Criminology: Evaluation Methodology and Crime Prevention
Syllabus for students autumn 2023, autumn 2022, autumn 2021, autumn 2020
- Syllabus autumn 2023, autumn 2022, autumn 2021, autumn 2020 (Currently shown)
- Course Code:
- KA833E revision 1
- Swedish name:
- Kriminologi: Utvärderingsmetodik och brottsprevention
- Level of specialisation
- Main fields of study:
- Date of ratification:
- 12 November 2019
- Decision-making body:
- Faculty of Health and Society
- Enforcement date:
- 30 March 2020
A bachelor’s degree with a major in social- or behaviour sciences or medicine and English 6.
Specialisation and progression relative to the degree regulations
The course is given in the third term of the Masters Program in Criminology and is a course within the main field of study and can be included in the degree requirements for a Masters Degree in Criminology. The course is also offered as an independent course.
The aim of this course is for the students to develop knowledge of evaluation methodology and evidence-based crime prevention. Special attention is awarded to evaluation methods to establish the evidence base of crime preventive measures and programs, and prevention measures and programs that have practical relevance for the health care services, social services, forensic psychiatry, prison and probation services, police, and other actors relevant to the criminological field. The course aims to expand the students’ ability to critically assess the effects of crime reduction measures, as well as critically analyse existing evaluations of these measures.
The course is divided in two partly overlapping sections with a focus in the first on evaluation methodology, where different evaluation approaches and evaluation designs will be introduced. Several examples of classic evaluations are assessed for both their design and execution, including evaluations of treatment and care programs, interventions, projects, and organizational change. The emphasis is on designs and methodologies that are practical and applicable in criminological relevant organizations, such as the health care services, social services, forensic psychiatry, prison and probation services, and the police.
In the second section the focus shifts to the theoretical and empirical foundations of contemporary crime prevention strategies, preventive measures, treatment and care programs, and their practical application. Definitions of relevant concepts and their interconnected relations will be discussed and exemplified with national and international research.
Upon completion of the course, the student should be able to:
1. describe and differentiate between different evaluation approaches,
2. critically examine existing evaluations in criminology,
3. describe the theoretical foundations that apply to crime prevention,
4. analyse crime prevention strategies and measures, and
5. design a criminological relevant evaluation project.
The teaching takes the form of lectures, seminars, independent studies, group assignments, (learning outcomes 1-5) and a compulsory seminar that includes an oral presentation and discussion of the evaluation project (learning outcome 5).
The assessment of the students’ performance will be made on the basis of the group evaluation project and an oral presentation of the project (learning outcome 1-5). Focus of the assessment of the group evaluation project and the oral presentation is the student’s ability to describe, critically examine, apply the knowledge developed during the course, and design a hypothetical criminological evaluation project (learning outcome 1-5). Individual performance is assessed by students completing a log book that describes each student’s individual contributions. Any absence in compulsory parts shall, at the discretion of the examiner, be compensated by an individual written assignment.
To receive a Passing Grade (C, D or E) it is required that the student have achieved all the learning outcomes by passing on the individually written paper and participating in the compulsory seminar. Achievement of the Grade of Distinction (A or B) requires that the examined course work is characterized by originality and meta-theoretical understanding and has been assessed with grade A or B.
Right to re-examination
Students who fail the exam are given the opportunity to do two re-takes with the same course content and with the same requirements. The student also has the right to take the examination in the same course in the subsequent course according to the same rule. Examination and re-takes are carried out at the times specified in the course schedule.
Excellent (A), Very Good (B), Good (C), Satisfactory (D), Pass (E) or Fail (U).
Course literature and other teaching materials
Campbell DT, Stanley J, (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Houghton Mifflin Company. 71 p.
Eck JE, (2002) Learning from Experience in Problem-Oriented Policing and Situational Prevention: The Positive Functions of Weak Evaluations and the Negative Functions of Strong Ones, Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 14: 93–117. 24 p.
Eck JE, (2017) Assessing Responses to Problems: Did It Work? An Introduction for Police Problem-Solvers, 2nd ed., Center for Problem-Oriented Policing at Arizona State University. 35 p.
Gerell M, (2016) "Hot Spot Policing With Actively Monitored CCTV Cameras : Does it Reduce Assaults in Public Places?" International Criminal Justice Review, 2, 187-201. 14 p.
Johnson D, Tilley N, Bowers KJ, (2015) Introducing EMMIE: an evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, vol. 11: 459–73. 14 p.
Knutsson J, (1997) Restoring Public Order in a City Park. Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 5:133–151). 18 p.
Lindström P, Svensson R, (1998) Attitudes towards drugs among school youths: An evaluation of the Swedish DARE programme. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, vol. 15(1suppl): 7-23. 16 p.
Parry GJ, Carson-Stevens A, Luff DF, McPherson ME, Goldmann DA, (2013): Recommendations for evaluation of health care improvement initiatives Academic Pediatrics 13: S23– S30. 7 p.
Pawson R, Tilley N, (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage publications. 250 p.
Rossi P H, Lipsey M W, Henry G T, (2018) Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage publications. 439 p.
Winge S, Knutsson J, (2003) An Evaluation of the CCTV Scheme at Oslo Central Railway Station. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 5(3):49-59. 10 p.
Section 2 – Crime prevention
Armitage R, (2016 ) Crime prevention through environmental design. In: R. Wortley and M. Townsley (Eds.) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis, Crime Science Series, New York: Routledge. 720-731. 11 p.
Barnes JC, TenEyck MF, Pratt TC, Cullen FT, (2019) How Powerful is the Evidence in Criminology? On Whether We Should Fear a Coming Crisis of Confidence. Justice Quarterly: 1-27. 27 p.
Braga AA, Weisburd D, Turchan B, (2018) Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence, Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1): 205-250. 45 p.
Domínguez P, Raphael S, (2015) The role of the cost-of-crime literature in bridging the gap between social science research and policy making: Potentials and limitations. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(4): 589-632. 43 p.
Guerette RT, (2009) Pull, Push, and Expansion of Situational Crime Prevention Evaluation: An Appraisal of Thirty-Seven Years of Research. Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 24: 29-58. 29 p.
Piza E L, Welsh BC, Farrington DP, Thomas A L, (2019) CCTV surveillance for crime prevention A 40-year systematic review with meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, p. 135-159. 24 p.
Polaschek DLL, (2018) Treatment outcome evaluations: How do we know what works? In D. L. L. Polaschek A, Day C, Hollin R, (Eds.) The Handbook of Correctional Psychology. Chichester: Wiley. 32 p.
Savolainen J, (2005) Think Nationally, Act Locally: The Municipal-level Effects of the National Crime Prevention Program in Finland. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 11:175-191. 16 p.
Scott MS, (2017) Focused deterrence of high-risk individuals, Response Guide No. 13, Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. 1-35. 35 p.
Tilley N, (2009) Crime prevention. New York: Willan Publishing. 224 p.
Tilley N, (2006) Knowing and Doing: Guidance and Good Practice in Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 20: 217-252. 35 p.
Welsh BC, Farrington DP, (2012) The Oxford handbook of crime prevention. Oxford: University Press. 560 p.
Wikström P-OH, Treiber K, (2017) Beyond risk factors: an analytical approach to crime prevention. In B. Teasdale & M.S. Bradley (Eds.), Preventing crime and violence (pp. 73–87). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 15 p.
Wikström P-O, (2007) Doing Without Knowing. Common Pitfalls in Crime Prevention. I: Farrell, G., Bowers, K., Johnson, S. & Townsley, M. (eds.). Imagination for Crime Prevention: Essays in Honour of Ken Pease. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 22 p.
Wortley R, (2016 ) Situational precipitators of crime. In: R. Wortley and M. Townsley (Eds.) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Crime Science Series, New York: Routledge, pp.: 62-86. 24 p.
Additional articles from scientific journals will also be included, approx. 200 p
The course coordinator is responsible for ensuring that a summary course evaluation is conducted at the end of the course. The coordinator will relay these results to the students at a prearranged time. Notes from the feedback are made available to the course's students and feedback is given to the students who will start the course in the next course session, and made available on the course website.
If a course is no longer offered or has undergone major changes, students are offered two re-take sessions based on the syllabus in force at registration during a period of one year from the date of the implementation of the changes.