How to Identify and Communicate What Works in Evaluation Science

• Published date: 01 August 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12238
• Author: Holly S. Schindler,Hirokazu Yoshikawa
• Date: 01 August 2016

POLICY ESSAY

CRIME PREVENTION REGISTRIES

How to Identify and Communicate What

Works in Evaluation Science

Holly S. Schindler

University of Washington

Hirokazu Yoshikawa

New York University

As the demand for evidence-based interventions increases from funders, practition-

ers, and policy makers, the need for mechanisms to identify and communicate

what works also increases. This is no small task. A simple search of abstracts in

major databases of the keywords “crime” and “prevention or intervention” turns up more

than 10,000 entries, which is a daunting number for any decision maker to review. In re-

sponse to this challenge, public and private agencies have developed “what works” registries

as a way to help decision makers determine which interventions are “best bets” for reducing

crime. Similar registries have also been developed in other areas of prevention science. The

overarching goal of these registries is to distill and disseminate evaluation research in ways

that increase its practical value. Nevertheless, a critical question is whether and to what

extent registries are meeting that goal.

In their review of the three most well-known registries in criminology and criminal

justice (i.e., Crime Solutions, Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, and the National

Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices), Abigail Fagan and Molly Buchanan

(2016: 617–649) provide the first thorough comparative summary of how each registry

employs standards, applies criteria, and describes interventions. Faganand Buchanan present

this information in a compelling way that illuminates the inconsistencies in processes

employed across the registries. Perhaps the two most valuable contributions of their article,

though, are its examination of why inconsistencies exist and recommendations for improving

“what works” registries. Specifically, they describe not just the scientific debates shaping how

these registries work (e.g., should RCTs be the gold standard?) but also the political pressures

Direct correspondence to Holly S. Schindler, College of Education, University of Washington, Miller Hall, Box

353600, Seattle, WA 98195 (e-mail: hschindl@uw.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12238 C2016 American Society of Criminology 661

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 3