Summary of entries in crime reduction and public safety

Research in this area is divided broadly into two main categories: research on programmes seeking to use sport with ‘at-risk’ populations to prevent crime (diversion) and programmes that use to sport (and various types of outdoor activities) to rehabilitate offenders.

The section contains three reviews of existing research. Coalter outlines the various theories of sport’s ‘therapeutic’ functions and examines related research findings. He suggests that there is a need for a better understanding of the nature of the processes of participation which might lead to reduced criminality and that this would enable sports programmes to be proactive in managing for outcomes. He concludes that sport appears to be most effective as part of broader developmental programmes and that sport’s salience for many young people enables it to attract them to such programmes. Morris et al’s review also concludes that effectiveness is increased greatly by the integration of sports programmes with community support services. They also propose that the nature of the activity may not be as important as the social processes involved. West and Crompton’s review of research on the impact of adventure programmes for at-risk youth illustrates that some achieved significant positive changes in self-concept and reduced recidivism. However, because of a range of methodological limitations, they give only tentative support to the effectiveness of such programmes.

In terms of diversionary programmes, the Cap Gemini Ernst and Young evaluation of the Splash programme found small, but significant, reductions in recorded crime for some of the programmes (although many of the schemes also included a range of developmental components). The study of 24 Positive Futures programmes by Leisure Futures illustrates a general reduction in both perceived and recorded local crime and ‘nuisance behaviour’ during the period of the programmes. However, the authors caution that the impacts varied between individuals and, as with other programmes, Positive Futures appeared to work best in partnership with other projects (especially youth services). Farrell et al report on a survey of participants in the Milwaukee Midnight Basketball Leagure (which includes educational components) and conclude that the majority had experienced positive changes to both attitude and behaviour.

Nichols and Taylor found that a sports counselling project led to lower recidivism than a control group, that success was related to the length of the programme and the programme elements which contributed to this success include voluntary participation, the skill of sports leaders and access to training courses. Wright et al report on a summer sports programme for youth-at-risk that provided a range of educational components aimed to develop positive self-perceptions across a range of areas. Compared to two control groups, the programme participants experienced significantly increased self-perceptions on a range of competences – scholastic, social and athletic (although no evidence is provided about subsequent behaviour). Andrews’ and Andrews’ conclusions about the use of sport for rehabilitation in a young people’s secure unit reflect other research findings. They argue that for vulnerable young people traditional, competitive, sport will prove ineffective and that there is a need for minimal rules, a strong emphasis on fun, with programmes tailored to individual needs. McKenney and Dattlio also argue for a more cooperative and educative approach. They report on the limited impacts of an intensive basketball-coaching course (combined with a conflict resolution component) for males with disruptive behaviour disorder.

In terms of more general sports participation, Begg et al, in a large self-report study, found no significant association between sporting activity and aggressive behaviour or team sport participation and delinquency and aggressive behaviour. Consequently the authors reject the more simple versions of the hypothesis that sport has a deterrent impact on delinquent behaviour.

Much of the research is characterised by admitted methodological difficulties (e.g. lack of control groups; complex relationships between cause and effect; diversity in the measures used; lack of longitudinal research). To assist researchers to address some of these issues, Nichols and Crow identify three types of programmes, each of which are based on certain assumptions about sport – primary (environmental) and secondary (targeting ‘at-risk’ youth) prevention and tertiary (rehabilitation) programmes. They suggest that each requires different methods of evaluation, although these approaches should be based on a realist approach, using logic models which outline programme assumptions.

Although there is a substantial body of research in this area, there is a widespread acceptance that more rigorous research designs are required to inform both policy and practice. Such research would include:

The use of control groups when evaluating the impact of both diversionary and rehabilitative programmes.

Longitudinal studies (especially of rehabilitative programmes) to assess longer term impacts.

The nature of the relationship between activity and process and various ‘success factors’ eg location, length of programme, inter-personal relations, the type of activity, the nature and content of associated personal and social development programmes.