Evidence-Based Crime Prevention - Essay Example

Evidence-Based Crime Prevention Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Evidence-Based Crime Prevention In recent times, evidence-based approach has become the most important influencing force in development and implementation of public and social policies. It is being used in medicine, education, and other major social sectors to provide information about the relative effectiveness of various policies. According to Sherman (2002), evidence-based or scientific approach is a formalization process that rests on the build-up of evidence over time examined procedurally through knowledge appraisals of experimental research or in gold standard perspective, meta-analysis of empirical randomized controlled trial investigations. Scientific-based crime prevention requires that high-quality appraisal study form the center of practice or policy. Although use of evidence-based approach to support policy has been successful in fields such as education and medicine, its use in crime prevention draws much debate and controversy over its effectiveness. Among others, the tension surrounding the issue revolves around what should form evidence and how high the standard must be set. While opponents believe that the bar should be too high, proponents argue that research that has been passed through peer review procedure has the ability to inform crime prevention policy. The essay relies on various examples to evaluate the key tensions associated with taking crime prevention from research to policy and how can they be handled. Despite the wide acceptance of taking research to form the basis of crime prevention policy, tension remains over constituents of evidence and the extent to which the bar or standard should be set. Some researchers and policymakers assert that research that has been passed through evidence-based approach has the potential to inform policy in the practice. Others argue that research alone does not make evidence-based practice effective for policy implementation, but the aspects of process and standards should be considered. As a result, they advocate for high standards and research that only takes into account actual empirical methods that use random assignment to control and study subjects (Clarke & Dawson 1999, p.44). In this case, the proponents seem to recognize that the best way to take research to policy remains to assume a more fluid initiative in which research remains the basis of policy at all times. For example, several decades back policymakers believed that poverty remained the principal risk factor for various serious crimes. However, new research has pointed out other various related factors, such as unemployment and lack of access to education, that influence crime rate. However, lack of real experimental methods limit the effectiveness of transferring research to policy making. In respect to our example on serious crimes, a true empirical research to examine effectiveness of a non-custodial policy will mean investigating control offenders in a detention facility. In actual settings, this cannot be achieved without raising some ethical and tactical problems. Thus, evidence-based approach cannot be used in such situations, and therefore, limiting the ability of research to inform related policy. In addition, it is practically impossible to address this tension because it is for the courts to determine the correct kind of jail system that fits a particular offender, depending on his or her nature and extent of crime. There is no rational person who would want to go to a detention facility unjustifiably only for research purposes. Another significant tension revolves over the element of political activism. It is impossible to separate formulation and implementation of crime prevention policy from politics. As Clarke and Dawson (1999, p.173) argue, this is to mean that taking prevention of criminal acts from research to policy integrates some aspects of politics. Integration of political pressure or partisan interests compromises the principles of scientific inquiry, particularly when the findings face criticism from the political class. Take for instance the fight against terrorism in United States for the last few years after the September 9/11 attacks. Influenced in part by the increasing threat of Islamic extremists and partly by political pragmatism, current crime prevention strategies have leaned towards incarceration. Despite empirical studies indicating ineffectiveness of incarceration in preventing crime, politicians have advocated for the strategy as the one-size-fit-all solution for the terrorism menace. One reason behind such a predisposition remains unpopularity of scientific inquiry among politicians, who do not see any other politically feasible alternative to address the safety of their constituents. Citing another example, Sherman (2002) argues that political activism in United States has led to continued use of boot camps despite research showing their ineffectiveness in preventing recidivism. Establishing new boot camps across the nation remained the main crime prevention policy throughout the tenure of President Clinton even as research after research found unconvincing evidence. These illustrations indicate that politics in part influence transfer of prevention of crime from research to policy. Such influence applies uniformly across the globe, as political activism in USA compares to that in other democratic-focused nations, including Australia. The only to address this tension includes separating politics from making policy because as long as politicians interfere with the process, evidence from scientific inquiries will always be compromised. Nuance in empirical evidence presents another form of tension associated with transferring deterrence of crime from research to programs. The findings produced through scientific examinations are almost not at all authoritative and are at many times nuanced (Clarke & Dawson 1999). Therefore, they have to be watered down by removing some pertinent nuances of scientific evidence in order to make the facts appropriate for making crime deterrence policies. For example, research on rate of repeat crimes of individuals incarcerated of sexual offenses indicates a complicated threat represented by these offenders. Among others, such threat may involve the nature of individual background and kind of sex offense considered. In the actual policy making process, such nuances are characteristically forgotten, with sometimes policymakers treating the different kinds of sex offenses as identical for purposes of simplifying the criminal justice process. One of the most effective ways to address these nuances involves using the scientific facts as they are presented without diluting them to simplify the litigation process. Rather than removing some facts, policymakers need to take into account every aspect of the empirical findings to formulate and implement policies. In this way, it will be possible to prevent crime by using research to inform policy without raising any tension. Universality of findings of criminal research also presents tension in effectively using evidence-based practice to inform policy formulation and implementation. In contrast to other fields, a single crime can have multiple causes that are not related in any way and that vary from one region or nation to another (Sherman, 2002, p.309). This is reflected in many of the crime theories that try to explain the various risk factors or causes associated with different types of crimes. For instance, inclination of an offender towards rape can be explained from biological, sociological, or psychological theories. Therefore, unlike in medicine where definitive causes of a particular kind of a disease facilitate treatment of study and control subjects, the different risk factors associated with criminal offenses limit uniform treatment of subjects placed in different environments. It is not possible to recreate a universal treatment environment to test validity of research hypothesis across different regions. This limitation affects the ability of research findings in one region or nation to be applied to inform policy in another region. For instance, it is not possible to recreate lifestyle (which may be a risk factor in rape) of an offender in UK to fit absolutely the lifestyle of an offender in Australia. Consequently, the evidence found in such a research will not be applicable in places other than UK, where the research was conducted. Therefore, this limits the universality of evidence-based practice in influencing crime prevention policy in different regions. Among others, one of the most effective approaches to deal with this issue is to make the research design reflect the characteristics of the region under study. This will be able to give findings that reflect the true picture of the crime in such area, and in effect, help policymakers to come up with alternative programs that address the crime successfully. In conclusion, taking deterrence of crimes from research studies to making of policies faces a wide variety of tensions, most of which seem to revolve over the scientific inquiry process and evidence. Despite the wide acceptance of taking research to form the basis of crime prevention policy, tension remains over constituents of evidence and the extent to which the bar or standard should be set. Another significant tension revolves over the element of political activism because it is impossible to separate formulation and implementation of crime prevention policy from politics. Moreover, the findings produced through scientific examinations are almost not at all authoritative and are at many times nuanced. Universality of findings of criminal research also presents tension in effectively using evidence-based practice to inform policy formulation and implementation. Therefore, although evidence-based practice has been lauded for its effectiveness in informing policy in other fields (such as medicine and education), its success in addressing crime rates faces challenges – some of which can or cannot be avoided. While separation of politics from policy making process and narrowing of research design to suit a specific region can address some of the tensions, there is no sure way to address the issue of actual randomization of control and experimental subjects. However, in either way, scientific method remains among the most effective strategies that policymakers can rely on to formulate and implement crime deterrence programs that address the actual risk factors influencing crimes in a given region or area. References Clarke, A & Dawson, R 1999, Evaluation research: an introduction to principles, methods, and practice, SAGE, London. Sherman, LW 2002, Evidence-based crime prevention, Routledge, London. Read More