Title: What can social science contribute to crime reduction Evidencebased policies and indicator systems 2
1What can social science contribute to crime
reduction?Evidence-based policies and indicator
systems 200613 July 2006
1
2A Dynamic Theoretical Model of CriminalityOver
the Life-Course
STRUCTURAL BACKGROUND FACTORS
SOCIAL CONTROL PROCESSES
JUVENILE OUTCOMES
ADULT DEVELOPMENT
- Low Family SES
- Family Size
- Family Disruption
- Residential Mobility
- Parents Deviance
- Household Crowding
- Foreign-Born
- Mothers Employment
Crime and Deviance
- FAMILY
- Lack of Supervision
- Threatening/Erratic/
- Harsh Discipline
- Parental Rejection
Crime and Deviance
Crime and Deviance
Delinquency
- SCHOOL
- Weak Attachment
- Poor Performance
- SOCIAL BONDS
- Weak Labour Force
- Attachment
- Weak Marital
- Attachment
- SOCIAL BONDS
- Weak Labour Force
- Attachment
- Weak Marital
- Attachment
Length of Incarceration
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE CONSTRUCTS
DELINQUENT INFLUENCE
- Peer Delinquent
- Attachment
- Sibling Delinquent
- Attachment
- Difficult Temperament
- Persistent Tantrums
- Early Conduct Disorder
TRANSITION TO YOUNG ADULTHOOD (17-25)
YOUNG ADULTHOOD (25-32)
TRANSITION TO MIDDLE ADULTHOOD (32-45)
CHILDHOOD
ADOLESCENCE
(0-10)
(10-17)
Source Sampson and Lamb (1993), pp. 244-5.
2
3To reduce crime ...
- The problem is not finding something to do, or an
intervention to mount. - It is
- choosing the most effective initiative in terms
of reducing the particular crime problem - which is likely to be implemented
- which will continue to be implemented over the
time scale necessary - setting up the conditions for its implementation
- setting up the evaluation before the initiative
- ensuring the initiative is not criminogenic
3
4- Social science can ...
- provide evidence as to which theories are most
likely to lead to successful initiatives for
particular problems - and which arent - measure the extent of the particular crime
problem - provide valid evaluation measures
- point to the strategies likely to be effective
- ask difficult questions, like are you actually
doing this to reduce crime? What crime? Where
is your evaluation? Why has noone in the UK
funded how-to-do-it databases of crime reduction
projects? - It cant
- take political decisions about spending money on
particular initiatives - sell the initiative or the evaluation to
agencies, politicians or local people - provide the money for the initiative or evaluation
4
5- A large number of evaluations of crime reduction
initiatives reveal implementation failure, not
theory failure. - Why? And what can we do about it?
- environmental scanning needs to show the problem
is there, then (crime car, initial rj) - the actual purpose of the initiative may be to be
announced, not implemented - crime reduction often requires multi-agency
planning and action, which needs to take account
of agencies (different) priorities and
performance measures, and peoples resistance to
change - the UK has not tended to put emphasis
- (and money) into proper evaluation
5
6Proper evaluation?
- A massive (and possibly very successful)
programme leaves nothing unless it lets others -
elsewhere or in the future - know what happened
and what to do next. - Process evaluation - what happened, what
decisions had to be taken, who needed to be
involved, what measures needed to be taken, what
went wrong and how it was resolved - to produce a
how-to-do-it manual (like From Soup to Nuts -
Thames Valley JRC restorative justice) - Outcome measures - exactly what are they and how
do we expect these outcomes to occur (our theory
of crime reduction) - Control groups - not everyone can be doing the
initiative matching (particularly of areas) is
difficult the role of random assignment (RCTs) -
suitable and possible at the individual level, if
there is a clear, relatively simple question and
consideration of ethical issues (informed
consent - practitioner views what happens to control
group - members)
6
7Van Dijks typology of crime reduction
- Target groups Developmental stage
- Primary Secondary Tertiary
- Offenders/ Schools Early intervention Post-priso
n - potential programmes programmes rehabilitation
- offenders
- Drugs media Detached Detection
- programmes youth work investigation
- Situations Overall town Multi-agency Licensing
policy - planning targeted re pubs, discos
- building standards programmes
- Prostitution
- CCTV Concierge crack-downs
- schemes
-
- Victims/ Media campaigns Train bank Support of
victims - potential employees
- victims Prevention Crime prevention
7
8So, what is the evidence? Where do we want to
concentrate? 1
- Primary prevention (we have some evidence, mostly
from other countries) - is expensive, because it is to the whole group -
but we have no way of predicting which children,
or situations, will actually develop criminality.
Evaluation is necessarily long-term. - is suited to developmental, social targets - like
nursery provision (very long-term evaluation) or
educational programmes (Netherlands - they work,
but only for a short time and need to be changed
regularly) - will encourage social inequality and possibly
ghettoisation and displacement to the poor if it
is left solely to private means (house security
provisions, situational measures on shopping
developments)
8
9So, what is the evidence? Where do we want to
concentrate? 2
- Secondary prevention (we have quite a lot of
evidence) - means we need an accurate picture of the crime
problem (crime audits), because it has to be
targeted on hotspots - UK has tended to concentrate on situational
prevention against burglary and car crime
(surveillance and locks/bolts), which can be very
successful in a particular, defined area, but can
have serious social effects - can embody criminality prevention with potential
offenders (for example, street social work with
young girls at risk of prostitution or groups
hanging around shopping centres - Netherlands) - encompasses remedial work in relation to design
and management of housing estates and facilities
- can work - well if done with residents/shops and taking
into - account their priorities
9
10So, what is the evidence? Where do we want to
concentrate? 3
- Tertiary prevention (few cross-initiative
comparisons) - this includes the whole criminal justice system.
Is it working primarily to reduce crime?
Imprisonment incapacitates, but is highly
expensive and can be criminogenic. Should we be
putting as much work/money into mitigating the
criminogenic effects (supporting desistance) as
into the incapacitive? - How effective are programmes, compared to
supportive casework, in community sentences?
RCT/evaluation of single programmes needs to be
followed by cross-programme and support
comparison. - Should reducing crime be the only outcome
measure? e.g. evaluation of reassurance policing
against public engagement and security - what
should we use for correctional measures? - Positive evidence for the value of victim
support, - restorative justice and vulnerable witness
measures to victims
10
11Some possible key areas for the future
- Primary prevention
- developing a range of school based educational
programmes which suit local crime profiles - Secondary prevention
- always examining the criminogenic possibility of
other social change (housing, planning of
licensed premises, crowd management of leisure
facilities) - where can young people go? Banning or working
with them? (Netherlands shopping centre)
11
12- Tertiary prevention
- continuing to invest in drug rehabilitation
programmes which fit the local drug of choice
profile, with criminal justice partnership - working to support desistance, not to continue
the path into crime (keeping family ties through
imprisonment, resettlement support in the key
first few weeks after release) - providing measures to support victims, help lead
to closure (for victims and offenders), and
reintegrate offenders
12
13