Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 475–479 | Cite as

Professionalizing the Practice of Public Policy in the Prevention of Violence

  • Kenneth A Dodge
Original Paper


The State of the Science Conference Statement on “Preventing Violence and Related Health-Risking Social Behaviors in Adolescents” accurately summarizes the state of knowledge regarding risk factors for violence and intervention efficacy. The Statement missed an opportunity, however, to move the field of prevention practice and policy forward by advocating for more systematic, central review of preventive interventions through a new federal regulatory body, such as an “FDA for Preventive Interventions.” This body would provide review of evidence-based programs and aid decision-making in funding. As a complement to this body, decision-makers also need guidelines in evidence-based practice in ambiguous circumstances, which characterize much of the reality of public policy. Therefore, this new regulatory body should be accompanied by guidelines for evidence-based practice in intervention and policy. Finally, in order to move forward both of these concepts, a National Academy of Sciences Panel should convene to deliberate how these concepts can be implemented.


Prevention Violence Public policy 


  1. Arum, R., & Beattie, I. (1999). High school experience and the risk of adult incarceration. Criminology, 37, 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2003). Bringing evidence-driven progress to crime and substance-abuse policy: A recommended federal strategy. Final report available at Scholar
  3. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2005). Initiative with U.S. Public Policy Schools To Provide Students With Skills in Evidence-Based Policymaking. Report available at Scholar
  4. Cho, H., Hallfors, D., & Sanchez, V. (2005). Evaluation of a high school peer group intervention for at-risk youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 363–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006). Deviant by design: The problem of deviant peer influences in intervention programs. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, & J. E. Lansford (Eds.), Interventions and policies that aggregate deviant youth, and strategies to optimize outcomes. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (1997). Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science. Available at Scholar
  8. Ennett, S. T., Tobler, N. S., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (1994). How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project D.A.R.E. outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 84(9), 1394–1401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feldman, R. A., Caplinger, T. E., & Wodarski, J. S. (1983). The Saint Louis Conundrum: The effective treatment of antisocial youth. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. James-Burdumy, S., Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Deke, J., Mansfield, W., & Pistorino, C. (2005). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: Final report. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Available at Scholar
  11. Kew, O. (2005). A vaccine disaster and its fateful shadow. Science, 310, 975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kingery, P. (2000). Zero tolerance: The alternative is education. Washington, DC: Hamilton Fish Institute.Google Scholar
  13. McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Offit, P.A. (2005). The Cutter Incident: How America's first polio vaccine led to the growing vaccine crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2004). Verdicts or inventions?: Interpreting results from randomized controlled experiments in criminology. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 372–376, 381–382.Google Scholar
  17. Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Glasziou, & Haynes, R. B. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (Third Ed). Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  18. Woody, S. R., Weis, J., & McLean, C. (2005). Empirically supported treatments: 10 years later. The Clinical Psychologist, 58, 5–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A Dodge
    • 1
  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations