Investigation of the Preparation of Crime Prevention Programmes in Lithuania

The article focuses on the analysis of preparation of crime prevention programmes in Lithuania and assesses their level of compliance with the methodological requirements for programme preparation. Many crime prevention programmes are approved and implemented at national level in Lithuania. If such programmes were prepared in accordance with the principles and methods recommended in the scientific literature, the efficiency of crime prevention programmes would undoubtedly increase. In Lithuania, a number of studies on the efficiency of the existing crime prevention programmes were carried out; however, none of them assessed the level of compliance of such programmes with the methodological requirements for the preparation of such programmes. The object of the study – crime prevention programmes in Lithuania. The goal of the study is to analyse the preparation of crime prevention programmes currently available in Lithuania, to identify major problems related to the preparation of such programmes, and to suggest possible solutions to these problems. In order to achieve that goal, the article lists and defines the main general aspects of crime prevention, and carries out an analysis of the principles and methodological aspects of preparation of crime prevention programmes. Subsequently, the crime prevention programmes available in Lithuania are analysed and their level of compliance with the methodological requirements for such programmes is assessed. Major problems related to the preparation of such programmes are defined. Research methods. Analysis of scientific literature, comparative analysis, analysis of legal documents, content analysis, statistical data analysis, systemising and generalisation. Main results and conclusions: • After investigating 49 crime prevention programmes it was found that none of the examined programmes conformed to all of the 16 criteria of the methodological requirements applicable for preparation of such programmes. Most of the crime prevention programmes have the following weaknesses: o problem-solving is formulated vaguely and inaccurately – the main problem for which the programme is created is not distinguished and its extent and content cannot be determined by objectively measurable indicators. o Permanence of solving problems is not defined – the programmes did not provide data showing the duration of an underlying problem. o Unidentified negative consequences of the phenomenon – negative consequences of the problem are not revealed, the damage is not assessed. o The goals do not correspond to the problem – the results of the goals, which would be expressed in terms of changes to be achieved, describing changes to the extent and/or content of the problem are not determined. o The goals are not concrete and exact – the objects of impact, their changes and expected results are not defined. o The goals are incomprehensible – they are vaguely formulated and treated like tasks. o Non-specific tasks – there are no outcomes measurable by objective indicators, after achieving that the tasks are resolved. o The potential effectiveness of the selected measures is not specified - there is no indication on the grounds of the conclusion as to the potential effectiveness of each measure. o The financial costs of implementing measures are not estimated. o The expected results are not determined - there is no indication as to the changes to be determined by the implementation of the programme. o There are no criteria provided for the assessment of effectiveness and impact. o The participation of the non-governmental organisations and individuals in the implementation of the measures is not defined. • On average, crime prevention programmes meet 6.8 of the criteria (out of the 16 criteria analysed). This means that on average the programmes meet less than half of all the criteria used. • Only 20 (41%) crime prevention programmes meet half or more of the criteria examined. Proposal. Given the irrational use of the allocated resources for the implementation of the poorly developed crime prevention programmes, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania should develop and adopt a mandatory and not a guidance methodology for the preparation of programmes, to be used by anyone preparing programmes financed from the state budget