Scientific Evaluation in Crime Prevention: Challenges, Methods, and Theoretical Approaches
Discussion of scientific methods used in crime prevention and their challenges.
Ava Martinez
Contributor
4.3
55
4 months ago
Preview (3 of 8)
Sign in to access the full document!
Scientific Evaluation in Crime Prevention: Challenges, Methods, and Theoretical
Approaches
Based on the readings, evaluate the importance of scientific evaluation in crime
prevention, discussing the challenges and benefits it presents for improving policy
and practice. In your answer, consider the role of theory, the mechanisms of crime
prevention, and the need for context sensitivity in evaluation. Additionally, reflect
on how different evaluation methods, such as experimental designs and qualitative
assessments, contribute to understanding the effectiveness of crime prevention
strategies. Provide specific examples from the text to support your argument.
Word Count Requirement: 1500-2000 words.
Approaches
Based on the readings, evaluate the importance of scientific evaluation in crime
prevention, discussing the challenges and benefits it presents for improving policy
and practice. In your answer, consider the role of theory, the mechanisms of crime
prevention, and the need for context sensitivity in evaluation. Additionally, reflect
on how different evaluation methods, such as experimental designs and qualitative
assessments, contribute to understanding the effectiveness of crime prevention
strategies. Provide specific examples from the text to support your argument.
Word Count Requirement: 1500-2000 words.
Evaluation in crime prevention is almost universally called for. It is widely
required by funding bodies, and, as a result, it is almost as widely attempted. It is
technically very tricky both in relation to specific initiatives (Ekblom, 1990) and in
relation to the sorts of partnership approach that are now widely promoted
(Rosenbaum, this volume). Critics are agreed that standards are generally very low
(Sherman et al., 1997; Ekblom and Pease, 1995; HMIC, 2000; Scott, 2001). There
are some fundamental debates about how evaluation should be construed and
conducted (Pawson and Tilley, 1997). There are also diverse stakeholders in
evaluation, and a range of uses to which evaluations can be put. The papers in this
volume are concerned primarily with the design and conduct of evaluations that are
intended to help improve crime prevention policy and practice. Other possible
purposes — for example to justify programs, to account for public expenditure, to
celebrate achievement, or to encourage greater participation in crime prevention —
are not much at issue here. Much literature on crime prevention has stressed the
importance of evaluation for program improvement. The preventive process
described by Ekblom (1988), the action research approach advocated by Clarke
(1997), and the SARA (scanning, analysis, response, assessment) steps developed
by Eck and Spelman (1987) to help operationalise Goldstein's (1979) problem-
oriented policing all include evaluation as a key element. The purpose of
evaluation in all cases is to provide feedback that will generate corrections to and
refinements in crime prevention theory, policy and practice. The University of
Maryland report to the United States Congress on evaluations in crime prevention
(Sherman et al., 1997) and the British Home Office Crime Prevention Studies,
volume 14, pp. 1-10. Nick Tilley report on findings of evaluation studies
(Goldblatt and Lewis, 1998) were both designed to inform improvements in what
was done in an effort to reduce crime. Likewise, the emerging international
Campbell Collaboration has a strong criminal justice stream, which promises
systematic reviews of crime prevention with the aim of improving the choice of
interventions (Farrington and Petrosino, 2001). The bottom line in evaluation for
crime prevention, is of course, crucial. Evaluation results should allow us more
effectively and efficiently to lessen crime and its effects, and we need to measure
outcomes in these terms. A number of tricky technical challenges confront the
measurement of outcome effectiveness. These include, for example, discounting
regression-to-the-mean effects, establishing a secure counterfactual, attributing
responsibility for observed changes to the measures introduced, identifying active
ingredients in packages of measures, identifying short and long-term effects,
identifying significant side-effects, and attaching figures to costs and benefits of
interventions. Though these technical challenges need to be met adequately if
evaluations are to be useful, that is not sufficient. Evaluations need, preferably at
required by funding bodies, and, as a result, it is almost as widely attempted. It is
technically very tricky both in relation to specific initiatives (Ekblom, 1990) and in
relation to the sorts of partnership approach that are now widely promoted
(Rosenbaum, this volume). Critics are agreed that standards are generally very low
(Sherman et al., 1997; Ekblom and Pease, 1995; HMIC, 2000; Scott, 2001). There
are some fundamental debates about how evaluation should be construed and
conducted (Pawson and Tilley, 1997). There are also diverse stakeholders in
evaluation, and a range of uses to which evaluations can be put. The papers in this
volume are concerned primarily with the design and conduct of evaluations that are
intended to help improve crime prevention policy and practice. Other possible
purposes — for example to justify programs, to account for public expenditure, to
celebrate achievement, or to encourage greater participation in crime prevention —
are not much at issue here. Much literature on crime prevention has stressed the
importance of evaluation for program improvement. The preventive process
described by Ekblom (1988), the action research approach advocated by Clarke
(1997), and the SARA (scanning, analysis, response, assessment) steps developed
by Eck and Spelman (1987) to help operationalise Goldstein's (1979) problem-
oriented policing all include evaluation as a key element. The purpose of
evaluation in all cases is to provide feedback that will generate corrections to and
refinements in crime prevention theory, policy and practice. The University of
Maryland report to the United States Congress on evaluations in crime prevention
(Sherman et al., 1997) and the British Home Office Crime Prevention Studies,
volume 14, pp. 1-10. Nick Tilley report on findings of evaluation studies
(Goldblatt and Lewis, 1998) were both designed to inform improvements in what
was done in an effort to reduce crime. Likewise, the emerging international
Campbell Collaboration has a strong criminal justice stream, which promises
systematic reviews of crime prevention with the aim of improving the choice of
interventions (Farrington and Petrosino, 2001). The bottom line in evaluation for
crime prevention, is of course, crucial. Evaluation results should allow us more
effectively and efficiently to lessen crime and its effects, and we need to measure
outcomes in these terms. A number of tricky technical challenges confront the
measurement of outcome effectiveness. These include, for example, discounting
regression-to-the-mean effects, establishing a secure counterfactual, attributing
responsibility for observed changes to the measures introduced, identifying active
ingredients in packages of measures, identifying short and long-term effects,
identifying significant side-effects, and attaching figures to costs and benefits of
interventions. Though these technical challenges need to be met adequately if
evaluations are to be useful, that is not sufficient. Evaluations need, preferably at
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%
Study Now!
XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
Document Chat
Document Details
Subject
Criminal Justice