Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Amanda e. Perry is a forensic psychologist working as a research fellow for the Centre for Criminal Justice Economics and Psychology at the University of York. Amanda has worked in academia, healthcare and forensic settings. Her specialist areas of interest are: systematic review and evaluation of research methodology, screening and assessment for suicide and self-harm risk in offenders, and mental-health services. She has published systematic reviews for the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations on drug treatment for offenders and the effectiveness of screening and assessment tools for offenders, and is a gust lecturer for the MSc in Applied Forensic Psychology course at the University of York.

Cynthia McDougall, OBE, is professor and director of the MSc in Applied Forensic Psychology at the University of York, and co-director of the University's Centre for Criminal Justice Economics and Psychology. She has wide practical and research experience in crime-related issues, having worked as a probation officer in the community and as a psychologist in prisons, as head of psychology for prison and probation services. She is a chartered forensic psychologist, a consultant psychologist tot eh Durham probation area and a member of HM Prison Service Close Supervision Centres Advisory Group.

David P. Farrington OBE, is professor pf Psychological criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. He is also co-chair of the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group, a member of the board directors of the International Society of Criminology, and joint editor of Cambridge Studies in Criminology and the Journal Criminology Behaviour and Mental Health. his major research interests is in the longitudinal survey of delinquency and crime, and he is director of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a prospective longitudinal survey of more than 400 London males between the ages of 8 and 48. In addition to more than 360 published papers on criminological and psychological topics, he has published 41 books, monographs and government publications, one of which ( understanding Controlling Crime, 1986) won the prize for distinguished scholarship of the American Sociological Association criminology section.

Von der hinteren Coverseite

How can we reduce criminal behaviour?

This important volume presents an extensive review of over 100 studies assessing the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in the reduction of crime. It draws together information about where, for whom, and critically, at what cost the interventions are effective in reducing and deterring crime.

Each chapter discusses the research evidence, current policy and practice, and findings from the review, including:

• In-depth evaluation of what works, for whom, where
• Analysis of the costs and benefits of interventions
• Discussion of future research and policy directions

Reducing Crime is essential reading for academics, students and researchers in forensic psychology, criminology, social policy and economics. It will also be a valuable resource for policy makers, criminal justice decision makers and probation and police officers.

Aus dem Klappentext

How can we reduce criminal behaviour?

This important volume presents an extensive review of over 100 studies assessing the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in the reduction of crime. It draws together information about where, for whom, and critically, at what cost the interventions are effective in reducing and deterring crime.

Each chapter discusses the research evidence, current policy and practice, and findings from the review, including:

• In-depth evaluation of what works, for whom, where
• Analysis of the costs and benefits of interventions
• Discussion of future research and policy directions

Reducing Crime is essential reading for academics, students and researchers in forensic psychology, criminology, social policy and economics.  It will also be a valuable resource for policy makers, criminal justice decision makers and probation and police officers.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Reducing Crime

John Wiley & Sons

Chapter One

Cynthia McDougall, Amanda E. Perry and David P. Farrington

BACKGROUND

This book had as its starting point a systematic review of criminal justice interventions aimed at reducing crime in the UK. The UK review was initiated to fill a gap in the current literature on the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions specifically relating to the UK. Its inspiration came from three sources: first, the UK Government's commitment to basing policy development on research evidence; second, the concurrent enthusiasm of practitioners for research knowledge; and third, from the influential publications by Sherman et al. (1997) on Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, and Sherman, Farrington, Welsh and MacKenzie (2002) on Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, reviewing research conducted in the US and internationally.

HM Home Office initially sponsored the systematic review and the findings are presented throughout this book. The UK studies are part of a programme that had three main aims: (i) to summarise the UK research evidence on reducing crime; (ii) to identify the gaps in research knowledge; and (iii) to stimulate research to fill these gaps. It was a similar process to that initiated by the US National Institute of Justice that led to the original Sherman et al. (1997) publication. This review of UK effectiveness studies is seen as complementary to the Sherman et al. (1997; 2002) publications, but also has some notable differences. The UK review has included only those studies that specifically reported on actual crime, self-reported crime or reconviction data. The latter constraint has resulted in the exclusion of a number of UK studies in the field of, for example, early childhood and school interventions, that have used as outcome measures, risk factors for crime, such as antisocial behaviour or truancy, rather than offence data. In addition, the UK review concentrates on the economic evaluations reported in the studies, focusing not only on what works with whom, but also at what cost. Therefore, the range of studies included in the review differs in some respects from that of Sherman et al. (1997; 2002). A similarity, however, is that recognised experts have been invited to update and comment on the systematic review findings, and to place them within a wider context of international research and policy development in their area of expertise.

Despite the slight difference in focus, we have recognised the value of the clear and practical framework adopted by Sherman et al. (1997; 2002). The UK review has followed their example by allocating studies to the categories of What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, What's Unknown, using their strict quality criteria for allocation to those categories. Where appropriate we have indicated the related supporting evidence in international research.

It will be noted that, in the original UK review, only a small number of UK studies found their way into the What Works category, despite the fact that inclusion in this category only required positive results from two well-conducted studies. This, in our view, makes the case for examining separately the research-evidence base of UK studies, but within the context of international research findings, so that gaps in our knowledge can be clearly identified.

There is little doubt that the exacting research quality standards, similar to those adopted by Sherman et al. (1997; 2002), have reduced the number of studies included in the review. From a starting point of 1,499 research papers identified from a range of databases, through the various stages of screening, the number of included studies was reduced to 62. There are competing views as to whether such a rigorous exclusion process is appropriate. Some researchers will argue that rigorous research in an operational setting is impossible to achieve, and that compromises are necessary and acceptable in order to learn from the large amount of research available. Indeed, some of the authors in this book support that view. There is, however, an alternative view that only by setting exacting standards will the overall quality of research, and hence the understanding of ways to reduce crime, improve. This is the view held by the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations (www.cochrane.org/; www.campbellcollaboration.org/): international organisations that strive to disseminate research findings on health and social science interventions, based on quality research and systematic review. Their commitment to quality research and systematic review has the objective of reducing bias in reporting research outcomes-through transparency of review methods, examining all available literature published in journals and in less formal publications, ensuring that results from both positive and negative outcome studies are reviewed, and reporting only on those studies that have been rigorously conducted so that bias attributable to methodology is kept to a minimum.

THE CASE FOR QUALITY RESEARCH

The case for quality research has long been established in the field of medicine (for example, the Cochrane Collaboration). It is now no longer questioned that a treatment should be thoroughly tested before being administered to patients. Concerns over potentially harming patients through the use of untested methods are rated above the ethical arguments regarding withholding treatments that might be beneficial. The Cochrane Collaboration has been the champion of this approach in the medical field, and is now followed by the Campbell Collaboration, which supports similar standards in the field of social sciences. The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group (Farrington & Petrosino, 2001) is an international organisation that is now seeking to raise standards of research in criminal justice, and to dispute the assumption that criminal justice interventions should be implemented without adequate safeguards.

It is widely assumed that, even if an intervention is not effective in reducing crime, it is unlikely to do any harm. Since the inception of the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group and its support for systematic reviews of criminal justice interventions, this view is being challenged. For example, Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino and Buehler (2002) gave strong evidence to the contrary in their systematic review of 'Scared Straight' programmes. 'Scared Straight' programmes were originally proposed by prison inmates and based on an assumption that delinquency could be prevented by giving youngsters at risk of offending a taste of what it would be like to be imprisoned. The project started in Rahway Prison in New Jersey, and received a great deal of international attention when televised. 'Scared Straight' projects were eventually adopted in 38 states across the US, with a number of programmes introduced in the UK without being evaluated. When a randomised controlled trial was finally conducted to assess the effectiveness of the San Quentin Squires programme (Lewis, 1983), it was found that 81 per cent of the experimental group, compared to 67 per cent of the control group, had been arrested at a 12-month follow-up.

The review by Petrosino et al. (2002) describes this and other...