Crime Prevention and Community Safety

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 48–70 | Cite as

CRITIC: A prospective planning tool for crime prevention evaluation designs

Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Planners of crime prevention evaluations often face a dilemma: how to actively manage numerous interacting variables needing prospective consideration as part of a research design. Failure to consider one design component at the expense of another, or lavishing disproportionate attention on some and not others can increase the likelihood of non-convincing and/or non-significant findings. To assist the decision-making processes needed at the initial stage of evaluation design to avoid such outcomes, we describe an evolving systematic prospective planning tool given the acronym CRITIC. CRITIC raises awareness, and discusses the effect, of Crime history (how crime-prone the action and control sites are), Reduction (in terms of proportional reduction in the crime problem anticipated in the action sites when compared to the control), Intensity (in terms of the number and/or strength of interventions necessary per target exposed to crime risk), Time period (that over which the action and control sites are tracked before and after implementation), Immensity (in terms of the number of units of analysis at risk of crime to be tracked) and Cost (in terms of the unit cost per intervention) on the likelihood of statistically significant outcome analyses and cost-effective results. The application of CRITIC is demonstrated on a bag-theft reduction study in a chain of bars in central London. Its wider utility to other crime prevention evaluation contexts is also discussed.

Keywords

bag theft cost-effectiveness evaluation research design statistical significance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research described in this paper was funded by a research award from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (Award title: Turning the tables on crime: Boosting evidence of impact of Design Against Crime and the strategic capacity to deliver practical design solutions). The views expressed here are solely those of the authors. Thanks go to Professor Lorraine Gamman and colleagues at Central St Martins College of Art and Design.

References

  1. Aos, S., Phillips, P., Barnoski, R. and Lieb, L. (2001) The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Washington: Olympia.Google Scholar
  2. Baumer, E. and Wright, R. (1996) Crime seasonality and serious scholarship: A comment on Farrell and Pease. British Journal of Criminology 36: 579–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowers, K.J., Johnson, S.D. and Hirschfield, A. (2004) The measurement of crime prevention intensity and its impact on levels of crime. British Journal of Criminology 44 (3): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (2008) Crime Pattern Theory. In: R. Wortley and L. Mazerolle (eds.) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Cullopmton: Willan, pp. 78–93.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, S.E. (1989) Statistical power and criminal justice research. Journal of Criminal Justice 17: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burrell, A. and Erol, R. (2006) A Real Rise in Crime or Just a Passing Spate? The Example of Tyre Slashing in the West Midlands. Report Submitted to the Government Office for the West Midlands, April 2006. Retrieved 10 June 2007 from: http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/downloads/briefings/tyre_slashing_briefing_note.pdf.
  7. Bushway, S., Sweeten, G. and Wilson, D.B. (2006) Size matters: Standard errors in the application of null hypothesis significance testing in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1977) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Dubourg, R., Hamed, J. and Thorns, J. (2005) The Economic and Social Costs of Crime Against Individuals and Households 2003/04. London: Home Office. Home Office Online Report no. 30/05. Available from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr3005.pdf.
  11. Eck, J.E., Clarke, R.V. and Guerette, R.T. (2007) Risky Facilities: Crime Concentration in Homogeneous Sets of Establishments and Facilities. In: G. Farrell, K. Bowers, S.D. Johnson and M. Townsley (eds.) Imagination for Crime Prevention: Essays in Honor of Ken Pease, Vol. 21. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 255–264.Google Scholar
  12. Ekblom, P. (1990) Evaluating Crime Prevention: The Management of Uncertainty. In: C. Kemp (ed.) Current Issues in Criminological Research, Vol. 2. Bristol: Bristol Centre for Criminological Research.Google Scholar
  13. Ekblom, P. (1992) The safer cities programme impact evaluation: Problems and progress. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 1: 35–51.Google Scholar
  14. Ekblom, P. (2001) The conjunction of criminal opportunity: A framework for crime reduction toolkits. Available online at: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/ccofull.doc.
  15. Ekblom, P. (2005a) The 5Is Framework: Sharing Good Practice in Crime Prevention. In: E. Marks, A. Meyer and R. Linssen (eds.) Quality in Crime Prevention. Hannover: Landespräventionsrat Niedersachsen, pp. 55–84.Google Scholar
  16. Ekblom, P. (2005b) Designing Products Against Crime. In: N. Tilley (ed.) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 203–244.Google Scholar
  17. Ekblom, P., Law, H., Sutton, M. and Wiggins, R. (1996) Safer Cities and Domestic Burglary. London: Home Office. Home Office Research Study, 164.Google Scholar
  18. Ekblom, P. and Pease, K. (1995) Evaluating Crime Prevention. In: M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington (eds.) Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice, Vol. 19. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 21–89.Google Scholar
  19. Ekblom, P. and Sidebottom, A. (2008) What do you mean, ‘Is it secure?’ Redesigning language to be fit for the task of assessing the security of domestic and personal electronic goods. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 14: 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farrell, G. and Pease, K. (1994) Crime seasonality: Domestic violence and domestic burglary in Merseyside. British Journal of Criminology 34 (4): 487–498.Google Scholar
  21. Farrington, D.P. (2003) Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587: 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farrington, D.P. and Petrosino, A. (2001) The Campbell collaboration crime and justice group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578: 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farrington, D.P. and Welsh, D.C. (2006) How important is ‘Regression to the mean’ in area-based crime prevention research. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 8: 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gamman, L. and Pascoe, T. (2004) Design out crime? Using practice-based models of the design process. Crime Prevention and Community Safety Journal 6: 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marchant, P. (2005) What works? A critical note on the evaluation of crime reduction initiatives. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 7 (2): 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenbaum, D.P. (ed.) (1986) Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Sherman, L.W. (2007) The power few: Experimental criminology and the reduction of harm. Journal of Experimental Criminology 3: 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P. and Bushway, S. (1997) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What's Promising. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  30. Sidebottom, A. and Bowers, K.J. (forthcoming) Bag theft in bars: An analysis of relative risk, perceived risk and modus operandi. Security Journal, in press.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, C., Bowers, K.J. and Johnson, S.D. (2006) Understanding theft within licensed premises: Identifying initial steps towards prevention. Security Journal 19 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tilley, N. (2000) The Evaluation Jungle. In: S. Ballantyne, V. MacLaren and K. Pease (eds.) Secure Foundations: Key Issues in Crime Prevention, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. London, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 115–130.Google Scholar
  33. Weisburd, D. (2004) The Emergence of Crime Places in Crime Prevention. In: G.E.B. Bruinsma, H. Elffers and J. Keijser (eds.) Developments in Criminological and Criminal Justice Research. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 155–168.Google Scholar
  34. Weisburd, D., Lum, C.M. and Yang, S. (2003) When can we conclude that treatments or programs ‘Don’t Work?’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 587 (May): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weisburd, D., Petrosino, A. and Mason, G. (1993) Design Sensitivity in Criminal Justice Experiments. In: M. Tonry (ed.) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 17. Chicago: University of Chicago press, pp. 337–379.Google Scholar
  36. Welsh, B. and Farrington, D. (2002) Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: A systematic review. London: Home Office. Home Office Research Study no. 252.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Design Against Crime Research Centre, Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, University of the ArtsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations