Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 593–610 | Cite as

Understanding the time-course of an intervention’s mechanisms: a framework for improving experiments and evaluations

  • Shannon J. LinningEmail author
  • Kate Bowers
  • John E. Eck
Article

Abstract

Objectives

The crime prevention evaluation literature has identified several potential side effects of interventions. These often-unintended consequences occur at different stages of prevention processes, including before official start dates. They can improve or reduce intervention impacts. Evaluations using before-and-after designs with or without controls can fail to identify these effects. We describe a longitudinal framework to guide the design and evaluation of interventions that can account for these side effects when causal mechanisms are better understood.

Methods

Our time-course framework provides a comprehensive assessment of the prevention process. Using place-based examples as illustrations, it builds on previously identified temporal benefits and backfires—such as anticipatory benefits, residual deterrence, and initial backfire—that have never been systematically organized into a single framework. We show how our framework can be incorporated into the EMMIE framework for assessing prevention utility.

Results

The proposed time-course framework links together all temporal effects, their underlying mechanisms, and shows how they can vary by context.

Conclusions

The framework suggests that considering all decisions within these timelines will be more cost-effective and produce greater crime reductions in the long run. By considering the mechanisms that can be triggered at various points in an intervention’s time-course, we can better design experiments to test them and generate stronger evaluations of programs.

Keywords

Crime prevention policy EMMIE framework Initial backfire Intervention time-course Program evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their comments on this manuscript. Their insights lead to substantial improvements in the final draft. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada (SSHRC).

References

  1. Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Who commits near repeats? A test of the boost explanation. Western Criminology Review, 5(3), 12–24.Google Scholar
  2. Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., & Hirschfield, A. F. (2004a). Closing off opportunities for crime: an evaluation of alley-gating. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10(4), 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., & Hirschfield, A. (2004b). The measurement of crime prevention intensity and its impact on levels of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, R. V., & Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits: observations on the reverse of displacement. Crime Prevention Studies, 2, 165–184.Google Scholar
  6. Eck, J. E. (2010). Policy is in the details: using external validity to help policy makers. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(4), 859–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eck, J. E. (2017). Some solutions to the evidence-based crime prevention problem. In J. Knuttson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 45–63). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eck, J. E., & Wartell, J. (1998). Improving the management of rental properties with drug problems: a randomized experiment. In L. G. Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention (crime prevention studies) (Vol. 9, pp. 161–185). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  9. Farrell, G., Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). Cost-benefit analysis for crime science: making cost-benefit analysis useful through a portfolio of outcomes. In M. Smith & N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime science: new approaches to preventing and detecting crime (pp. 56–84). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Gambetta, D. (1998). Concatenations of mechanisms. In P. Hedstrom & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanisms: an analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. J. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: a review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology, 47(4), 1331–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004). The burglary as clue to the future: the beginnings of prospective hot-spotting. European Journal of Criminology, 1(2), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, S. D. & Bowers, K. (2005) Using publicity for preventive purposes, in Nick Tilley (Ed) Handbook of crime prevention: theory, policy and practice (first edition). London: Willan.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, S. D., Tilley, N., & Bowers, K. J. (2015). Introducing EMMIE: an evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Linning, S. J., & Eck, J. E. (2018). Weak intervention backfire and criminal hormesis: why some otherwise effective crime prevention interventions can fail at low doses. The British Journal of Criminology, 58(2), 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merton Metropolitan Police (2015). A guide to alleygates. Retrieved from: January 12, 2018. https://www.bexley.gov.uk/sites/bexley-cms/files/A-guide-to-Alleygates.pdf
  17. Millie, A. & Hough, M. (2004). Assessing the impact of the reducing burglary initiative in southern England and Wales (Home Office Online Report 42/04). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  18. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Ross, H. L. (1981). Deterring the drinking driver: legal policy and social control. Lexington, Mass: Health.Google Scholar
  20. Sherman, L. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: initial and residual deterrence. Crime and Justice, 12, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sidebottom, A., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., Bullock, K., Tilley, N., Bowers, K., & Johnson, S. D. (2017). Gating alleys to reduce crime: a meta-analysis and realist synthesis. Justice Quarterly, 1–32.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, M. J., Clarke, R. V., & Pease, K. (2002). Anticipatory benefits in crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 13, 71–88.Google Scholar
  23. Sorg, E. T., Haberman, C. P., Ratcliffe, J. H., & Groff, E. R. (2013). Foot patrol in violent crime hot spots: the longitudinal impact of deterrence and posttreatment effects of displacement. Criminology, 51(1), 65–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tilley, N. (2004). Applying theory-driven evaluation to the British Crime Reduction Programme: the theories of the programme and its evaluations. Criminal Justice, 4, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tompson, L. Belur, J, Thornton, A., Bowers, K., Johnson, S., Sidebottom, A. Tilley, N. and Laycock, G. (2019). Taking Stock of Systematic Reviews in Crime Reduction: An Evidence Appraisal Using the EMMIE Framework. Under Review.Google Scholar
  26. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot-spots: the Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shannon J. Linning
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kate Bowers
    • 2
  • John E. Eck
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Criminal Justice and CriminologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations