What can social science contribute to crime reduction? Evidence-based policies and indicator systems 2006 13 July 2006 Joanna Shapland 1
A Dynamic Theoretical Model of Criminality Over the Life-Course STRUCTURAL BACKGROUND FACTORS • Low Family SES • Family Size • Family Disruption • Residential Mobility • Parent’s Deviance • Household Crowding • Foreign-Born • Mother’s Employment INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE CONSTRUCTS • Difficult Temperament • Persistent Tantrums • Early Conduct Disorder CHILDHOOD (0 -10) SOCIAL CONTROL PROCESSES JUVENILE OUTCOMES FAMILY • Lack of Supervision • Threatening/Erratic/ Harsh Discipline • Parental Rejection Delinquency SCHOOL • Weak Attachment • Poor Performance Length of Incarceration ADULT DEVELOPMENT Crime and Deviance SOCIAL BONDS • Weak Labour Force Attachment • Weak Marital Attachment DELINQUENT INFLUENCE • Peer Delinquent Attachment • Sibling Delinquent Attachment ADOLESCENCE (10 -17) Source: Sampson and Lamb (1993), pp. 244 -5. TRANSITION TO YOUNG ADULTHOOD (17 -25) YOUNG ADULTHOOD (25 -32) TRANSITION TO MIDDLE ADULTHOOD (32 -45) 2
To 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
Social science can. . . • provide evidence as to which theories are most likely to lead to successful initiatives for particular problems - and which aren’t • 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 can’t … • 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
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 people’s resistance to change • the UK has not tended to put emphasis (and money) into proper evaluation 5
Proper 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
Van Dijk’s typology of crime reduction Target groups Primary Developmental stage Secondary Tertiary Offenders/ potential offenders Schools programmes Early intervention programmes Post-prison rehabilitation Drugs media programmes Detached youth work Detection & investigation Situations Overall town planning & building standards Multi-agency targeted programmes Licensing policy re pubs, discos CCTV Concierge schemes Media campaigns Train bank employees Victims/ potential victims Prevention material Security industry Public at large Women’s bus services Risk groups Prostitution crack-downs Support of victims Crime prevention advice to victims Core groups 7
So, 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
So, 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
So, 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
Some 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
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
Скачать презентацию What can social science contribute to crime reduction
b9841f3c9d0e4ec8f5b5fd2e04fdfcd6.ppt