- that's a lotta group sounds! Thrilled to celebrate with some fave bangers and new clangers and we spin the original big vocal beat records and digging into the lineage into frat-dom. CTP is hosted by Marc Miller and Miriam Linna with giant thanks to our hep engineer Matt Clarke.  Watch for the October launch Kicksville Radio, sure to serve up hash from the  stash at Norton, Kicks, and home base mamaloads an' papaloads! Now come aboard for our big 1-0-0 and blast into the wilds, childs!

In this podcast, Tom and Dana discuss the signing of Matt Clarke.VOTE FOR US AS BEST FOOTBALL LEAGUE PODCAST IN THE FOOTBALL CONTENT AWARDS: https://footballcontentawards.com/voting/MNDA FUNDRAISER: https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/theborobreakdownmndJOIN OUR TELEGRAM:https://www.levellr.com/communities/the-boro-breakdownFOLLOW:Twitter - https://twitter.com/Boro_BreakdownInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/BoroBreakdownFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/TheBoroBreakdownSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/theborobreakdown. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this Hacks & Wonks midweek show, Crystal has a robust conversation with Damon Petrich about his research at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review's finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and reach Damon for more information about his research at petricdm@ucmail.uc.edu   Resources  “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715100   Scott Hechinger Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1447596444886523911   “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html   “Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-en.aspx   “Let's Take a Hard Look at Who Is in Jail and Why We Put Them There” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog: https://www.aclu-wa.org/blog/let-s-take-hard-look-who-jail-and-why-we-put-them-there   Book - “Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect” by Robert J. Sampson: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html   Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism: Why They Matter and How to Measure in Your Community”: https://www.lisc.org/media/filer_public/05/0b/050ba3aa-044f-4676-bc1e-6e2b6c48412c/091317_bcji_resources_police_legitimacy_fundamentals.pdf   “Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/nov/6/polls-show-people-favor-rehabilitation-over-incarceration/   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably the main one is the rehabilitation is not the greatest. So just as an example, substance abuse is a very strong predictor whether people are going to reoffend, unsurprisingly. About 50% of prisoners at the state and federal level in The States meet the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] criteria for having a substance use abuse disorder - so they meet the clinical criteria for substance abuse disorder. So half of them, and then more than that just use substances, but they don't meet the criteria for a disorder. But of that 50% who has a substance abuse disorder, only about 20% of those actually receives treatment for it while they're incarcerated. So, you're not dealing with a root cause of reoffending while they're in prison - so you're not deterring them, but you're also not rehabilitating them - so you're really not doing anything. And then in the rare cases where these people are provided with rehabilitation or reentry programming, it's often not based on any sort of evidence-based model of how you actually change people. So there's a lot of psychological and criminology theory and research on how you actually elicit behavioral change, and these programs really aren't in line with any of that. And I could give examples if you wanted, but - [00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. I think that's helpful, 'cause I think a lot of people do assume, and sometimes it's been controversial - wow, look at how much they're coddling these prisoners - they have these educational programs, and they get all this drug treatment for free, and if they don't come out fixed then it's their own fault because they have access to all of these treatment resources in prison. Is that the case? [00:21:43] Damon Petrich: No, I wouldn't say so - first of all, they don't have access, a lot of them, to any programs. And then, like I said, the programs that they do get really aren't that effective. So the big one that everybody loves to argue for is providing former inmates with jobs. If you look at any federal funding for program development, like the Second Chance Act or the First Step Act - I think that was one under Trump - and then under Bush, there was a Serious [and] Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative - pretty much all of these federal bills will be heavily focused on just providing offenders with jobs. And almost all of the evaluations of these programs show that they don't reduce reoffending. And it's not really that hard - again, if you go back to the literature on behavioral change and, criminology literature - it's not really that hard to understand why just providing a job isn't going to reduce or lead somebody away from a life of crime. A lot of these people have spotty work histories where they've never had a job at all, they believe and know that it's easier to gain money by doing illicit work than it is legal work, they have things like low self-control so they're very impulsive, they don't know how to take criticism or being told what to do by a boss. They live in neighborhoods with very poor opportunities for good jobs and education, and maybe there's a mindset around there that illegal work or whatever is just a better way to go - that's sort of ingrained. So there's a lot of different reasons why just handing somebody a job isn't going to lead them away from crime, 'cause they have all these other things that need to be dealt with first. So ideally, a rehabilitation program that's comprehensive would deal with all of those other background factors and then provide them with a job. Because if you make them less impulsive, better able to resist the influence of their antisocial friends, and get this thought out of their head that other people are being hostile towards them when they're really not - all these sorts of cognitive and behavioral biases that they have - if you deal with all of those things and then you give them a job, they're more likely to actually latch onto that job as something worthwhile doing. And then they're going to go on to get out of a life of crime. But if you just give them a job and you haven't dealt with any of those issues, you can't really expect that to work. And that is the model that we currently do - is something that we don't really expect to work that well. [00:24:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's - it's really interesting and I don't know that a lot of people actually know that, Hey, giving someone a job isn't sufficient - which is why I think it's so important to talk about studies like this, because some of what has become conventional wisdom, really is not accurate or reflects what has been studied and discovered. And I guess in that vein, what are the factors - you just talked about a few - but what does increase someone's likelihood of reoffending or recidivism, and what reduces it? [00:25:08] Damon Petrich: So those are probably two ends of the same, or two sides of the same coin, but this is pretty well known in criminology - a model called the risk-need-responsivity [RNR] model was developed by a couple of fellow Canadians, named James Bonta and Don Andrews, along with some of their colleagues in the '80s and '90s. And they, through again, other meta-analyses just like we did, found certain categories of characteristics of people who are more likely to reoffend. So you have things like having antisocial peers - so that one's pretty obvious - if you have a bunch of friends that are involved in crime, it's going to be pretty hard for you to get out of that life because you're surrounded by those people. Same with family members. If you have what are called criminal thinking patterns - so again, you might have what's called a hostile attribution bias, things like that, where somebody says something a little bit negative to you and you take that as a huge insult and you retaliate with anger and aggression - things like that. Or being impulsive - so you're again quick to anger, you're swayed by small little enticements in the environment and that sort of thing - so you're easily swayed one way or the other. Things like that are strong predictors of reoffending. Substance abuse - it's what I mentioned earlier. If you don't really have any sort of proactive leisure activities, like hobbies and stuff like that. So there's a bunch of well-known things that we know are strongly associated with recidivism, and a rehabilitation program should ideally deal with them. Now this model that Andrews and Bonta and all these other people came up with - this RNR risk-need-responsivity model - the risk part says that we should give people a risk assessment when they're entering prison or leaving prison and determine what level of risk are they from reoffending. And we assess these different criteria, like criminal thinking patterns and antisocial friends and substance abuse. So we determine what those factors are and then we design them a treatment program that actually deals with those factors at the individual level. So we're not just giving a blanket rehabilitation program to everybody, and you're providing the most amount of care to the people who most need it or who are the most likely to re-offend. And then once we've done all that, we need to make sure that we're addressing these problems in some sort of a format that we know actually works. The most well-known one, but not as often used, the most well-known within the sort of psychologist and criminological literature is cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]. So this is pretty popular for dealing with depression and all sorts of eating disorders and substance abuse problems in non-offender populations. Well, those programs also work in offender populations and they work pretty well. So the research shows - again meta-analyses - that when you deal with all these three factors - risk, need, and responsivity - you can reduce reoffending rates by about 26%. So it's a pretty sizeable amount - it's much greater than you're getting by just sentencing people to prison without doing anything. [00:28:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think you cover in your paper - those things are absolutely true. And you just talked about several administrations' attempts to implement programming and resources to try and help people get jobs, potentially - hey, there's even a CBT treatment, but if that treatment has twice as many people as are recommended being in a session and occurs over half the time that it's supposed to, you really are sabotaging the entire process or really setting it up for failure. And it just seems to be an expensive exercise that we aren't really getting anything out of. Does that seem to be consistent with how you've seen the attempts at introducing this programming within prisons and jails? [00:29:40] Damon Petrich: Yeah, for sure - this is a pretty common finding too - so it's not just about preaching that you're going to do these things. You actually have to implement them well. So just like you said, there's a number of studies that show this - so you've designed some really great program that deals with all of these risk factors that lead people back into reoffending, you give it to them in a cognitive behavioral setting. So all seems good on paper, but in practice, like you said - one of the famous studies there - can't remember the names of the authors offhand right now - but one of the famous studies there showed that they're providing it to people in groups of 30, as opposed to 15, and they're delivering it in a really short amount of time. And they're not maybe giving it to the highest-risk people - so they're just mixing random people in there at varying levels of risk. So when you do all these sorts of things - you implement the program poorly - you can't really expect it to work. And this is often the case - is the government pays people to come up with these great programs, and then not enough funding is provided to actually make sure that they're implemented and evaluated well. So the amount of funding that actually goes into that - developing the programs to begin with - is small, but when you do do that, you're not making sure that you're actually implementing things well. So it's just sort of shooting yourself in the foot, and probably making people come to the conclusion that these things don't work - when they do work, if you just implement them well. [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's also a lot of rhetoric - and you discuss this - there's a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, even coming from leadership within the Bureau of Prisons or leadership in our carceral system, saying we do want to rehabilitate people. We are trying to implement programming that does this. You see - we have these educational opportunities and we are doing evaluations of people. And it may be happening while they're understaffed or other challenges, but one of the biggest, I guess, red flags is that none of the evaluation of their programs and none of the incentives that arise are in any way tied to what is the actual result of what happens. Are you actually succeeding on reducing someone's likelihood for reoffense? It does not seem like any compensation is tied to that, any kind of evaluation of positions or regular reporting - to say, is this program having its intended effect? And if not, what do we need to do to correct for that? Is that what you found? [00:32:33] Damon Petrich: I would say that's probably a pretty fair assessment. A lot of the programs that are implemented are never evaluated at all. And then the ones that are - it's usually once - there's one evaluation of those programs. And then, like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a lot of self-reflection - I don't know what other word you would use - but these programs don't really change on the basis of these evaluations. So, it's kind of disheartening to hear about, I guess. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: It feels very disheartening to live in the middle of - and one of the big things about this is that this - we have these conversations and we talk about these studies and we're saying, yeah, it actually - we're not doing anyone any favors right now when it comes to reducing recidivism. And having these conversations oftentimes detached from the cost associated with what we're paying for these. And my goodness are we paying to incarcerate people? It's not just, well, we do lock them up and we keep them away. Or we do a good job of keeping them in - they reoffend, they go back to jail. And lots of people are like, we did our job, they went back to jail - boom, everything is fine. But we are paying through the nose and out the ear for this - just here, we're in the state of Washington, and right now the state spends about $112 per day, or over $40,000 annually, to incarcerate one individual - that's the cost per inmate. In King County - the county that we're in - they spend $192 a day, or $70,000 annually, to incarcerate an individual. That is a huge amount of the tax dollars that we spend - these come out of our general fund, meaning that these are dollars that every service, everything that is not a dedicated source of revenue, is competing for. So when we talk about things and have conversations like, well, we don't have the budget for that and we don't have the money - that is related to how much of that money we're spending on other things. And my goodness, I would think that we want to get our money's worth for that level of expenditure. And it really appears that if we're saying the goal of jail is to get people on the straight and narrow path and becoming contributing members of society and all of the implications of that, it doesn't seem like we're getting our money's worth. And so, if those aren't the goals and if we just want to punish people, it's not like we're punishing people for free. We're punishing people at the cost of $70,000 per day [year], and at the cost of all the other services and infrastructure needs that we have. So it really seems like we're punishing ourselves as much, or more, as others - particularly if we're bringing people back into society that are likely to reoffend in one way or another. And so if our goal is to keep our community safe and that is the North Star, it looks like we need to realign our processes and our expenditure of resources. I guess my question to you, after all that, is - how should we be moving forward? What should we be looking to do? What is shown to work? [00:36:24] Damon Petrich: Well, I would say - yeah, $70,000 a year as just a revenge cost per person seems like a lot. $80 billion in the country as a whole, for a revenge cost, seems like a pretty high price to pay, given we're not reducing reoffending. You could make the argument that these people aren't offending while they're in prison, but that's - there's other reasons why that might not be completely accurate, which I could talk about too, but - [00:36:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm interested in that. Why might that not be accurate? [00:37:03] Damon Petrich: So, obviously the person - if you incarcerate a particular individual, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So that's obvious, but there's a number of reasons why that might not, en masse, actually reduce crime a whole lot. The research on it - this is a little bit squishy - in terms of whether incarcerating more people leads to lower crime rates, because one influences the other. But for example, if you look at illegal drug markets - a lot of the homicides in the United States and other violent crime that people are really concerned about, and it's plastered all over the media is - homicides, gang-related stuff. So if you take key gang members out and you put them in prison, what ends up happening is that there's competition in that market to take over that person's place, either within the gang or other gangs coming in. So what ends up happening oftentimes is a spike in violence. So that's one reason why just incapacitating, particularly high-crime individuals, might not actually lead to lower crime rates overall. Again, you're lowering crime for that one person, but you might be increasing crime on a more systemic level. Beyond that, these things have broader societal and community level impacts - incarcerating a lot of people. Again, research shows that when you're incarcerating a lot of people in a particular community - so there's a bunch of really good work by Robert Sampson - he has a book that came out a few years ago called Great American City. And he looked at these individual neighborhoods in Chicago over time, and what he finds is that in communities where there's a higher number of people incarcerated in a particular community, this ends up increasing what's called "legal cynicism." And this is done in some other work as well with David Kirk and Andrew Papachristos - but they show that this increases legal cynicism, which means people are skeptical of police helping them out, the police doing a good job. And what ends up happening after that - when people are more cynical of the legal system, they're less likely to report crimes to the police, they're less likely to cooperate with the police. So what ends up happening? You incarcerate more people and people in that community end up being less willing to cooperate with law enforcement. And this leads to sort of an endless cycle where things sort of get out of hand. So there's all these unintended and nonfinancial consequences of incarcerating a lot of people that could potentially end up leading to more crime. [00:40:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and - speaking as a Black woman - obviously, looking at the impacts of mass incarceration in the Black community and in neighborhoods around the country - where it is almost like the community is responding to the actual outcome and that, Hey, this actually isn't making my community any better. I'm experiencing traumatic impacts from this - whether it's my relative went to prison or a sole breadwinner in the family and now we're thrown into poverty, or I'm in a situation where I don't have a parent who used to be there - who now is no longer there. Or causing instability and impacting the education that people get and the kind of job opportunity, watching someone who's come out have to struggle and be ostracized. And it looks like, Hey, this is just the first step on a long cycle of traumatic and undesirable events - and I don't want to participate in a system that is doing that. With that, as we look forward, and I think this is also related to conversations about just fundamental trust in our criminal legal system and relations with police and throughout the system. It's - if we think about how to turn that around - to me, seems related to thinking about the question of how do we get better outcomes for everyone? 'Cause it seems like right now where we're investing a lot in poor outcomes for people who were already, usually, in pretty poor spots leading to themselves being incarcerated, coming out and not necessarily improving, definitely not improving. And if anything, a chance that it gets a little bit worse. How do we change that entire outcome? And I know you're looking specifically in the incarceration space, but what should be, what could be done differently? Or do we just need a fundamental restructuring of the way we do this? [00:42:17] Damon Petrich: I don't know about a fundamental restructuring - I don't, I'm not great at that high-level thinking stuff, but what I do know is that - we're probably going to continue to incarcerate people. That's something that's done in every country and people seem to love here. So if we actually want to use prison for public safety - because 95% of inmates eventually get out - if we actually want to use it for public safety, then let's actually try wholeheartedly to rehabilitate them while they're in there. And again, there's a lot of theory and evidence-based principles on how we can do this, like the risk-need-responsivity model that I talked about earlier, cognitive behavioral therapy more broadly. If you use these types of things and continue to work on them and develop them over time, then yeah - prison might actually be helpful if people are going there and getting the help that they need. But that's not what's happening currently. So that's one level in incarceration terms - that's the area that I know best. So that's one way you could potentially alleviate some of this stuff is - if people are actually getting resources and stuff when they're in prison, and then when once they're reintegrating, they're not only going to reoffend less, but maybe they're going to contribute to their community more. They're going to be better able to connect with their family and stuff like that. So rather than being a hindrance, it could potentially be a help. Obviously, again, it's not ideal to remove people from their communities and their family and friends. And like I said earlier, if you have the option to sentence them to something community-based instead, I think that's the better route to go. But if you are going to send people to prison, which I think we're going to continue to do a lot of the time, then let's rehabilitate them while they're in there is the main point. And do so based on what actually works to do that. [00:44:23] Crystal Fincher: It's really the investment in the people who are there, and we're - I think up against a lot of societal attitudes and resistance where it just feels wrong to a number of people to be providing services and shifting that investment to things that are seemingly helpful for the inmate, because everything about how we've been conditioned to understand our prison system has been - the punishment is kind of the key, and they'll make rational decisions afterwards to avoid prison based on how bad the punishment is. When it comes to community supervision, things like probation, what are the differences there? If there are better outcomes from that, what accounts for the better outcomes when it comes to probation versus incarceration? [00:45:23] Damon Petrich: I wouldn't say the outcomes are better - they're just pretty much the same as they would be if they're sentenced to prison. So, probation costs less and then it also enables the people to be out in the community doing community things, like being with their friends and families and all that. I mean, you can't quantify, based on a recidivism percentage, what their family members and friends and employers are getting out of it. So that's something we can't really look at - or I guess you could, but something we don't often do - but so there's intangible things that you would get by keeping people in the community. Plus it doesn't lead to all that other stuff I talked about where people become cynical of the legal system and it leads to this cycle of whatever. [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so if we're were doing this programming in prison and helping people, I think your research shows it's extremely important to do both the structural, Hey, you need a place to live, you need to be able to pay your rent and your bills - so having a job, having housing, having healthcare, getting those very basic needs met is critical. But also addressing a number of the mental or behavioral health issues that are common among the incarcerated population - and dealing with that is as important. And basically those two things both need to happen hand-in-hand. How do we do a better job of that in our current system? [00:46:57] Damon Petrich: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that you're right there - I think maybe when I was talking earlier about employment, it might sound like giving people jobs is just a waste of time, but that's not the case. It needs - the two things need to be paired - you need to deal with the cognitive and behavioral problems in addition to giving them jobs and housing support and all that. In terms of how you actually go about doing that, there are examples in the literature of programs that do this, so there's examples out there. I think if you're a state or local or even federal correctional department and you're interested in doing this - implementing something that's evidence-based - or if you're just a concerned citizen that wants to rally your local officials to do that - go and talk to researchers like me, or people at universities that have criminology departments or criminal justice departments, because this knowledge is out there. It's widely available. You just have to go and seek it out. So at my university, for example, we have the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and under the guidance of Ed Latessa, he was - now passed - but he was, over the last 30 years, responsible for disseminating a lot of this evidence-based practices to some of the state and local criminal justice agencies. And they helped with implementation and evaluation in a lot of these places, so the help is out there. You just have to look for it a little bit. [00:48:38] Crystal Fincher: And another question I had - your analysis seemed to suggest that when we're talking about low-risk, medium, and high-risk offenders - or people who have done relatively minor crimes versus those who have done more serious crimes - that these interventions are particularly effective the more serious the offense or crime has been. And that perhaps even sometimes treating someone who is a really low-risk as if they're a high-risk, can worsen the outcomes for that person. Is that the case? [00:49:21] Damon Petrich: Yeah, that tends to be a finding in research - we're not exactly sure why, but providing a lot of really intensive services to people deemed to be low-risk can actually be harmful rather than helpful. We don't know based on research why, but there's a lot of pretty good hypotheses about why. So a low-risk offender is going to be somebody who's a first-timer who's committed some not-that-serious crime. So they probably have a job, they probably have pretty strong connections with their family and all that. So if you're taking them and you're putting them in a program where you have to be there 40 hours a week, they're probably going to get fired from their job, it's going to be harder to stay in contact with friends and families that are sort of tying you into a non-criminal life. And then you're probably going to be associating with all kinds of people who are high-risk, and maybe they're going to draw you towards, oh yeah, I could earn four grand going out tonight and stealing some laptops. There's a lot of reasons why just taking low-risk people and putting them in these programs is going to be harmful rather than helpful. [00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: And so with that in mind, and you talk about, Hey, if we're trying to influence local electeds - one of the interesting things about having a podcast and radio show that caters to extremely politically and civically inclined people is that we actually do have a number of policymakers and politicians who listen, and people who are enacting and in control of this policy. If you were to talk to them and give them advice about how to move forward, especially in the current environment that we find ourselves in, where over the past few years has been increasing awareness of some of the defecits of our system and pushes to change those. And also, as we have seen more recently, a real strong pushback from a lot of people who are invested in our current system saying, Hey, let's not change things too much. Maybe we need to jail more and for longer. And maybe we're just not doing enough incarceration, and that's the answer. In that kind of political environment, what would you tell people who are in charge of this policy, who may be facing pressure to keep going forward with the status quo, about how they should evaluate how they should move forward and the kinds of things that they should do? [00:52:07] Damon Petrich: I know a lot of these politicians get lobbied by correctional officer groups or whatever, and that's whatever, but ultimately you get voted in by voters. So, I'm not an expert on public opinion - I have other friends who are more into that kind of stuff, but I do know from talking with them and from reading that literature, that the public actually does support rehabilitation. So they have for a long time and it's shifted more towards being in support of rehabilitation over time. So right now, most Americans support providing rehabilitation programs to prisoners and offenders. So this is something that's going to please your constituency, people want this kind of thing. And it's not like you're going to be losing all kinds of jobs by getting rid of prison - there's going to be a need for skilled people who can provide these programs and probation officers and all these sorts of things. So it's not a net loss when you're getting rid of prisons. There's a lot of reasons to sentence people to community supervision and things like that - provide rehabilitation. There's public support for it, there's jobs involved, there's cost savings - big time, obviously - it's way cheaper to keep somebody out of prison than it is to keep them in prison. So there's a lot of different reasons why you would want to do that as a politician. [00:53:43] Crystal Fincher: I think that makes sense. Certainly it's a lot cheaper to keep someone out of prison versus in prison. I mean, we talked about the annual costs - in the state of Washington over $40,000, King County over $70,000 - comparing that to how much we invest in a student of $11,500 a year. If we focus more on investing in people, both inside and outside the system, it seems like we set ourselves up for a safer community, fewer people being victimized, and more people leading thriving, productive, tax-paying lives. And we're all happier than we are right now, I would think, I would hope - it seems like the research points in that direction. So I certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with us about this. Is there anything else that you want to leave with us, in thinking about this study and your research? [00:54:55] Damon Petrich: I think we covered it pretty well. Just to circle back to something you just said - I know this might put me out of a job since I focus on what happens when people's lives go awry, but you really are better off to invest in early prevention programs and giving people a good start on life than trying to correct the program or the problem afterwards. So yeah - politicians spend some money on prevention programs. I know the good effects of that are a long way out, but they're actually good on a societal level. So I guess I would add that, even though it's not good for criminologists, maybe, to put themselves out of a job like that. [00:55:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, much appreciated, and thank you so much for having this conversation with us today. [00:55:45] Damon Petrich: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on. I'm glad that there are people out there interested in this stuff, so thanks again. [00:55:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

248: Birmingham Commonwealth Games Marathon Brad struggles with a sore throat. Julian finds a brief appreciation for parenting and spends time with the new puppy. Brady learns the hard way why you should always change the batteries in a GoPro. Jessica Stenson won the gold medal in the Commonwealth Games Marathon running 2:27:31 on the streets of Birmingham adding to her two bronze medals from the previous games at Glasgow and Gold Coast. Teammates Eloise Wellings and Sinead Diver who ran with Jess in the main pack for a significant portion of the race finished fourth and fifth respectively. Margaret Muruiki of Kenya and defending champion Helalia Johannes of Namibia rounded out the podium. Official Women's Marathon Results Liam Adams took the race on in the men's marathon, leading for over the first half of the race before Victor Kiplangat of Uganda and the then-chasing pack broke the race open, Kiplangat winning in 2:10:55. Alphonce Simbu of Tanzania won silver and Githae of Kenya took the bronze, with Liam only 7 seconds behind Githae in fourth. Andy Buchanan moved through the field to finish 7th overall in his debut global championship. Official Men's Marathon Results . The boys then discuss the significance of Commonwealth Games compared to the World Athletics Championships and the potential impact on the next generation and general public. https://www.runnerstribe.com/latest-news/australias-jessica-stenson-wins-commonwealth-games-marathon-gold/  In the South Australia XC Champs, it was Matt Clarke over Adrian Potter and Max Stevens over 10k at Victoria Park, while Caitlin Adams took the state title ahead of Lucy Mauviel and Brooke Heins. Results Queensland State XC Champs won by Aidan Hobbs and Lauren Kerwick. Results Sydney Marathon to undergo candidacy process for World Major Marathon status. Official Press Release This week the boys go through a series of quick-fire listener questions, ranging from the comm games marathon, the recent world championships and the very early Paris Olympic marathon team selection. Moose on the Loose winds things up with the small fields on display and some of the bureaucratic mishaps with the marathon lineups. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

247: World Athletics Champs Week 2 | Victorian State XC Champs   This week's episode of the Inside Running podcast is proudly sponsored by ASICS. Make your fastest runs even faster with the cutting-edge METASPEED+ series. Featuring our lightest, most reactive FF Blast Turbo cushioning and a full-length carbon plate the METASPEED™+ Series is waiting to help you find your speed. Visit www.asics.com.au or your specialty running store to grab your pair today.   Julian recaps his week leading to the Victorian XC Champs at Bundoora. Brad continues to rebuild post-marathon and starts to pivot in a new direction. Brady puts the finishes touches on the Johnno's Run 10k in Echuca Moama before hitting 9th at Bundoora. Continuing at the World Athletic Championships where Jessica Hull placed 7th in 4:01.82 and Georgia Griffith 9th in 4:03.26. Olympic Champion Faith Kipyegon regained her 1500m world title ahead of Gudaf Tsegay of Ethiopia and Laura Muir of Great Britain. https://www.runnerstribe.com/latest-news/faith-kipyegon-regains-world-1500m-title-in-fast-final/?fbclid=IwAR2BY2ymwMO_d51EWd8Nzjr7umPI7-QfUZAnCevN-qWjTU5UOpOZTuxAxHc    Stewart McSweyn ran a seasonal best of 3:33.24, as Jake Wightman of Great Britain upset the favourite and Olympic Champion Jakob Ingebrigsten.   In the Women's 5000m, Nat Rule was unable to finish her heat, while Rose Davies finished 15th overall with a time of 15:45.95, Jess Hull withdrew testing positive for covid following the 1500m final. The Final was won by Gudaf Tsegay, adding gold after her silver in the 1500m. The Men's 5000m saw Ky Robinson post 13:27.03 in his heat, just shy of his personal best while Matt Ramsden ran 13:52.90 in his. Jack Rayner withdrew to prioritise Commonwealth Games. Jakob Ingebrigsten won the final in redemption for the 1500m, just ahead of Jacob Krop of Kenya and Oscar Chelimo of Uganda.   Peter Bol progressed through to the Men's 800m final to place 7th overall. Joseph Deng withdrew from the heats citing achilles problems. Catriona Bissett finished with 2:05.20 in the Women's 800m semi final after a bruising encounter in the heats, with debuts made by Tess Kirsop-Cole and Claudia Hollingsworth. Sarah Klein moved through the field to place 14th in the Women's Marathon in a personal best time of 2:30:10 https://www.runnerstribe.com/latest-news/bol-bows-out-buschkuehl-leaps-into-final/ World Athletics Results   Sydney Harbour 10k won by Brett Robinson in 28:42 ahead of Matt Clarke and Ed Goddard. The women's race was won by Chloe Tighe 32:24 ahead of Leanne Pompeani and Aynslee Van Graan. Sydney Harbour 10k Results https://www.instagram.com/p/CgYJgTtPQaO/    Melissa Duncan for Box Hill and Seth O'Donnell of Mentone take out the Victorian State XC Titles at Bundoora Park. In the teams it was another victory each for Glenhuntly and Premier Division Women and Bendigo Region in Premier Division Men. Aths Vic ResultsHub https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjn4Gl-qE1g  Listener Question of the week asks what elite runners do between hard efforts and races that amateurs miss out on, and what can be done as athletes get older. The boys then review the ASICS Metaspeed+ Series, reviewing differences between the Metaspeed Sky+ and the Metaspeed Edge+, going through how they find the ride of each and where they find it in their rotation. Moose on the Loose talks about the mounting costs and fees involved with state representation after you've qualified for the privilege. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

238: Birmingham Diamond League | USATF Distance Classic This episode of the Inside Running Podcast is brought to you by PILLAR Performance – Australia's leading sports micronutrition brand – providing high-strength formulations to support recovery, elevate energy and relieve joint inflammation for endurance athletes.  Available online now at pillarperformance.shop   Brad accelerates his training volume ahead of Gold Coast in 6 weeks time. Julian keeps watch over Pia while floating the idea of softly getting back into cross country. Brady skims through the Moose Fartlek and welcomes some newcomers to the Barmah Park loop. Birmingham Diamond League featured more Australians, with Oliver Hoare scores bronze in the Men's 1500m in 3:35.76, with Matt Ramsden running 3:39 and Stewy McSweyn in 3:44.14. Peter Bol followed up his performance in Doha with a 1:47.59 in the 800m. Jessica Hull takes a narrow silver placing just behind Laura Muir, in 4:03.42 and ahead of Winnie Chebet of Kenya. In the Women's 5000m, Rose Davies ran 15:28.47 and Izzy Batt-Doyle closely behind in 15:29.05. Birmingham Diamond League Results   Abby Caldwell took the win in the 1500m 4:04.18 at the USATF Distance Classic, Walnut California, securing her World Champs qualification. Jack Bruce came 3rd in 13:39.44 for the Men's 5000m, ahead of Sam McEntee in 7th and Kang Nyoak in 8th. Paige Campbell also featured in the women's 5000m. Matt Clarke ran 8:33 and Max Stevens posted 8:45 in the Men's Steeplechase while Amy Cashin won the Women's Steeplechase in 9:31.28, with Brielle Erbacher 5th in 9:46.29. USATF Distance Classic Results https://www.instagram.com/p/Cd4oSiwL9vF/  Jack Rayner came 2nd in the Great Manchester 10k in 28:16, 10 seconds behind winner Jake Robertson of New Zealand. Results via World-Track   Shelby Houlihan loses her appeal on her doping ban, remains ineligible to compete until January 2025. NBC Sports Report   Jessica Stenson took out the SA 10k Road Champs in 32:59 at West Beach ahead of Jess Pascoe and Brooke Hines. Adrian Potter takes the win in 29:07 ahead of brothers Jacob Cocks and Riley Cocks. SA Athletics Results   St George Classic 10k XC held the Novice Champs won by Dylan Offord and Asha Martin while the open race was taken out by Ben St Lawrence and Naomi Tacred. Athletics NSW Results   Listener Question asks how to balance running with being a new parent Moose gives this week's training talk presented by Lululemon: - 5x300m, 100m recovery w/400m jog recovery Moose explains how this workout designed reintroduction to faster workouts, with an emphasis on the recovery periods and the importance of group training. Moose spruiks the Nike Aeroswift Tights, then boys wrap up with a preview of the fields in a loaded Diamond League Pre Classic this Saturday 28th May.  Tickets are now on sale for the IRP Gold Coast Marathon Live Show presented by Pillar Performance to be held at the Southport RSL on Sunday 3rd July after the event. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

On this Hacks & Wonks midweek show, Crystal has a robust conversation with Damon Petrich about his research at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review's finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and reach Damon for more information about his research at petricdm@ucmail.uc.edu   Resources  “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715100   Scott Hechinger Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1447596444886523911   “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html   “Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-en.aspx   “Let's Take a Hard Look at Who Is in Jail and Why We Put Them There” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog: https://www.aclu-wa.org/blog/let-s-take-hard-look-who-jail-and-why-we-put-them-there   Book - “Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect” by Robert J. Sampson: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo5514383.html   Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism: Why They Matter and How to Measure in Your Community”: https://www.lisc.org/media/filer_public/05/0b/050ba3aa-044f-4676-bc1e-6e2b6c48412c/091317_bcji_resources_police_legitimacy_fundamentals.pdf   “Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/nov/6/polls-show-people-favor-rehabilitation-over-incarceration/   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably the main one is the rehabilitation is not the greatest. So just as an example, substance abuse is a very strong predictor whether people are going to reoffend, unsurprisingly. About 50% of prisoners at the state and federal level in The States meet the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] criteria for having a substance use abuse disorder - so they meet the clinical criteria for substance abuse disorder. So half of them, and then more than that just use substances, but they don't meet the criteria for a disorder. But of that 50% who has a substance abuse disorder, only about 20% of those actually receives treatment for it while they're incarcerated. So, you're not dealing with a root cause of reoffending while they're in prison - so you're not deterring them, but you're also not rehabilitating them - so you're really not doing anything. And then in the rare cases where these people are provided with rehabilitation or reentry programming, it's often not based on any sort of evidence-based model of how you actually change people. So there's a lot of psychological and criminology theory and research on how you actually elicit behavioral change, and these programs really aren't in line with any of that. And I could give examples if you wanted, but - [00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. I think that's helpful, 'cause I think a lot of people do assume, and sometimes it's been controversial - wow, look at how much they're coddling these prisoners - they have these educational programs, and they get all this drug treatment for free, and if they don't come out fixed then it's their own fault because they have access to all of these treatment resources in prison. Is that the case? [00:21:43] Damon Petrich: No, I wouldn't say so - first of all, they don't have access, a lot of them, to any programs. And then, like I said, the programs that they do get really aren't that effective. So the big one that everybody loves to argue for is providing former inmates with jobs. If you look at any federal funding for program development, like the Second Chance Act or the First Step Act - I think that was one under Trump - and then under Bush, there was a Serious [and] Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative - pretty much all of these federal bills will be heavily focused on just providing offenders with jobs. And almost all of the evaluations of these programs show that they don't reduce reoffending. And it's not really that hard - again, if you go back to the literature on behavioral change and, criminology literature - it's not really that hard to understand why just providing a job isn't going to reduce or lead somebody away from a life of crime. A lot of these people have spotty work histories where they've never had a job at all, they believe and know that it's easier to gain money by doing illicit work than it is legal work, they have things like low self-control so they're very impulsive, they don't know how to take criticism or being told what to do by a boss. They live in neighborhoods with very poor opportunities for good jobs and education, and maybe there's a mindset around there that illegal work or whatever is just a better way to go - that's sort of ingrained. So there's a lot of different reasons why just handing somebody a job isn't going to lead them away from crime, 'cause they have all these other things that need to be dealt with first. So ideally, a rehabilitation program that's comprehensive would deal with all of those other background factors and then provide them with a job. Because if you make them less impulsive, better able to resist the influence of their antisocial friends, and get this thought out of their head that other people are being hostile towards them when they're really not - all these sorts of cognitive and behavioral biases that they have - if you deal with all of those things and then you give them a job, they're more likely to actually latch onto that job as something worthwhile doing. And then they're going to go on to get out of a life of crime. But if you just give them a job and you haven't dealt with any of those issues, you can't really expect that to work. And that is the model that we currently do - is something that we don't really expect to work that well. [00:24:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's - it's really interesting and I don't know that a lot of people actually know that, Hey, giving someone a job isn't sufficient - which is why I think it's so important to talk about studies like this, because some of what has become conventional wisdom, really is not accurate or reflects what has been studied and discovered. And I guess in that vein, what are the factors - you just talked about a few - but what does increase someone's likelihood of reoffending or recidivism, and what reduces it? [00:25:08] Damon Petrich: So those are probably two ends of the same, or two sides of the same coin, but this is pretty well known in criminology - a model called the risk-need-responsivity [RNR] model was developed by a couple of fellow Canadians, named James Bonta and Don Andrews, along with some of their colleagues in the '80s and '90s. And they, through again, other meta-analyses just like we did, found certain categories of characteristics of people who are more likely to reoffend. So you have things like having antisocial peers - so that one's pretty obvious - if you have a bunch of friends that are involved in crime, it's going to be pretty hard for you to get out of that life because you're surrounded by those people. Same with family members. If you have what are called criminal thinking patterns - so again, you might have what's called a hostile attribution bias, things like that, where somebody says something a little bit negative to you and you take that as a huge insult and you retaliate with anger and aggression - things like that. Or being impulsive - so you're again quick to anger, you're swayed by small little enticements in the environment and that sort of thing - so you're easily swayed one way or the other. Things like that are strong predictors of reoffending. Substance abuse - it's what I mentioned earlier. If you don't really have any sort of proactive leisure activities, like hobbies and stuff like that. So there's a bunch of well-known things that we know are strongly associated with recidivism, and a rehabilitation program should ideally deal with them. Now this model that Andrews and Bonta and all these other people came up with - this RNR risk-need-responsivity model - the risk part says that we should give people a risk assessment when they're entering prison or leaving prison and determine what level of risk are they from reoffending. And we assess these different criteria, like criminal thinking patterns and antisocial friends and substance abuse. So we determine what those factors are and then we design them a treatment program that actually deals with those factors at the individual level. So we're not just giving a blanket rehabilitation program to everybody, and you're providing the most amount of care to the people who most need it or who are the most likely to re-offend. And then once we've done all that, we need to make sure that we're addressing these problems in some sort of a format that we know actually works. The most well-known one, but not as often used, the most well-known within the sort of psychologist and criminological literature is cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]. So this is pretty popular for dealing with depression and all sorts of eating disorders and substance abuse problems in non-offender populations. Well, those programs also work in offender populations and they work pretty well. So the research shows - again meta-analyses - that when you deal with all these three factors - risk, need, and responsivity - you can reduce reoffending rates by about 26%. So it's a pretty sizeable amount - it's much greater than you're getting by just sentencing people to prison without doing anything. [00:28:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think you cover in your paper - those things are absolutely true. And you just talked about several administrations' attempts to implement programming and resources to try and help people get jobs, potentially - hey, there's even a CBT treatment, but if that treatment has twice as many people as are recommended being in a session and occurs over half the time that it's supposed to, you really are sabotaging the entire process or really setting it up for failure. And it just seems to be an expensive exercise that we aren't really getting anything out of. Does that seem to be consistent with how you've seen the attempts at introducing this programming within prisons and jails? [00:29:40] Damon Petrich: Yeah, for sure - this is a pretty common finding too - so it's not just about preaching that you're going to do these things. You actually have to implement them well. So just like you said, there's a number of studies that show this - so you've designed some really great program that deals with all of these risk factors that lead people back into reoffending, you give it to them in a cognitive behavioral setting. So all seems good on paper, but in practice, like you said - one of the famous studies there - can't remember the names of the authors offhand right now - but one of the famous studies there showed that they're providing it to people in groups of 30, as opposed to 15, and they're delivering it in a really short amount of time. And they're not maybe giving it to the highest-risk people - so they're just mixing random people in there at varying levels of risk. So when you do all these sorts of things - you implement the program poorly - you can't really expect it to work. And this is often the case - is the government pays people to come up with these great programs, and then not enough funding is provided to actually make sure that they're implemented and evaluated well. So the amount of funding that actually goes into that - developing the programs to begin with - is small, but when you do do that, you're not making sure that you're actually implementing things well. So it's just sort of shooting yourself in the foot, and probably making people come to the conclusion that these things don't work - when they do work, if you just implement them well. [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's also a lot of rhetoric - and you discuss this - there's a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, even coming from leadership within the Bureau of Prisons or leadership in our carceral system, saying we do want to rehabilitate people. We are trying to implement programming that does this. You see - we have these educational opportunities and we are doing evaluations of people. And it may be happening while they're understaffed or other challenges, but one of the biggest, I guess, red flags is that none of the evaluation of their programs and none of the incentives that arise are in any way tied to what is the actual result of what happens. Are you actually succeeding on reducing someone's likelihood for reoffense? It does not seem like any compensation is tied to that, any kind of evaluation of positions or regular reporting - to say, is this program having its intended effect? And if not, what do we need to do to correct for that? Is that what you found? [00:32:33] Damon Petrich: I would say that's probably a pretty fair assessment. A lot of the programs that are implemented are never evaluated at all. And then the ones that are - it's usually once - there's one evaluation of those programs. And then, like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a lot of self-reflection - I don't know what other word you would use - but these programs don't really change on the basis of these evaluations. So, it's kind of disheartening to hear about, I guess. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: It feels very disheartening to live in the middle of - and one of the big things about this is that this - we have these conversations and we talk about these studies and we're saying, yeah, it actually - we're not doing anyone any favors right now when it comes to reducing recidivism. And having these conversations oftentimes detached from the cost associated with what we're paying for these. And my goodness are we paying to incarcerate people? It's not just, well, we do lock them up and we keep them away. Or we do a good job of keeping them in - they reoffend, they go back to jail. And lots of people are like, we did our job, they went back to jail - boom, everything is fine. But we are paying through the nose and out the ear for this - just here, we're in the state of Washington, and right now the state spends about $112 per day, or over $40,000 annually, to incarcerate one individual - that's the cost per inmate. In King County - the county that we're in - they spend $192 a day, or $70,000 annually, to incarcerate an individual. That is a huge amount of the tax dollars that we spend - these come out of our general fund, meaning that these are dollars that every service, everything that is not a dedicated source of revenue, is competing for. So when we talk about things and have conversations like, well, we don't have the budget for that and we don't have the money - that is related to how much of that money we're spending on other things. And my goodness, I would think that we want to get our money's worth for that level of expenditure. And it really appears that if we're saying the goal of jail is to get people on the straight and narrow path and becoming contributing members of society and all of the implications of that, it doesn't seem like we're getting our money's worth. And so, if those aren't the goals and if we just want to punish people, it's not like we're punishing people for free. We're punishing people at the cost of $70,000 per day [year], and at the cost of all the other services and infrastructure needs that we have. So it really seems like we're punishing ourselves as much, or more, as others - particularly if we're bringing people back into society that are likely to reoffend in one way or another. And so if our goal is to keep our community safe and that is the North Star, it looks like we need to realign our processes and our expenditure of resources. I guess my question to you, after all that, is - how should we be moving forward? What should we be looking to do? What is shown to work? [00:36:24] Damon Petrich: Well, I would say - yeah, $70,000 a year as just a revenge cost per person seems like a lot. $80 billion in the country as a whole, for a revenge cost, seems like a pretty high price to pay, given we're not reducing reoffending. You could make the argument that these people aren't offending while they're in prison, but that's - there's other reasons why that might not be completely accurate, which I could talk about too, but - [00:36:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm interested in that. Why might that not be accurate? [00:37:03] Damon Petrich: So, obviously the person - if you incarcerate a particular individual, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So that's obvious, but there's a number of reasons why that might not, en masse, actually reduce crime a whole lot. The research on it - this is a little bit squishy - in terms of whether incarcerating more people leads to lower crime rates, because one influences the other. But for example, if you look at illegal drug markets - a lot of the homicides in the United States and other violent crime that people are really concerned about, and it's plastered all over the media is - homicides, gang-related stuff. So if you take key gang members out and you put them in prison, what ends up happening is that there's competition in that market to take over that person's place, either within the gang or other gangs coming in. So what ends up happening oftentimes is a spike in violence. So that's one reason why just incapacitating, particularly high-crime individuals, might not actually lead to lower crime rates overall. Again, you're lowering crime for that one person, but you might be increasing crime on a more systemic level. Beyond that, these things have broader societal and community level impacts - incarcerating a lot of people. Again, research shows that when you're incarcerating a lot of people in a particular community - so there's a bunch of really good work by Robert Sampson - he has a book that came out a few years ago called Great American City. And he looked at these individual neighborhoods in Chicago over time, and what he finds is that in communities where there's a higher number of people incarcerated in a particular community, this ends up increasing what's called "legal cynicism." And this is done in some other work as well with David Kirk and Andrew Papachristos - but they show that this increases legal cynicism, which means people are skeptical of police helping them out, the police doing a good job. And what ends up happening after that - when people are more cynical of the legal system, they're less likely to report crimes to the police, they're less likely to cooperate with the police. So what ends up happening? You incarcerate more people and people in that community end up being less willing to cooperate with law enforcement. And this leads to sort of an endless cycle where things sort of get out of hand. So there's all these unintended and nonfinancial consequences of incarcerating a lot of people that could potentially end up leading to more crime. [00:40:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and - speaking as a Black woman - obviously, looking at the impacts of mass incarceration in the Black community and in neighborhoods around the country - where it is almost like the community is responding to the actual outcome and that, Hey, this actually isn't making my community any better. I'm experiencing traumatic impacts from this - whether it's my relative went to prison or a sole breadwinner in the family and now we're thrown into poverty, or I'm in a situation where I don't have a parent who used to be there - who now is no longer there. Or causing instability and impacting the education that people get and the kind of job opportunity, watching someone who's come out have to struggle and be ostracized. And it looks like, Hey, this is just the first step on a long cycle of traumatic and undesirable events - and I don't want to participate in a system that is doing that. With that, as we look forward, and I think this is also related to conversations about just fundamental trust in our criminal legal system and relations with police and throughout the system. It's - if we think about how to turn that around - to me, seems related to thinking about the question of how do we get better outcomes for everyone? 'Cause it seems like right now where we're investing a lot in poor outcomes for people who were already, usually, in pretty poor spots leading to themselves being incarcerated, coming out and not necessarily improving, definitely not improving. And if anything, a chance that it gets a little bit worse. How do we change that entire outcome? And I know you're looking specifically in the incarceration space, but what should be, what could be done differently? Or do we just need a fundamental restructuring of the way we do this? [00:42:17] Damon Petrich: I don't know about a fundamental restructuring - I don't, I'm not great at that high-level thinking stuff, but what I do know is that - we're probably going to continue to incarcerate people. That's something that's done in every country and people seem to love here. So if we actually want to use prison for public safety - because 95% of inmates eventually get out - if we actually want to use it for public safety, then let's actually try wholeheartedly to rehabilitate them while they're in there. And again, there's a lot of theory and evidence-based principles on how we can do this, like the risk-need-responsivity model that I talked about earlier, cognitive behavioral therapy more broadly. If you use these types of things and continue to work on them and develop them over time, then yeah - prison might actually be helpful if people are going there and getting the help that they need. But that's not what's happening currently. So that's one level in incarceration terms - that's the area that I know best. So that's one way you could potentially alleviate some of this stuff is - if people are actually getting resources and stuff when they're in prison, and then when once they're reintegrating, they're not only going to reoffend less, but maybe they're going to contribute to their community more. They're going to be better able to connect with their family and stuff like that. So rather than being a hindrance, it could potentially be a help. Obviously, again, it's not ideal to remove people from their communities and their family and friends. And like I said earlier, if you have the option to sentence them to something community-based instead, I think that's the better route to go. But if you are going to send people to prison, which I think we're going to continue to do a lot of the time, then let's rehabilitate them while they're in there is the main point. And do so based on what actually works to do that. [00:44:23] Crystal Fincher: It's really the investment in the people who are there, and we're - I think up against a lot of societal attitudes and resistance where it just feels wrong to a number of people to be providing services and shifting that investment to things that are seemingly helpful for the inmate, because everything about how we've been conditioned to understand our prison system has been - the punishment is kind of the key, and they'll make rational decisions afterwards to avoid prison based on how bad the punishment is. When it comes to community supervision, things like probation, what are the differences there? If there are better outcomes from that, what accounts for the better outcomes when it comes to probation versus incarceration? [00:45:23] Damon Petrich: I wouldn't say the outcomes are better - they're just pretty much the same as they would be if they're sentenced to prison. So, probation costs less and then it also enables the people to be out in the community doing community things, like being with their friends and families and all that. I mean, you can't quantify, based on a recidivism percentage, what their family members and friends and employers are getting out of it. So that's something we can't really look at - or I guess you could, but something we don't often do - but so there's intangible things that you would get by keeping people in the community. Plus it doesn't lead to all that other stuff I talked about where people become cynical of the legal system and it leads to this cycle of whatever. [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so if we're were doing this programming in prison and helping people, I think your research shows it's extremely important to do both the structural, Hey, you need a place to live, you need to be able to pay your rent and your bills - so having a job, having housing, having healthcare, getting those very basic needs met is critical. But also addressing a number of the mental or behavioral health issues that are common among the incarcerated population - and dealing with that is as important. And basically those two things both need to happen hand-in-hand. How do we do a better job of that in our current system? [00:46:57] Damon Petrich: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that you're right there - I think maybe when I was talking earlier about employment, it might sound like giving people jobs is just a waste of time, but that's not the case. It needs - the two things need to be paired - you need to deal with the cognitive and behavioral problems in addition to giving them jobs and housing support and all that. In terms of how you actually go about doing that, there are examples in the literature of programs that do this, so there's examples out there. I think if you're a state or local or even federal correctional department and you're interested in doing this - implementing something that's evidence-based - or if you're just a concerned citizen that wants to rally your local officials to do that - go and talk to researchers like me, or people at universities that have criminology departments or criminal justice departments, because this knowledge is out there. It's widely available. You just have to go and seek it out. So at my university, for example, we have the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and under the guidance of Ed Latessa, he was - now passed - but he was, over the last 30 years, responsible for disseminating a lot of this evidence-based practices to some of the state and local criminal justice agencies. And they helped with implementation and evaluation in a lot of these places, so the help is out there. You just have to look for it a little bit. [00:48:38] Crystal Fincher: And another question I had - your analysis seemed to suggest that when we're talking about low-risk, medium, and high-risk offenders - or people who have done relatively minor crimes versus those who have done more serious crimes - that these interventions are particularly effective the more serious the offense or crime has been. And that perhaps even sometimes treating someone who is a really low-risk as if they're a high-risk, can worsen the outcomes for that person. Is that the case? [00:49:21] Damon Petrich: Yeah, that tends to be a finding in research - we're not exactly sure why, but providing a lot of really intensive services to people deemed to be low-risk can actually be harmful rather than helpful. We don't know based on research why, but there's a lot of pretty good hypotheses about why. So a low-risk offender is going to be somebody who's a first-timer who's committed some not-that-serious crime. So they probably have a job, they probably have pretty strong connections with their family and all that. So if you're taking them and you're putting them in a program where you have to be there 40 hours a week, they're probably going to get fired from their job, it's going to be harder to stay in contact with friends and families that are sort of tying you into a non-criminal life. And then you're probably going to be associating with all kinds of people who are high-risk, and maybe they're going to draw you towards, oh yeah, I could earn four grand going out tonight and stealing some laptops. There's a lot of reasons why just taking low-risk people and putting them in these programs is going to be harmful rather than helpful. [00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: And so with that in mind, and you talk about, Hey, if we're trying to influence local electeds - one of the interesting things about having a podcast and radio show that caters to extremely politically and civically inclined people is that we actually do have a number of policymakers and politicians who listen, and people who are enacting and in control of this policy. If you were to talk to them and give them advice about how to move forward, especially in the current environment that we find ourselves in, where over the past few years has been increasing awareness of some of the defecits of our system and pushes to change those. And also, as we have seen more recently, a real strong pushback from a lot of people who are invested in our current system saying, Hey, let's not change things too much. Maybe we need to jail more and for longer. And maybe we're just not doing enough incarceration, and that's the answer. In that kind of political environment, what would you tell people who are in charge of this policy, who may be facing pressure to keep going forward with the status quo, about how they should evaluate how they should move forward and the kinds of things that they should do? [00:52:07] Damon Petrich: I know a lot of these politicians get lobbied by correctional officer groups or whatever, and that's whatever, but ultimately you get voted in by voters. So, I'm not an expert on public opinion - I have other friends who are more into that kind of stuff, but I do know from talking with them and from reading that literature, that the public actually does support rehabilitation. So they have for a long time and it's shifted more towards being in support of rehabilitation over time. So right now, most Americans support providing rehabilitation programs to prisoners and offenders. So this is something that's going to please your constituency, people want this kind of thing. And it's not like you're going to be losing all kinds of jobs by getting rid of prison - there's going to be a need for skilled people who can provide these programs and probation officers and all these sorts of things. So it's not a net loss when you're getting rid of prisons. There's a lot of reasons to sentence people to community supervision and things like that - provide rehabilitation. There's public support for it, there's jobs involved, there's cost savings - big time, obviously - it's way cheaper to keep somebody out of prison than it is to keep them in prison. So there's a lot of different reasons why you would want to do that as a politician. [00:53:43] Crystal Fincher: I think that makes sense. Certainly it's a lot cheaper to keep someone out of prison versus in prison. I mean, we talked about the annual costs - in the state of Washington over $40,000, King County over $70,000 - comparing that to how much we invest in a student of $11,500 a year. If we focus more on investing in people, both inside and outside the system, it seems like we set ourselves up for a safer community, fewer people being victimized, and more people leading thriving, productive, tax-paying lives. And we're all happier than we are right now, I would think, I would hope - it seems like the research points in that direction. So I certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with us about this. Is there anything else that you want to leave with us, in thinking about this study and your research? [00:54:55] Damon Petrich: I think we covered it pretty well. Just to circle back to something you just said - I know this might put me out of a job since I focus on what happens when people's lives go awry, but you really are better off to invest in early prevention programs and giving people a good start on life than trying to correct the program or the problem afterwards. So yeah - politicians spend some money on prevention programs. I know the good effects of that are a long way out, but they're actually good on a societal level. So I guess I would add that, even though it's not good for criminologists, maybe, to put themselves out of a job like that. [00:55:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, much appreciated, and thank you so much for having this conversation with us today. [00:55:45] Damon Petrich: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on. I'm glad that there are people out there interested in this stuff, so thanks again. [00:55:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

231: Charlie Hunter Part 1 | Australia National Track & Field Championships     This weeks episode is sponsored by New Balance, New Balance's Fresh Foam X version 12 range represents a revolutionary advancement in the material that cushions the high impact foot strikes that occur on roads, tracks, courts, and fields everywhere.    Brad cruises through the week with some intervals on the treadmill. Julian gets an update on his knee and spends more time paddling with the Blue Doctor. Brady comes 6th in the returning Run For The Kids fun run, then misses his wife's race finish. It was a busy weekend at the Australia National Track & Field Championships, as Jessica Hull secured her place for the Athletics World Championships in Eugene winning a hotly contested 5000m ahead of Rose Davies, as Matt Ramsden won the men's 5000m ahead of Sam McEntee. It was the usual suspects in the 800m Finals with Peter Bol and Catriona Bisset once again taking the top spots in the podium for national titles. The race also marked the retirement of four-time Olympian Jeff Risely. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb7FZQprqIq/  Abbey Caldwell made her breakthrough taking the Women's 1500m title over Georgia Griffith and Linden Hall, while Oli Hoare made it a fast one to secure his ticket to Oregon ahead of Matt Ramsden. In the 3000m Steeplechase, Matt Clarke won ahead of Team Tempo teammate Max Stevens, while fellow Olympian Amy Cashin of Western Athletics won her maiden national title over Brielle Erbacher. Athletics Australia Results Hub https://www.runnerstribe.com/len-johnson-articles/australian-champs-recap-dubler-hull-bol-bisset-hoare-and-more/    The Newcastle Marathon was won by Sarah Klein in a Commonwealth Games qualifier of 2:30:49, just ahead of training partner Ben Kelly. Results https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb7T03Lvxbr/    Ed Goddard also posted a Commonwealth Games qualifier running 2:13:45 for 5th place at Manchester Marathon, England. Manchester Marathon Results https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb4zhNoNSBb/    Ky Robinson wins the 5000m at the Stanford Invitational in 13:23. Results https://www.instagram.com/p/Cb1cB9AuI2T/    Charlie Hunter, 3rd fastest over 800m 1:44.35, and current Indoor 800m Record Holder 1:45.59 chats with Luke Mathews starting with a recap of the recent National Track & FIeld Championships and reasons for visiting home, talking about the tactics to race against Peter Bol as well as representing Australia in the World Indoor Athletic Championships earlier in March. Charlie takes it back to the start growing up in Gosford and his dedication within an unusual training system and the trial by fire representing Australia at the World Cross Championships in Guitang, China. They then progress to joining the Melbourne Track Club, having Jeff Risely to mentor him into running culture and learning what it takes to succeed as well as what type of coaching works and doesn't work.   Charlie explains the process of eligibility and recruitment for the University of Oregon, then persevering with the program despite transition of coaches and renovations of Hayward Field while still developing as a runner. Charlie explains what it was like to have teammates like James West, Cooper Teare & Cole Hocker while the training system of coach Ben Thomas comes to fruition, going into the specifics of training and structure that lead to some breakout performances in 2020 before the pandemic swept the globe laying down the foundation to qualify for the Tokyo Olympics. Charlie explains to Luke the moment he established himself in the 800m despite being poised as a miler, how he broke two Australian Indoor Records in 24 hours and the significance of being a Duck at Hayward Field for the NCAA Championships. Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/insiderunningpodcast Opening and Closing Music is Undercover of my Skin by Benny Walker. www.bennywalkermusic.com For shoes or running apparel contact Julian at: https://www.facebook.com/therunningcompanyballarat/ Join the conversation at: https://www.facebook.com/insiderunningpodcast/ To donate and show your support for the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=9K9WQCZNA2KAN

Welcome to MOTHERS OF MAYHEM: An Extreme Horror Podcast! This week we chat it up with authors Sean Hawker and Matthew Clarke and use the phrase "mantis-on-human oral sex" multiple times in 90 minutes. ENJOY! Marian and Christina are 2 moms who just read some totally effed up books. Join them as they break down Indie Extreme and Splatterpunk Horror's best new book drops and chat it up with the genre's best up and coming authors. **CONTENT WARNING: profanity, explicit adult content, stuff you can't even begin to imagine. FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA! CHRISTINA Twitter: https://twitter.com/n_dhorrorbooks MARIAN TikTok: @tf_did_i_just_read Instagram: @tf_did_i_just_read Facebook: TF Did I Just Read JOIN THE FACEBOOK GROUP FOR MORE UPDATES, INFO, AND BONUS INFO! https://www.facebook.com/groups/979400995947790 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mothersofmayhempod/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mothersofmayhempod/support

So GREAT to have Matt Clarke from churchillmortgage.com back Reppin' today. We're talking about Bowl Games and Leadership and how it all flows together. It's impossible to go to a bowl game, let alone win it, without great leadership. So let's go get Another Rep with Matt Clarke. Let's GOOO!!!

Richmond's national recruiting manager Matt Clarke is a special guest on the final episode for 2021 of the Club's podcast phenomenon Talking Tigers. Clarke provides an insightful appraisal of Richmond's exciting haul in last week's 2021 national draft. The TT team also discuss some interesting tidbits about the newest Tigers. And “Richo” reveals the latest extraordinary lengths “The Chief” has gone to in a desperate effort to further enhance his reputation. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.