Advancing Effective
Crime Prevention in
Canada
October 4, 2013
National Crime Prevention Centre
Presentation at the Canadian Criminal Justice Association
34th Congress on Canadian Justice, Vancouver, BC
Objective and Outline
●
Objectives:
-
●
Provide an overview of the National Crime Prevention Centre, project evaluation
results, and costing activities
Outline:
-
-
The National Crime Prevention Centre
●
What is the NCPC?
●
Funding streams under the NCPS
●
Effective crime prevention as a priority
●
A socio-economic perspective of the costs of offending
●
Evidence-based crime prevention is a cost-effective approach
Results to date
●
The continuum of expected results
●
Contributing knowledge through evaluation
●
Outcomes from project evaluations
●
Sample of preliminary results from CPAF evaluations
●
Evaluating the costs and benefits of projects
●
Cost-Benefit Analysis of SNAP®
●
Other costing initiatives
●
NCPC knowledge products
1
THE NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION CENTRE
2
What is the NCPC?
●
Public Safety Canada's National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) is
responsible for implementing the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS).
●
Originally established in 1998 Canada’s NCPS was renewed in 2008 with the
mission to:
-
●
Provide national leadership on effective and cost-efficient ways to both prevent and
reduce crime in high risk populations and places.
Strategic Activities:
-
Established national and regional expertise in
assessment of crime prevention practices and the
effective collection and dissemination of practiceoriented knowledge;
-
Development of policies in coordination with the
provinces and territories, other federal institutions
and key stakeholders;
-
Management of funding programs that support timelimited community crime prevention projects; and
-
Recognized leader in various international fora (UN,
G-8 for example), in the area of crime prevention.
3
Funding streams under the NCPS
National Crime Prevention Strategy
($41.9 million in 2013-14 and $40.9 million ongoing)
Crime Prevention
Action Fund (CPAF)
Knowledge-based
preventive interventions
that address known risk
and protective factors
associated with crime
among vulnerable
groups of the
population, especially
children and youth from
6 to 24, and chronic
offenders in
communities.
Youth Gang
Prevention Fund
(YGPF)
Supports initiatives
that prevent at-risk
youth from joining
gangs, provides exit
strategies for youth
who belong to gangs
in communities
where youth gangs
are an existing or
emerging threat
Northern and
Aboriginal Crime
Prevention Fund
(NACPF)
Assists Aboriginal and
Northern communities
to develop and
implement preventive
interventions that are
adapted to their specific
circumstances.
Security
Infrastructure
Program (SIP)
Supports security
enhancements for
not-for-profit
community centres,
provincially
recognized
educational
institutions, and
places of worship
victimized by hatemotivated crime.
4
Effective crime prevention as a priority
Targeted
Focused
Specifically addresses known criminogenic
risk factors associated with crime and
offending
Attends to populations most at-risk because
they present risk factors more than others
NCPC: implements and evaluates evidence-based
models that address various risk-factors within
targeted populations.
NCPC: focuses on priority issues (youth gangs, drug related
crimes, hate crimes and bullying), targets priority groups (at-risk
children and youth (aged 6 to 17), young adults (aged 18 to 24);
Aboriginal peoples and high-risk adult offenders no longer
under correctional supervision).
Effective Crime
Prevention
Evidence-based
Results-oriented
Uses recognized principles of evaluated
practices, including fidelity to model and
appropriate dosage of intervention
Aims to deliver measurable outcomes
related to crime/risk factors, and focuses on
assessing model effectiveness
NCPC: Uses knowledge base of promising and
model programs (e.g. SNAP™, Multisystemic
therapy, Leadership and Resiliency).
NCPC: evaluates and tracks outcomes from funded
projects
5
A socio-economic perspective on the costs of
offending
●
Crime has significant economic impacts on society.
-
●
In 2008, a Department of Justice study estimated the costs of crime to be $100 billion:
●
$31.4 billion in tangible social and economic costs (e.g., Criminal Justice System costs)
●
$68.2 billion in intangible costs (e.g., pain and suffering)
Criminal Justice System (CJS) costs associated with processing and managing
offenders are increasing.
-
-
According to recent estimates from the
Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer,
CJS expenditures in Canada totaled
$20.3 billion in 2011-2012, including:
●
57% on policing ($11.6 billion);
●
20% on courts ($4.1 billion); and
●
23% on corrections ($4.7 billion).
This represents an overall increase
of 66% from 2002 ($13.4 billion),
and a 23% increase in per capita
criminal costs from $389 to $478.
6
A socio-economic perspective on costs (con’t)
●
The cost of a high-risk offending trajectory is high (Koegl, 2011).
7
A socio-economic perspective on costs (con’t)
●
According to U.S. research, the costs that a high-risk offender imposes on society peaks
between the ages of 18 and 24 years (Piquero, 2011).
●
The present value of saving a 14-year-old high risk juvenile from a life of crime and negative
social outcomes (e.g., substance use) is estimated to range from $3.2 to $5.8 million.
●
Huge costs into future can be avoided with the early detection of high-risk youth.
Costs that Year
Cumulative Costs
Present Value
Costs in
Future
8
$2,482
$2,482
$4,348,769
10
$3,010
$8,233
$4,518,654
12
$32,669
$65,218
$4,643,736
14
$97,397
$231,814
$4,663,363
16
$279,371
$654,633
$4,426,075
18
$552,613
$1,513,978
$3,739,409
20
$366,024
$2,386,360
$3,007,972
22
$492,415
$3,298,332
$2,209,130
24
$369,075
$4,125,424
$1,462,127
26
$213,688
$4,594,474
$532,948
28
$257,367
$5,145,003
$166,202
Age
Costs Imposed by Age (6+ Contacts)
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
32
28
30
24
26
22
18
20
14
16
10
12
8
$0
8
Evidence-based crime prevention is a costeffective approach
●
In targeting high-risk populations and investing in proven interventions, crime
prevention efforts are cost-effective as they interrupt a long-term offending
pathways and associated direct criminal justice system costs.
125,368
Number of youth accused of a Criminal Code
offence in 2012
55,005
Number of youth formally
charged or recommended for
charging (44%)
5,500
Number of CJS involved
youth who become
serious, chronic
offenders
$1.5 billion
• Direct criminal justice system-related costs* of high-risk,
serious, chronic offenders to age 21 = $280,000 x 5,500
delinquents = $1,540,000,000
$55 million
• Cost of intensive interventions = $10,000 per participant per
year x 5,500 delinquents = $55,000,000
196 youth
• In order to “break even,” we have to save 196 (3.6%) CJSinvolved youth from becoming serious, chronic offenders.
*Direct criminal justice system costs refer to costs associated with policing, courts and corrections
in Toronto (Koegl, 2011).
9
RESULTS TO DATE
10
The continuum of expected results
Short-term
outcomes
Example:
• Improved knowledge,
attitudes and skills e.g.,
 knowledge about the
consequences of
substance abuse;
 awareness about
stages of aggression;
 motivation towards
work, personal goals
etc.;
 stress management
skills;
 conflict resolution skills;
 problem-solving skills.
Intermediate Outcomes
(Risk and/ or Protective
Factors)
Example:
• Reduced risk factors, e.g.,
 substance abuse (drugs, alcohol
etc);
 emotional regulation;
 aggression and violence;
 absenteeism;
 delinquent peers;
 school disciplines (suspensions,
expulsions etc.);
 gang involvement (membership
etc)
 weapon-carrying.
• Improved protective behaviour, e.g.,
 prosocial activities;
 volunteer work;
 engagement at school;
 familial relationships.
Long-term
outcomes
Example:
• Reduced contact with the
criminal justice system,
e.g.,
 police contacts;
 arrests;
 convictions.
• If the interventions can favorably change
knowledge, attitudes and skills, this will
allow at-risk youth to address their risk
factors.
• If the interventions can favorably reduce
risk factors and increase protective
factors, this will allow at-risk youth to
address their criminal behaviour.
• If the intervention favorably changes
criminal behaviours, there will be a
reduction in police contacts (arrests),
charges, violent and non-violent
offending.
11
Contributing knowledge through evaluation
● Evaluation is one of NCPC’s main activities to produce knowledge to
inform policy and contribute to what works in crime prevention in
Canada.
● Between 2007 and 2012, a national program to rigorously evaluate 17
youth gang prevention interventions across Canada was implemented.
● With the NCPC renewal in 2008, the emphasis on evaluation continued
with implementation of 8 impact evaluations of model and promising
crime prevention interventions.
●
Studies have made several contributions:
- Results are contributing to the knowledge of what works in crime
prevention in Canada.
- Advancing the field of evaluation through the lessons learned from
some of the most rigorous evaluation conducted in Canada.
12
Outcomes from project evaluations
●
Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF): Six of the
ten evaluation studies measured behavioural
related outcomes (police contact, violent and nonviolent offending and gang involvement). Four of
these six studies (67%) reported results that
indicate positive change in at least one behavioural
related outcome.
●
Among the four projects that were able to measure
the gang exit rate, 41-67% of the youth were no
longer gang-involved by the end of the project.
●
Crime Prevention Action Fund (CPAF): Among the
four projects that were able to measure various
criminal justice outcomes, 75% demonstrated
favourable change in participant arrests, weapon
carrying, levels of victimization, and police
contacts.
13
Sample of preliminary results from CPAF
evaluations
Knowledge, Attitudes
and Skills
Risk and Protective
Factors
Police and Criminal
Justice Outcomes
Substance Abuse Prevention:
School-Based Prevention:
Intervention for high-risk Youth:
Towards No Drugs (TND) participants
showed favorable changes in
knowledge.
Alternative Suspension participants
(66%) showed improvements in their
behaviours at school.
Multisystemic Therapy program
graduates demonstrated a reduction
(89%) in police contact when compared
to 66.7% of the youth not in the
program.
Gang Prevention:
Prevention Intervention Toronto (PIT)
participants showed increases in
positive attitudes about the criminal
justice system.
Only 18% of participants received a
suspension in the year following
program completion compared to 43%
in a comparison group.
Only 23% had a disciplinary incident in
the year following program completion
compared to 74% in a comparison
group.
Violence Prevention:
Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) program
participants demonstrated increases in
the ability to function competently in
social settings.
TND program: there was a reduction in
weapon carrying among participants.
Velocity Program: there was a 69%
reduction in police contacts.
Surrey Wraparound: Results show a
significant decline (67%) in police
contacts relative to the non-participant
group.
14
Evaluating the costs and benefits of projects
●
In order to evaluate whether a program is worthwhile, there are two main types
of analyses that can be conducted:
-
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA): How much does it cost to get an effect?
-
Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA): How much does society save per dollar invested?
●
●
Social Return on Investment (SROI): focus on social and environmental impacts
A robust economic analysis rests on:
-
Fidelity in program implementation
-
Rigorous program impact evaluations
-
Reliable costing data: program costs, tangible and intangible costs (e.g., costs of various types of
crime, costs of criminal justice system responses, victim costs, crime career costs; health
care/social/education etc costs)
15
Evaluation Results: Cost-Benefit Analysis of
SNAP®
●
The Stop Now And Plan (SNAP®) model targets boys and girls between the
ages of 6 and 12, who have a prior history of police contact and have been
identified as the most likely to engage in aggressive and delinquent behaviour.
●
SNAP® Cost Benefit Analysis (Edmonton)
-
The CBA is based on measuring the changes in children’s levels of total competency,
defined as level of functioning in community activities, social skills and academics.
-
For every dollar spent on producing a change in this measure, there is a savings of
four dollars per year per child ($22,031 in program costs per child per year vs. savings
of $88,033).
-
A cost benefit ratio greater than 1 means the benefit outweighs the costs, indicating
that the treatment investment is financially profitable
Cost Benefit Analysis for SNAP® program
For every $1 spent on producing a change in the competency measure, $4 is saved per year.
16
SNAP® (con’t)
Savings per year for SNAP ® example (Edmonton)
17
Other costing initiatives: Roundtable & Report Economic analysis of crime prevention
●
●
Roundtable on Economic Analysis (October 2011)
-
Share information on crime prevention interventions and approaches that have been evaluated for
their cost-effectiveness and/or cost benefits;
-
Facilitate the design/development of a model methodology that could be applied to assessing the
costs/benefits of Canadian prevention programs; and
-
Promote the adoption of cost-effective approaches to prevent and reduce crime
An Introduction to Economic Analysis in Crime
Prevention: The Why, How and So What (July 2012)
-
Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit methodology
-
Data issues and challenges
-
Policy implications
-
Recommendations for next steps
18
Other costing initiatives: Tyler’s Troubled
Career - Portrait of a high-risk young offender
The history of a troubled teen on a path to a life of crime
A fictional story of a prototypical adolescent offender in Canada demonstrates the most common risk factors that
affect youth who become involved in crime. Additionally, the cost estimates related to this young boy’s pathway into
delinquency illustrate the high costs of crime on the criminal justice system, health care system, and social services.
Risk factors:
Teenage pregnancy
Low parental education
Parental criminality
Broken home
Involvement with social services and
foster care
Early aggression and conduct
problems
Learning disability
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD)
Delinquent peers
Poor school engagement
Antisocial behaviour
Alcohol/drug use
Cost: $1.5 million by age 30
An intervention between the ages
of 6 to 10 years could potentially
save $1.1 million.
An intervention between the ages
of 11 to14 years could potentially
save $900,000.
An intervention between the ages
of 15 to17 years could potentially
save $600,000.
19
NCPC knowledge products
NCPC gathers knowledge to help people make informed decisions about
effective use of resources in crime prevention.
●
●
Building the Evidence Series:
-
Youth at-risk (Youth Gangs, Bullying)
-
Promising and Model Prevention Programs
-
Evaluation: Summaries of prevention projects
Crime Prevention in Action Series:
-
●
Summaries of NCPC funded prevention projects
Research Matter Series
-
Summaries of NCPC funded research reports on
priority issues:
●
●
Risk Factors for Crime and Delinquency
●
High-Risk Offenders
●
Costs of Crime and Criminal Justice Responses
Website: www.publicsafety.gc.ca (NCPC’s tools and resources can be found following the links to
Countering Crime – Crime Prevention)
20
QUESTIONS?
21