Why Registries Matter

• Author: Denise C. Gottfredson
• Published date: 01 August 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12219
• Date: 01 August 2016

POLICY ESSAY

CRIME PREVENTION REGISTRIES

Why Registries Matter

Denise C. Gottfredson

University of Maryland

Abigail Fagan and Molly Buchanan (2016: 617–649) address an important problem

in crime prevention: Major efforts to identify effective programming to reduce

crime apply different standards for evaluating the research underlying the preven-

tive efforts, and they sometimes produce conflicting advice about what works to prevent

crime. Fagan and Buchanan highlight these differing standards and provide examples of

differing conclusions. They recommend numerous changes to the registries that would

improve their ability to inform community decision makers about effective practices.

Concern about the use of different standards across these registries is not new. This

issue motivated the Executive Board of the Society for PreventionResearch (SPR) more than

a decade ago to create a set of standards for use in identifying effective prevention programs.

The resulting report (Flay et al., 2005) discussed the problem of multiple lists using different

criteria and producing different results. By developing professional standards for research

testing prevention practices, SPR aimed not only to increase the level of scientific rigor in

individual research projects but also to influence registries to apply more similar standards.

The SPR standards have recently been updated (Gottfredson et al., 2015).

Fagan and Buchanan (2016) demonstrate that the problem of conflicting standards

used in registries persists. Fagan and Buchanan also describe considerations, such as the

political pressure to identify a wide range of potential alternative prevention options, that

might explain why different registries continue to apply different standards to compose lists

of “effective” interventions.

Why does it matter that different registries employ different standards and produce dif-

ferent conclusions about what works? Faganand Buchanan (2016) discuss avoiding wasteful

spending on ineffective programs and protecting the public from possible harms if programs

have unintended negative effects. In this policy essay,I discuss a well-known historical exam-

ple of the failure of public agencies to influence communities to adopt effective prevention

programming, and I make the case that registries today may be continuing to miss the mark.

Direct correspondence to Denise C. Gottfredson, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of

Maryland, 2141 Lefrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742 (e-mail: gott@umd.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12219 C2016 American Society of Criminology 651

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 3