Preventing crime in Australia 1990 - 2002: a selected register of crime prevention projects
Analysis
Contents
110 crime prevention projects appear in the current register. Recall that the projects have a) been funded by the Criminology Research Council, b) received an Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Award or commendation, or c) had publications about them that have appeared in selected Australian academic journals since January 1990. The projects are diverse in terms of typographical group (situational, social/community, developmental), year, location (e.g. New South Wales, Queensland), target crime (e.g. drug or violence), target group (e.g. youth, elderly, aboriginal), funding bodies (e.g. Criminology Research Council, Universities) and the extent (systematic or informal) and type (process or impact) of evaluations undertaken.
Type of project (typographical group)
The majority (48%) of the projects named in the register could be classified as primarily developmental crime prevention measures. Social crime prevention projects made up the second largest group (39%) followed by situational measures (13%) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: type of project (typographical group)
Year
The early 1990's (1990 to 1994) appear to be times of much activity in the area of crime prevention - this is when the majority (56%) of the projects in the register took place (see Table 1).
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Late 1980's | 8 | 8 |
| 1990 | 12 | 11 |
| 1991 | 10 | 9 |
| 1992 | 11 | 10 |
| 1993 | 17 | 15 |
| 1994 | 12 | 11 |
| 1995 | 8 | 7 |
| 1996 | 8 | 7 |
| 1997 | 1 | 1 |
| 1998 | 5 | 4 |
| 1999 | 13 | 12 |
| 2000 | 1 | 1 |
| 2001 | 4 | 4 |
| Total | 110 | 100 |
Location
The bulk of the register's projects came from Australia's most populous states. Victoria and New South Wales accounts for 59% of Australia's population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002) and 45% of entries were from these states. Combined, the populations of Western Australia and Queensland account for a further 28% of Australia's population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002) and 29% of entries in the register came from these two states. A further 14% of entries came from South Australia and Tasmania - two smaller states where 10% of Australia's populace can be found (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). The Northern Territory and ACT account for only 3% of Australia's population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002) and similarly had the smallest percentage (10% combined) of entries in the crime prevention register. The final 3% of entries were nation-wide crime prevention projects (see Figure 3).
Figure 2: location
Target crimes
Violence was the focus of 50% of the register's projects, though this will reflect the fact that the register includes awardees of the Australian Violence (and only recently crime) prevention awards (see Funding in Table Two). Few projects were concerned specifically with substance abuse (3%) and property crimes (8%). However, a significant proportion (39%) were aimed at crime in a general sense in that a wide variety of different crimes were being targeted (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Target crimes
Target groups
In terms of specific targeting, youth were more likely than any other specific group to be focussed on. In fact, 30% of the register's entries pertain to youth either as offenders (potential, actual) or victims (potential, actual). Following this, were crime prevention concerns relating to Aboriginal peoples (10%), men (4%), older Australians (3%), women (2%), families 'at risk' (2%) and gay/lesbians (1%). The majority (48%) of entries were actually considered general in focus with more than one target group being highlighted or no target group being specified (see Figure 4).
Figure 3: Target groups
Funding
Most (43%) of the crime prevention projects appearing in the register were funded from more than one source. Thus, in Table 2 the project sample size is greater than 102 (n = 156) because a number of projects are counted more than once.
Table 2 shows that a large proportion of projects (49%) were awarded an Australian Crime (Violence) Prevention Award. Community groups were also heavily (17%) involved in funding their own crime prevention projects. The Criminology Research Council was directly responsible for funding 8% of projects and 19% received financial support from other government sources. University and police funds were allocated in 3% of cases.
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Crime Prevention Awardees | 77 | 49 |
| Criminology Research Council Grants | 13 | 8 |
| Other Government | 30 | 19 |
| Community Group | 27 | 17 |
| Police | 4 | 3 |
| Universities | 5 | 3 |
| Total | 156 | 100 |
Evaluation
Evaluations considered to be systematic were undertaken in 33% of cases. Informal evaluations (meaning that they were more often than not anecdotal in nature) were noted in 8% of register entries and in 12% of cases there was no attempt at evaluation. In a large percentage (48%) of cases it was not known whether or not an evaluation had been undertaken (see Table Three).
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Process (Systematic) | 7 | 7 |
| Process (Informal) | 1 | 1 |
| Impact (Systematic) | 16 | 15 |
| Impact (Informal) | 6 | 6 |
| Process & Impact (Systematic) | 12 | 11 |
| Process & Impact (Informal) | 1 | 1 |
| No Evaluation Conducted | 13 | 12 |
| Unknown | 51 | 48 |
| Total | 107 | 100 |