Utvärdering av kommuners arbete mot anlagda skolbränder

Report, 2013

"Abstract" "This section summarizes the results from the project Evaluation of Municipalities’ Efforts to" "Prevent Arson. Based on the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency’s review of measures to prevent school arson in 80 Swedish municipalities, the aim of the evaluation was to identify and discuss work models and interventions that appear to be successful. To this end, the anti- arson efforts in 20 municipalities were analysed in-depth (encompassing a total of 15 different preventive measures). Thirteen of the studied municipalities show a reduction in school arson during the period 2005–2011; seven show an increase. By comparing these two groups, it was possible to identify successful combinations of anti-arson measures. The method used – qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) – implies comparison of combinations of measures." "Two combinations of measures were found to be successful in larger municipalities:" "A" "1) cross-sectoral specific cooperation, 2) camera surveillance and 3) extended secondary prevention" "B" "1) cross-sectoral specific cooperation, 2) patrolling and 3) extended secondary prevention" "Cross-sectoral cooperation implies that several actors (for example schools, social services," "police and rescue services) coordinate their work and resources related to the problem of school firesetting. To be successful, this method must be combined with situational prevention in the form of either camera surveillance or patrolling. A third component is also required, namely social prevention in the form of extended secondary prevention, which here refers to interventions targeting individuals or groups at risk of engaging in deviant behaviour. ‘Extended’ means that the measures are recurring and intensive in nature. It should be emphasized that it is the specific combinations of these measures that appear to be successful; individual measures or alternative combinations of measures do not seem as successful." "It should also be emphasised that the results summarized above apply to larger municipalities," "for the simple reason that it is not possible to conclude anything about the outcome of implemented measures without a sufficiently large number of cases of school arson. Another important aspect of the evaluation is that the data collected from the municipalities vary for example in terms of how different measures are labelled, defined and documented. Needless to say, this may affect the comparisons made. In addition, the evaluation design, i.e. a focus on implemented measures in relation to increases and reductions in school arson, implies that other possibly relevant factors, such as closing of schools, demographic changes and changes in the local structure of social problems, are not taken into account. However, the results are well in line with previous research on arson and the effects of methods used in arson prevention." "Keywords: preventive work, school arson, combinations of measures, cross-sectoral" "cooperation, camera surveillance or patrolling, extended secondary prevention."