Crime Prevention Master Class

Transcription

1 Crime Prevention Master Class Wednesday 24 November 2010 SYDNEY LAW SCHOOL Garner Clancey Crime Prevention Consultant / Adjunct Lecturer Sydney Institute of Criminology

2 My Background Study: BA (Psychology Major); Masters Criminology (Honours); Grad. Cert. Regional and Urban Planning (currently enrolled) Work (10 years): NSW Department of Juvenile Justice (including, Alcohol and other Drug Counsellor, Manager Programs and Staff Development, Youth Justice Conference Manager) NSW Police Force (Senior Policy Officer, Youth) Consultancy (8 years): Recently commenced project for Redlands City Council (Qld) Authored Considerations for establishing a public space CCTV network for the Australian Institute of Criminology Developed crime prevention plans for six NSW councils Completed multiple community safety audits and crime risk assessment reports (mixed used developments, residential, public housing estate, town centre) Co-authored NSW Youth Shopping Centre Protocol and delivered training to shopping centre guards in Qld, NSW, Vic and SA Reviewed the policing of young people for NSW Police Force Teaching (10 years): Adjunct Lecturer - Sydney Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney Taught undergraduate and postgraduate courses on crime prevention, policing and security across four universities Presentations: Sydney Institute of Criminology Critical Perspectives of CPTED Seminar, Sydney 2010 Australian and New Zealand Critical Criminology Conference, Sydney 2008 and 2010 International Centre for Prevention of Crime, Montreal 2009 World Congress of Criminology, Barcelona 2008 Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference 2007 Boards and Committees: Australian Crime Prevention Council NSW Young Offenders Advisory Committee National Children s and Youth Law Centre (former) NSW Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (former)

3 Diverse Expertise and Needs Organisations: - 16 x local government - 6 x police - 3 x NGO/State Govt Crime Prevention Experience: 1-15 years Tertiary Qualifications: - Bachelor of Economics - Grad. Dip. Tourism - Bachelor of Arts (Psych/Sociology/Politics) - Bachelor and Masters of Health Sciences - Masters Social Sciences (Criminology) - Bachelor of Applied Science - Certificate in Juvenile Justice - Diploma of Public Safety Preferred Learning Style (in descending order of preference): - Discussing Issues Covered: - Crime prevention and property crime - Identifying and promoting good practice - How to encourage innovative crime prevention techniques - Operationalising research/theory - Networking/information sharing - Application of CPTED - Access, interpret and analyse police data - Police and crime prevention - Examples of programs and initiatives undertaken by councils - Evidence-based crime prevention - Designing an evaluation plan - Effective social policy responses to crime prevention - Lobbying and advocating across and between government - Doing - Listening - Reading - Reflecting 3

4 Time 9:00 Welcome and Introductions 9:15 Getting to Know Your Colleagues Team Quiz 9:30 Group Problem-Solving Session 9:45 Your Greatest Achievements and Greatest Future Challenges for Crime Prevention in Australia 10:00 Greatest Challenge Number 1 10:20 Morning Tea Agenda 10:30 Tania Matruglio (Senior Policy and Research Officer, Crime Prevention Division, NSW Department of Justice and Attorney General) 11:10 Greatest Challenge Number 1 Continued 11:30 Group Problem-Solving 11:40 Greatest Challenge Number 2 12:15 1:00 Lunch 1:00 Group Problem-Solving 1:15 Greatest Challenge Number 3 2:00 Greatest Challenges Numbers 4 and 5 2:45 Afternoon tea 3:00 Peter Homel (Research Manager, Crime Reduction and Review Program, Australian Institute of Criminology) 3:40 Group Problem-Solving 4:00 Future Plans 4:15 Review and Evaluation 4:45 John le Mesurier (Head of Studies, Curriculum Development, Sydney Learning) 5:00 Close Happy hour downstairs (should you be interested) 4

5 Getting to Know Your Colleagues: Team Quiz 5

6 Group Discussion 1. What is your greatest crime prevention achievement? 2. What are the greatest challenges facing crime prevention practitioners?

7 Greatest Challenges 1. Developing an evidence-base 2. Theorising local crime prevention what works for whom in what circumstances and in what respects 3. Accessing and sharing data 4. De-politisation of crime prevention 5. Responsive partnership approaches 7

8 Developing an Evidence-Base A variety of community crime prevention programs are in use in Australia. However, as indicated in a recent national compendium on crime prevention programs (Australia National Anti-Crime Strategy, 1995), fewer than 10% of 170 state and territory crime prevention programs and projects identified had been evaluated (English, B.J.; Cummings, R. and Straton, R. G. (2002) Choosing an Evaluation Method for Community Crime Prevention Programs, in Tilley, N. (ed.) Evaluation for Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 14, Willan Publishing, Devon: 121) The Campbell Collaboration was established to address the gaps in knowledge base by drawing together the evaluations that have been conducted into particular crime prevention activities. This is achieved by systematic reviews. 8

9 What is a Campbell Systematic Review? The purpose of a systematic review is to sum up the best available research on a specific question. This is done by synthesizing the results of several studies. A systematic review uses transparent procedures to find, evaluate and synthesize the results of relevant research. Procedures are explicitly defined in advance, in order to ensure that the exercise is transparent and can be replicated. This practice is also designed to minimize bias. Studies included in a review are screened for quality, so that the findings of a large number of studies can be combined. Peer review is a key part of the process; qualified independent researchers control the author's methods and results. A systematic review must have: Clear inclusion/ exclusion criteria - An explicit search strategy - Systematic coding and analysis of included studies - Meta-analysis (where possible)

10 How do Campbell Systematic Reviews Differ from other Systematic Reviews? Campbell reviews must include a systematic search for unpublished reports (to avoid publication bias). Campbell reviews are usually international in scope. A protocol (project plan) for the review is developed in advance and undergoes peer review. Study inclusion and coding decisions are accomplished by at least two reviewers who work independently and compare results. Campbell reviews undergo peer review and editorial review. (

11 Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS) Level 1:Correlation between a prevention program and a measure of crime at one point in time Level 2: Measures of crime before and after the program, with no comparable control condition Level 3: Measures of crime before and after the program in experimental and comparable control conditions Level 4: Measures of crime before and after the program in multiple experimental and control units, controlling for other variables that influence crime Level 5: Random assignment of program and control conditions to units Farrington, Gottfredson, Sherman and Welsh (2002) The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, in Sherman, Farrington, Welsh and McKenzie (eds) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, Routledge, pages

12 Categorisation of Outcomes What Works - These are programs that prevent crime in the kinds of social contexts in which they have been evaluated. Programs coded as working must have at least two level 3-5 evaluations showing statistically significant and desirable results and the preponderance of all available evidence showing effectiveness. What Does Not Work - These are programs that fail to prevent crime. Programs coded as not working must have at least two 3-5 evaluations with statistically significance tests showing ineffectiveness and the preponderance of all available evidence supporting the same conclusion. What is Promising There are programs where the level of certainty from available evidence is too low to support generalisable conclusions, but where there is some empirical basis for predicting that further research could support such conclusions. Programs are coded as promising if they were found to be effective in significance tests in one level 3-5 evaluation and in the preponderance of the remaining evidence. What is Unknown Any program not classified in one of the three above categories is defined as having unknown effects. (Sherman, Farrington, Welsh and McKenzie (eds) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, Routledge, page 18)

13 1. How have you contributed to the evidence-base? 2. How can we develop a local evidence-base? Developing a Local Evidence-Base 13

14 Local Theory Building 14

15 Limitations of SMS Highlighted by Sherman et al Because of the over-riding aim of devising a scale which is simple to communicate to scholars, policymakers and practitioners... [the approach] is vulnerable to criticism Some issues raised by Sherman et al: - The SMS is designed to apply equally to all experimental units, whether people, schools, prisons, communities, etc. - The SMS does not encompass all possible designs (e.g. timeseries designs) - The downgrading procedure can be criticised as being arbitrary (Farrington, Gottfredson, Sherman and Welsh (2002) The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, in Sherman, Farrington, Welsh and McKenzie (eds) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, Routledge, pages 19-20)

16 Categorisation of Outcomes What Works - These are programs that prevent crime in the kinds of social contexts in which they have been evaluated. Programs coded as working must have at least two level 3-5 evaluations showing statistically significant and desirable results and the preponderance of all available evidence showing effectiveness. What Does Not Work - These are programs that fail to prevent crime. Programs coded as not working must have at least two 3-5 evaluations with statistically significance tests showing ineffectiveness and the preponderance of all available evidence supporting the same conclusion. What is Promising There are programs where the level of certainty from available evidence is too low to support generalisable conclusions, but where there is some empirical basis for predicting that further research could support such conclusions. Programs are coded as promising if they were found to be effective in significance tests in one level 3-5 evaluation and in the preponderance of the remaining evidence. What is Unknown Any program not classified in one of the three above categories is defined as having unknown effects. (Sherman, Farrington, Welsh and McKenzie (eds) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, Routledge, page 18)

17 Limitations of Systematic Reviews Street Lighting Home Office Report (Farrington and Welsh, 2002): A meta-analysis found that these five [UK] studies showed that improved street lighting reduced crime by 30 per cent. The weighted effect size in all thirteen studies was substantial: a 20 per cent decrease in experimental areas compared with control areas The problem is the high level of aggregation in meta-analysis... It does not need doubts, equivocation, conditions, complications or event explanations; it just needs a number... However, complex programmes always generate complex outcome patterns, and a good evaluation will always deliver conditional truths, uncovering the underlying contexts and mechanisms that generate different outcomes By reviewing the original data from one of the studies used in the meta analysis, Pawson revealed how crime increased and decreased throughout the period of the evaluation. Farrington and Welsh compared crime in the year before and the year after installation, revealing a 5.3% reduction in crime in the experimental area. (Pawson, R. (2006) Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective, Sage Publications, London, pages

18 Limitations of Evidence Boaz and Pawson (2005) use five reviews of mentoring programs for at-risk youth to demonstrate key points regarding the assumptions about evidence and policy. Boaz and Pawson (2005) suggest that: - There is an inclination to go beyond the evidence when making recommendations (page 177) - There is no simple, linear progression from research report to programme implementation (page 178) - Evidence is contextual... evidence never comes forth in some pure form: it is always mediated in production and presentation, and that various characteristics of the chosen medium might well be significant in establishing the policy message (Boaz, A. and Pawson, R. (2005) The Perilous Road from Evidence to Policy: Five Journeys Compared, Journal of Social Policy, No. 34, page 184) - Policy-makers have different requirements of the research evidence. They point to the policy-maker who needs positive results to support a position; the policy-maker wanting a negative report to kill off an initiative; and the policy-maker in a hurry whom requires an easily digestible overview.

19 Beyond Systematic Evaluations and SMS... We need to... make better use of information from evaluations with weak designs. Evaluation designs that are weak by social science standards may be acceptable to decision makers who fund such efforts and even weak evaluations can contain valuable information. Local governments and businesses produce untold numbers of weak evaluations. Those who want to build knowledge in this area must discover ways of learning from the many attempts to address very specific crime problems... This requires ways of finding, cataloging and synthesising weak evaluations (Eck, J. (2002) Places, in Sherman, Farrington, Welsh and McKenzie (eds) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, Routledge: )

20 Realist Evaluation In the realist view, social interventions are always complex systems thrust amidst complex systems (Pawson, R. (2006) Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective:, Sage, page 35) Negotiation, leakage, borrowing, resistance, mismatch, adjustment, bloom and fade and so on are part and parcel of everyday programme implementation (Pawson, R. (2006) Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective:, Sage, page 35) Documenting what works for whom in what circumstances and in what respects should be a priority 20

21 Summary So while our ultimate goal might be to develop a robust evidence-base, we shouldn t be afraid to engage in local theory building. There is a long way to go before we can claim to have an irrefutable evidence-base. Thus, establishing what works for whom in what circumstances and in what respects and having a commitment to documenting local approaches in a consistent manner, is a necessary first step. If we can create a clearinghouse of consistently documented local programs that explore the context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs), then it will be possible to develop practice and to test theories in different contexts. 21

22 Accessing Crime Data 22

23 A Simple Proposition Despite the significant improvements in geo-coding, GIS, crime mapping, data analysis and availability of centralised crime data in some jurisdictions in recent decades, crime data provided to local crime prevention partnerships remains patchy, rudimentary and inadequate. Debates in crime prevention frequently overlook or under-state the problems of access to meaningful crime data at a local level. Through exploration of recent key developments, limitations with existing arrangements in Australia will be revealed. The current situation not only has implications for crime data sharing arrangements, but goes to the heart of problems with local crime prevention partnerships.

24 Weatherburn (2004): - Better crime problem analysis - Precise geographical location and timing of offences - Repeat victimisation - Personal characteristics of offenders - Their characteristic modus operandi - Existence of financial inducements to offend Importance of Quality Crime Data for Crime Prevention - Contribution of illicit drugs and alcohol - Wider dissemination of that analysis - Much closer cooperation between police and agencies with significant responsibilities in matters affecting public safety and security Weatherburn, D. (2004) Law and Order in Australia: Rhetoric and Reality, Federation Press, Annandale.

25 Flying Blind In many respects, then, crime prevention has, in effect been flying blind. Lacking detailed information about crime, crime prevention agencies have often found themselves promoting options for crime prevention without any real capacity to say precisely where and when the implementation of these options might pay dividends. Many have become clearing-houses for information and advice on crime prevention rather than agencies responsible for analysing crime problems and convening partnerships directed toward their solution (Weatherburn, D. (2004) Law and Order in Australia: Rhetoric and Reality, Federation Press, Annandale: ) Many crime prevention programs failed to prevent and/or reduce crime because they are based on inadequate information (Mukherjee, S. and Carcach, S. (1998) Repeat Victimisation in Australia: Extent, Correlates and Implications for Crime Prevention, Research and Public Policy Series, No. 15, Australian Institute of Criminology: 38) 25

26 Data is Crucial Repeat victimisation Prospective mapping Anticipatory benefits effect Displacement Diffusion of benefits Co-offenders 26

27 Repeat Victimisation Crime surveys typically reveal that some 40 per cent of crimes against individual people and against households are repeats, that is, committed against targets already victimized during the same year, with variation by crime type and place (Farrell, G. and Pease, K. (2008) Repeat Victimisation, in Wortley, R. and Mazerolle, L. (eds) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis, Willan Publishing, Devon, page 123) Based on this work, a number of assertions are now generally accepted in relation to repeat victimisation: - Revictimisation of the same target, when it occurs, most often occurs quickly; - The bulk of repeat victimisation seems to be the work of the same offenders; - The highest rates of repeat victimisation are found for personal crimes such as domestic violence, sexual assault, abuse of elders and children, racial attacks and bullying. These are contexts in which the same targets remain available across time, often in private space; - High rates of repeat property victimisation are typically found to characterise crimes against businesses. Commercial burglary, robbery and shop theft are prominent examples; - Rates of repeat victimisation are greater in high crime areas; - Most repeat prevention programmes have focused on domestic burglary. There is an urgent need to broaden the research base. (Farrell, G. and Pease, K. (2008) Repeat Victimisation, in Wortley, R. and Mazerolle, L. (eds) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis, Willan Publishing, Devon, page 123.) 27

28 Prospective Mapping One feature of this research has been the identification of virtual repeats or the victimisation of similar locations. In the case of residential burglary, it has been shown that... risk of victimisation is communicable, with properties within 400 metres and, particularly, on the same side of the street as a burgled home at an elevated risk for up to two months after an initial event. This work has resulted in the development of prospective or predictive mapping software (known as ProMap). (Bowers, K.J.; Johnson, S. D. and Pease, K. (2004) Prospective Hot-Spotting: The Future of Crime Mapping?, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 44, No. 5: ) 28

29 Anticipatory Benefits Effect Research reviewing the impact of crime prevention interventions has found that in some cases, crime falls before the actual crime prevention intervention commences. Smith, Clarke and Pease (2002) have termed this phenomenon anticipatory benefits. The falls in crime have in part been linked to the education and media campaigns accompanying the crime prevention initiatives. Consequently, by combining an educational campaign with specific crime prevention and policing strategies, it might be possible to enhance the potential crime reduction benefits of the particular crime prevention initiative. (Smith, M.; Clarke, R.V. and Pease, K. (2002) Anticipatory Benefits in Crime Prevention, in Tilley. N. (ed.) Analysis for Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, page 73.) Source: 29

30 Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits Type Geographical Temporal Target Tactical Crime Type Definition Geographical change Change in time Change in target Change in tactics Change in offence Source: 30

31 How Can Access to Data be Improved? What can we do to advocate for better access to crime data? Are there promising local examples that can be used to illustrate how this can be achieved? 31

32 De-politisation of crime prevention

33 Responsive partnership approaches

34 Peter Homel (Research Manager, Crime Reduction & Review Program, Australian Institute of Criminology) 1. Could you briefly introduce yourself? 2. You've been involved in the crime prevention area for many years now. Can I ask what you think has been the single greatest development during that period? 3. I know that you've been working on the development of a model framework for community crime prevention. Could you tell us a little about the framework and how people will be able to access and use it? 4. I know that your work has taken you around the country and overseas and has involved engagement with some key international developments. Could you describe what you see as some of the most critical national and international developments relevant to crime prevention and perhaps explain how these international developments might inform work in Australia? 5. What do you see as the single greatest challenge facing crime prevention practitioners? 34

35 Group Problem-Solving Instructions: Each person in the group will get a chance to discuss a particular problem that they are facing and to get feedback and advice from colleagues. This will just be a short brainstorming exercise, allowing people to pool their knowledge and expertise. Each time a group problem-solving opportunity arises, the next person will be given an opportunity to briefly outline an issue that they are facing. 35

36 Future Plans Step1: Practice-base Step 2: Realist evaluation (what works for whom in what circumstances) Step 3: Evidence-base (using Campbell Collaboration standards) Establish a clearinghouse of resources, documents, policies and research to help save time across areas/organisations (Sydney Institute of Criminology to help with establishing basic e-scholarship repository) Establish a standard format for reporting on programs, interventions and initiatives reflecting realist evaluation tenets (incumbent on individuals to commit to generating greater documentation) Contribute to the international evidencebase through rigorous, independent evaluations (will necessitate greater links to universities) 36

37 Shameless Plug Join CrimNet to receive FREE updates on crime and justice related issues Attend an upcoming event: - Restorative Justice seminar 29 November Post-Release Employment seminar 2 December SafeGrowth and City Crime Workshop 24 January 2011 (fee-paying event) Become a member of the Institute Subscribe to the Current Issues in Criminal Justice Journal Study criminology at Sydney Keep an eye out for a series of short courses in 2011 (Forensic Psychology, Restorative Justice, Graffiti, Drugs and Crime, Working with Young Offenders, Working with Adult Offenders, etc.) 37

38 Time Topic/Presenter 9:30am Opening Remarks Garner Clancey (Sydney Institute of Criminology) 9:45 Ann Hoban (Director City Culture and Community, City of Sydney) 10:15 1 st and 2 nd Generation CPTED (Greg Saville) 11:00 Morning Tea 11:20 Case Study: Shall we Dense? (Adam Haddow, SJB Architects and Simon McPherson, SJB Urban) 11:50 The Future of Neighbourhood Safety (Greg Saville and Wendy Sarkissian) 12:35 Case Study: Graffiti (Kurt Iveson, University of Sydney and Cameron McAuliffe, Human Geographer) and Homelessness (Bernie Coates, Housing NSW) 1:30 Lunch 2:15 SafeGrowth in Action (Wendy Sarkissian and Greg Saville) 3:15 Case Study: Night-time Economy (Stephen Tomsen, University of Western Sydney) and Illumination (Mary-Anne Kyriakou, Smart Light Sydney) 4:00 Group Exercise (Greg Saville and Wendy Sarkissian) 5:00 Bring it Together - (Greg Saville and Wendy Sarkissian) 5:25pm Closing Remarks Garner Clancey (Sydney Institute of Criminology) 38

39 Thank You Garner Clancey