Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 9–38

Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades?

  • David P. Farrington
  • Brandon C. Welsh
Article

Abstract

This paper aims to review randomized experiments in criminology with offending outcomes and reasonably large numbers that were published between 1982 and 2004. A total of 83 experiments are summarized, compared with only 35 published between 1957 and 1981: 12 on policing, 13 on prevention, 14 on corrections, 22 on courts, and 22 on community interventions. Randomized experiments are still relatively uncommon, but there have been more large-scale multi-site experiments and replication programs. There have also been several experiments in which 100 or more places were randomly assigned. Relatively few experiments (only 10 out of 83) were conducted outside the United States. Meta-analyses suggest that prevention methods, correctional therapy, batterer programs, drug courts, juvenile restitution and deterrent policing were effective in reducing offending, while Scared Straight and boot camp programs caused a significant increase in offending.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahamse, A. F., Ebener, P. A., Greenwood, P. W., Fitzgerald, N. & Kosin, T. E. (1991). An experimental evaluation of the Phoenix Repeat Offender Program. Justice Quarterly 8, 141–168.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, T. A. (2003). The effect of moral reconation therapy on the recidivism of youthful offenders: A randomized experiment. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30, 668–687.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, W. H. & Butts, J. A. (1990). Viable options: Intensive supervision programs for juvenile delinquents. Crime and Delinquency 36, 238–256.Google Scholar
  4. Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R. & Western, B. (1992). A Bayesian analysis of the Colorado Springs spouse abuse experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83, 170–200.Google Scholar
  5. Borduin, C. M., Mann, B. J., Cone, L. T., Henggeler, S. W., Fucci, B. R., Blaske, D. M. & Williams, R. A. (1995). Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: Long-term prevention of criminality and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63, 569–578.Google Scholar
  6. Braga, A. A. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 104–125.Google Scholar
  7. Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D. L., Waring, E. J., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W. & Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37, 541–580.Google Scholar
  8. Britt, C. L., Gottfredson, M. R. & Goldkamp, J. S. (1992). Drug testing and pretrial misconduct: An experiment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on pretrial release. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29, 62–78.Google Scholar
  9. California Youth Authority. (1997). LEAD: A boot camp and intensive parole program: The final impact evaluation. Sacramento, CA: Department of the Youth Authority.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J. & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abercedarian project. Applied Developmental Science 6, 42–57.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, D. D. & Spirrison, C. L. (1992). Effects of a prisoner-operated delinquency deterrence program: Mississippi’s Project Aware. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 17, 89–99.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, R. C., Taylor, B. G. & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  13. Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S. & Greenwood, P. W. (1995a). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County’s drug court. Justice System Journal 18, 55–73.Google Scholar
  14. Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S. & Petersilia, J. (1995b). A dual experiment in intensive community supervision: Minnesota’s prison diversion and enhanced supervised release programs. Prison Journal 75, 330–356.Google Scholar
  15. Dugan, J. R. & Everett, R. S. (1998). An experimental test of chemical dependency therapy for jail inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 42, 360–368.Google Scholar
  16. Dunford, F. W. (1990). System-initiated warrants for suspects of misdemeanor domestic assualt: A pilot study. Justice Quarterly 7, 631–653.Google Scholar
  17. Dunford, F. W. (2000). The San Diego Navy Experiment: An assessment of interventions for men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68, 468–476.Google Scholar
  18. Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D. & Elliott, D. S. (1990). The role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police experiment. Criminology 28, 183–206.Google Scholar
  19. Eck, J. E. & Wartell, J. (1998). Improving the management of rental properties with drug problems: A randomized experiment. In L. G. Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention (pp. 161–185). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fagan, J. A. (1990). Treatment and reintegration of violent juvenile offenders: Experimental results. Justice Quarterly 7, 233–263.Google Scholar
  21. Farrington, D. P. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice, vol. 4 (pp. 257–308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Farrington, D. P. (2003a). A short history of randomized experiments in criminology: A meager feast. Evaluation Review 27, 218–227.Google Scholar
  23. Farrington, D. P. (2003b). British randomized experiments on crime and justice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589, 150–167.Google Scholar
  24. Farrington, D. P. (2003c). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587, 49–68.Google Scholar
  25. Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W. & Welsh, B. C. (2002). The Maryland scientific methods scale. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh & D. L. Mackenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 13–21). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (Eds.). (2001). What works in preventing crime? Systematic reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 578.Google Scholar
  27. Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (2003). Family-based prevention of offending: A meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 36, 127–151.Google Scholar
  28. Feder, L. (1998). Using random assignment in social science settings. Professional Ethics Report 11(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  29. Feder, L. & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counselling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Justice Quarterly 19, 343–375.Google Scholar
  30. Feder, L., Wilson, D. B. (2005). Mandated batterer programs to reduce domestic violence. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims and places. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, in press.Google Scholar
  31. Garner, J., Fagan, J. & Maxwell, C. (1995). Published findings from the spouse assault replication program: A critical review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11, 3–28.Google Scholar
  32. Goldkamp, J. S. & Jones, P. R. (1992). Pretrial drug-testing experiments in Milwaukee and Prince George’s County: The context of implementation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29, 430–465.Google Scholar
  33. Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S. & Kearly, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy 2, 171–196.Google Scholar
  34. Greenwood, P. W., Deschenes, E. P. & Adams, J. (1993). Chronic juvenile offenders: Final results from the Skillman aftercare experiment. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  35. Greenwood, P. W. & Turner, S. (1993a). Evaluation of the Paint Creek Youth Center: A residential program for serious delinquents. Criminology 31, 263–279.Google Scholar
  36. Greenwood, P. W. & Turner, S. (1993b). Private presentence reports for serious juvenile offenders: Implementation issues and impacts. Justice Quarterly 10, 229–243.Google Scholar
  37. Grossman, J. B. & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation Review 22, 403–426.Google Scholar
  38. Harrell, A. V., Cavanagh, S. E. & Sridharan, S. (1999). Evaluation of the Children at Risk program: Results 1 year after the end of the program. (Research in Brief). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  39. Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M. J., Scherer, D. G. & Hanley, J. H. (1997). Multisystemic theory with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65, 821–833.Google Scholar
  40. Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Randall, J., Ward, D. M., Pickrel, S. G., Cunningham, P. B., Miller, S. L., Edwards, J., Zealberg, J. J., Hand, L. D., & Santos, A. B. (1999). Home-based multisystemic therapy as an alternative to the hospitalization of the youths in psychiatric crisis: Clinical outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 38, 1331–1339.Google Scholar
  41. Henggeler, S. W., Clingempeel, W. G., Brondino, M. J. & Pickrel, S. G. (2002). Four-year follow-up of multisystemic therapy with substance-abusing and substance-dependent juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41, 868–874.Google Scholar
  42. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T. & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I. W. & Dean, C. W. (1992). The failure of arrest to deter spouse abuse. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29, 7–33.Google Scholar
  44. Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Hopper, R. M. & Harrizon, L. D. (1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues 27, 261–278.Google Scholar
  45. Killias, M., Aebi, M. & Ribeaud, D. (2000). Does community service rehabilitate better than short-term imprisonment? Results of a controlled experiment. Howard Journal 39, 40–57.Google Scholar
  46. Klein, M. W. (1986). Labeling theory and delinquency policy: An experimental test. Criminal Justice and Behavior 13, 47–79.Google Scholar
  47. Kling, J. R., Ludwig, J. & Katz, L. F. (2005). Neighborhood effects on crime for female and male youth: Evidence from a randomized housing voucher experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 120, in press.Google Scholar
  48. Land, K. C., McCall, P. L. & Williams, J. R. (1990). Something that works in juvenile justice: An evaluation of the North Carolina court counselors’ intensive protective supervision randomized experimental project, 1987–1989. Evaluation Review 14, 574–606.Google Scholar
  49. Latessa, E. J. & Moon, M. M. (1992). The effectiveness of acupuncture in an outpatient drug treatment program. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 8, 317–331.Google Scholar
  50. Leschied, A. & Cunningham, A. (2002). Seeking effective interventions for serious young offenders: Interim results of a four-year randomized study of multisystemic therapy in Ontario, Canada. London, Canada: London Family Court Clinic.Google Scholar
  51. Lewis, R. V. (1983). Scared straight – California style: Evaluation of the San Quentin Squires program. Criminal Justice and Behavior 10, 209–226.Google Scholar
  52. Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B. & Kider, S. B. (2001). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 126–143.Google Scholar
  54. Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Schepise, M. M., Hazzard, J. E. R., Merrill, J. C., Mulvaney, F. D. & McLellan, A. T. (2003). Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30, 141–162.Google Scholar
  55. Marques, J. K., Day, D. M., Nelson, C. & West, M. A. (1994). Effects of cognitive–behavioral treatment on sex offender recidivism: Preliminary results from a longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior 21, 28–54.Google Scholar
  56. Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H. & Fagan, J. A. (2002). The preventive effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: Research, policy, and theory. Criminology and Public Policy 2, 51–79.Google Scholar
  57. Mazerolle, L. G., Roehl, J. & Kadleck, C. (1998). Controlling social disorder using civil remedies: Results from a randomized field experiment in Oakland, California. In L. G. Mazerolle & Jan Roehl (Eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention (pp. 141–159). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  58. McAuliffe, W. E. (1990). A randomized controlled trial of recovery training and self-help for opioid addicts in New England and Hong Kong. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 22, 197–209.Google Scholar
  59. McCold, P. & Wachtel, T. (1998). Restorative policing experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania police family group conferencing project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation.Google Scholar
  60. McDonald, D. C., Greene, J. & Worzella, C. (1992). Day fines in American courts: The Staten Island and Milwaukee experiments. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  61. McGarrell, E., Olivares, K., Crawford, K. & Kroovand, N. (2000). Returning justice to the community: The Indianapolis restorative justice experiment. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute Crime Control Policy Center.Google Scholar
  62. Meeker, J. W. & Binder, A. (1990). Experiments as reforms: The impact of the “Minneapolis Experiment” on police policy. Journal of Police Science and Administration 17, 147–153.Google Scholar
  63. Mills, P. E., Cole, K. N., Jenkins, J. R. & Dale, P. S. (2002). Early exposure to direct instruction and subsequent juvenile delinquency: A prospective examination. Exceptional Children 69, 85–96.Google Scholar
  64. Mitchell, O., MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B. (2005). Incarceration-based drug treatment. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims and places. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, in press.Google Scholar
  65. Moher, D., Schulz, K. F. & Altman, D. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 285, 1987–1991.Google Scholar
  66. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P. & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 280, 1238–1244.Google Scholar
  67. Ortmann, R. (2000). The effectiveness of social therapy in prison: A randomized experiment. Crime and Delinquency 46, 214–232.Google Scholar
  68. Pate, A. & Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade County spouse assault experiment. American Sociological Review 57, 691–697.Google Scholar
  69. Peters, M., Thomas, D. & Zamberlan, C. (1997). Boot camps for juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Program Summary).Google Scholar
  70. Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1993a). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice (Research in Brief).Google Scholar
  71. Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1993b). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice, vol. 17 (pp. 281–335). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. Petrosino, A. J., Boruch, R. F., Rounding, C., McDonald, S. & Chalmers, I. (2000). The Campbell Collaboration Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (C2-SPECTR) to facilitate the preparation and maintenance of systematic reviews of social and educational interventions. Evaluation Research in Education 14, 293–307.Google Scholar
  73. Petrosino, A. J., Boruch, R. F., Farrington, D. P., Sherman, L. W. & Weisburd, D. (2003a). Toward evidence-based criminology and criminal justice: Systematic reviews, the Campbell Collaboration, and the Crime and Justice Group. International Journal of Comparative Criminology 3, 42–61.Google Scholar
  74. Petrosino, A. J., Turpin-Petrosino, C. & Buehler, J. (2003b). Scared straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589, 41–62.Google Scholar
  75. Rhodes, W. & Gross, M. (1997). Case management reduces drug use and criminality among drug-involved arrestees: An experimental study of an HIV prevention intervention. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  76. Richards, H. J., Casey, J. O. & Lucente, S. W. (2003). Psychopathy and treatment response in incarcerated female substance abusers. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30, 251–276.Google Scholar
  77. Robinson, D. (1995). The impact of cognitive skills training on post-release recidivism among Canadian federal offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada (Research Report R-41).Google Scholar
  78. Schneider, A. L. (1986). Restitution and recidivism rates of juvenile offenders: Results from four experimental studies. Criminology 24, 533–552.Google Scholar
  79. Schochet, P. Z., Burghardt, J. & Glazerman, S. (2001). National Job Corps study: The impacts of job corps on participants’ employment and related outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  80. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Zongping, X., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R. & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
  81. Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  82. Sherman, L. W. & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review 49, 261–272.Google Scholar
  83. Sherman, L. W. & Cohn, E. G. (1989). The impact of research on legal policy: The Minneapolis domestic violence experiment. Law and Society Review 23, 117–144.Google Scholar
  84. Sherman, L. W. & Rogan, D. P. (1995). Deterrent effects of police raids on crack houses: A randomized controlled experiment. Justice Quarterly 12, 755–781.Google Scholar
  85. Sherman, L. W. & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly 12, 625–648.Google Scholar
  86. Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., Smith, D. A., Gartin, P. R., Cohen, E. G., Collins, D. J. & Bacich, A. R. (1992). The variable effects of arrest on criminal careers: The Milwaukee domestic violence experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83, 137–169.Google Scholar
  87. Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J. E., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  88. Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C. & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Short, J. F., Zahn, M. A. & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Experimental research in criminal justice settings: Is there a role for scholarly societies? Crime and Delinquency 46, 295–298.Google Scholar
  90. Sontheimer, H. & Goodstein, L. (1993). An evaluation of juvenile intensive aftercare probation: Aftercare versus system response effects. Justice Quarterly 10, 197–227.Google Scholar
  91. Strang, H. & Sherman, L. W. (2005). Restorative justice to reduce victimization. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims and places. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, in press.Google Scholar
  92. Swanson, J. W., Borum, R., Swartz, M. S., Hiday, V. A., Wagner, H. R. & Burns, B. J. (2001). Can involuntary outpatient commitment reduce arrests among persons with severe mental illness? Criminal Justice and Behavior 28, 156–189.Google Scholar
  93. Tong, L. S. J. & Farrington, D. P. (2005). How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” program in reducing reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Psychology, Crime and Law, in press.Google Scholar
  94. Tremblay, R. E., Masse, L. C., Pagani, L. & Vitaro, F. (1996). From childhood physical aggression to adolescent maladjustment: The Montreal prevention experiment. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance use and delinquency (pp. 268–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  95. van Voorhis, P., Spruance, L. M., Ritchey, P. N., Listwan, S. J. & Seabrook, R. (2004). The Georgia cognitive skills experiment: A replication of Reasoning and Rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior 31, 282–305.Google Scholar
  96. Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review 27, 336–354.Google Scholar
  97. Weisburd, D. & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly 12, 711–735.Google Scholar
  98. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M. & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 50–70.Google Scholar
  99. Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2005). Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims and places. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, in press.Google Scholar
  100. Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Lowe, L. & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. Prison Journal 79, 321–336.Google Scholar
  101. Wilson, D. B., Allen, L. C., MacKenzie, D. L. (2004). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, in press.Google Scholar
  102. Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O. MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Criminology and Public Policy, in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • David P. Farrington
    • 1
  • Brandon C. Welsh
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of CriminologyCambridge UniversityCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Criminal JusticeUniversity of Massachusetts-LowellUSA

Personalised recommendations