INTRODUCTION TO
PARTNERSHIP
PROBLEM SOLVING
Supported by the
_________________________________________________________
Course tutor: Sylvia Chenery
Tel: 07764 196576
Email:appliedcriminology@ntlworld.com
Acknowledgements
The material and help for this course has come from years of experience working with the
police and partnerships, and a number of extremely helpful sources, including the US
Problem Oriented Policing Centre (http://www.popcenter.org); the Home Office,
(http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk); the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science
(http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk);
Dr
Rick
Brown,
Evidence
Led
Solutions,
(http://www.els.org.uk);Alan Edmunds and his ‘Simple to Start’ Methodology
(http://simple2start.co.uk); Professor Ken Pease OBE (received for his services to crime
prevention) and Professor Nick Tilley, who has been a driving influence in developing
Problem Oriented Partnerships in the UK, and Herman Goldstein, Professor Emeritus,
University of Wisconsin, who believed over 30 years ago that problem solving and
partnership working was the way to solve the substantive issues that are of concern to
individuals and our communities.
Course tutor
Sylvia Chenery is an independent consultant who works alongside a number of highly
respected academics and practitioners, using their extensive collaborative knowledge to
provide support and guidance to Criminal Justice Agency partners. She is affiliated to a
number of academic establishments, including the Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science,
at the University College, London.
She is a former University Research Manager, and has been a visiting consultant to the
Police Foundation and Centre for Victims of Crime, and the Police Executive Research
Forum, USA. She is an experienced researcher, working on local and national projects; her
recent work includes Home Office Organised Crime research, and examination of
resettlement issues, with the Prison Reform Trust. She has published widely, particularly
on the subject of repeat victimisation.
She is frequently requested to work with Community Safety Partnerships and regularly
provides training on a number of subjects, including problem solving and problem
oriented partnerships, project management and community safety. She is the Problem
Oriented Policing and Partnership (POPP) advisor and trainer to the Bermuda Police
Service, and has been a visiting expert for the National Policing Improvement Agency.
2
Contents
Section
Title
Page
1.
Introduction: Key elements of Problem Solving
4
2.
The SARA Model
5
3.
Routine Activity Theory (RAT)
8
4.
Problem Analysis Triangle (PAT)
10
5.
Rational Choice Theory
13
6.
Repeat Victimisation
14
7.
Ten Principles of Crime Opportunity Theory
20
8.
Types of Crime Prevention
22
9.
Situational Crime Prevention
25
10.
Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED)
29
11.
Developing Interventions
30
12.
Mechanisms of Change
31
13.
Stakeholders
33
14.
Project Management
38
15.
Monitoring and Evaluation
44
Appendix
1. Problem solving checklist
2. Comparisons between Neighbourhood Policing and Problem Oriented
Policing
3. Process and Impact evaluation results
3
1. Introduction: Key Elements of Problem Solving
This course aims to be able to help you understand and use the four main stages of
problem solving. But first it is necessary to understand what a problem solving approach
actually is:
Is a way of thinking that systematically addresses identified problems;
It encompasses a set of tools designed to help you understand the issues
more clearly;
It is not about quick fixes, but about dealing with the conditions that
create the problems;
The purposes of a problem solving approach is to address the underlying conditions that
affect community safety, often needing closer involvement with the public in order to
meet their needs. This approach recognises and uses the expertise of others, and
encourages more lateral and creative thinking, and to use a wider range of resources in
developing solutions.
But what is a problem?
It is something that concerns or causes harm to the people of our
communities;
It is something that occurs on more than one occasion, and is often similar
in nature.
In order to deal with the problems, we need to understand how they are related, and this
can be in a number of ways:
Location
Suspect (or groups of suspects
Victim group or type
Target
Behaviour
Time
Evidence
4
Understanding the problem means it must be routinely and systematically analysed,
and that this process should be thorough. Before a problem can be solved, it needs to be
understood;
It must be described precisely and accurately and broken down into
specific aspects of the problem. It is important to understand that problems
often aren't what they first appear to be;
It must be understood in terms of the various interests at stake. Individuals
and groups of people are affected in different ways by a problem and have
different ideas about what should be done about the problem.
The way the problem is currently being handled must be understood and
the limits of effectiveness must be openly acknowledged in order to come
up with a better response.
All possible responses should be considered so as not to cut short
potentially effective responses. Possible responses should follow from what
is learned during the analysis.
Suggested further reading:
Not Rocket Science? Problem-solving and crime reduction Crime Reduction Research
Series Paper 6, Tim Read and Nick Tilley, London: Home Office, 2000
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/crrs06.pdf PDF 184 Kb
Tilley and Read’s paper also provides a checklist aiming to help local problem-solvers take
a critical look at their current working practices and identify points for improvement.
Even though this was published some years ago, it can still be used by both individual
agencies and by partnerships as a way of assessing progress towards problem-solving (See
Appendix 1)
2. SARA MODEL
This check list is based around the SARA Model which many people are now familiar
with. The SARA model encompasses the four main stages of a problem solving approach
i.e. Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment
These four key stages are:
Scanning – identifying problems using knowledge, basic data, electronic
maps etc
Analysis – using knowledge and information technology to dig deeper into
problems’ characteristics and underlying causes
Response – devising a solution, working with the community, wherever
possible
Assessment – looking back to see if the solution worked and what lessons
can be learned.
5
The SARA methodical process has now been used for many years in a problem-oriented
approach, and most UK Crime and Disorder Partnerships are familiar with the key stages,
but as to what level each stage is routinely developed is often taken in a more ad hoc
approach.
SARA is a way for crime reduction practitioners in any field to apply a process that can
ensure a problem is effectively identified and tackled, avoiding any waste of time and
resources.
Scanning:
Scanning allows incidents to be grouped into clusters or ‘problems’. These
problems comprise similar, related or recurring incidents and are identified
from police and partnership data and intelligence and calls from members
of the community.
The definition of what constitutes a ‘problem’ is deliberately left open as
there is an almost endless range of situations where the public may call for
help. Incidents may vary in terms of their seriousness, particularly in crime
terms, but they are all of concern to the community and many call for a
partnership response.
Problems identified in the scanning phase of the process should not be “oneoffs”; they should be problems which have been recurring for some time,
certainly over a period of months. It makes more sense to spend time and
resources on a long-term problem than on one that would have only lasted
for a couple of weeks.
Analysis
In this phase, crime reduction practitioners identify the conditions that give
rise to a particular problem by examining the characteristics and impact of
the problem in greater detail. For example, scanning might have revealed
that there were many abandoned vehicles in a particular area, but analysis
will provide information on whether the vehicles were stolen, and if so the
hour, day or month that the thefts took place and from which particular
locations.
Analysis may involve collecting information about offenders and victims, the
time of occurrence, location and other details of the physical environment,
the history of the current problem, the motivations, gains and losses of
involved parties, the apparent (and hidden) causes and competing interests,
and the results of current responses.
Practitioners may need to talk to colleagues, partners, local businesses, or to
members of the community to better understand the problem. As well as
police and fire service data, information held by other organisations such as
insurance companies, hospitals, local authorities, probation and schools may
be useful.
6
Response
Response refers to any action taken to try to address a problem. This might
vary from the simple – for example a practitioner advising someone what
they should or should not be doing – to the complex, such as a practitioner
involving the community and local bodies to set up a project to help young
people.
Work done in the analysis phase helps to identify or isolate the element that
can most easily and effectively be tackled to try to resolve a problem. Often,
responses will combine actions to tackle more than one aspect of the problem
identified during the analysis phase.
In selecting responses, it is crucial to work out in detail how they are
expected to produce their intended effects (see mechanism of change Section
13).
Assessment
In the final stage of SARA, practitioners review attempts to deal with a problem and
evaluate how successful they have been. There are three major reasons why the
assessment stage is very important
1. To find out whether a particular problem still exists and requires continuing
attention. This is important in deciding whether to continue to
deploy resources
respond effectively to the problem.
to
2. To improve problem-solving skills by finding out what seems to work in
differing circumstances. This avoids reinventing the wheel and contributes to
the “what works” knowledgebase and the dissemination of good practice.
3. To enable effective problem-solving to be recognised acknowledging
individuals' efforts.
Assessment can be difficult to do well and as a result is often largely overlooked. It must
be a routine feature of any problem-solving structure. Assessment is not an evaluation of
the performance of those involved but what happened when a problem was tackled.
An assessment that concludes that a problem has been dealt with successfully does not
always mean that it has been eliminated. There are many different types of success. For
example:
The problem and its impact remain the same but the volume of partnership
effort to respond to it may be reduced.
The harm to the public may be reduced even though the number of incidents
remains the same.
The number of problem incidents may be reduced.
The problem may be entirely eliminated.
7
Good assessment:
Needs a clear definition of the problem and a description of how it is being
addressed in order to focus measurement where success is most realistically
to be expected.
Needs a good description of what was actually done and when action was
taken as there is often a difference between what was planned and what was
actually done.
Needs to identify whether a response failed to achieve the hoped for
outcomes because it was not applied as had been intended, or whether it
genuinely failed to make an impact.
Needs a collection of incident and other data about the problem before and
after the response and the identification of the precise action taken to resolve
the problem, rather than basic before and after measures at an aggregate
level
Conclusion
Although SARA can be used as a guiding process for problem solving, it would be wise
not to see it as the answer to everything as it can be limited in its effectiveness if it is
employed in too mechanistic a fashion. Examples of poor use of SARA within problem
solving include:
not making full use of historical data available when scanning
not doing in-depth analysis because it is felt that enough is known about a
problem to understand it without special research
not keeping the phases distinct from each other
using it to justify an already chosen solution, rather than as a means of
gaining deeper understanding of what is happening.
3. Routine Activity Theory (RAT)
Routine Activity Theory (RAT) is one of the main theories of environmental criminology;
developed by criminologists Marcus Felson (Rutgers University) and Lawrence Cohen
who have worked for many years on crime prevention theory. RAT states that for a
predatory crime to occur, 3 elements must be present when any crime is committed. RAT
also incorporates the crime triangle, sometimes referred to as the "problem analysis
triangle" (PAT).
RAT states that when a crime occurs, 3 things happen at the same time and in the same
space:
A suitable target is available
2. There is the lack of a suitable guardian to prevent the crime from happening
3. A likely and motivated offender is present.
1.
8
1) A Suitable Target
The first condition for crime is that a suitable target must be available. The word target has
been chosen carefully, rather than other words such as victim.
There are 3 major categories of target. A target can either be:
A person
An object
A place.
There are plenty of potential targets around us, but not all of them are suitable crime
targets. However, Professor Ron Clarke, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, codirector of the US POP Centre, and visiting professor at the Jill Dando Institute of Crime
Science says that for a target to be of interest to an offender it has to be either:
VIVA: Value, Inertia, Visibility, Access
CRAVED: Concealable, Removable,
Disposable.
Available,
Valuable,
Enjoyable,
No matter how suitable or valuable a target is however, an offence will not occur unless a
capable guardian is absent and a likely offender is present.
2) Absence of a Capable Guardian
The second condition is that a capable guardian whose presence would discourage a crime
from taking place must be absent.
A capable guardian may have a 'human element', that is usually a person that by their
mere presence would deter potential offenders from perpetrating an act. A capable
guardian could also be CCTV, providing that someone is monitoring it at the other end of
the camera.
Examples of capable guardians:
police patrols
security guards
Neighbourhood Watch schemes
door staff
vigilant staff and co-workers
friends and/or neighbours
alarms
Close Circuit Television (CCTV)
9
Some of the guardians are formal and deliberate, like security guards; some are
informal and inadvertent, such as neighbours.
It is also possible for a guardian to be present, but ineffective. For example a CCTV camera
is not a capable guardian if it is set up or sited wrongly. Staff might be present in a
location, but may not have sufficient training or awareness to be an effective deterrent.
3) Likely Offenders
When a suitable target is unprotected by a capable guardian there is a chance that a crime
will take place. The final element in this picture is that a likely offender has to be present.
RAT looks at crime from an offender point of view. A crime will only be committed if a
likely offender thinks that a target is suitable and a capable guardian is absent. It is their
assessment of a situation that determines whether a crime will take place (see Rational
Choice Theory Section 5).
4. Problem Analysis Triangle; (PAT)
RAT introduces an important tool in crime analysis, the crime triangle (known as the
problem analysis triangle (PAT)). In the past two triangles were presented separately with
PAT being used in the analysis of a crime problem (victim, location, offender) and RAT
use to develop the interventions (target/victim, location and absence of a capable
guardian). This formulation of the crime triangle sees a combination of the 2 helping to
think about responses as well as analysis.
10
Was has most recently been considered as important is an further layer to the triangle,
known as ‘Super Controllers’, i.e. those in a strategic position who can enable the handlers,
managers and guardians to undertake the necessary actions (John Eck 2008 unpublished).
Super Controllers are institutions, organisations, and people that can provide incentives to
controllers to act in ways that prevent crime.
r
de
fen
Of
Ha
rC
pe
Su
rs
er
lle
tro
on
rC
pe
Su
e
ac
ag
n
Ma
Pl
on
tro
lle
rs
nd
ler
Super Controllers
Target
Guardian
Super Controllers
An example of a ‘Super Controller’ (SC) influence is where stolen vehicles are being
abandoned in the car park of a local cinema. The car park is in disrepair, and is often
targeted by local youths and criminals, who undertake other offences such as theft from
parked cars, drug use and arson. The cinema manager has been given situational crime
prevention advice on how to improve the standard of the car park, but is either unwilling
or unable to take these actions. The Super Controller in this instance is the more senior
Area Manager, who has now been made aware of the impact of the recurring criminality
in the car park. This SC is more likely to have more power and influence to undertake any
changes necessary. He or she may still be unwilling to make these changes, and it is at this
point that the Partnership may wish to exert some of their own influence in encouraging
or supporting these improvements.
11
USE OF THE PROBLEM ANALYSIS TRIANGLE
A simplistic example of potential responses for a problem is given below. Detailed
scanning and analysis would enable officers to devise better ways of responding.
Problem - gangs of youths frequently attacking or intimidating people leaving a pub
and walking along a poorly lit street
PAT element
Possible response
Place
Tackling the lack of lighting by bringing the problem to the
attention of the relevant authority
Offenders
Considering why the youths hang around the area, to establish
whether there is something that brings them there, or whether
there is a lack of other places to go
Victims
Enlisting the help of the local community by encouraging them to
keep a special watch on the area and to lobby the local authority to
provide better amenities for young people
Targeting police resources such as foot and car patrols in the area
at the particular times identified by analysis when the incidents are
most frequent
Bringing the problem, and efforts to tackle it, to the attention of the
local media to try to improve the reputation of the area
Further Reading
Clarke, R.V. and Eck, J (2003) Becoming a Problem-Solving Crime Analyst. Jill Dando
Institute
of
Crime
Science.
London:
University
College
London
http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/publications/other_publications/55steps
Home Office on line learning zone:
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/rat.htm
12
5. Rational Choice Theory
Rational Choice Theory (RCT) by Professor Derek Cornish and Professor Ron Clarke
(1986) is the theoretical foundation on which Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) stands.
The rational choice perspective assumes that offenders seek to benefit in some way from
their offending behaviour. RCT therefore portrays offenders as active decision makers
who undertake a cost-benefit analysis of presenting crime opportunities.
Features
RCT views offending behaviour as involving decision making and the making of choices,
which are constrained by time, cognitive ability and information, resulting in a 'limited'
rather than a 'normal' rationality for the offender. The premise is that the decisions and
factors that affect offender decision making vary greatly at both the different stages of the
offence and among different offences. Cornish and Clarke (1998) therefore stress the need
to be crime-specific when analysing offender decision making and choice selection, and to
treat separately decisions relating to the various stages of involvement in offences. For
example, treating decisions relating to offenders’ initial involvement in the offence,
continuation and desistance separately from decisions relating to the event, such as choice
of target. This, they claim, allows a more 'holistic' view of offender decision and choice
making and a greater analysis from which to implement appropriate interventions.
The RCT model
Cornish and Clarke (1986) present a model to illustrate some of the decisions that an
offender will make in the decision to commit a burglary. They suggest that the offender
will ask themselves questions such as: which house offers the best target? Do the
neighbours watch out for each other? How hard will it be to gain entrance? What sorts of
goods are inside? How will I get out in a hurry?
According to the model, free will is assumed (the classical theory perspective), but there
are certain background and situational factors that might predispose someone towards
crime. Background factors might include intelligence, upbringing and personality;
situational factors might include peer pressure, drug dependency and the vulnerability of
the target.
The important point of RCT is that it views the committing of a crime as a series of
decisions and processes made by the offender in the commission of that crime.
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/rct.htm
Further reading:
Routine Activity and Rational Choice: Advances in Criminological Theory
By Ronald V. Clarke, Marcus Felson; published by Transaction Publishers, 1993
13
6. Repeat Victimisation
A growing body of evidence shows that certain people and places suffer repeated
incidents of crime.
Past victimisation predicts future victimisation and is, therefore potentially preventable
Analyses of the British Crime Survey 2000, for example, have estimated that
4% of victims account for between 38 and 44% of all crime reported to the
survey
Many practitioners will be aware of working with victims or locations that have been
repeatedly victimised. However we now know, as the British Crime Survey 2000 analyses
suggest, that this is on a greater scale than was suspected. More positively, the research
has found that the particular features of repeat victimisation make it predictable and
therefore preventable.
A substantial programme of research and development has demonstrated the scope for
reducing crime by targeting preventive effort on victims and locations of repeat crime and
disorder. More recent research has highlighted the value of targeting offenders who reoffend against the same people and places. A local strategy should encompass both
preventive and detecting measures and will rely heavily on effective co-operation between
agencies to prevent repeat victimisation.
Tackling repeat victimisation has a number of attractions:
it helps to reduce crime and disorder;
it makes better use of limited resources by targeting them where they can be
most effective
it can help the police to target prolific offenders
By reflecting the true nature of victimisation, it addresses people’s fear of crime and can
stimulate improvements in the quality of service to victims
Defining repeat victimisation
Repeat victimisation occurs when the same person or place suffers from more than one
incident over a specified period of time.
While this broad definition may initially seem too broad to be helpful, in practice it allows
for local analysis and definition of repeat victimisation problems. The Home Office Crime
Reduction site toolkit is concerned with showing how to apply an understanding of repeat
victimisation
to
different
crime
problems,
in
different
environments.
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/toolkits
14
Repeat victimisation is:
Predictable – once victimised, a person or place is more likely to be
victimized again than one that has not. Furthermore, the risk of revictimisation increases the more a person or place has been victimised.
Rapid – second and subsequent offences follows fairly rapidly after the ‘first’
but this heightened risk period declines swiftly over time
Highest in high crime areas – certain areas have high crime rates not because
more people are victimised, but because there is more victimisation of the
same people
The same offenders – more recent research has shown that the same
offenders return to the same victims.
Prevention measures should be targeted at those who have been victims, preferably after
the first victimization. In addition, special attention should be paid to those people or
places which have already experienced several incidents, as they are most at risk of further
victimization.
The extent of repeat victimisation
Domestic burglary: one study showed that once a house had been burgled
its chance of repeat victimisation was four times the rate of houses that had
not been burgled before.
Domestic violence: estimates are that only 10% of domestic violence to
women involves an isolated event, and that the other 90% involves
systematic beatings often with escalating violence.
Motor Vehicle theft: a quarter of respondents experienced more than one
incident. 8% of victims accounted for 22% of the incidents measured in the
three surveys.
Racial attacks: 67% of families in one estate in East London were repeat
victims
Crime on industrial estates: work in Trafford found that a quarter of
premises on industrial estates accounted for three quarters of all burglaries
on these estates
School burglary and property crime: 98% of the total crimes recorded by 33
schools on Merseyside were repeat crimes
Bullying: a study in a comprehensive school in Sussex showed that 9-10% of
pupils had been bullied weekly or more
Assaults: a study in an A&E department showed that 43% of victims of
violence reported at least one previous assault, 27% reported involvement in
more than two previous assaults, 7% of males reported more than ten
previous assaults.
For a number of reasons the extent and nature of repeat victimisation have tended to
remain hidden, although many practitioners at a local level are aware of repeatedly
victimised people and places.
15
The British Crime Survey (BCS)
The recorded crime figures represent those offences recorded by the police. Not all
offences are reported and not all reported offences are recorded. For that reason, the Home
Office conduct the British Crime Survey.
The British Crime Survey is a very important source of information about levels of crime
and public attitudes to crime. The BCS measures the amount of crime in England and
Wales by asking people about crimes they have experienced in the previous year. The BCS
includes crimes, including those which are not reported to the police, so it is an important
alternative to police records.
The BCS (2000) highlighted that 4% of victims account for between 38 and 44% of all crime
reported to the survey. The figures indicate that preventing repeat victimisation to zero
will, for example, reduce burglary by 25% and domestic violence by 47%.
The BCS 2000 also shows that if a person has been the victim of crime during the previous
year, they have a much higher perception of risk of being the victim of various types of
crime, than if they have not been a victim.
Why are repeats hidden?
The level and nature of repeat victimisation have tended to be hidden and there are a
number of reasons for this. These are still relevant as they concern recording systems and
the day-to-day working practices of crime reduction agencies. Although the following
example concerns how repeat victimisation has been difficult for the police to identify, it is
likely that the same issues will apply to other agencies.
In the recording of crime by the police, several factors have contributed to the underestimation of its prevalence:
Under reporting – it is well known that people do not report all the incidents
they suffer. Successive British Crime Surveys have also established that some
crime is reported to the police but remains unrecorded. Official data are
particularly likely to under-estimate the extent of repeat victimisation, as the
following example demonstrates.
Computer systems – crime recording systems do not readily identify repeat
victims.
Working practices – police shift systems and unit boundaries mean that
different officers are likely to deal with the same victim thus reducing the
likelihood of links being made between incidents.
16
Issues for Crime and Disorder Partnerships to consider
The experience of the police in identifying repeat victimisation has highlighted the
difficulty of gaining an accurate picture of repeat victimisation. Questions to consider
include:
How can you tell whether the level of reported incidents represents the true
level experienced by the community? It is well known, for example, that in
cases of domestic violence, racial crime or school bullying that reported
incidents represents only a small proportion of the actual experience of
victims.
Is there a system for recording that is capable of identifying the same victim
or location experiencing a range of incidents? Many systems give each event a
unique reference number rather than giving this to the person or place. This
means that a series of events against the same victim cannot be readily
identified.
How do working practices within agencies help or hinder the identification
of repeats? Aside from computer systems, are there other opportunities, for
example, briefing meetings, for sharing information?
How well do working practices and recording systems across agencies help or
hinder the identification of repeat victims. A woman repeatedly beaten by
her partner may have contact with her general practitioner, the local
Accident and Emergency Department, the Housing Department, Social
Services, Victim Support, the local women’s support organisation and the
police. She may have reported different incidents to each of them. All these
agencies are likely to have different ways of recording this information. Is
there a way to link these events?
The impact on repeat victims
The impact of repeat victimisation on victims has only recently been addressed in the
research. Repeat victims experience many different crimes, sometimes daily and it is
recognised that much of the crime they experience is not reported to the police.
The research on repeat victimisation has shown that victims do not ‘get used’ to crime,
and often suffer emotional side-effects even when victimisation episodes appear
individually trivial. It has been compared to a bereavement process where victims go
through a number of stages after each incident and this applies to relatively trivial crimes
as well as those viewed as more serious by society. The responses include:
Anger towards perpetrators
Feeling unsafe
Social exclusion, where victims withdraw from social contact
Poor health
Lifestyle changes arising from fear: to protect themselves even where this
causes inconvenience
17
The implications are important. A Scottish survey of repeat victimisation showed that
many repeat victims had low expectations of what the police could do to help and this
may have lead to failure to report future crimes. The fact that apparently trivial events can
have a seriously detrimental effect on victims means that particular attention needs to be
given to victim care by all the relevant agencies.
Further reading:
(K. Pease (1998) Repeat Victimisation: Taking Stock . Police Research Series. Paper No.90.
London. Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcdps90.pdf
Home Office, Crime Reduction Toolkits:
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/toolkits/rv00.htm
‘Kings and Castles, Cavemen and Caves: The Impact of Crime on Male Victims‘– Imagination for
Crime Prevention: Essays in Honour of Ken Pease: Crime Prevention Studies, Volume 21, (2007)
with Shaw M.
A focus on repeat streets: Simple2Start methodology
http://www.crimepreventionassociates.co.uk/
This methodology was devised by a retired Police Officer Alan Edmunds. Alan has had 30
years policing experience in both uniform and detective commands, and was one of a
small team responsible for helping Police Forces in England and Wales to create repeat
victimisation strategies and adopt Problem Oriented Policing concepts. He also assisted in
the interpretation of Crime and Disorder Act guidance in four Council partnership areas.
He has co-authored three publications about repeat victimisation and successful
partnerships and has contributed to others.
As a Hampshire police staff Crime Prevention Officer in 2004, he and a colleague won
both the UK Tilley POP Award, and the US Herman Goldstein award for excellence in
Problem Oriented Policing for the work on Operation Cobra - a vehicle crime reduction
project that is now firmly embedded with Hampshire Police. He has also acted as a
consultant for the Home Office.
The ‘Simple 2 Start’ methodology
This is a relatively simple mechanism that has been routinely and successfully used
focusing on the delivery of police / partnership resources / tactics or services, where the
unit of count is the street rather than the home or person. Initial analysis showed 1% of
streets hosted 10% of vehicle crime and 13% of streets accounted for half of the crime.
Focused services of the police and partnership are then provided to the neediest places
from the previous year whilst other rising streets are identified through a daily routine in
order to act with sufficient intensity and over a sufficient period to make a difference.
18
The process aspires to be a basis for mounting routine problem-directed action
by applying a systematic review process and tackling the chronic victimisation that affects
the’ vital few’ (80-20 rule: The Pareto principle) victims or ‘repeat’ / ‘near repeat’ locations.
This makes day to day management more effective all year, irrespective of changing
priorities. Repeat victimisation in this format complements strategic and tactical thinking.
The approach comprises agreed partnership activities, based upon problem solving
analysis, to be delivered at Manageable Intervention Points (MIP’s) identified and
monitored daily throughout the year. These activities are classifiable as ‘general’, ‘victim
care’, ‘location change’, ‘offender management’ and ‘Recursive Problem Identification’.
Each level is initially identified through the use of an approach referred to as the
‘Simple2start’ process and subsequently relies on a crude form of street based mapping not
reliant on specific expertise. The process continues to be successful and has been
attributable to the reduction of car crime in Hampshire, and has been applied to other
volume crimes. Routine ‘proactive’ problem solving, repeat victimisation prevention and
partnership motivation are at its heart.
19
7. Ten Principles of Crime Opportunity Theory
In situational crime prevention (SCP) opportunity is considered to be a root cause of
crime, and Professors Marcus Felson and Ron Clarke suggest that there are 10 ways that
theory can assist when thinking about crime prevention.
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/scpprinciples.htm
The 10 principles of crime opportunity theory:
1. Opportunities play a role in causing all crime, not just common property
crime – For example, studies of bars and clubs show how their design and
management play an important role in generating violence or preventing it.
2. Crime opportunities are highly specific – For example the theft of cars for
joyriding has a different pattern for opportunity than theft for car parts.
Crime opportunity theory helps sort out these differences so responses can
be appropriately tailored.
3. Crime opportunities are concentrated in time and space – Dramatic
differences are found from one address to another even in a high crime area.
Crime shifts greatly by the hour and day of the week, reflecting the
opportunities to carry it out (see Routine Activity Theory).
4. Crime opportunities depend on everyday movements of activity –
Offenders and targets shift according to their routine activities (e.g. work,
school leisure). For example burglars visit houses in the day when the
occupants are out at work or school.
5. One crime produces the opportunities for another – For example, a
successful arson attack on an abandoned vehicle may encourage the offender
to return in the future or a person who has their car stolen may feel justified
in taking someone else's as a replacement. (see Repeat Victimisation Theory)
6. Some products offer more tempting crime opportunities – For example
easily accessible electrical items such as DVD players and mobile phones are
attractive to burglars and robbers, (see 'hot products' by Ron Clarke)
7. Social and technological changes produce new crime opportunities –
Products are most vulnerable in their 'growth' and 'mass marketing' stages,
as demand for them is at its highest. Most products will reach a 'saturation'
stage where most people have them and they then are unlikely to be stolen
20
8. Crime can be prevented by reducing opportunities – The opportunity
reducing methods of situational crime prevention cut across everyday life,
though they can be tailored to specific situations. It is firmly grounded in
opportunity theory.
9. Reducing opportunities does not always displace crime – Wholesale
displacement is very rare and many studies have found little if no crime
displacement ( crime displacement theory)
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/displacement_t
heory.htm)
10. Focused opportunity reduction can produce wider declines in crime –
Prevention measures in one area can lead to a reduction in another nearby,
known as 'diffusion of benefits'. This is because offenders might
overestimate the reach of those measures.
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimereduction024.htm
Further reading
Felson, M. and Clarke, R.V. (1998) Opportunity Makes the Thief. Police Research Series
Paper 98, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics
Directorate. London: Home Office
Ronald V Clarke (1999) Hot Products: understanding, anticipating and reducing demand
for stolen goods; Home Office Police Research Series Paper 112
Niall Hamilton-Smith (2002) ‘Anticipated consequences: Developing a strategy for the
targeted measurement of displacement and diffusion of benefits’: Evaluation in Crime
Prevention: Crime Prevention Studies Vol 14 pp11-52 (Ed: Nick Tilley)
21
8. Types of crime prevention:
Effective crime prevention is any action that causes a reduction in the level of criminal
activity and the resulting harm, or in the number of criminal offenders and their victims:
Crime prevention is often described by comparing with the medical model (see chart p 26)
using primary, secondary, and tertiary methods where each type of prevention focuses on a
specific developmental stage of crime.
Primary prevention: Is about effecting conditions of the physical and social
environment that provide opportunities for or precipitate criminal acts. This
addresses the conditions in the natural environment that may lead to the
development and prevalence of crime. For example, lack of street
maintenance, broken windows, abandoned buildings broken down cars are a
few examples of a disorganised community (see Broken Windows Theory;
Kelling and Coles). Primary prevention seeks to directly alleviate these
factors that may lead to crime.
Secondary prevention: Engages in early identification of potential offenders
and seeks to intervene before the commission of illegal activity. It attempts to
prevent crime by focusing on at-risk offenders or potential opportunities that
may foster criminal actions; the main tool used in secondary crime
prevention is identification and prediction. There are many theoretical bases
for the implementation of secondary crime prevention programs. Once we
are able to identify potential places, people, situations, or opportunities that
are at-risk for criminal activity it may be possible to predict and prevent any
future criminal occurrence.
Tertiary prevention: Deals with actual offenders and intervention. Unlike
primary and secondary prevention focuses on prevention after a crime has
occurred. The focus is to reduce the recidivism rate of criminals and insure
that steps are taken so that a victim will not be re-victimised. The primary
form of tertiary prevention in criminal justice is that of incapacitation.
Although it does not prevent criminals from committing crimes once they
leave prison, it does protect the larger population from present victimisation.
Public health paradigm
Primary prevention: identifies disease-creating general conditions of the
environment and seeks to abate them (sewage treatment, small-pox
vaccination, personal hygiene education).
Secondary: identifies groups or individuals who have a high risk of
developing disease or who have incipient cases of disease and uses
22
interventions with special
treatment (i.e. chest x-rays in
poor neighbourhoods, special diets, rubella vaccinations for prospective
mums, dental checks).
Tertiary: Works with individuals with advanced cases of disease, providing
treatment to prevent death or disability (i.e. stomach pumping for poison;
open-heart surgery; radio-therapy) or rehab for those with those with
permanent disabilities (i.e. Braille training for the blind, use of prosthetic
limbs, or pain relief for the dying).
Further reading:
Pease K. 2002, 'Crime Reduction', in M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner (eds), The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 947-79.
Cameron, M. & Laycock, G. 2002, 'Crime Prevention in Australia', in A. Graycar & P.
Grabosky (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Australian Criminology, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 313-31.
Kelling, G and Coles C (1998) Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring and Reducing Crime in
Our Communities: The Free Press, Touchstone
23
PUBLIC HEALTH PARADIGM
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
Health Promotion
Specific Protection
Early Diagnosis
Health education
Personal hygiene
Case finding
General social and
physical well-being
programs
Specific
immunizations
Screening
Nutrition
Genetics
Periodic examinations
Job safety
engineering
Selective
examinations
TERTIARY
Disability
Limitation
Rehabilitation
Treatment for
advanced disease
Community placement and support
Retraining
Environmental
sanitation
CRIMINOLOGICAL PARADIGM
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
Environmental design
Early identification
Reform
Rehabilitation
General social and physical well-being
programs
Pre-delinquent screening
Community
treatment
Training
Crime prevention education
Neighbourhood programs
Institutional
treatment
Surveillance
Individual intervention
TERTIARY
Support
Punishment
Incapacitation
Institutional custody
24
9. Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) techniques for reducing the
opportunity for crime
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/scptechniques.htm
The techniques of situational crime prevention have evolved over the past 15 years, in
response to advances in our understanding of crime, crime reduction theory and the
changes in crime itself. This has meant that the number of techniques has increased as a
consequence. Clarke and Homel then went on to modify the original techniques, by
adding the category of 'removing the excuses for crime'. This now reflected the application of
situational measures to offences such as tax evasion, traffic offences, sexual harassment
and theft of employer's property, which were as much the province of 'ordinary citizens'
as 'hardened offenders’.
Ways to Modify a Situation
While the Problem Analysis Triangle helps to analyse problems, situational crime
prevention provides a framework for intervention. By assessing the opportunities that
specific situations offer for crime, situational crime prevention has identified five main
ways in which situations can be modified.
These are:
1. Increasing the effort the offender must make to carry out the crime.
2. Increasing the risks the offender must face in completing the crime.
3. Reducing the rewards or benefits the offender expects to obtain from the
crime.
4. Reducing or avoiding provocations that may tempt or incite offenders into
criminal acts.
5. Removing excuses that offenders may use to rationalise or justify their
actions.
These five approaches to reducing opportunity have also been expanded to 25 techniques
of situational crime prevention (see p.29).
1. Increasing the Effort
Increasing the efforts offenders have to make in order to commit a crime has become one
of the effective mechanisms used in crime prevention, for example: ‘target hardening’
measures, anti-theft measures in vehicles, or in homes and commercial premises. What
research has shown however that one measure alone, i.e. ‘target hardening’ is not always
effective as an intervention and it is often a combination of approaches that will have the
most impact.
25
2. Increasing the Risks
According to interviews with offenders, they worry more about the risks of being
apprehended than about the consequences if they are caught. This makes sense from their
point of view since there is very little they can do to avoid punishment if caught, but they
can do a lot to reduce the risks of being captured by being careful (see also Rational Choice
Theory). This is why situational crime prevention seeks to increase the risks of being
caught and makes no attempt to manipulate punishment.
3. Reducing the Rewards
Offenders seek to benefit from their crimes, an these benefits may not simply be material,
as in theft because there are many other rewards of crime, including sexual release,
intoxication, excitement, revenge, respect from peers and so forth. An important strand of
situational crime prevention is therefore to understand the rewards of any particular
category of offending and to find ways of reducing or removing them.
4. Reduce the Provocations
Studies of prisons and pubs have found that crowding, discomfort and rude treatment
provoked violence in both settings. Therefore, an important category of situational
prevention is to reduce provocations to crime, such as efficient queuing systems, crowd
reductions and the prohibiting of racial incitement.
5. Remove the Excuses
The fifth category of situational techniques recognises that offenders often rationalise their
conduct to “neutralise” what would otherwise be incapacitating feelings of guilt or shame.
They make such excuses as: “He deserved it,” “I was just borrowing it,” and “I only slapped
her.” These excuses may be especially important for ordinary people responding to
everyday temptations to evade taxes, drive when drunk, sexually harass junior employees
and steal employers’ property.
Further Reading
Clarke, R.V. ed. (1997) Situational Crime Prevention: successful case studies (2nd edition).
New York: Harrow and Heston.
Clarke, R.V. and Eck, J. (2003). Become a Problem-Solving Crime Analyst. London: Jill Dando
Institute of Crime Science, University College London.
http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/publications/other_publications/55steps
26
Within the framework of the 5 opportunities to reduce crime are a collection of 25 crime reduction techniques as shown below:
25 Techniques of Situational Crime Prevention
Increase
Effort
Increase
Risk
Reduce
Rewards
Reduce
Provocation
Remove
Excuses
1. Target
Harden.
6. Extend guardianship.
11. Conceal targets
16. Reduce frustrations
and stress.
21. Set rules.
2. Control access.
7. Assist natural surveillance.
12. Remove targets
17. Avoid disputes.
22. Post instructions.
3. Screen exits.
8. Reduce anonymity.
13. Identify property
18. Reduce temptation
and arousal.
23. Alert conscience.
4. Deflect
Offenders.
9. Use place managers.
14. Disrupt markets
19. Neutralise peer
pressure.
24. Assist compliance.
5. Control tools/
weapons.
10. Strengthen formal
surveillance.
15. Deny benefits.
20. Discourage
imitation.
25. Control drugs and
alcohol.
27
Examples of how these 25 techniques are used are shown below:
EXAMPLES IN USING THE 25 SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION TECHNIQUES
Increase the Effort
Increase the Risks
Reduce the Rewards
Reduce Provocations
Remove Excuses
1. Target harden
·
Steering column locks and
immobilisers
·
Anti-robbery screens
·
Tamper-proof packaging
6. Extend guardianship
·
Take routine precautions:
·
go out in group at night,
·
leave signs of occupancy,
·
carry phone
·
“Cocoon” neighbourhood
watch
11. Conceal targets
•
Off-street parking
•
Gender-neutral phone
Directories
•
Unmarked security trucks
16. Reduce frustrations and stress
·
Efficient queues and
polite service
·
Expanded seating
·
Soothing music/muted
lights
21. Set rules
•
Rental agreements
•
Harassment codes
•
Hotel registration
2. Control access to
facilities
·
Entry phones
·
Electronic card access
·
Baggage screening
7. Assist natural surveillance
•
Improved street lighting
•
Defensible space design
•
Support whistleblowers
12. Remove targets
•
Removable car radio
•
Women’s refuges
•
Pre-paid cards for pay
phones
17. Avoid disputes
·
Separate enclosures for
rival sports game fans
·
Reduce crowding in
pubs
·
Fixed cab fares
22. Post instructions
•
“No Parking”
•
“Private Property”
•
“Extinguish camp fires”
3. Screen exits
·
Ticket needed for exit
·
Export documents
·
Electronic merchandise
tags
8. Reduce anonymity
·
Taxi driver IDs
·
School uniforms
13. Identify property
·
Property marking
·
Vehicle licensing and parts
marking
·
Livestock branding
18. Reduce emotional arousal
•
Controls on violent
pornography
•
Enforce good behaviour
on football/sports field
•
Prohibit racial abuse
23. Alert conscience
•
Roadside speed display
boards
•
Signatures for customs
declarations
•
“Shoplifting is stealing”
4. Deflect offenders
·
Street closures
·
Separate bathrooms for
women
·
Disperse pubs/bars
9. Utilize place managers
•
CCTV for buses
•
More assistants for
convenience stores
•
Reward vigilance
14. Disrupt markets
•
Monitor pawn/second hand
shops
•
Controls on classified ads.
•
License street vendors
19. Neutralize peer pressure
•
“Idiots drink and drive”
•
“It’s OK to say No”
•
Disperse troublemakers
at school
24. Assist compliance
•
Easy library checkout
•
Public lavatories
•
Litter bins
5. Control tools/ weapons
•
Disabling stolen cell
phones
•
Restrict spray paint sales
to juveniles
10. Strengthen formal
surveillance
•
CCTV
•
Burglar alarms
•
Security guards
15. Deny benefits
•
Merchandise tags
•
Graffiti cleaning
•
Speed humps
20. Discourage imitation
·
Rapid repair of
vandalism
·
Censor details of modus
operandi
25. Control drugs and alcohol
•
Breathalyzers in pubs
•
Server intervention
•
Alcohol-free events
28
10. Crime Prevention through Environment Design (CPTED):
Crime research reveals that:
Crime is specific and situational
The distribution of crime is related to land use and transportation
networks
Offenders are often opportunistic and commit crimes in places they know
well
Opportunities arise out of daily routines and activities
Places with crime are also places without observers or guardians
Crime prevention through environmental design evaluates the crime environment and
features of the environment that facilitate crime or undesirable behaviour, and
attempts to remove or reduce these opportunities by changing various aspects of both
environmental design and use of the environment (‘designing out’ crime).
CPTED considers:
Building design
Site layout and site amenities like lighting and landscaping
Facility location and the influence of surrounding land uses
Target hardening and security measures (or a lack thereof)
Routine use, and activity schedules
Rules and policies governing use and behaviour
The three main objectives are:
1. To control access by creating both real and perceptual barriers to entry and
movement, such as fences and hedges that define boundaries; driveways and paths
that guide movement through an area; gates and doors that limit points of entry;
signs for direct movement that provide information defining appropriate activities
and schedules; consistent use of colours or materials in buildings, light fixtures and
fittings create identity, and design features may be supported by locks, alarm
systems or guards.
2.
To take advantage of design to provide opportunities to see and be seen.
This includes opportunities to see from adjacent properties or the site
perimeter, and be able to view parking areas and buildings. These design elements
need to be
supported by potential observers (they actually need to
look for
and report unusual behaviour), and by policies and procedures, for
example,
related to landscape maintenance.
3. To use design to define ownership and encourage maintenance. The design
should provide cues about who belongs and what they are allowed to do.
29
Administrative support in the form of rules and regulations regarding use
and maintenance can be critical to the success of various design applications.
CPTED is a crime prevention programme focusing on design, not safety, and on
productive use, not security. Design features are “supported” by locks, guards and
alarms. Target hardening and security measures are not the primary means for
improvement.
CPTD and problem solving in a crime and disorder context consider a broad array of
problems, not just crime, and require systematic analyses of events, conditions and factors
that contribute to crime and disorder. They both generate strategies that are tailored to a
problem or location, and engage both communities and partnership actions. The only
difference being is that CPTED focuses on environmental responses and modifications.
Further reading:
Zahm, Diane (2006). Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design as a ProblemSolving Tool. Community Oriented Policing Services; Problem Solving Tools Series No8
http://www.cpted.net/resources/UsingCPTED.pdf
The ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives Limited manages Secured by Design and similar
crime prevention initiatives at a national level. http://www.securedbydesign.com/
Home Office Crime Reduction Site: Think Thief- A Designer's Guide to Designing Out
Crime http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/business/business32.htm
11. Developing interventions
As situational tactics are rooted in research showing the significance of opportunity in the
generation of criminal behaviour, they are probably most useful in strategies that target
problems concentrated on particular places, victims, products or methods. Ron Clarke's
typology of opportunity reducing techniques, highlights the underlying change mechanisms
(see Section 12) through which situational measures can bring about their effects.
Whilst accepting that no situational measure provides a panacea, it is important to look at
the skills needed to decide on tactics and ways of sustaining effects, given that many crime
reduction tactics have a characteristic life-cycle. Strategies involving a coherent blend of
tactics have great promise, for example 'crackdown and consolidation' and 'weed and
seed'. These mix enforcement, to bring about short-term impacts, with measures liable to
produce longer-term changes in the wake of the short-term measures.
It is suggested that implementing a strategic approach to crime reduction and problemsolving depends on a strong strategic planning capacity, good data and an ability to
analyse it (understanding the story of the event), and a willingness and capacity to apply
leverage, where necessary, on those best placed to act to reduce crime.
30
Drawing mainly on research from the United States and the United Kingdom, there are six
key concepts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Aims describe overall problem-solving or crime reduction aspirations e.g. to reduce
burglary.
Problem-specification comprises a more detailed and evidenced statement of an
aim e.g. reduce burglary by tackling repeat victimisation - having established that
this is a major issue in the project area.
Tactics describe what will actually be done to tackle the problem.
Mechanisms refer to the ways in which tactics will bring about change.
Context comprises the place, time, social organisation etc within which the tactics
will activate change mechanisms.
Replication involves adopting (and importantly) adapting approaches that have
been found effective in one context, such that they will work similarly when
implemented in another place.
Further reading:
Nick Tilley and Gloria Laycock (2002) Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 11
Bowers, K., & Johnson, S.D. (2005). Using Publicity for Preventive Purposes, In Nick Tilley (Ed.)
Handbook of Crime Prevention: Theory, Policy and Practice
12. The mechanisms of change
When considering whether to use an intervention, it is important to try to understand how
it is going to work. What is the purpose of the intervention? Is it likely to change the
circumstances surrounding the victimised location or victim? Many interventions are
developed on a lack of understanding of the problem, or how the intervention is going to
work. For example, what is the ‘mechanism of change’ when installing a gated system to a
community suffering from vandalism and arson attacks? Is it the gates themselves that
will prevent further attacks or is it the perception of the gates on the potential offender?
Understanding how an intervention will
work
Description of intervention
Activity
31
Mechanism
of change
Purpose of
intervention
Outcome
Understanding the mechanisms of change
Description of
intervention
Activity
Install new street light
along a particularly dark
road
Fire audits for businesses by
Fire Service
Summer Youth Schemes
32
Mechanism of change
Purpose of
intervention
Outcome
Street becomes lighter at
night, thereby increasing
local residents perceptions of
safety when out at night
Reduced fear of street
crime among local
residents.
The improved opportunity
for natural surveillance may
deter offenders from
committing crime in this
location
Raises awareness of fire risks
and leads to owners taking
prevention measures
Reduced incidence of
street crime
Use leisure time legitimately,
allowing no time to commit
crime / disorder
Reduction in number of
business premises fires.
Immediate outcome:
Survey of fire audit
recipients to see if action
was taken
Reduction of youth
crime
Immediate outcome:
Levels of crime and
disorder are lower than
expected during scheme
hours.
13. Stakeholders
Although the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) put partnership working on a statutory
footing, there has been a need to consolidate effective practice in order to try and ensure
there is a common standard in partnership delivery. The Home Office guide ‘Delivering
Safer Communities: A guide to effective partnership working’ outlined a new set of
requirements that formed part of the ‘Hallmarks for Effective Partnerships’. These 6
Hallmarks provide partnerships with a ‘checklist’ of skills in order for them to become
aware of areas in need of improvement.
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/guidance_for_effective_partnerships.pdf
The six Hallmarks of Effective Partnership are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Empowered and effective leadership;
Visible and Constructive accountability;
Intelligence-led business processes;
Effective and responsive delivery structures;
Engaged communities, and
Appropriate skills and knowledge
Whilst the current guide provides some useful support in the development of partnership
working, and does include a section on ‘Solving Problems’- (p.95-100), it appears to give
little guidance as to how Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP’s) might
identify the ‘right partners for the right job’. This is a critical aspect to partnership
working; how do we identify who are the right partners for our problem solving
interventions? How do we see our partners? Do we always know what they are capable
of? Do we use them wisely?
Each stakeholder brings different knowledge, expertise and leverage to addressing a
problem, and the more stakeholders identified, the more resources you may have to
address the problem. However some areas have found that the problem-solving effort
progresses most efficiently if only a small number of stakeholders (a core group) work on
a specific problem, whilst other, more peripheral stakeholders often have something to
contribute at specific stages of the project, but not throughout the entire effort.
http://www.popcenter.org/Library/RecommendedReadings/Tips.pdf
Further reading:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. (1998).
Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving
Partnerships.
33
Professor Ken Pease OBE, once said ‘the answer to one officer’s problem is likely to be in the
pocket of another’, and this is often true of partnership working. We have to try to
understand what the benefits and potential pitfalls are, for in order to deal with the issues
surrounding partnership working, we must try to understand them first.
Some of the potential advantages and issues surrounding partnerships are highlighted
below:
Potential advantages of
partnership working
Pooling of
Resources
Stronger focus
on objectives
Avoids
unnecessary
duplication
A united
front
Partnerships
Community
and private
sector
involvement
Sharing of
good
practice
Partnership
brand image
Holistic
approach
Potential partnership problems
Excess
meetings
Differences
in core
business
Lack of
coordination
Partnerships
Sharing of
information
Inconsistant
at strategic
levels
Personalities/
Egos
There are no insurmountable issues within these ‘potential’ problems, but we do need to
understand our partners better, how do they function, how are they governed, what are
their remits and priorities? Statutory obligations provide a reason for working in
partnership, but we each need to ensure that respect, recognition and motivation are
provided along the way.
34
Definition of stakeholders:
Within our partnerships there will be those who become key stakeholders at different
stages of working. One definition of a stakeholder is ‘Those who depend on the organisation
for the realisation of some of their goals and in turn the organisation depends on them for the full
realisation of its goals’. Confusing as this may first sound we do need to understand not
only what our stakeholders (partners) can give to us, but what are they likely to gain in
return.
It may be useful to consider a number of initial basic questions about potential
stakeholders such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Who are they?
What are their objectives?
How powerful are they?
How interested are they?
How can they help?
How can they be got on side?
What is the risk if they are not?
We need our partners to ‘want’ to work with us, and gaining their commitment is essential
for success. Thy are important, and should be engaged from the outset, and this means
ensuring good communication processes are in place and finding ways of motivating
them, so that involvement is maintained. This is not necessarily about attending long
meetings (nothing will de-motivate a partner quicker than them attending a 2/3 hour
meeting, where he/she has not been included, or where they felt they had nothing to
contribute). But it is about maintaining regular contact, providing frequent updates,
defining clear roles, and managing time more effectively.
Further reading:
Home Office Partnerships Mini Site:
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/regions/regions00.htm
35
STAKEHOLDER POWER
We need to think about how important are our stakeholders are, and what type of power
can they wield over our projects and interventions? For example, if they were to reduce
their level of input, how damaging would this be to our project?
It is useful to ‘plot’ potential stakeholders into an analysis map in order to see where they
fit (if at all) into your project/intervention framework.
Questions to ask:
Which stakeholders have power? For example ask the question: ‘If I were to pursue this
strategy/project with disregard to the views of this stakeholder, could they stop me?’
These could be your key players, so you may need to spend more effort on them.
How interested are they in your project? You may think to ask the question: ‘How high is
this strategy/project in their priorities – are they likely to actively support or oppose it?’
These people may not be key players but they could influence those in power.
Are they powerful, but their levels of interest are low? Something could happen to make
them change and then they could become influential to you.
It is import to understand which stakeholders you may need to spend most time on and to
consider whether they in favour of your strategy or intervention, and how much power do
they yield. It may help you to understand if you’ve got a problem or have a chance of
effective partnership working?
Examples:
36
Government has power:
but they can be influenced
Public has no power:
but can have influence
Media has informal power:
but does have influence
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS MAPPING
DEGREE OF POWER
DEGREE OF POWER
DEGREE OF INTEREST
37
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
Key players
Potential blockers
Those in favour
‘champions’
(need to keep
happy)
(need to influence)
Those in favour
‘cheerleaders’
‘Potential
saboteurs’
(need to keep
informed)
(need scrutiny but
minimal effort)
LOW
14. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
In this chapter, we take an overview of the key elements of project management and show
how they link to monitoring and evaluation. As a starting point, we need to define what is
meant by a ‘project’.
A project is any piece of work, large or small, that brings together different activities with
a view to achieving a set of tangible outcomes. Community safety and crime reduction
projects will usually consist of activities that are designed to bring about a change in the
current situation with a view to improving community safety / reducing crime.
Such projects can take many forms, depending on the situation they are trying to change.
They may, for example, focus on:
·
Changing working practices: for example, reducing paperwork, improving the
effectiveness of existing practices.
·
Changing the local environment: for example, improving street lighting or reducing
the signs of physical disorder like graffiti.
·
Changing individual behaviour: for example, tackling the offending behaviour of
criminals or teaching /training members of the public to take practical crime
prevention measures.
These kinds of project share a common goal – the reduction in a certain type of crime or
improvement in the local environment. Regardless of what the project aims to achieve, it
will usually consist of the following characteristics:
·
It has a clear beginning, middle and end
·
The work requires a focused team, drawing on different skills from team members
·
A clear set of outcomes that can be evaluated
·
The process of achieving these outcomes is not routine on-going work. Establishing
a system that will deliver something in a routine way in future may, however, be
the purpose of a project
·
No existing structure can deliver the outcomes
It should be clear that projects are dynamic – they change over time. A project manager
will be expected to anticipate and respond to changes and make decisions to cope with it.
Good decisions are obviously more likely if they are informed by accurate information
about the operation of the project.
38
Key project concepts
Good monitoring and evaluation depends on clarity in planning from the very beginning
of a project. It is important to define, early on, a project’s:
·
·
·
·
Aims
Objectives
Interventions
Key stages
Aims
A project’s aims should describe, simply and concisely, what the project is intended to
achieve. This description should focus on what will change as a result of the project. As
such it should describe a project’s outcome rather than the process it will follow. Ideally
any aim should include a problem / beneficiary / timescale, for example:
“To reduce the number of robbery incidents [problem] in Anytown town centre [beneficiary]
within 6 months [timescale]”
Objectives
Objectives give a tighter focus than the broad aims of a project. They should be directly
linked to the aims but refer to more specific results that will flow from the projects. Ideally
such objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and have some
timescale to their achievement. They can refer either to desired outcomes or outputs, for
example:
“To reduce the number of robbery incidents in Anytown high street within six months, by
undertaking 50 hours of high visibility patrols in the area (intervention) and to deter
offenders by increasing their perceived risk of detection (mechanism)”.
Key stages
The activities involved in an intervention can sometimes be broken down into a number of
key stages that reflect important groups of tasks. This is particularly important when an
output takes a long time to produce.
Key stages can be used to mark significant points to monitor progress in the delivery of a
long term project. Key stages are also relevant to the management of evaluations (e.g.
development of spec, fieldwork, analysis may all be key stages).
39
Project management concepts
These project management concepts are a crucial link to any evaluation:
·
·
·
·
If you don’t know what the aim is, how do you know if the project has been
successful?
If you don’t know what the objectives are, how do you know if the project has
delivered as expected?
If you don’t explain how the interventions will work, how do you know if they’ve
had an effect?
If you don’t know what your key stages are, how do you know if the project is still
on track?
Project constraints
The project manager will need to balance four key constraints to complete the tasks
associated with a project. These link directly and importantly to the priorities for
monitoring.
Time
Cost
Activities
Objectives
Resource
Quality
40
·
Time: A project should be time-limited; with a clear start and end date. The end
date determines when the project should be completed or handed over to others as
a new element of routine work.
·
Cost: A project will often (although not always) have a budget within which it
should be completed.
·
·
Resources: As well as a financial budget, a project will usually require other
resources for its successful completion. These might include staff, office space and
equipment.
·
Quality: Every project will have a quality standard that will determine whether the
tasks have been completed to an acceptable level. This will often be an implicit part
of the project, but is nonetheless essential to bear in mind.
Using the key constraints we can define the role of project management as being:
“the management of costs and other resources with a view to completing a project within
the available time and to an acceptable quality”.
Good project management involves monitoring all of these four constraints:
Costs: It is essential to monitor the cash flow through a project to ensure that the funding
for the project is spent as planned. Anticipated spend should be forecast and then actual
spend monitored against this. This will quickly identify any significant under or overspends allowing for remedial action if necessary.
Resources: A project will depend on a broad range of resource inputs for its successful
operation. A close monitoring of these resources is necessary to identify where resource
limits may impact on the project. Project staff is likely to be one of the most significant
resources to a project. Monitoring staff time on project tasks and activities, levels of staff
absence and sickness, should quickly highlight where staff input is too low or misdirected.
Time: A project plan will identify the appropriate sequencing of project tasks and
activities to form a project timetable. It is essential to monitor how long it takes to
complete these tasks to ensure that the project remains to timetable and meets the project
completion date.
Quality: The success of a project will depend fundamentally not only on the completion of
tasks and activities to time and spend but to an appropriate quality. It will be necessary to
clearly identify quality standards for key project tasks and activities likely to impact on
project success. Quality monitoring should then focus on these key tasks to ensure that the
standard is consistently and continuously maintained.
41
The Dynamic Project Lifecycle
The lifecycle of a project and its management can be divided into four distinct phases.
These phases are sequential- one follows on from the other, but also dynamic- each phase is
subject to review and alteration and can result in phases being repeated in an attempt to
iron out problems that emerge.
Project Dynamic Lifecycle
Agree
project brief
Define
objectives
Select
intervention
Analyse
problem
Define aim
Yes
No
Identify tasks
Redefine
Timetabling
Review and
evaluation
Replan
Exit strategy
Risk analysis
Costings
Problem
Phase 4
Define
outputs
Yes
Monitor
progress
No
No
Agree project
plan?
Phase 2
Planning and scheduling
Handover and closure
Phase 1 Conception and definition
Yes
Executing the project work Phase 3
Adapted from Young (1996) ‘The Handbook of Project Management: A Practical Guide to Effective
Policies and Procedures’
42
·
Phase 1 – Conception and definition is the stage at which the initial project scoping
is undertaken. The overall project aim is established, analysis of the problem to be
addressed is undertaken and interventions that are designed to tackle an aspect of
the problem are formulated. This phase concludes with the production and
agreement of a project brief which sets out in broad terms what the project is about.
·
Phase 2 – Planning and scheduling: tasks associated with completing interventions
are identified and ordered into a sequence to form a timetable. This is also the stage
at which risk analysis and contingency planning is undertaken and when the
project costings are calculated. The final aspect of this phase is the production and
agreement of a detailed project plan.
·
Phase 3 – Executing the project work involves commencing tasks associated with
interventions and defining outputs for subsequent monitoring of the project. It also
involves dealing with any problems that emerge as a result of the monitoring.
These problems will usually be relatively minor, involving a degree of replanning
(such as updating the timetable due to slippage in completing tasks). However, in
some cases, problems may be more fundamental (such as the realisation that the
planned intervention is unworkable) and in these cases it may be necessary to
return to basics by redefining interventions.
·
Phase 4 – Handover and closure is the final stage in the process of project
management. In this phase, the project is closed down. Sometimes the work will
just conclude when the tasks are completed. In other cases, the work that has been
established by the project will be handed over to others and will become part of
their mainstream business. In both scenarios, the process of closing down a project
needs to be managed carefully and requires an exit strategy. Before the project is
considered to have formally ended, the project manager should undertake a review
of the project in order to learn the lessons for future projects of this kind.
Arrangements for monitoring and evaluating the project should take place in parallel with
this lifecycle:
Phase 1: Consideration of purpose of evaluation and key research questions
Determination of types of evaluation to be undertaken
Phase 2: Identification of all key monitoring measures (input, output, outcome)
Set up monitoring system
Design evaluation
Preparation of evaluation proposal
Phase 3: Collect baseline data prior to the commencement of intervention
Begin monitoring
Begin process evaluation data collection if applicable
Phase 4: Complete process and outcome evaluation and analysis
Write final evaluation report and disseminate results
43
15. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring and evaluation should be considered as an integral and essential element of
good project management. It should be considered at the very earliest stages in the
development of a project. Indeed, having to think about what monitoring and evaluation
will look like should help directly in clarifying the purpose of the project. If the project
lacks clear aims and objectives, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to come to any realistic
conclusions about whether the project has been successful.
MONITORING
Effective monitoring helps to identify what types of crime and disorder reduction
programs work, and which do not, plus helps to identify the possible requirement for
extra resources to help make them work, or a rethink in their implementation strategy. The
lessons learnt through monitoring can be used to help in the design of future crime and
disorder reduction initiatives.
Monitoring the effect of crime and disorder reduction initiatives within focus areas can at
the simple level require analysing if crime or disorder has increased or decreased.
Dependent on the type of project(s) undertaken, a more detailed analysis would include
other issues such as:
Where has there been a change;
Whether there has there been change in the nature of the crime or
disorder activity. This will include analysing if the reduction of one crime
type has been offset by an increase in a different crime type, changes in
offending behaviour (e.g. time of day, day of week), and changes in the
type of victims;
The impact of the conviction of certain offenders who previously were
active within the focus area;
Field surveys that report on any change in public attitudes, victimisation
or safety issues.
It is essential that systems for monitoring are put in place at the beginning of a project.
This stage of a project can be a crucial time when the design and plan of a project are first
‘tested’ and practical and operational difficulties in project implementation can come to
light. Without monitoring the project will be running ‘in the dark’ and it will not be
possible to accurately diagnose any such difficulties accurately. It may also be more
difficult to set up monitoring systems once the project is up and running.
44
‘.....We can draw an analogy with sailing a ship to better understand monitoring. Monitoring can
be understood to be similar to keeping an eye on the wind direction, the weather, the level of food
and fuel provisions and the compass while steering a ship across the ocean. Keeping a regular check
on all these elements ensures that the ship follows the correct direction and the crew reach the
planned destination safely and successfully..’. Rick Brown, Evidence Led Solutions,
Monitoring and Evaluation Course http://www.els.org.uk);
There are four key things that need to be monitored:
Inputs: this focuses on the resources that are necessary for a project. This will
include project staff time and expertise, money and equipment.
Process: how is the work undertaken? Who did what? What are the activities
that are undertaken? Are they being done in the expected way?
Outputs: what is produced? This refers to the product ‘on the ground’
resulting from the various activities.
Outcomes: What effect has the project had? What has changed as a result of
the project?
Benefits of monitoring
There are a number of good reasons to set up monitoring systems:
As a requirement of any funding that a project has secured. Monitoring
provides funders with the information to see how the money has been spent
and what it has produced. It can be used as a tool for accountability.
It helps to keep the progress of the project on track. For example,
monitoring information will show whether key activities and tasks are being
done, within the time scheduled and to the planned cost.
Keeping the project within budget. Any project will have a limited financial
budget. Monitoring should help ensure that the planned and projected
month-by-month spend over the life of the project is achieved. Remember,
under-spends can be as problematic as over-spends.
Making changes and improvements. Throughout the life of a project it may
well be necessary to make changes (‘tweaks’) to the way in which the project
is being delivered. Monitoring provides the information to both identify the
need for change (identifying something not working or going wrong) and
suggest what to change (ways to improve the workings of the project).
45
Assessing whether the project is having an effect. Monitoring provides the
basic information to know whether anything is happening as a result of the
project’s existence.
Setting up accurate and comprehensive monitoring systems makes
evaluation much easier. Evaluation draws on much of the information
collected for monitoring: if this information is inaccurate, incomplete or
missing this will limit and constrain the ability of the evaluation to reliably
judge whether the project has been successful.
EVALUATION
Evaluation involves assessing, in a systematic way, whether a particular project has met its
stated aims and objectives- did it do/achieve what it was set up to do? It provides the basis
for a judgement about the effectiveness and efficiency of a project at a certain point in time
(which may well be at the completion point of a project).
Anyone involved in the delivery or management of a project will have an informed view
about the success, or otherwise, of that project. But this view will inevitably be partial (no
one person will know everything about a project) and subjective (influenced by that
person’s views of and experiences with the project). Evaluation involves the systematic
collection and analysis of a broad range of data and information. This provides for a more
complete and objective picture to be drawn about a project and as such can give a more
impartial and independent judgement.
Nonetheless, it is unlikely that an evaluation will be able to provide a clear ‘black and
white’ picture of what did and did not work with a project. Community safety and crime
reduction projects are aimed at tackling difficult and complex social problems. The
projects will inevitably be operating within a wider context that will also impact on
whether and how the project is working. All these factors will make it difficult for an
evaluation to provide exact answers or come to definite conclusions. But conducted
properly and carefully an evaluation will provide the best basis for judging the success, or
otherwise, of a project.
Types of evaluation
There are three broad types of evaluation which may be used on their own or in
combination. Decisions about which types of evaluation are most appropriate should be
guided by the kinds of questions that you wish to answer through the evaluation (see
Appendix 3)
Process: A process evaluation focuses on developing an accurate and
comprehensive understanding of how a project is operating- what is
happening and why. There will often be important differences between how
46
a project is planned and how it works in practice. It is essential to
understand these differences if there are plans to replicate the project
elsewhere. Also, an evaluation of the project’s impact will be improved by
understanding the process by which that impact is achieved.
Impact: An impact, or outcome, evaluation focuses on the final results of the
project- what difference or change has the project made? It involves a set of
measures that will identify the project’s impact. The expected impact or
outcome will depend on the original aim of the project. But it will also be
necessary to consider any unintended impacts (positive or negative) that
may have resulted from the project.
Cost-effectiveness: Many evaluations fail to take account of the cost of the
project when assessing its impact. But particularly when funding for projects
is limited, it is clearly important to measure a project’s impact against its
cost. Judgments can then be made about whether the benefits that flow from
a project are worth what it costs. This is of general importance when
concerning the spending of public money and of more particular importance
to the funders of projects. They will wish to see projects demonstrate that
they provide ‘bang for the buck’.
Benefits of evaluation
There are a number of reasons why it may be desirable, necessary or useful to conduct an
evaluation:
It provides evidence of achievement. Project managers or members will be
regarded by others as natural advocates for the success projects. A well
conducted evaluation provides the basis for credible evidence (as opposed to
opinion) for a project’s success.
To guide ongoing improvements. No project will be perfect and evaluation
can identify both where problems occur and inform the development of
possible solutions.
To measure ‘value for money. Funders in particular will want a quantified
measurement of the benefits of the project related to its cost- what, in other
words, pound-for-pound does the project deliver. This will be essential
where similar projects are compared to see which delivers the most benefit
for least cost.
Helps lever in more resources. Evaluation can help identify where resource
constraints are impacting on the success of a project. This can be the basis for
negotiating additional resource. Equally, where evaluation demonstrates the
effectiveness of a project, this can attract additional funding to increase the
size, reach or lifetime of a project.
47
Improve future projects. Good evaluation should produce clear learning
both about how a project works and the impact it can achieve. This learning
should be maximized through clear dissemination of evaluation findings.
The development of future projects should be informed by this to avoid
repeating mistakes and building on the successes.
Identify what worked and what didn’t. It will inevitably be the case that a
project’s success will not be all-encompassing. Evaluation will allow you to
unpick the nature of a project’s impact to identify what worked and what
didn’t. This is commonly expressed as evaluation identifying ‘what worked,
for whom and why’.
Identify intended and unintended consequences. Setting up a project
involves clearly identifying its aim and objectives. This will inform the focus
of any evaluation of impact. However, inevitably a project will also lead to
unintended effects. A well-designed evaluation will allow you to identify
these unintended consequences.
As a means of accountability. Community safety and crime reduction
projects will likely be funded wholly or mostly by public sources of funding.
As such, there is an expectation and often a requirement to demonstrate that
the funding has been used appropriately and effectively. Evaluation
provides the basis for demonstrating this accountability.
Further reading:
Passport to Evaluation (2002) Home Office
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/cctv/cctvminisite14.htm
An Introduction to Monitoring and Evaluation Course: Dr Rick Brown, Evidence Led
Solutions http://www.els.org.uk/
48
APPENDIX 1
PROBLEM SOLVING CHECKLIST
Problem identification/scanning
Are repeat calls for service and repeat crimes routinely scanned?
Are efforts to identify and analyse past and emerging problems routine?
Are simple emerging problems allocated to individuals for their response, either on their own or in
conjunction with other agencies?
Are more complex emerging problems identified/prioritised in routine discussion amongst partners?
Do partnerships routinely try to anticipate and forestall future problems?
Causal analysis/Analysis
Are adequate data collection and sharing arrangements in place to be used in problem identification and
analysis?
Are local analysts available who are familiar with relevant theory, crime reduction literature, and analytic
techniques to identify and analyse problems?
Do analysts have the hardware and software they need to do their job?
Do analysts have a competent source of advice and supervision for their analytic work?
Do analysts work in partnership with same agency colleagues responsible for dealing with problems, and
with those in other agencies and their analysts?
Do staff in supervisory positions have training and experience in analysis?
Tactic or treatment/Response
Do partnerships addressing agreed problems have sources of informed advice on possible promising
responses?
Do members of partnerships have a joint budget to implement or pump prime responses to agreed
problems?
Are members of partnerships adaptable in their service delivery patterns where doing so may comprise a
promising response to a problem?
Do those allocated problems have sources of informed advice on possible promising responses?
Are external sources of advice in problem-solving being drawn on when needed?
Output monitoring/Assessment
Are all problem-solving efforts within the BCU/authority area systematically monitored?
Are initiatives adjusted in the light of monitoring?
Y/N
Is an evaluation strategy in place?
Are reputable independent evaluators used where significant resource allocation decisions turn on
evaluation findings?
Is care taken not to give unqualified support to extending initiatives that have not been subject to
independent competent evaluation?
Are provisions in place to conduct ‘light’ in-house or student evaluations where only suggestive findings
are needed?
Incentivisation/enablement
Do members of partnerships encourage their staff routinely to participate in problem-solving?
Are individuals allocated problems given training in their analysis and in forms of response?
Are individuals allocated problems given reasonable time to address them?
Are specialist skills being drawn on and used in problem-solving?
Does the partnership provide a forum for mutual leverage in problem-solving?
Does the partnership have agreed ways of applying leverage where necessary to third parties in
implementing responses to problems?
Is the work of the partnership monitored regularly and members held to account for their problem-solving?
Are individual agencies being performance measured for their local problem-solving work as well as their
attention to national priorities?
Do supervisors help subordinates with problem-solving and monitor their problem-solving work?
Are staff oriented to problem-solving, with selection, training and rewards to encourage and enable them?
Do senior members of agencies know of and understand the problems being addressed?
Problem-communication to and from other levels
Is day to day problem-solving monitored and are efforts made to identify broader problems?
Are problems identified within the area that may reflect broader problems passed ‘up’ for analysis and
attention at ‘higher’ levels?
50
APPENDIX 2
Selected Comparisons Between Problem-Oriented Policing and Neighbourhood Policing
Principle
Problem-Oriented Policing
Community-Oriented (Neighbourhood)
Policing
Primary emphasis
Substantive social problems within police
mandate
Engaging the community and local
partners in the policing process
When police and community collaborate
Determined on a problem by problem basis
Always or nearly always
Emphasis on problem analysis
Highest priority given to thorough analysis
Encouraged, but less important than
community collaboration
Preference for responses
Strong preference that alternatives to
criminal law enforcement be explored
Preference for collaborative responses with
community and partners
Role for police in organising and
mobilising community
Advocated only if warranted within the
context of the specific problem being
addressed
Emphasizes strong role for police and
partners
Importance of geographic decentralisation
of police and continuity of officer
assignment to community
Preferred, but not essential
Essential
Degree to which police share decisionmaking authority with community
Strongly encourages input from
community while preserving ultimate
decision-making authority to police
Emphasizes sharing decision-making
authority with community
Emphasis on officer skills
Emphasizes intellectual and analytical
skills
Emphasizes interpersonal skills
View of the role or mandate of police
Encourages broad, but not unlimited role
for police, stresses limited capacities of
police and guards against creating
unrealistic expectations of police
Encourages expansive role for police to
achieve ambitious social objectives
APPENDIX 3
PROCESS AND IMPACT EVALUATION
52
NOTES
NOTES
54