A bachelor’s degree with a major in social- or behaviour sciences or medicine and English 6.

The aim of this course is for the students to develop knowledge of crime prevention and evaluation methodology. Special attention is awarded to evaluation methods to establish the evidence base of crime preventive measures and programs targeting individuals and/or environments, 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, as well as how crime prevention can contribute to the development of a socially sustainable society.

The course is divided in two partly overlapping sections with a focus in the first on crime prevention. The first section focuses on 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. The second section focuses 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.

Upon completion of the course, the student should be able to:

1. describe the theoretical foundations that apply to crime prevention,

2. analyse crime prevention strategies and measures,

3. describe and differentiate between different evaluation approaches,

4. critically examine existing evaluations in criminology, 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.

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.

Armitage R, (2016 [2008]) 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 [2008]) 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

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.

Malmö University provides students who participate in, or who have completed a course, with the opportunity to express their opinions and describe their experiences of the course by completing a course evaluation administered by the University. The University will compile and summarise the results of course evaluations. The University will also inform participants of the results and any decisions relating to measures taken in response to the course evaluations. The results will be made available to the students (HF 1:14).

If a course is no longer offered, or has undergone significant changes, the students must be offered two opportunities for re-examination based on the syllabus that ap-plied at the time of registration, for a period of one year after the changes have been implemented.

If a student has a Learning support decision, the examiner has the right to provide the student with an adapted test, or to allow the student to take the exam in a different format.

The syllabus is a translation of a Swedish source text.