Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:24:26.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Systematic Reviews and Cost–Benefit Analyses

Toward Evidence-Based Crime Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

By
Brandon C. Welsh ,
Peter H. van der Laan  and
Meghan E. Hollis
Edited by
Brandon C. Welsh ,
Anthony A. Braga  and
Gerben J. N. Bruinsma
Brandon C. Welsh
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement
Peter H. van der Laan
Affiliation:
VU University Amsterdam
Meghan E. Hollis
Affiliation:
Northeastern University
Brandon C. Welsh
Affiliation:
Northeastern University
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Gerben J. N. Bruinsma
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Crime policy should be rational and based on the best possible research evidence. It is of course wholly naïve to think that the evidence base on the effectiveness of a particular program or strategy will be the sole influence on policy. There are many considerations involved in implementing new policies as well as in expanding effective ones or putting an end to ineffective or harmful ones. For example, there may be different government priorities, such as military defense spending, environmental protection, or medical care for seniors, that are competing for scarce public resources. National polls may show that the public is more concerned with issues other than crime and its control. Other factors include the worry by politicians that they may be perceived as soft on crime by supporting prevention instead of law and order measures (Gest 2001), as well as the short time horizons of politicians (Tonry and Farrington 1995), which makes programs that show results only in the longer term less appealing to those who come up for election every few years. Regrettably, evidence of what works best is rarely a factor in the development of crime policy. Political and other considerations seemingly drive much of the crime policy agenda.

An evidence-based approach attempts to avoid these mistakes by ensuring that the best available evidence is considered in any decision to implement a program or policy designed to reduce crime. Put another way, it is about making sure that this research is at center stage in political and policy decisions. As noted by Petrosino (2000: 636), “An evidence-based approach requires that the results of rigorous evaluation be rationally integrated into decisions about interventions by policymakers and practitioners alike.” An evidence-based approach is crucial to understanding where, when, and if different interventions reduce crime, as well as helping to establish why an intervention does or does not work.

Type
Chapter
Information
Experimental Criminology
Prospects for Advancing Science and Public Policy
 , pp. 253 - 276
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aos, Steve. 1998. Costs and Benefits: Estimating the “Bottom Line” for Crime Prevention and Intervention Programs. A Description of the Cost-Benefit Model, Version 2.0. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Aos, Steve, Barnoski, Robert, and Lieb, Roxanne. 1998. “Preventive Programs for Young Offenders: Effective and Cost-Effective.” Overcrowded Times 9(2): 1, 7–11.Google Scholar
Aos, Steve, and Drake, Elizabeth K.. 2010. WSIPP’s Benefit-Cost Tool for States: Examining Policy Options in Sentencing and Corrections. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Aos, Steve, Miller, Marna G., and Drake, Elizabeth K.. 2006. Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Barnett, W. Steven. 1993. “Cost-Benefit Analysis.” In Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27 , Schweinhart, Lawrence J., Barnes, Helen V., and Weikart, David P., pp. 142–73. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, W. Steven 1996. Lives in the Balance: Age-27 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, W. Steven, and Escobar, Colette M.. 1987. “The Economics of Early Educational Intervention: A Review.” Review of Educational Research 57: 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, Shelley, Zwi, Anthony B., Sainsbury, Peter, and Whitehead, Margaret. 2009. “Killer Facts, Politics and Other Influences: What Evidence Triggered Early Childhood Intervention Policies in Australia?” Evidence and Policy 5: 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, Anthony A., and Weisburd, David. 2010. Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1969. “Reforms as Experiments.” American Psychologist 24: 409–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crime and Justice Group, Campbell Collaboration. 2012. “Crime and Justice Reviews.” Retrieved from: (Accessed July 7, 2012).
Drake, Elizabeth K., Aos, Steve, and Miller, Marna G.. 2009. “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders 4: 170–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Delbert S., and Mihalic, Sharon F.. 2004. “Issues in Disseminating and Replicating Effective Prevention Programs.” Prevention Science 5: 47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrington, David P., and Petrosino, Anthony. 2001. “The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578: 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, David P., Weisburd, David, and Gill, Charlotte E.. 2011. “The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group: A Decade of Progress.” In Routledge Handbook of International Criminology, edited by Smith, Cindy J., Zhang, Sheldon X., and Barberet, Rosemary, pp. 53–63. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gest, Ted. 2001. Crime & Politics: Big Government’s Erratic Campaign for Law and Order. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, Peter W. 2006. Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-Control Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Peter W., and Welsh, Brandon C.. 2012. “Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in Delinquency Prevention at the State Level: Principles, Progress, and Policy Directions.” Criminology & Public Policy 11: 491–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Byron R., De Li, Spencer, Larson, David B., and McCullough, Michael. 2000. “A Systematic Review of the Religiosity and Delinquency Literature: A Research Note.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 16: 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, Martin. 1997. “Economic Evaluations and Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Mental Health Problems.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Layard, Richard, and Glaister, Stephen (eds.). 1994. Cost-Benefit Analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Stephanie, Aos, Steve, Drake, Elizabeth K., Pennucci, Anne, Miller, Marna G., and Anderson, Laurie. 2012. Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Reduce Statewide Outcomes. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
Lipsey, Mark W. 2003. “Those Confounded Moderators in Meta-Analysis: Good, Bad, and Ugly.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587: 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsey, Mark W., Howell, James C., Kelly, Marion R., Chapman, Gabrielle, and Carver, Darin. 2010. Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Lipsey, Mark W., and Howell, James C.. 2012. “A Broader View of Evidence-Based Programs Reveals More Options for State Juvenile Justice Systems.” Criminology & Public Policy, 11: 515–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsey, Mark W., and Wilson, David B.. 2001. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Lösel, Friedrich. 2012. “Toward a Third Phase of “What Works” in Offender Rehabilitation.” In The Future of Criminology, edited by Loeber, Rolf and Welsh, Brandon C., pp. 196–203. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Doris Layton. 2000. “Evidence-Based Corrections: Identifying What Works.” Crime and Delinquency 46: 457–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Doris Layton 2006. What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mears, Daniel P. 2007. “Towards Rational and Evidence-Based Crime Policy.” Journal of Criminal Justice 35: 667–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mears, Daniel P. 2010. American Criminal Justice Policy: An Evaluation Approach to Increasing Accountability and Effectiveness. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millenson, Michael L. 1997. Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mosteller, Frederick, and Boruch, Robert F. (eds.). 2002. Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2012. “About NICE: How We Work.” Retrieved from: (Accessed September 27, 2012).
Petrosino, Anthony. 2000. “How Can We Respond Effectively to Juvenile Crime?” Pediatrics 105: 635–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrosino, Anthony, Boruch, Robert F., Soydan, Haluk, Duggan, Lorna, and Sanchez-Meca, Julio. 2001. “Meeting the Challenges of Evidence-Based Policy: The Campbell Collaboration.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578: 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrosino, Anthony, and Lavenberg, Julia. 2007. “Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Best Evidence on ‘What Works’ for Criminal Justice Decision Makers.” Western Criminology Review 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
Petticrew, Mark, and Roberts, Helen. 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Center on the States. 2012. “Results First: Helping States Assess the Costs and Benefits of Policy Options and Use That Data to Make Decisions Based on Results.” Retrieved from: (Accessed May 17, 2012).
Prest, A. R., and Turvey, Ralph. 1965. “Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Survey.” Economic Journal 75: 683–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweinhart, Lawrence J., Montie, Jeanne, Zongping, Xiang, Barnett, W. Steven, Belfield, Clive R., and Nores, Milagros. 2005. Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W. 1998. Evidence-Based Policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W. 2003. “Misleading Evidence and Evidence-Led Policy: Making Social Science More Experimental.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W., Farrington, David P., Welsh, Brandon C., and MacKenzie, Doris Layton, eds. 2006. Evidence-Based Crime Prevention (rev. ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W., Gottfredson, Denise C., MacKenzie, Doris Layton, Eck, John E., Reuter, Peter, and Bushway, Shawn D.. 1997. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Skogan, Wesley G., and Frydl, Kathleen (eds.). 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Tonry, Michael, and Farrington, David P.. 1995. “Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention.” In Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, edited by Tonry, Michael and Farrington, David P., pp. 1–20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Weimer, David L., and Friedman, Lee S.. 1979. “Efficiency Considerations in Criminal Rehabilitation Research: Costs and Consequences.” In The Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problems and Prospects, edited by Sechrest, Lee, White, Susan O., and Brown, Elizabeth D., pp. 251–72. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Weinrott, Mark R., Jones, Richard R., and Howard, James R.. 1982. “Cost-Effectiveness of Teaching Family Programs for Delinquents: Results of a National Evaluation.” Evaluation Review 6: 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, Brandon C., and Farrington, David P.. 2011. “Evidence-Based Crime Policy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice, edited by Tonry, Michael, pp. 60–92. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Welsh, Brandon C., and Farrington, David P. (eds.). 2006. Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims, and Places. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, Brandon C., and Farrington, David P. (eds.). 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Welsh, Brandon C., Lipsey, Mark W., Rivara, Frederick P., Hawkins, J. David, Aos, Steve, and Hollis-Peel, Meghan E.. 2012. “Promoting Change, Changing Lives: Effective Prevention and Intervention to Reduce Serious Offending.” In From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention, edited by Loeber, Rolf and Farrington, David P., pp. 245–77. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, David B. 2001. “Meta-Analytic Methods for Criminology.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578: 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×