Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies ...

5.0 Summary and Conclusions
M
uch of the evidence pertaining to the efficacy of OC control strategies is descriptive and
anecdotal. Studies adopting sophisticated research designs are virtually non-existent. In
fact, very few studies are explicitly referred to by their authors as evaluative studies. The multistage
process used to identify relevant research reflects the paucity of efforts, in the OC
literature, assessing the implementation and impact of OC control strategies. The search for
materials began with a search of several major electronic databases. The bibliographies of
materials identified through this search were then scanned for additional documents that might
contain some additional evidence. This process was repeated as bibliographies were once again
examined to complete a third round in the search for relevant materials.
Several issues stand out as impediments to arriving at generalizations regarding the effectiveness
of measures to control OC. A definitional morass exists, as both scholarly and legal definitions
vary substantially in their scope. Some definitions emphasize the enterprise aspect of OC, while
others relate to activities frequently attributed to criminal organizations. Another impediment to
research and evaluation in this area is the fact that not one country routinely collects and
publishes data on OC activity, however it is defined. Finally, a variety of measures have been
used to gauge OC control efforts, hindering the ability to draw overall conclusions about the
value of these efforts. Furthermore, many of these measures have serious shortcomings.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the evidence that does exist provides some clues as to the
efficacy of the various approaches to controlling OC. Table 2 displays the 18 control measures
or strategies that have been reviewed in this report. These measures range from regulation and
legalization to tools available to prosecutors, law enforcement, and other public and private
sector agencies.
The strategies are listed in the first column of the table. The second column contains an
evaluation of the volume of evidence, both quantitative and qualitative, assessing the impact of
each strategy or measure. The focus was on the volume rather than the quality of the evidence,
as most of the evidence is descriptive in nature; hence there is little variation in the quality of
studies. While the evaluation of the research is somewhat subjective, it is based on the evidence
presented in the previous chapter. Furthermore, other scholars often provided their evaluations
of the evidence in relation to the different control measures (refer to Chapter 4).
Three ratings of the evidence were adopted:
1. A “nil” rating was provided when there was virtually no evidence, other than the
anecdotal, provided in relation to a measure;
2. A “limited” rating meant that just a small number of studies had been undertaken and the
evidence was confined to just one country (usually the US);
3. A “significant” rating meant that the studies were quite numerous and were found in
several countries.
Research and Statistics Division / Department of Justice Canada | 55