The role of criminological research in improving policy effectiveness.

Introduction

Aside from focusing on a basic understanding of crime-related trends,

criminological research plays a vital role in informing policy formulation by making it
more objective, sensitive to evolving awareness of the factors that influence crime,
and focused on more informed resource distribution to achieve agreed-upon goals.
Between the research and policy processes, there should be a natural symbiosis.
Policymakers should continue to gain input from research studies to execute more
reliable and productive strategies, so research should be aimed at problems that
affect them. This paper seeks to discuss the importance of criminological research in
enhancing policy effectiveness (Davies, P. and Francis, P., 2018).

Criminological research entails the collection of either qualitative or

quantitative data. Observations of the phenomenon under analysis may provide both
types of knowledge. Quantitative data may also be gathered by survey research or
archival data analysis. Quantitative observations are data points that are written
numerically, while qualitative observations are verbal comments that describe
particular procedures and outcomes (Hughes, G., 2000.) Both qualitative and
quantitative approaches can be used to formulate and evaluate theories. Still, in
criminological research, qualitative research tends to be prioritized for theory
formulation over quantitative research, which is used for program evaluation and
testing the hypothesis. However, several researchers combine the two methods in a
single analysis since one serves as a check on the other.

Ethnography is a comparative analysis of a social group or social group where

a researcher collates a detailed account of the processes and outcomes related to
the phenomenon being studied (Jupp, V.R., 2012.) An examination of correctional
social structures and adaptation to imprisonment in a specific facility, such as
Clemmer and Sykes' seminal research, is an illustration. To explain why some
prisoners respond to confinement more readily than others, a penologist will make
assumptions about the different types of inmates in that institution and how they
communicate with one another. This data can then be used to develop a general
hypothesis of inmate activity that could be generalized to any facility with a similar
population of inmates. The objectivity of the researcher in making and recording
assumptions about prisoner behaviors is vital to the process’s success.

Quantitative analysis, in comparison to qualitative studies, entails gathering

data and allocating numerical values to every set. Data types, such as a person's,
have numerical values already applied to them (Chamberlain, J.M., 2012). Others,
such as a person's gender, are allocated numerical values by the person who is
undertaking the research. For instance, males in the sample can be labeled as "1"
and females as "0." When a researcher attaches numerical values, the researcher
must measure them and specify them for those trying to understand the study. The
data is then statistically analyzed to make sense of the scales or factors for potential
use. The kinds of data collected using a quantitative approach are predetermined
before the collection even starts, in contrast to qualitative approach, where the
person conducting the research is receptive to new data. Since it involves gathering
information that has already been identified in a precisely worded hypothesis
generated from a verifiable theory, quantitative method is often used for hypothesis
testing (Wincup, E., 2017). The focus should be on the causal sequence of
operations and actions instead of the content of such events while using quantitative
assessment to establish a hypothesis of interest. Even with that, instead of
identifying the exact causal link, the implementation is typically restricted to lowering
the number of possible instructions.

In their work, King, R.D. and Wincup, E., (2008) provide a comprehensive
guide of conducting criminological research. The following steps are included in data
collection and research:

 Begin with an interest theoretical framework, that in criminology is

always an overall view of a social, political, or economic mechanism. For
instance, many social problems in a capitalist society, are said to be the
product of economic conflicts between groups, according to conflict theory.
 In step one, the chosen theoretical model is extended to a particular
societal problem. A conflicts criminologist, for instance, is only interested in
the conflict theory component that addresses crime in patriarchal systems.
 Theories are concerned with general concepts such as economic
power and crime. Theoretical concepts must be translated into translated into
concrete and observable organizational concepts in order to evaluate a
hypothesis. Gross annual household income, for example, can be used to
assess financial strength. These ideas are then developed into a theory,
which outlines how the factors are supposed to interact. For example, people
with lower average earnings have a higher chance of being detained. Any
theory evaluation includes a trial of a particular hypothesis derived from a
basic idea, so a theory can never be directly checked. It's not uncommon for
the instruments used to test the hypothesis to be inaccurate representations
of the real concept. As a consequence, these metrics are constantly
improved.
 A researcher then devises a data collection strategy for the hypothesis
test, which includes:
o Choosing the target population to which the findings would be applied.
o Individuals, organizations, towns, counties, and other units of study are
expressed in each hypothesis.
o Data should have a time factor, such as one-time point versus two or
three time points.
o The theory and the level of rigor needed determine the research
design, such as time or series factorial.
o A sample that correctly reflects the demographic utilizing one of the
many sampling methods available, like the primary random sampling,
proportional sampling, systematic random sampling and so on.
o A data collection tool, such as a survey questionnaire, for compiling
and coding information.
o Information collection procedures, such as reviewing archival records,
telephone or face-to-face.
 The data collection process entails obtaining finished tests for all
instances in the survey.
 During the recording processes, the data should be reviewed for
accuracy after it has been collected. Computers are employed in the data
cleansing process.
 The data is analyzed in order to put the hypothesis to the test. This
process involves computing statistics to help in the summarization of vast
 amounts of information so as to test the hypotheses hence clarifying
observational relationships. Statistics are pieces of information that are
structured to better provide sense from data, similar to the data collected for a
survey. The investigators must, however, properly apply and analyze these
figures so as to come to reasonable conclusions about their results.

Ever since 1940s, the utilization of quantitative methods in criminological

research has gradually increased due to the variety of techniques, the accessibility of
tools that make collection and analysis of data simpler, and the abundance of degree
programs and methodology classes. Ethnography, on the other hand, is a more
valuable tool for forming hypotheses, and many scholars value the integration of
qualitative and quantitative methods (Stubbs, J., 2008).

The importance of research findings in public policy has been overlooked in

recent years. Despite the fact that there is significant opposition to deflecting the
sometimes irrational crime-fighting attempts, research that offers emphasis for
making efforts in fighting crime more successful and targeted appears to have
elicited some response (Blomberg, T.G., et al, 2016). For example, a criminological
study conducted in the United States in 1995 indicated that the drastic increase in
homicides by teenagers over the previous decade was primarily due to the growing
presence of weapons ownership by the teenagers. Young people were thought to
have begun the process by being recruited into the narcotics markets to satisfy the
need for cocaine. The study's results prompted authorities to become more proactive
in trying to disarm these teenagers, who were almost always in possession of illegal
firearms and often refused to use their lethal guns with the necessary discipline. A
series of efforts were made to disarm young people as awareness of the problem
grew, perhaps helped in part by the study findings. In both 1994 and 1995, the
research’s findings led to substantial reductions in juvenile murder convictions.

Other examples of how criminological research has aided policy

effectiveness, particularly in the United States, include:

Adult inmate reentry

The Florida Legislature passed the adult prisoner reentry bill to help former
prisoners reintegrate back into society by creating three prisoner reintegration
facilities and waiving charges for incarcerated inmates requiring identification
documents including social security cards, individual id cards, and passports.
According to sources, the bill was prompted by federal support for reintegration
facilities and the common belief that former inmates cannot find housing or work
without formal registration. Increased jail spending and alternative sentences for
non-violent criminals were both significant factors. While there were no apparent
links between reentry research and the nation’s new policies, it's worth noting that
most of these reintegration policy proposals were put on the nation’s reform agenda
and enacted at a period when reentry research, particularly studies on
accommodation, jobs, and obstacles to reentry of inmates, was widely published in
journals. It's likely that this study shaped the state's policy agenda and results
inadvertently by sparking a debate about prisoner reentry.

Adult substance abuse

Because of this report, inmates in prison were expected to enroll in substance

addiction prevention and life skills educational services. Former Florida Governor
Jeb Bush spearheaded the original drug-abuse prevention campaign, which grew in
popularity when the national government and other states’ authorities investigated
the problem. Substance addiction therapy is effective in minimizing costs and
preventing recidivism. According to one expert, the state correctional system issues
review recommendations on substance dependency treatment to the legislature on a
daily basis. Furthermore, a collaborative effort between the public criminal justice
system and the Florida State University looked at the impact of drug abuse treatment
while imprisoned on reoffending. There's also proof that these results influenced a
rise in public support for drug-abuse care in prisons, from twenty-six million in 2010
to nearly forty-six million in 2014 (Pesta, G.B., et al, 2019).

To translate criminological research results into legislation, a variety of models

are used. One of the models is the "user drive" model, in which researchers put facts
to the decision-maker's attention (Weiss, C.H. ed., 1977). The case of the zero-
tolerance policy exemplifies this mechanism. In this situation, the Florida legislature
passed legislation to ensure that detention or transfer to the criminal justice system
can only be made in the most serious cases of school offenses. The aim of all these
bills was to cut down the number of teenagers who ended up in juvenile jail as a
result of misbehavior at school. During the bill's debate, one representative said,
"Once a kid is brought into the criminal justice system, it is not a good thing." The
content of the two bills was inspired by the Zero Tolerance Council findings, the
Southern Poverty Law Center's report, and facts and information from the public
commission's research division. Zero tolerance measures were causing nearly 20%
of juveniles to join the criminal justice system before the new law. Data and
information was given explicitly by the department for juvenile justice, and the afore-
mentioned organization was heavily used by state lawmakers. The consumer push
model is apparent here because the Southern Poverty Law Center's research,
together with the research by the justice department, brought evidence to the
attention of state policymakers. These studies aided decision-makers in
understanding the negative consequences of zero-tolerance policies for juveniles.

The user pull model, which relies on politicians taking their questions to
researchers, is another research translational model. The following is how the pull
model fits into the policy cycle:

 Problem identification: Issues that need government intervention are

reported. The essence of the problem is then established, as well as which
issues warrant the most attention.
 Policy design: Goals are defined, and the cost of solutions and their
effects are calculated. The policy instruments are then chosen, and funding
for the selected instruments is assured. The user pull model comes into play
here. Expert testimony is requested, as well as researcher appointments to
policy task forces and committees. Researchers are requested to collect and
interpret scientific data on subjects or topics of concern for those involved in
the policy making process.
 Policy implementation: Policy decisions are implemented according to
schedule.
 Policy evaluation: The effectiveness of the policy is determined.
 Policy input and amendment: The policy is evaluated to see whether it
can be kept, updated, or discontinued.

The interaction model is the final and most popular research translation
model. Interactions, collaborations, and bi-directional communication between the
practitioners and researchers are all part of the interaction model. Successful
instances of information translation are achieved through daily interaction, the
establishment of trust, reputation, and reciprocity (Carden, F., 2009). Since they
involve two-way communication, this model is more efficient at promoting information
translation than the previously discussed models because it emphasizes interactions
between researchers and policymakers. Since two-way contact between both parties
also results in research data tailored to policymakers' wants, and their participation in
the research study enhances their interest and confidence in the results, it increases
the potential for evidence-based policies.

The following are some of the more prevalent issues in current criminological
research:

 In the development of theories, there is a lack of objectivity.

 Model misspecification is often caused by a lack of understanding of
the related theories.
 Inadequate operationalization of definitions, such as measuring multi-
faceted concepts like cultural connections using single dimension techniques.
 Inappropriate units of study, such as comparing neighborhood-level
hypotheses to data from counties or states.
 Inappropriate samples for the target groups, such as checking the
hypothesis of repetitive behaviors for first-year college students participating
in a criminology program.
 Misapplied statistical approaches, like multi-level assessments of
inadequate measurements and spatially associated error overcorrections.

All of these can also be avoided if researchers are well trained.

The public's lack of knowledge of criminological trends is one part of the

sometimes unfounded politicization of policy. This vacuum allows for the
manipulative overuse of simplistic strategies that appeal to the populace’s emotional
desires while avoiding the central issue (Clarke, R.V. and Cornish, D.B., 1985). This
is partially due to a lack of strong policy forums on such topics, as there are for
economic policy by organizations like the Council of Economic Advisors and the
numerous other policy organizations that study and make policy pronouncements
both within and outside the government. The job at hand is difficult, as it involves
educating the public of the complexities inherent in formulating effective criminal
justice policies. It is pertinent that the establishment of forums that are more closely
related to policymaking, such as sentencing committees be done.

Another issue is the challenge and complication of adapting studies for a non-
technologically advanced policy context. Institutional structures have become more
important in presenting sufficient obstacles to the scientific community as science
has become more complex. The forum's position is greatly weakened if the review is
not used in the policymaking process. In the United States, for example, three
National Academy of Science panels on criminology were convened in the 2000s.
During the previous decade, just one big attempt to lay out a research framework in
the area of violence has been made. It's possible that this is due to lawmakers' lack
of interest. That may also be attributed to a desire on the part of the science
community to fully use the forum in order to further integrate research expertise into
the policy formulation process.

Compared to the dynamic relationship between research and policy in

previous years, current criminal justice policy seems to have been marked by the
policy developed independently of research results. It appears to have overlooked
research findings that contradicted the policies. In today's world, it seems that citing
scientific results to justify a stance based solely on philosophy or raw political appeal
is no longer necessary. With crime regularly ranked as the public's most distressing
issue, any approach that tackles this public concern while still providing some kind of
short-term promise continues to attract widespread political support. The bulk of
these are associated with toughness, which seems to be the magic bullet for
electoral appeal (Farrington, D.P., 1999). For example, despite the fact that various
research findings have found that inmates who receive minimum mandatory terms
are by far the most obstinate in terms of their previous record, mandatory minimum
sentences are still widely used. In the drug war, there has also been a zealous
promotion of compliance, despite the lack of deterrence or incapacitation due to the
substitution of drug dealers. In addition, a criminological study comparing the cost-
effectiveness of prosecution and care found that therapy was seven times less
expensive than enforcing the law. Nonetheless, the 1996 Congressional
appropriations cut therapy funds while increasing compliance funding.

Despite this, some techniques can aid in the implementation of criminological

research in policy formulation. There are some of them:

 Increased research spending.

 Funding for researcher-practitioner collaborations.
 Ongoing task forces consisting of a mixed number of individuals
(members of the criminal justice system, academics, and community service
providers are only a few examples).
 Professionals making touch with academics (for instance, through
practitioner-oriented conferences).
 Concurrently educating scholars and physicians.

The implementation of these policies would result in a knowledge-driven

policymaking model. According to the knowledge-driven model, basic research leads
to applied research, growth, and finally implementation of the findings. This model
begins with a problem that needs to be solved, which necessitates analysis, the
findings of which lead to action.

Conclusion

Finally, policy implications for scholars, politicians, and clinicians should be

considered. While lawmakers have expressed a willingness to collaborate with
researchers on particular topics, further studies aimed at strengthening correctional
procedures and processes should be funded on a regular basis. It's also important
that researchers collaborate closely with clinicians to provide knowledge that will
help them do their jobs better. Academics should also do more to reach out to
politicians and professionals and collaborate with them. To ensure its usefulness,
educational institutions should have more classes on criminological research and
translational criminology in their syllabus content. In his journal, Bennett, J., (2005)
submits that improvements to the academic environment will yield more meaningful
results for politicians, professionals, and the general population through collaboration
between scientifically educated scholars and the correctional facilities they study.
 References

Anderson, J.E., 2014. Public policymaking. Cengage Learning.

Bennett, J., 2005. Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European early

childhood education research journal, 13(2), pp.5-23.

Blomberg, T.G., Brancale, J.M., Beaver, K.M. and Bales, W.D. eds., 2016.
Advancing criminology and criminal justice policy. Routledge.

Carden, F., 2009. Knowledge to policy: Making the most of development research.
IDRC.

Chamberlain, J.M., 2012. Understanding criminological research: A guide to data

analysis. Sage.

Clarke, R.V. and Cornish, D.B., 1985. Modeling offenders' decisions: A framework
for research and policy. Crime and justice, 6, pp.147-185.

Davies, P. and Francis, P., 2018. Doing criminological research. Sage.

Farrington, D.P., 1999. A criminological research agenda for the next millennium.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
43(2), pp.154-167.

Gadd, D., Karstedt, S. and Messner, S.F. eds., 2011. The SAGE handbook of
criminological research methods. Sage.

Hughes, G., 2000. Understanding the politics of criminological research. Doing

Criminological Research, London: Sage, pp.234-247.

Jupp, V.R., 2012. Methods of criminological research. Routledge.

King, R.D. and Wincup, E., 2008. The process of criminological research. Doing
research on crime and justice, 2.

Laub, J.H. and Frisch, N.E., 2016. Translational criminology: A new path forward. In
Advancing criminology and criminal justice policy (pp. 78-88). Routledge.
Lumsden, K. and Winter, A., 2014. Reflexivity in criminological research. In
Reflexivity in criminological research (pp. 1-19). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Nagin, D.S., 2007. Moving choice to center stage in criminological research and
theory. Criminology, 45, p.259.

Pesta, G.B., Blomberg, T.G., Ramos, J. and Ranson, J.A., 2019. Translational
criminology: Toward best practice. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
44(3), pp.499-518.

Sanderson, I., 2002. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence‐based policy making.
Public administration, 80(1), pp.1-22.

Stubbs, J., 2008. Critical criminological research. The critical criminology companion,
pp.6-17.

Walker, W.E., Rahman, S.A. and Cave, J., 2001. Adaptive policies, policy analysis,
and policy-making. European journal of operational Research, 128(2), pp.282-
289.

Weiss, C.H. ed., 1977. Using social research in public policy making (Vol. 11).
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Wincup, E., 2017. Criminological research: Understanding qualitative methods.

Sage.