Peter Homel Peter Homel Peter Hotel

Peter Homel Analyste et chercheur senior, Responsable de la recherche, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australie Peter Homel est directeur du programme de réduction et d’examen de la criminalité de l’Institut australien de criminologie. Il est également professeur auxiliaire au Centre de recherche en éthique, droit, justice et gouvernance de l'Université Griffith. De 1995 à 2002, il a été le premier directeur de la division de la prévention de la criminalité de la région de NSW, établi à Sydney en Australie. En 2001 et 2002, il a entrepris une évaluation détaillée des défis entourant la mise en œuvre du programme de réduction du crime au Royaume‐Uni, un travail qu’il a récemment mis en pratique en Australie. Il a reçu la Médaille des services publics australiens en 2000 pour son innovation en matière de prévention de la criminalité et a reçu le prix Fulbright Professional en 1997. *** Peter Homel Senior Research Analyst; Research Manager, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia Peter Homel is the Manager of the Crime Reduction and Review Program at the Australian Institute of Criminology. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Griffith University’s Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance. From 1995‐2002 he was the first Director of the NSW Crime Prevention Division, based in Sydney Australia. During 2001‐
02 he undertook a detailed evaluation of the implementation issues associated with the UK’s Crime Reduction Programme, work he recently replicated in Australia. He was awarded the Australian Public Service Medal in 2000 for innovation in crime prevention and undertook a Fulbright Professional Award in 1997. *** Peter Hotel Analista e Investigador Señor; Responsable de la investigación del Instituto australiano de criminología, Australia Peter Homel es Gerente de la Reducción del Crimen y el Programa de Revisión en el Instituto Australiano de Criminología. También es un Profesor Adjunto de la Universidad y del Centro Griffith Clave para la Ética, Derecho, la Justicia y la Gobernanza. De 1995‐2002, fue el primer Director de. NSW Crime Prevention Division, basado en Sydney, Australia. Durante 2001‐02 realizó una evaluación detallada de las cuestiones de implementación relacionadas con el Reino Unido Crime Reduction Programme, labor que recientemente esta replicando en Australia. Fue galardonado con la Medalla del Servicio Público Australiano en el 2000 por la innovación en prevención del crimen y emprendió una Fulbright Professional Award en 1997. Evaluating crime prevention
policy and program delivery:
some Australian experience
Peter Homel and Anthony Morgan
Australian Institute of Criminology
ICPC Conference - Montréal, Canada
8 December 2009
… a way to
measure impacts
and to show a
path forward to
new policies and
programs
• A lack of knowledge, experience and expertise
among those for managing and conducting
evaluations
• Problems with access to and analysis of data
• Failure to commit adequate funding and technical
resources
• Use of narrow models for evaluation (e.g. focus on
outcomes at the expense of process, and vice versa)
• Absence of a committed or systematic method for
applying findings to policy and programs
Formal
evaluation
Measuring
program and
policy
effectiveness
Performance
measurement
• The practice of crime prevention policy is all about
tomorrow.
• The practice of crime prevention work is about trying to
make the future into something better than the present.
• A central challenge for crime prevention policy
practitioners is to manage the tension between what they
can influence and what they can’t.
• “How is your work going” is a performance
managementquestion. It is asking how well we are going
now at shaping the future for tomorrow.
7
A good performance story addresses three things:
1. What we want to achieve through our program - i.e.
the area where we want to “make a difference”
2. The steps by which we expect our program to
achieve its objectives
3. How we will know that our program is on track
8
1. Agree on the ultimate objectives (or outcomes) to
which the program is supposed to be contributing
2. Create a program logic model that links inputs,
activities (or processes) and outputs to ultimate
objectives/outcomes
3. Derive performance indicators from the logic model
9
• Need to mix quantitative, qualitative and subjective
measures and assign relative values to each
• Avoid the tendency to only focus on hard (i.e.
quantifiable) measures rather than soft (i.e.
qualitative/subjective) measures
• Examine performance in terms of both direct and
indirect measures (i.e. intermediate or proxy
measures)
10
• Start with a focus on performance measurement as a
method for building a long term evaluation strategy
• Establish appropriate governance systems for managing
the evaluation process
• Match the evaluation methodology to the policy/program
answers being sought
• Don’t waste time and money evaluating everything –
focus on innovation and classes of initiatives that are of
particular interest
• Ensure all initiatives have performance measurement
systems and use those to track performance
• Make sure the lessons are shared and the knowledge
grows
Peter Homel and Anthony Morgan
Australian Institute of Criminology
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +61 2 9560 2109