WW Scotland - Mapping the Evidence
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•164 views
This document summarizes a research project mapping the evidence base on approaches to reducing crime. The project was conducted by Dr Lisa Tompson and Dr Amy Thornton at University College London with the mission to identify the best available evidence on reducing crime and potential savings. They conducted a systematic review of 326 studies evaluating interventions from all relevant fields that could have a crime prevention outcome. Their analysis found the evidence base addresses research questions framed in various ways and covers a range of countries, time periods, crime types, offender populations and outcome data.
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (17)
Similar to WW Scotland - Mapping the Evidence
Similar to WW Scotland - Mapping the Evidence (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (19)
WW Scotland - Mapping the Evidence
- 1. Mapping the evidence base Dr Lisa Tompson and Dr Amy Thornton University College London l.tompson@ucl.ac.uk UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
- 2. MISSION: “to identify the best available evidence on approaches to reducing crime (and the potential savings to the police service, their crime reduction partners and the public)” Structuring our research question Findings from systematic review or meta-analyses Broadly defined ‘crime prevention’ Overall aim was to search for evaluations of interventions in all relevant fields that might have a crime prevention outcome
- 3. Systematic reviews • Provide an up-to-date summary of all literature on a topic • Allow large amounts of data to be synthesised • Provide an objective collation of results of research • Provide reliable recommendations
- 4. Final number of included studies = 326 Our systematic search flowchart
- 5. The crime prevention evidence base • Commissioned by various stakeholders who frame the research question in myriad ways – By intervention – By problem – By population – By context – By policing strategy – By outcome – By stakeholder • Implies that all these foci are relevant to practitioner sub- groups
- 6. Proportion of reviews with country mentioned 33% (n=36) 79% (n=84) 24% (n=26) OTHER 18% (n=19) INTERNATIONAL 25% (n=27)
- 7. Profile of (original) reviews
- 8. Timeline of evidence syntheses
- 9. Some descriptive stats – outcome data type
- 10. Some descriptive stats – crime type
- 11. Some descriptive stats - offender populations
- 12. Thank you!
Editor's Notes
- In the next 15 minutes I’m aiming to give you an overview of the first work package for the WWCCR. This was to systematically assemble the evidence base in crime reduction, and was the foundation for other work packages. I’m going to give a flavour of our approach and the work involved to collate the evidence in one database, and some of the initiatory analysis which came from the coding we applied to these studies.
- Our research question for this project was set by the mission of the WWCCR; to identify the best available evidence on approaches to reducing crime (and the potential savings to the police service, their crime reduction partners and the public) (REF?). We defined ‘best available evidence’ as the findings from systematic reviews (from any epistemological stance) or meta-analysis evidence syntheses. ‘Approaches to reducing crime’ was translated into the broadly defined ‘crime prevention’, which required a measured crime reduction or prevention outcome (for more details on the inclusion criteria see Bowers et. al. 2013). Our overall aim was to search for evaluations of interventions in all relevant fields that might have a crime prevention outcome. To our knowledge, this was the first time such an ambitious task had been attempted.
- The story so far… These numbers are tentative as shifting sands
- Illustrates a heavy bias towards U.S. and Anglo-Saxon countries. Table 8 shows the countries considered by the systematic reviews in gathering evaluation evidence. A large proportion of the evidence considered in reviews used evaluation evidence from places in North America only. The UK and Australia were also popular geographical regions considered by the reviews. This makes sense, as a large number of evaluation studies originate in these places, and many of the researchers leading systematic reviews are located in these countries and are funded by organisations with particular policy contexts in mind.
- 70% relate to correctional and educational interventions which are not really central to policing. Information on type of intervention is given in Table 1. Intervention was coded for n=330 of the reviews. In a further 7 cases the intervention type was unclear or missing. As illustration, considering percentages, for 28% of the reviews that were coded on intervention, sentencing and deterrence was cited as one element of the interventions reviewed. Educational interventions were examined in 23% of coded reviews and situational measures were present in 10% of them. Publicity and restorative justice were least likely to be mentioned. The table demonstrates that a noticeable trend was for reviews to consider what can be classified as tertiary crime prevention interventions (Brantingham and Faust 1976). That is, those that deal with the offender after an offence has taken place. This includes sentencing, drug treatment interventions, restorative justice and correctional interventions. They constituted 47 percent of interventions mentioned. Secondary interventions, which target ‘at risk’ groups, include community interventions, developmental and social prevention and educational interventions. Collectively, these constituted 27 percent of the interventions mentioned. Finally, policing and partnership, publicity and situational prevention are often categorised as primary interventions. Such interventions constituted 13 percent of the interventions mentioned.
- Figure 1 illustrates the trend over time for reviews of policing interventions plotted against that for all crime reduction reviews as a comparison. It shows that—consistent with Wells (2009)—numbers were quite unremarkable before the millennium, with a steady increase following in the subsequent years. Two peaks are noticeable in policing intervention reviews, one in 2008, the other 2011–12. Examining the reviews conducted in these particular years reveals an increase in grey literature over the period (i.e. literature not published within academic publishers, often comprising government reports), and a rise in reviews on crime prevention and the harm it causes from a public health perspective. This perhaps indicates that there was an increased interest from government and non-academic funders during these periods. In 2012, it is noteworthy that several of the reviews were conducted under the auspices of the Campbell Collaboration (see Petrosino et al., 2001 for information on this organization).
- Table 8 shows the countries considered by the systematic reviews in gathering evaluation evidence. A large proportion of the evidence considered in reviews used evaluation evidence from places in North America only. The UK and Australia were also popular geographical regions considered by the reviews. This makes sense, as a large number of evaluation studies originate in these places, and many of the researchers leading systematic reviews are located in these countries and are funded by organisations with particular policy contexts in mind.
- Where it was possible to do with the light-coding, the sub-category of crime was noted. This has not been coded systematically enough to confidently quantify variation, but Table 7 gives details of some of the subcategories that were targeted. Some of the common outcome types appear to include drug related outcomes (reductions in drug use for example), domestic violence reduction, reduction in alcohol-related behaviour and reduction in sexual offences.
- large percentage of the reviews cited drug and alcohol abusers and violent offenders as targeted populations. Less often mentioned, but still featuring, were prisoners, probationers and the mentally ill.