Richness, Retrievability and Reliability–Issues in a Working Knowledge Base for Good Practice in Crime Prevention

  • Karen BullockEmail author
  • Paul Ekblom


This paper focuses on descriptions of crime prevention projects identified as ‘good practice’, and how they are captured and shared in knowledge bases, with the purpose of improving performance in the field as a whole. This relates both to evidence-based approaches to practice, and to growing attempts at explicit knowledge management. There are, however, fundamental issues in the transfer of effective practice in the crime prevention field, which few working knowledge bases have properly addressed. Evaluation often remains weak and descriptions of successful projects do not always contain the right information to help practitioners select and replicate projects suitable for transfer to their own contexts. Knowledge remains fragmentary. With these concerns in mind this paper systematically examines the projects contained in the UK Home Office ‘Effective Practice Database’, a repository of project descriptions volunteered and self-completed on a standard online form by practitioners. The Home Office descriptions (and their equivalents elsewhere) reveal significant limitations of richness, retrievability and reliability. Ways of addressing these issues are discussed, ranging from the media and processes of ‘knowledge-harvesting’ to the use of more purpose-designed frameworks such as 5Is. But the fundamental issue remains one of taking knowledge management seriously and investing sustained time, money and leadership effort to make it work.


Best practice Evaluation Good practice Home Office Knowledge management SARA 5Is 



For helpful comments we are grateful to Jessica Anderson, Jason Roach and Aiden Sidebottom, plus an anonymous referee


  1. Adamson, S. (2004). Youth crime-a case study of intensive supervision in a neighbourhood context. Research Report 42. London: New Deal for Communities.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. (2003). The national research project into good practice in community crime prevention. Canberra: Australian Government Attorney General’s Department.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, R., & Scott, M. (2007). Implementing responses to problems. Problem-oriented guides for police problem-solving tools series no. 7. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  4. BSI. (2001). PAS 2001 Knowledge Management. A Guide to Good Practice. London:BSI available at
  5. Bullock, K., Erol, R., & Tilley, N. (2006). Problem-oriented policing and partnership. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Davidoff, F., Batalden, P., Stevens, D., Ogrinc, G., & Mooney, S. (2008). Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: Evolution of the SQUIRE project. Annals of Internal Medicine, 149, 670–677.Google Scholar
  7. Eck, J. (2002). Assessing responses to problems: An introductory guide for police problem-solvers. Problem-oriented guides for police problem-solving tools series no. 1. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  8. Eck, J., & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News. Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  9. Ekblom, P. (2002a). From the source to the mainstream is uphill: The challenge of transferring knowledge of crime prevention through replication, innovation and anticipation. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Analysis for crime prevention, Crime Prevention Studies 13: 131–203. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press/ Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Ekblom, P. (2002b). ‘Towards a European Knowledge Base’ and ‘The Five I’s: Experimental Framework for a Knowledge Base for Crime Prevention Projects’ in European Crime Prevention Conference 2002 vol 1: 62–97. Copenhagen: Danish Crime Prevention Council.
  11. Ekblom, P. (2004). Shared responsibilities, pooled resources: A partnership approach to crime prevention. In P. Ekblom & A. Wyvekens (Eds.), A partnership approach to crime prevention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Ekblom, P. (2005). The 5Is framework: Sharing good practice in crime prevention. In E. Marks, A. Meyer, & R. Linssen (Eds.), Quality in crime prevention. Hannover: Landespräventionsrat Niedersachsen.Google Scholar
  13. Ekblom, P. (2006). ‘Identification and application of Best Practice in Crime Prevention-some fundamental questions and some attempted answers.’ European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) Best Practices Conference, Hämeenlinna, Finland.
  14. Ekblom, P. (2007). Appropriate complexity: Capturing and structuring knowledge from impact and process evaluations of crime reduction, community safety and problem-oriented policing. In E. Hogard, R. Ellis, & J. Warren (Eds.), Community safety: Innovation and evaluation. Chester: Chester Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ekblom, P. (2008). ‘Capturing, assessing, transferring and applying knowledge of good practice in crime prevention: the 5Is framework’, Irish Youth Justice Service first biennial conference ‘Best Practice for Youth Justice, Best Practice for all’, Ballyconnell, Irish Republic.
  16. Ekblom, P. (in preparation). The 5Is framework for crime prevention and community safety. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Ekblom, P., & Pease, K. (1995). Evaluating crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention, crime and justice 19:585–662. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gilling, D. (2005). Partnership and crime prevention. In N. Tilley (Ed.), The handbook of crime prevention and community safety. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Goldblatt, P., & Lewis, C. (Eds.) (1998). Reducing Offending: an Assessment of Research Evidence on Ways of Dealing with Offending Behaviour. Home Office Research Study No. 187. London, UK: Home Office.Google Scholar
  20. Kent, A. (2006). What works for domestic burglary crime prevention techniques and context (Tables 1–6 Part II). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  21. Knutsson, J. (2009). Standard of evaluations in problem-oriented policing projects: Good enough? In J. Knutsson & N. Tilley (Eds.), Evaluating crime reduction initiatives. Crime prevention studies volume 24. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  22. NHS. (2005). ‘Knowledge Harvesting’. Entry in NHS Evidence-knowledge management. Online library.
  23. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Read, T., & Tilley, N. (2000). Not rocket science?: Problem-solving and crime reduction. Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 6. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  25. Sampson, R., & Scott, M. (2000). Tackling crime and other public-safety problems: Case studies in problem-solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  26. Scott, M. (2000). Problem-oriented policing: Reflections on the first 20 years. Washington D.C: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  27. Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., Mackenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t and What’s Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. Washington DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  28. Tilley, N. (1996). Demonstration, exemplification, duplication and replication in evaluation research evaluation 2(No. 1), 35–50.Google Scholar
  29. Tilley, N. (2006). Knowing and doing: guidance and good practice in crime prevention. In R. V. Clarke & J. Knuttson (Eds.), Putting theory to work: implementing situational prevention and problem-oriented policing, vol. 20 (pp. 217–252). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  30. Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2007). Closed-circuit television surveillance and crime prevention. A systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SurreyGuildford SurreyUK
  2. 2.University of the Arts LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations