Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1466802504048463
M. Maguire
The article contrasts the original vision behind the Crime Reduction Programme - an ambitious plan (initially intended to run for 10 years) to accumulate, disseminate and use research-based knowledge about the effectiveness of a wide variety of interventions - with the reality of the multiple problems experienced during its implementation in England and Wales between 1999 and its premature end in 2002. Ultimately, few projects were implemented as planned, with the knock-on effect of a dearth of conclusive research findings. It is argued that the Crime Reduction Programme benefitted initially from an unusual ‘window of opportunity’ when such a programme appeared attractive to politicians, administrators, practitioners and researchers alike, resulting in a level of funding for pilot projects and evaluation which was unprecedented in the UK in the crime reduction field. However, it was undermined significantly by inherent risks and tensions that became increasingly prominent as circumstances (and the political climate) changed. While initially conceived as research-driven, it was ‘sold’ to politicians as contributing to the government’s challenging crime reduction targets, an aim which progressively took priority over research. It was over-ambitious in scale and raised unrealistic expectations of its outcomes. It suffered from major practical problems caused by unfeasible timescales, slow-moving bureaucratic procedures, and shortages of ‘capacity’. Low commitment to project integrity, cultural resistance among practitioners, and insufficient attention to differences between academics’ and policy makers’ understandings of research, also contributed to its problems. While some useful outcomes can be claimed, the results of the Crime Reduction Programme as a whole were unquestionably disappointing. In the light of these experiences, it might be argued that - tempting as it was to seize the rare opportunity of major funding - the ideal of ‘evidence-based policy’ may be more effectively pursued as a quiet iterative process over the longer term, rather than through a risky investment in one high profile and rapidly implemented ‘programme’ which promises more than it can guarantee to deliver.
{"title":"The Crime Reduction Programme in England and Wales","authors":"M. Maguire","doi":"10.1177/1466802504048463","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504048463","url":null,"abstract":"The article contrasts the original vision behind the Crime Reduction Programme - an ambitious plan (initially intended to run for 10 years) to accumulate, disseminate and use research-based knowledge about the effectiveness of a wide variety of interventions - with the reality of the multiple problems experienced during its implementation in England and Wales between 1999 and its premature end in 2002. Ultimately, few projects were implemented as planned, with the knock-on effect of a dearth of conclusive research findings. It is argued that the Crime Reduction Programme benefitted initially from an unusual ‘window of opportunity’ when such a programme appeared attractive to politicians, administrators, practitioners and researchers alike, resulting in a level of funding for pilot projects and evaluation which was unprecedented in the UK in the crime reduction field. However, it was undermined significantly by inherent risks and tensions that became increasingly prominent as circumstances (and the political climate) changed. While initially conceived as research-driven, it was ‘sold’ to politicians as contributing to the government’s challenging crime reduction targets, an aim which progressively took priority over research. It was over-ambitious in scale and raised unrealistic expectations of its outcomes. It suffered from major practical problems caused by unfeasible timescales, slow-moving bureaucratic procedures, and shortages of ‘capacity’. Low commitment to project integrity, cultural resistance among practitioners, and insufficient attention to differences between academics’ and policy makers’ understandings of research, also contributed to its problems. While some useful outcomes can be claimed, the results of the Crime Reduction Programme as a whole were unquestionably disappointing. In the light of these experiences, it might be argued that - tempting as it was to seize the rare opportunity of major funding - the ideal of ‘evidence-based policy’ may be more effectively pursued as a quiet iterative process over the longer term, rather than through a risky investment in one high profile and rapidly implemented ‘programme’ which promises more than it can guarantee to deliver.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"197 1","pages":"213 - 237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73261624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1466802504048467
Tim Hope
This article is about the use of evidence from evaluation research undertaken on, and as part of, the Home Office Reducing Burglary Initiative. More generally, it is a case study about the uses and status of ‘scientific’ evidence in politics. The article reports methods and findings regarding burglary reduction projects evaluated by the ‘Midlands Consortium’ of academic researchers. These are compared with interpretations derived from re-analysis of the data presented in reports published by the Home Office. Specifically, it illustrates what might happen when responsibility for validating policy - that is, for establishing ‘what works’ - is placed in the hands of (social) science, but the evidence produced is not, apparently, congenial to the particular ‘network of governance’ that is responsible for the policy. The outcome for evidence-based policy making in these circumstances is that scientific discourse and method itself falls victim to policy pressures and values. The concerns of this article are placed in the context of Ulrich Beck’s (1992) discussion of ‘reflexive scientization’ in the governance of risk society.
{"title":"Pretend it works","authors":"Tim Hope","doi":"10.1177/1466802504048467","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504048467","url":null,"abstract":"This article is about the use of evidence from evaluation research undertaken on, and as part of, the Home Office Reducing Burglary Initiative. More generally, it is a case study about the uses and status of ‘scientific’ evidence in politics. The article reports methods and findings regarding burglary reduction projects evaluated by the ‘Midlands Consortium’ of academic researchers. These are compared with interpretations derived from re-analysis of the data presented in reports published by the Home Office. Specifically, it illustrates what might happen when responsibility for validating policy - that is, for establishing ‘what works’ - is placed in the hands of (social) science, but the evidence produced is not, apparently, congenial to the particular ‘network of governance’ that is responsible for the policy. The outcome for evidence-based policy making in these circumstances is that scientific discourse and method itself falls victim to policy pressures and values. The concerns of this article are placed in the context of Ulrich Beck’s (1992) discussion of ‘reflexive scientization’ in the governance of risk society.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"16 1","pages":"287 - 308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77050037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1466802504044914
M. Innes
Focusing upon the trajectory of emergence of reassurance policing, this article seeks to interrogate the symbolic and material dimensions of contemporary policing reform programmes. It considers how a need for something labelled ‘Reassurance Policing’ was identified and the various social forces that coalesced to bring it into being. Exploring the contested meanings of reassurance policing, the article details how it has come to be defined as a strategy composed of three constitutive components: high visibility patrols performed by officers who are known to the local public; the targeting of ‘signal crimes’ and ‘signal disorders’; and informal social control performed by communities. The article concludes by postulating what the emergence of the reassurance policing perspective indicates about the future of policing reform.
{"title":"Reinventing Tradition?","authors":"M. Innes","doi":"10.1177/1466802504044914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504044914","url":null,"abstract":"Focusing upon the trajectory of emergence of reassurance policing, this article seeks to interrogate the symbolic and material dimensions of contemporary policing reform programmes. It considers how a need for something labelled ‘Reassurance Policing’ was identified and the various social forces that coalesced to bring it into being. Exploring the contested meanings of reassurance policing, the article details how it has come to be defined as a strategy composed of three constitutive components: high visibility patrols performed by officers who are known to the local public; the targeting of ‘signal crimes’ and ‘signal disorders’; and informal social control performed by communities. The article concludes by postulating what the emergence of the reassurance policing perspective indicates about the future of policing reform.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"36 1","pages":"151 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86648506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1466802504044912
G. Hughes, D. Gilling
It is difficult to ignore the growing salience of the new governance of crime and disorder in many late modern societies. To date there has been limited empirical exploration of the practices and experiences of these new local actors and institutions. This article aims to correct this neglect in the criminological literature by its exploration of the knowledge and skills base and habitus of one of the new partnership experts, the community safety manager (CSM). In particular, the article involves an engagement with recent research findings from Britain together with the more abstract conceptual tools opened up by current debates in critical social and political theory. It begins with a brief history of the community safety occupation during which the key features of the ‘profession’ are explored. Next, the thesis of a hegemonic risk management governmental logic in the field of community safety is critically examined. By exploring specific sites and contexts of community safety ‘work’, doubt is cast on totalizing narratives of neo-liberal transformation currently popular in criminology and sociology. Finally, the possible futures of community safety and crime and disorder reduction when viewed from the contemporary experiences of CSMs are considered.
{"title":"‘Mission Impossible’?","authors":"G. Hughes, D. Gilling","doi":"10.1177/1466802504044912","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504044912","url":null,"abstract":"It is difficult to ignore the growing salience of the new governance of crime and disorder in many late modern societies. To date there has been limited empirical exploration of the practices and experiences of these new local actors and institutions. This article aims to correct this neglect in the criminological literature by its exploration of the knowledge and skills base and habitus of one of the new partnership experts, the community safety manager (CSM). In particular, the article involves an engagement with recent research findings from Britain together with the more abstract conceptual tools opened up by current debates in critical social and political theory. It begins with a brief history of the community safety occupation during which the key features of the ‘profession’ are explored. Next, the thesis of a hegemonic risk management governmental logic in the field of community safety is critically examined. By exploring specific sites and contexts of community safety ‘work’, doubt is cast on totalizing narratives of neo-liberal transformation currently popular in criminology and sociology. Finally, the possible futures of community safety and crime and disorder reduction when viewed from the contemporary experiences of CSMs are considered.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"77 1","pages":"129 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88558447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1466802504044915
I. O’Donnell
A number of recent commentators, most notably and perhaps most elegantly David Garland, have outlined the contours of a new crime control dispensation that is said to characterize modern society. One strand of the evidence for this development is the upward trend in countries’ per capita prison populations. The purpose of this research note is to highlight some of the difficulties associated with any analysis carried out at this level of abstraction, especially with respect to the USA.
{"title":"Interpreting Penal Change","authors":"I. O’Donnell","doi":"10.1177/1466802504044915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504044915","url":null,"abstract":"A number of recent commentators, most notably and perhaps most elegantly David Garland, have outlined the contours of a new crime control dispensation that is said to characterize modern society. One strand of the evidence for this development is the upward trend in countries’ per capita prison populations. The purpose of this research note is to highlight some of the difficulties associated with any analysis carried out at this level of abstraction, especially with respect to the USA.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"2 1","pages":"199 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74774340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1466802504044911
Adrian Cherney
Community safety officers have become central to the delivery of crime prevention and community safety policy both in Australia and elsewhere. This article reviews the community safety officer (CSO) role in local government and provides results from interviews with CSOs in the Australian state of Victoria. The experiences, challenges and problems faced by CSOs in implementing Victorian schemes are outlined. It is argued that the focus by governments and criminologists on developing training packages, competencies and identifying ‘what works’ discounts the administrative and political environments in which local level CSOs work. These contexts present obstacles to strategy development and implementation. Likewise a similar criticism is made of the governmentality thesis, that it too fails to engage with and interrogate local practice, overlooking issues of contingency and agency that encompass the CSO role. It is concluded that this role is one concerned with change management, and that building CSO capacity requires the devolution of authority, resources and decision-making powers. Understanding how CSOs manage the barriers and ‘crisis’ they face in crime prevention and community safety will tell us more about ‘what works’ that is germane to effective policy development and implementation.
{"title":"Contingency and Politics","authors":"Adrian Cherney","doi":"10.1177/1466802504044911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504044911","url":null,"abstract":"Community safety officers have become central to the delivery of crime prevention and community safety policy both in Australia and elsewhere. This article reviews the community safety officer (CSO) role in local government and provides results from interviews with CSOs in the Australian state of Victoria. The experiences, challenges and problems faced by CSOs in implementing Victorian schemes are outlined. It is argued that the focus by governments and criminologists on developing training packages, competencies and identifying ‘what works’ discounts the administrative and political environments in which local level CSOs work. These contexts present obstacles to strategy development and implementation. Likewise a similar criticism is made of the governmentality thesis, that it too fails to engage with and interrogate local practice, overlooking issues of contingency and agency that encompass the CSO role. It is concluded that this role is one concerned with change management, and that building CSO capacity requires the devolution of authority, resources and decision-making powers. Understanding how CSOs manage the barriers and ‘crisis’ they face in crime prevention and community safety will tell us more about ‘what works’ that is germane to effective policy development and implementation.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"163 1","pages":"115 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77344675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1466802504044913
D. Gadd
This article critiques the move towards establishing standardized cognitive behavioural interventions for violent men within the National Probation Service of England and Wales. The article queries the persuasiveness of the research evidence informing this policy decision, and argues that in practice a narrow focus on cognition can detract from those aspects of masculinity that are implicated in the perpetration of domestic violence. Having first explored the limits of the evaluation research that has been conducted on cognitive behavioural programmes for domestic violence perpetrators in the UK, the article utilizes a case study to illustrate the complex challenges confronting those who wish to help violent men to change. In particular, the notion that denial is only implicated in mitigating responsibility for violence is exposed as unduly simplistic. The article concludes that without greater acknowledgement of the criminal justice system’s tendency to further brutalize violent offenders, court-mandated perpetrators will continue to expect probation interventions to provide ‘cures’, and become increasingly resistant to engage when no such cures are found.
{"title":"Evidence-Led Policy or Policyled Evidence?","authors":"D. Gadd","doi":"10.1177/1466802504044913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466802504044913","url":null,"abstract":"This article critiques the move towards establishing standardized cognitive behavioural interventions for violent men within the National Probation Service of England and Wales. The article queries the persuasiveness of the research evidence informing this policy decision, and argues that in practice a narrow focus on cognition can detract from those aspects of masculinity that are implicated in the perpetration of domestic violence. Having first explored the limits of the evaluation research that has been conducted on cognitive behavioural programmes for domestic violence perpetrators in the UK, the article utilizes a case study to illustrate the complex challenges confronting those who wish to help violent men to change. In particular, the notion that denial is only implicated in mitigating responsibility for violence is exposed as unduly simplistic. The article concludes that without greater acknowledgement of the criminal justice system’s tendency to further brutalize violent offenders, court-mandated perpetrators will continue to expect probation interventions to provide ‘cures’, and become increasingly resistant to engage when no such cures are found.","PeriodicalId":10793,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice","volume":"4 1","pages":"173 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84698833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：