The aforementioned experimental patrol strategy has theoretical support but there is a lack of empirical evidence to justify widespread adoption. The focus of this evaluation is to establish whether a pilot study provides evidence to support further investment in the patrol strategy. The research question we sought to address was:
Is there a difference in the amount of crime before implementation compared to after implementation?
Determining how experimental patrol strategy works to reduce crime requires careful examination and review of the results of prior evaluation studies. This evaluation is clearer than drawing conclusions about what patrol strategy works from police data, from evidence-based practice, from records, or from a multiple studies which was highly publicised or well funded. This is the main focus of this evidence-based evaluation approach in preventing increase of crime rates, and the organized review that represents a scientific method and innovative, or evidence-based contribution in the crime prevention. Importantly, this evaluation draws attention to the flaws of different previous study evaluations and underscores common problems on methodology that either resulted in their limited value in the debate or their exclusion from the review (Welsh and MacKenzie (2007).
For the quantitative aspect, the cross-sectional research design was used. This is described to enable the researcher to collect information on a large number of cases at a single point in time in order to accumulate a body of qualitative or quantitative data in relation to a number of variables to discuss patterns of association (Marshall and Rossman, 1995).The reason why the cross sectional research design was used for this study is the convenience it offers in explaining the vast scope of data taken from a specific condition or crime nature.
For the data collection in the cross sectional approach, the administration of questionnaire survey was utilized. Since the survey is considered as the primary data source for this study, the questionnaires was personally delivered by the researcher to the respondents/authority. The survey questionnaires was semi-structured which means that it contains both open-ended and close-ended questions.
For the semi-structured in-depth interviews, a non-random method was employed to select at least 20 respondents who responded to the self-administered survey to take part in the interview. Therefore, the self-administered survey functions as the tool for participant selection for the interview, and authorization to conduct the interviews will be sought not only from the respondents but also from the facilities from which they are serving. The data from the survey was subjected to Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) which determines the strength and the direction of the relationship between the two variables. The requisite for the performance of this test is that the data should be in interval level, which well taken into consideration while constructing the questionnaire. The other requisite is that data should was collected through random sampling; this is also satisfied by the study. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) will be computed using the statistical software SPSS version 16.
For the key- informant interviews, the researcher used content analysis of the transcripts from the series of semi-structured interviews and studies conducted by the state department and researcher regarding quality of services and crime rate/frequency. According to Marshall and Rossman (1995), the benefit of content analysis is that it is unobtrusive and non-reactive meaning it can be conducted without disturbing the setting in anyway.
The validity and reliability of the findings for this study was secured through a pre-test and a post-test that was conducted in order to guarantee and verify consistency in the answers of the respondents. Also, the used of a triangulation in the methods increased the reliability in the findings of the study, since the findings of the self-administered questionnaire was readily verified in the key-informant interviews.
After several months of experimental patrol strategy implementation, the area of experiment was compared with the control areas, the results showed the substantial reductions in crime rate such as murder, theft, burglary, vehicle crime, and total number of crimes committed. For example, total crime incidents of crime fell by 28 per cent (from 1,805 to 1,410) in the area of experimental when compared to a slight decline of 1% cent (from 6,242 to 6,180) in first control area and an increase of 9% (from 1,069 to 1,175) in second control area. The researchers realized the diffusion evidences of benefits for the experimental patrol strategy with regards to total number of crime incidence and territorial evidence of burglary displacement (Poyner, 2008).
The results of the evaluation suggest that the observed differences in the monthly averages between the before and after periods are too large to be explained by chance. To that end, we are confident thatÂ the observed reduction in crime is a result of the new patrol strategy.
Results from the evaluation provide a better picture of the effectiveness of crime prevention through experimental patrol strategy. From evaluations - it provided the necessary data to be included in the analysis -and had significant and desirable effects on the crime rate decline. This evaluation also symbolizes the efforts to take crime incidence seriously, and the perception of that strategy that can energize law-abiding citizens and/or eliminate incidences of crimes (Welsh and MacKenzie, 2007).
Welsh, and D.L. MacKenzie (2007). Â Evidence-Based Crime Prevention (241-94).
Lighting and Crime Prevention: Vol. 10. Crime Prevention Studies (pp. 123-55). Monsey,
NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Poyner, B. (2008). What works in crime prevention: An overview of evaluations. In R.V.
Crime Prevention Studies: Vol. 1 (pp. 1-37).Monsey,NY: Criminal
Marshall,C. and Rossman,G.(1995).Designing Qualitative Research.2nd ed.London:Sage Publications.