“Measuring What Matters: Crime, Disorder, and Fear.” National Institute of Justice:
Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings, July 1999 (NCJ 170610),
p. 37-54.
This chapter considers two issues: 1) measuring the possible effects of an innovative policing program,
and 2) doing so in a framework that could support the inference that the program caused variations that the
measurements might reveal. Measurement involves (among other things) the collection of data that
represent–sometimes only indirectly–the problems that programs target. These are “outcome” measures,
and it is vital that they represent the scope of a program’s intentions as accurately as possible. One cannot
divorce what is measured from how the measures can be linked causally to programs. What evaluators call
the “logic model” of a program–how, exactly, it is supposed to have its desired effect–needs to be specified
clearly enough that appropriate outcomes can be identified and their measures specified. For instance, if
evaluating a crime prevention program, exactly what kinds of crimes involving what kinds of victims during
what periods of the day or night should we examine for evidence of impact? This essay focuses on
measurement issues, but it addresses issues through concrete examples of how measures have been
used to make judgements about the impact of programs. It examines some of the experiences the
evaluation community has had in taking the vital signs of a community by measuring crime, disorder, and fear.
Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings, July 1999 (NCJ 170610),
p. 37-54.
This chapter considers two issues: 1) measuring the possible effects of an innovative policing program,
and 2) doing so in a framework that could support the inference that the program caused variations that the
measurements might reveal. Measurement involves (among other things) the collection of data that
represent–sometimes only indirectly–the problems that programs target. These are “outcome” measures,
and it is vital that they represent the scope of a program’s intentions as accurately as possible. One cannot
divorce what is measured from how the measures can be linked causally to programs. What evaluators call
the “logic model” of a program–how, exactly, it is supposed to have its desired effect–needs to be specified
clearly enough that appropriate outcomes can be identified and their measures specified. For instance, if
evaluating a crime prevention program, exactly what kinds of crimes involving what kinds of victims during
what periods of the day or night should we examine for evidence of impact? This essay focuses on
measurement issues, but it addresses issues through concrete examples of how measures have been
used to make judgements about the impact of programs. It examines some of the experiences the
evaluation community has had in taking the vital signs of a community by measuring crime, disorder, and fear.
Disorder and Crime
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |