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