Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

Entry Guidance (continued)

14. What are the judging criteria?

Entrants should have a clear understanding of the SARA model of problem solving and ensure the entry covers all stages in this approach. More information about SARA can be found on the Crime Reduction website and in many books: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/sara.htm.

Both the sift team and judging panel are asked to score the strengths and weaknesses of the entry based only on the evidence provided and against the criteria outlined below. It is strongly suggested that entrant authors ensure they are familiar with the criteria before writing the application.

The criteria below are supplemented by prompt questions and whilst applications do not need to answer these one by one, they may assist shaping the content of the application to follow the SARA process. Comments in italics are quotes from the 2007 judging panel are included to highlight why these issues are relevant.

Please note that due to their importance in the Problem Oriented approach, scores for the analysis and the assessment are weighted, scoring double the raw score. To score highly overall in the competition, these key areas must be fully addressed in the application form.

Criteria

Scanning

1. High level identification of a problem

• What were the initial indicators that a problem existed?

2. A problem of significant concern to the community

• Were there further criminal consequences resulting from this problem?

3. Appropriate involvement of people from the police and from other agencies in identifying the problem

• What sources of data and stakeholders were used to identify the problem?
• What input from the local community was evident in identifying the problem?
• Who were the stakeholders, beyond the victims, with an interest in its reduction?

2007 Judging panel feedback: “It is not always obvious why this particular initiative was chosen or why the particular issue was selected from all the other potential problems to solve.”

Analysis

1. Clear, specific and realistic objectives

• What was the real problem that this project sought to address?
• What were the objectives of the project? (These are two separate questions but need to be answered clearly)

2. Analysis of information is appropriate for the problem

• How was the extent of the problem measured?

3. Conclusions about the causes and underlying conditions that precipitated the problem that flow logically from the data

• What caused precipitated or enabled the problem?
• Critically assess the previous responses to the problem.
• Comment on the validity of the date and the reliance that can be placed upon it. Consider data from the same period last year and in the months proceeding the period under review.

4. The analysis demonstrating knowledge about the nature and extent of the problem

• Using the Problem Analysis Triangle (PAT) describe the conditions producing the problem behaviour rather than just focusing on who was involved.

5. Involvement of and contributions by all the agencies that have a stake in this problem identified

6. Gaps of information identified and taken into account

2007 Judging panel feedback: “I want to see some effort to gain knowledge about all three sides of the problem triangle: offender, target/victim and place. It is fine if the applicant tried to get information on a topic, but couldn’t because of data problems. They must show effort. Efforts that involve talking to parties involved in the problem: managers, offenders, victims etc are always good. Simply analysing police data or surveys are usually weak. Mostly I look for insight from the analysis, rather than simply recounting tables and charts.”

Response

1. Clear relationship between the analysis and the design of the response

• What actions were taken to address the problem?
• What practical methods were used to tackle the problem and how did each method work e.g. how did the approach prevent or reduce the problem?

2. Clear reasons why this particular response was chosen over others

• Show working, especially about how and why particular solutions were chosen over others. Some applications may have chosen a good set of tailored solutions but unless the choice is explained it can still look like a scatter-gun approach grabbed at random from the nearest toolkit.
• If a range of responses were put in place were they chosen to complement each other?
• What was done to consult and engage with the local community?

3. Clear partnership ownership of the response, as required by the problem

4. Planning and resource allocation as required by the proposed response

• What stakeholders were originally planned to be to involved in supporting/delivering the response?
• What were the actual demands on the lead and partnership agencies in terms of time, money, expertise etc?
• How were the stakeholders alerted and motivated to help? Were any standards required (consider the 6 Hallmarks of Effective Partnerships)?

5. Difficulties identified and well managed

• What difficulties did the project face in implementing the response/s and how were they overcome?

6. Evidence of an effective ongoing review mechanism and changes made in response to this process

• Has there been any impact on the ways of working with other agencies in the future and methods of operation?

7. Consideration of the sustainability and transferability of the response

• What consideration was given to the sustainability of the results i.e. exit strategy?

8. Innovative measures or use of standard measures in new areas of work

2007 Judging panel feedback: “In developing the response I want to see something that handles more than one side of the triangle. I also look for uses of situational crime prevention methods. I am always sceptical of offender based strategies that are not coupled with either victim/target strategies and/or place strategies.”

 “On sustainability I look for interventions that the agencies could walk away from with an expectation that the problem will not return right away. If the solution requires an ongoing commitment of resources by the police or others, then I wonder how long it will be before things fall apart. Many offender based strategies fall victim to this concern – enforcement must be maintained or offender services provided.”

Assessment

1. Clear use of evaluation data to both inform and improve the response

• Each project needs to establish a baseline against which to measure results/achievements.
• Be honest, if it was not the success anticipated explain why and show how steps will be taken to improve performance – this shows a strong problem solving approach and a willingness to continuously improve performance.

2. Evidence of whether the response achieved what was intended

• Evaluate the results - what statistical evidence is there that the response/s was effective in tackling the problem?
• How was the impact of the project assessed?

3. Methods of evaluation appropriate for the evaluation question providing some evidence of impact

• What qualitative evidence of impact is there from residents, people taking part etc.?

4. Evidence of appropriate partnership involvement

5. Evaluation extending the knowledge and understanding of the problem, the underlying causes and/or the potential solution

• What evidence is there that the success was attributable to the actions?
• Be specific – some of the entries had a lot of elements that were described as ‘transferable’ but it wasn’t clear which were vital, which were useful and which were actually redundant.
• What are the lessons for the future? What would be done differently another time?

2007 Judging panel feedback: “I want to see a before and after comparison as well as a control group. Multiple measures are useful. Cost benefit calculations are good, but not essential.”

Written presentation

1. Format of the document – keep it all in the same font with the same line spacing but beware of too many bullet points and not enough narrative (follow the stated rules on formatting!).

2. Provide a strong summary so that the reviewer is aware of the main points before looking at the detail in the entry.

3. At the end provide a conclusion that highlights the key selling points for the entry.

4. Add local colour and character. Many accounts of urban regeneration, youth activity schemes etc can sound very similar to other entries, being distinctive can help make a good impression.

5. Maps, diagrams, newspaper articles, posters and other printed material can all be useful in moderation but contribute towards the size of the application which must not exceed 1MB.

6. Any charts that are used in illustration need to be clearly labelled showing what is being measured, the time period and have a clear heading stating what the chart is illustrating. 2

007 Judging panel feedback: “I like maps that show where the problem is and the important features of the problem e.g. road networks and various facilities. Charts are better than tables, usually and tables are better than having the figures mentioned in the narrative. Photos can work very well, if they are clear.”

Coherence of project

1. Ask someone with no prior knowledge of the project to read it and check that it makes sense

2. Do not use acronyms or jargon that a layperson would not understand

3. Keep it simple, many entries did not follow a logical sequence.

4. Structuring the entry around the Problem Analysis Triangle or other environmental criminology theories helps to organise ideas in a coherent way.

5. Signs that each stage of the project grew out of the preceding stages, for example, the response does actually address the problem highlighted by the analysis; the evaluation does measure what is important; there is some awareness of the cost-effectiveness of the project

2007 Judging panel feedback: “The best entries have a story running all the way through – if an entry doesn’t have this it can be really quite hard to read.”

A note on writing the summary – section B of the application form

Summaries help the judges to gain a quick over-view of the project before they read the main report. It is helpful to read the full report with a sense of context. Summaries for the regional winners and national short list will be circulated and added to the Effective Practice Database on the Crime Reduction Website. The summary should therefore be treated as an important, stand-alone document that provides a succinct description of the project. Although sections of the main report are likely to form the basis of the summary, these do need to be summarised rather than simply used in full length. Ensure Section B is no longer than 400 words and flows through the SARA model using the headings provided. The summary should not contain diagrams or charts. It should fit onto one side of A4.

<< Previous page                                            ^ Return to guidance index ^                                         Next page >>

Last update: Thursday, January 08, 2009