Transcript Title

About this presentation
• These slides present interim findings from a review of the
evidence undertaken in workshop conditions at Evidence Base
Camp 2013/14.
• The findings from the review are not exhaustive. Due to time
constraints not all available bibliographic databases have been
searched, and books and longer reports were excluded from our
synthesis sessions.
• The findings have not been peer reviewed or quality assured
in the same way as a formal research publication.
• The College of Policing Research Analysis and Information Unit
(RAI) plans to turn this review of the evidence into a full Rapid
Evidence Assessment Report in due course.
What interventions have been shown
to be effective in preventing or
reducing theft from the person?
Delegates:
Richard Butler - Derbyshire
Frank Pike – College APP
Brendan Goffin – Suffolk
Brian Green – Cheshire
Julia Jones – West Yorkshire
Marj Maccallum – Wiltshire
Delegates:
Rachel Winbow – Dorset
Katherine Wrathrall - Sussex
College of Policing:
Levin Wheller - Research
Shayan Moftizadeh - Research
Ian Macey– National Police Library
How did we answer the question?
• Using a Rapid Evidence
Assessment (REA)
• REAs follow a systematic
process to identify and
appraise evidence…
• …but make compromises
given available time and
resources
• Pragmatic and transparent
approach
• Ensure best possible
coverage of literature in
the time available
The process
(in a nutshell)
1. Draft search terms
2. Draft sift criteria
3. Sift received abstracts
4. Request relevant papers
5. Read and ‘grade’ papers
6. Write it up (‘synthesis’)
Developing search terms
What interventions have been shown to be effective in
preventing or reducing theft from the person?
Tier Area
Synonyms include…
1
Theft from the person
Robbery; mugging; dipping; pick pocketing;
snatching; theft from person; bag theft; bag
snatch; street crime.
2
Prevention or Reduction
Prevent; reduce; decrease; fall; stop; deter;
divert; decline; eradicate; solve; cut.
3
Intervention
Strategy; tactics; activity; initiative;
operation; approach.
4
What Works
Systematic review; rapid evidence
assessment; trial; RCT; experiment;
evaluation; effective; assessment; “What
works”; impact; success.
Search outcomes
Our search
identifies studies
that mention all
four of our areas:
Theft, Prevention,
Interventions and
‘What Works’…
Theft
Prevention
Intervention
844 potentially
relevant studies
identified.
What Works
Searches find all potentially relevant studies…
Returned by the theft search…
Yuan Gang Qiu et al. Profile on circadian blood
pressure and the influencing factors in essential
hypertensive patients after treatment
Abstract:
Non-dippers were defined as those whose nocturnal decrease in
mean systolic BP and/or mean diastolic BP was < 10% of the
daytime BP. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate
the correlation between circadian blood pressure profile and factors
as gender, age, height, body mass index (BMI), family history of
premature cardiovascular disease, women under age 65 or men
under age 55, smoking habits, grade of hypertension, and strategy
of antihypertensive drugs.
Sifting our abstracts identifies the truly relevant
literature. Sift criteria is used so that we are
consistent and transparent in our sifting.
Sifting – inclusion criteria
Q1.
Question
Answer
Action
Is the paper directly
related to:
No
Exclude
Yes
Go to Q2
Unclear
Exclude
Theft from a person/individual
Q2.
Q3.
Does the paper focus on: No
Exclude
Interventions to prevent or
reduce theft from the person
Yes
Go to Q3
Unclear
Exclude
Does the paper include:
No
Exclude
Empirical data/ methods
Yes
Include
Unclear
Can’t exclude
Sifting – flow of papers
Searches of online
databases and
library catalogue
N=844
Abstrac
t and
title
screene
d
N=844
Full
text
screene
d
N=82
Reports meeting
inclusion criteria &
mapped
N=25
Papers excluded: Total N=57/82
Papers sifted out: N=762
Reasons for exclusion:
• Did not meet sift criteria.
Reasons for exclusion:
• Did not meet sift criteria
• Language (not English)
n=31
n=1
Other exclusions:
• Publication not available
• Duplicates
• Hardback
n=11
n=4
n=10
Our initial search identified 844 papers, but only 25 (3%) were actually relevant to our
research question. Our findings are drawn from these 25 studies that we have reviewed
over the last two days.
• We searched the main databases available to the National Police Library
• Due to time restrictions, we have not included books and reports in our synthesis
• Some longer studies could not be included due to time restrictions.
Synthesis – Mapping the evidence
Publication Date
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010+
Synthesis – Mapping the evidence
Country of focus
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
UK
USA
Australia
Swtizerland
Sweden
Synthesis – Mapping the evidence
Intervention Type
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Enforcement
Geographic
Prevention
Community/
Partnership
Misc
Interventions
• Prevention
CCTV
Street lighting
Safe passage
Micro dotting
Chelsea Clips
•
• Community/Partnership
Drugs
Neighbourhood Policing
Sentencing
•
Enforcement
ARB/ Covert/ Plain Clothes
Patrol
Motorcycle
Intensive enforcement
Road Traffic
Geographic
Defensible space
Redesign of areas
Curbing traffic/ cul-desacs
What does ‘good’ or ‘robust’ evidence look like?
Statements about
‘what works’
Systematic Reviews
(Based on level 3-5 studies)
5
Statements about
‘what’s promising’
Statements about
possible impact
Randomised controlled trials
4
Before/after measures
Multiple site comparisons
3
Before/after measures
Two site comparisons
2
Before/after measures
No comparison site
1
One-off measure
No comparison site
Study designs
increasingly rule
out potential
alternative
causes
Study designs
cannot rule
out potential
alternative
causes
Synthesis – Quality of evidence
Number of studies
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Systematic
Review
What Works
There is no clear evidence to show ‘what works’ in reducing/ preventing
theft from the person
What’s
Promising
There is promising evidence to suggest use of defensible space at ATMs can
lead to large reductions in theft from the person (based on one study in
Manchester).
One study from Birmingham found that moving market stalls further apart
had an impact in reducing theft from person.
What’s Unknown
CCTV – mixed evidence from four studies – balance of evidence suggests
this is a promising approach but confounding factors make it hard to be
definitive.
Street lighting – mixed evidence, not entirely consistent. Many studies from
the 1970s and in the US.
Drugs – one study from Switzerland found a Heroin prescription scheme
helped reduce muggings.
Aggressive traffic enforcement – findings were inconclusive.
Neighbourhood policing/ engagement – short term impacts but
inconclusive longer term findings – further studies required.
What Doesn’t
Work
Safe passage – no impact and may have caused displacement of crime.
Sentencing – no deterrence impact was identified.
What’s Harmful
There was no evidence to identify harmful approaches to treating theft
from the person. One study from Sweden found an increase in fear of
crime from media campaigns.
Key messages
What interventions have been shown to be effective in
preventing or reducing theft from the person?
• Studies tend not to distinguish between theft from person, robberies,
and muggings. American/ UK definition of robbery is possibly
different.
• Theft is not the main focus of a number of the studies – acts as a
measure for success of other interventions, e.g. CCTV.
• Almost half of studies were published in the 1970s. These papers
tend to focus on robbery rather than theft from person. Only seven
studies were published after 2000.
• Almost two-thirds of studies were focussed on the USA. Six were
focussed on the UK.
• Half of the studies identified were ‘level 2’ on the Maryland Scale. Of
the higher-scoring studies, many had problems with their design or
implementation that make strong conclusions difficult.
• The most promising approaches appear to be around geographic
interventions such as defensible space and redesigning the layout of
market stalls. However the evidence to support these is limited.
• More research is needed in all areas.
• We identified one systematic review from 2011, but this only cites
five studies.
Next steps???
What interventions have been shown to be effective in
preventing or reducing theft from the person?
• Problem identification is a big issue – a risk assessment/ risk profile
of theft in each force would be useful. What type of theft is the main
problem and where?
• More collaboration between forces and academics/ Universities to
ensure research does what the service needs it to!
• Better collation and evaluation of work going on in forces and tapping
in to existing organisational knowledge
–
–
–
–
POLKA
Intelligence requirements to all forces
Crime prevention tips – test them! (e.g. Bells!)
What can we learn from the private sector?
• Further research on interventions with a limited evidence base
–
–
Piloting of approaches from other countries
Set up an RCT or two!