What Works in Crime Prevention?

• Published date: 01 August 2016
• Author: Abigail A. Fagan,Molly Buchanan
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12228
• Date: 01 August 2016

RESEARCH ARTICLE

CRIME PREVENTION REGISTRIES

What Works in Crime Prevention?

Comparison and Critical Review of Three Crime Prevention

Registries

Abigail A. Fagan

Molly Buchanan

University of Florida

Research Summary

This article compares the criteria and methods applied by three registries designed to

identify what works in crime and delinquency prevention. Wediscuss and demonstrate

how variation in the methodological rigor of these processes affects the number of

interventions identified as “evidence based” and provide recommendations for future

list-making to help increase the dissemination of effective crime prevention programs

and practices.

Policy Implications

As support for evidence-based crime prevention grows, so too will relianceon what works

registries. We contend that these lists must employscientifically rigorous review criteria

and systematic review processes to protect public resources and ensure interventions

recommended for dissemination do not risk harming participants. Lists must also be

constructed and findings communicated in ways that are responsive to community

needs. Ensuring this balance will help increase public confidence in scientific methods

and ensure greater diffusion of evidence-based interventions.

Keywords

crime prevention, evidence-based interventions, program evaluation, systematic

reviews, what works

Direct correspondence to Abigail A. Fagan, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of

Florida, 3219 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611-7330 (e-mail: afagan@ufl.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12228 C2016 American Society of Criminology 617

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 3

Research Article Crime Prevention Registries

During the past decade, researchers in the field of criminology have made

increasing calls for the use of evidence-based and effective programs, practices,

and policies to improve public health and prevent crime (Clear, 2010; Fagan

and Eisenberg, 2012; Welsh and Farrington, 2012). For example, the National Research

Council and Institute of Medicine has recommended that to preventmental, emotional, and

behavioral disorders, “federal and state agencies should prioritize the use of evidence-based

programs and promote the rigorous evaluation of prevention and promotion programs”

(O’Connell, Boat, and Warner, 2009: 373). Likewise, a National Academy of Sciences

review of the U.S. juvenile justice systems concluded that “if implemented well, evidence-

based interventions . . . reduce reoffending” and recommended the discontinuation of

“interventions that rigorous evaluation research has shown to be ineffective or harmful”

(National Research Council, 2012: 11).

Tofacilitate the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), public and private agencies

have created lists identifying what works and online databases to provide information about

EBIs to policy makers and practitioners. Probably the most well known of these registries in

criminology and criminal justice are the Office of Justice Programs and National Institute

of Justice’s Crime Solutions database (crimesolutions.gov/) and the Blueprints for Healthy

Youth Development list (blueprintsprograms.com). In addition, the National Registry of

Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP; nrepp.sa.gov/Index.aspx), managed by

the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), rates the

effectiveness of programs intended to reduce youth substance use. Importantly,to promote

fiscal accountability of public funds, state and federal financial aid are increasingly becoming

tied to applicants’ use of interventions that appear on such lists (Burkhardt, Schroter,

Magura, Means, and Coryn, 2015; Mears and Barnes, 2010).

Despite strong support for the use of EBIs, considerable debate remains regarding how,

specifically,to determine the effectiveness of crime prevention programs, practices, and poli-

cies (Blomberg, Mestre, and Mann, 2013). Views regarding the natureand level of evidence

needed to establish effectiveness vary across list-makers, policy makers, scientists, and practi-

tioners. Reflecting this disparity,registries use different criteria and review processes to deter-

mine what works; as a result, what is considered effective on one list is often not rated as effec-

tive on a second list (Burkhardt et al., 2015; Means, Magura,Burkhart, Schroter, and Coryn,

2015; Petrosino, 2003). These discrepancies are confusing to the public and to policy mak-

ers and may undermine public confidence in scientific standards and recommendations. In

addition, some lists do not have particularly high standards regarding the rigor of evaluation

research needed in order to designate an intervention as effective (Petrosino, 2003; Wright,

Zhang, and Farabee, 2012); as a result, they may recommend interventions that are unlikely

to produce significant reductions in crime if disseminated (Mihalic and Elliott, 2015).

The goal of this article is to highlight these inconsistencies and provide recommen-

dations for reducing them. We compare the standards and processes used by Blueprints,

Crime Solutions, and NREPP to make determinations regarding the effectiveness of crime

618 Criminology & Public Policy

Fagan and Buchanan

prevention programs and practices. Although each registry provides some details regarding

its evaluation procedures, it can be challenging to understand exactly how interventions

are reviewed and to identify similarities and differences in methods and standards used

across the three sites. Our review is intended to provide clarity regarding these processes

and to evaluate the degree to which each site makes valid determinations of intervention

effectiveness. We also comparethe three registries in terms of their abilities to communicate

clearly their findings to the public. The objective of this part of the review is to consider

each list’s practical value to practitioners and policy makers who are trying to determine

which intervention, if any, to implement to reduce crime. In the final sections of the

article, we provide recommendations for advancing the EBI movement in criminology,

including suggestions for increasing consistency and rigor in standards used by the what

works registries to nominate EBIs for dissemination.

Origins of the What Works Movement in the United States

To provide some context as to why and how lists vary in their criteria for determining

effectiveness, we begin with a short history of the what works movement in the United States

(see also Welsh and Pfeffer, 2013). Recognition of the value in using EBIs to reduce crime

slowly emerged in the 1980s and early 1990s in part as a reaction to the highly publicized

Martinson (1974) report that “nothing works” to prevent offender recidivism. Subsequent

reviews of correctional evaluations (e.g., Gendreau and Ross, 1979; see also Andrews et al.,

1990; Lipsey, 2014), including an additional publication by Martinson (1979), countered

that many correctional interventions did reduce recidivism and emphasized that it was

premature to dismiss correctional treatment as ineffective. However, these publications also

acknowledged significant variation in effects across studies and that many criminal justice

interventions had not been well evaluated with rigorous scientific methods.

A much stronger push for rigorous evaluation and use of EBIs was made in the

middle-to-late 1990s beginning with the publication of the Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995) and Preventing Crime: What Works,

What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (Sherman et al., 1997). The OJJDP Guide identified pro-

grams that were effective and promising in reducing juvenile delinquency. It also offered

one of the first reviews of developmental prevention programs, interventions implemented

outside of correctional facilities and primarily intended to prevent the onset of crime. The

Preventing Crime report (Sherman et al., 1997) provided an even more comprehensive

evaluation of crime prevention programs, including developmental, community-based, sit-

uational, law enforcement, and correctional interventions. In addition to listing effective,

promising, and ineffective crime prevention strategies, a notable feature of the Preventing

Crime review was the authors’ use of explicit criteria to rate systematically the methodological

rigor of evaluations, particularly threats to the internal validity of the research. The Maryland

Scale of Scientific Methods was used to rate evaluations on a “0” to “5” scale, with a score of

Volume 15 rIssue 3 619