Measurement of Crime

Evidenced-Based Practice in Canadian Policing and Crime Prevention

The objective of this work in writing is to examine evidence-based policing and crime prevention practice in Canada and to report on the same. According to the Public Safety Canada document entitled "evidence-based Crime Prevention: Scientific Basis, Trends, Results and Implications" policy on crime prevention and practice "should be based on solid scientific knowledge and evidence. Even though support for and recognition of evidence-based crime prevention (EBCP) is growing, much work still remains to put this knowledge into practice. " (Welsh, 2007, p.1) The report states that the evidence-based approach is such that "…typically refers to programs and practices that are proven to be effective through sound research methodology and have produced consistently positive patterns of results." (Welsh, 2007, p.1) EBCP is reported to ensure that "the best available evidence is considered in the decision to develop and implement a program or policy designed to prevent or reduce crime. (Welsh, 2007, p.1) It is reported that evidence-based crime prevention programs have been found to be very effective and to be of varying forms, which will be reviewed in this study.

I. School-Based Programs

There are three categories of programs in schools, which have their focus on at-risk youth, and the social development of the youth. The following three are cited as effective programs:

(1) School and Discipline Management;

(2) interventions to establish norms or expectations for behavior; and (3) self-control or social competency instruction. (Welsh, 2007, p.1)

II. Family-Based Programs

There are reported to be five types of family-based programs for at-risk families, which focus on the reduction of the affect of risk factor in the family including the following:

(1) home visitation for families at-risk;

(2) accessible day care or preschool programs for at-risk families;

(3) parent training (with younger children);

(4) parent training (with older children) at home or in the community; and (5) multisystemic therapy. (Welsh, 2007, p.1)

III. Community-Based Programs

There are reported to be three types of community-based programs that incorporate the situational prevention and that work through social development with promising results:

(1) gang member intervention programs that are focused on reducing cohesion among youth gangs and individual gang members;

(2) community-based mentoring; and (3) after-school recreation. (Welsh, 2007, p.1)

IV. Place Focused Programs

Place focused programs are of three types and are primarily based on situational prevention and targeted at public and private spaces and public transport. These programs are held to be effective and to include the following:

(1) nuisance abatement;

(2) environmental improvements such as closed-circuit television surveillance cameras; and (3) improved street lighting. (Welsh, 2007, p.1)

V. Community Policing and Evidence-Based Practice

The work of Pfeifer (2004) reports the development of effective community policing programs through a jurisprudence model and states that there presently is a "a growing disconnect between the practice of community policing and the scientific examination and evaluation of the concept." (Pfeifer, 2004) Community policing is an important practice because it is based on legitimacy, which is drawn from findings of surveys implemented in order to gain information about the community and its views on police work. Legitimacy is based on research findings from scientific experimental studies that assess the factors that influence police legitimacy and gives consideration to the effects among different groups in the population. Therefore, community policing is just one example of evidence-based policing and crime control models, including those stated in the previous section in this work in writing which have been implemented in Canada. (Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices, 2004)

VI. Evidence-Based Crime Prevention

The work of Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie (2002) entitled "Evidence-Based Crime Prevention" states that crime prevention "has a tendency to be driven more by rhetoric than reality. Effective public policy and practice needs to be based on scientific evidence." This approach has gained the attention in the medical field and other field that work in bettering society however, it is stated to be "not, however, the standard usually adopted in crime prevention and criminal justice." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002) Instead it is stated that "anecdotal evidence, program favorites of the month, and political ideology seemingly drive much of the crime policy agenda." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002) The result is what is described as "a patchwork of programs that are of unknown potential in prevention crime. (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002) Crime prevention programs oftentimes do "not work -- or, worse yet, may produce harmful or iatrogenic results." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002) It is reported that in 1996, a federal law made a requirement that the U.S. Attorney general make provision of to the U.S. Congress an "independent review of the effectiveness of state and local crime prevention assistance programs funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, 'with special emphasis on factors that relate to juvenile crime and the effect of these programs on youth violence." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002) The specific requirement set out by the law is that the review "employ rigorous and scientifically recognized standard and methodologies." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002) Those who framed the law held expectations that the evaluation would measure three important aspects of crime prevention programs including:

(1) reduction in delinquency, juvenile crime, youth gang activity, youth substance abuse and other high-risk factors;

(2) reductions it the risk factors in the community, school and family environments that contribute to juvenile violence; and (3) increases in the protective factors that reduce the likelihood of delinquency and criminal behavior." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002)

The measures used in determination of crime prevention programs are the questions as follows:

(1) What is the independent effect of each program or practice on a specific measure of crime?

(2) What is the comparative return on investment for each program or practice, using a common metric of costs and crimes prevented? And

(3) What conditions in other institutional settings are required for a crime prevention program or practice to be effective or to increase or reduce that effectiveness? (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002)

Crime prevention is a concept that has within the setting under discussion, or that of a crime prevention initiative. Within this setting are practices and programs reported as the two elements that crime prevention research addresses. A practice is stated to be "an ongoing routine activity that is well established in that setting." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002)

A program is stated to be "in contrast, focused on an effort to change, restrict or crate a routine practice in a crime prevention setting." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002) Programs are stated to overtime change into practices with the original introduction of the program upon which these practices are based long forgotten. Stated to be that which makes the "clearest distinction between programs and practices" are those, which require governmental funding as new programs are required to undergo scientific evaluations in the form of those seeking evidence upon which to base crime prevention programs. There is a trend reported toward 'demanding accountability for public expenditures." (Sherman, Farrington, Welch and MacKenzie, 2002)