Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 489–516 | Cite as

Are counter-terrorism strategies effective? The results of the Campbell systematic review on counter-terrorism evaluation research

Article

Abstract

The events of September 11th have led to massive increases in personal, commercial, and governmental expenditures on anti-terrorism strategies, as well as a proliferation of programs designed to fight terrorism. These increases in spending and program development have focused attention on the most significant and central policy question related to these interventions: Are these programs effective? To explore this question, this study reports the results of a Campbell Collaboration systematic review on evaluation research of counter-terrorism strategies. Not only did we discover an almost complete absence of evaluation research on counter-terrorism interventions, but from those evaluations that we could find, it appears that some interventions either did not achieve the outcomes sought or sometimes increased the likelihood of terrorism occurring. The findings dramatically emphasize the need for government leaders, policy makers, researchers, and funding agencies to support both outcome evaluations of these programs as well as efforts to develop an infrastructure to foster counter-terrorism evaluation research.

Key words

Campbell collaboration counter-terrorism evidence-based government accountability meta-analysis policy September 11th terrorism what works 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abadie, A. & Gardeazabal, J. (2001). The economic costs of conflict: A case control study for the Basque Country. NEBR Working Paper 8478. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Barros, C. P. (2003). An intervention analysis of terrorism: The Spanish Eta case. Defence and Peace Economics 14(6), 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisson, J. & Andrew, M. (2005). Psychological treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003388.pub2. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003388.pub2.
  4. Boruch, Robert F., Snyder, B. & DeMoya, D. (2000). The importance of randomized field trials. Crime and Delinquency 46, 156–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brophy-Baermann, B. & Conybeare, J. A. (1994). Retaliating against terrorism: Rational expectations and the optimality of rules versus discretion. American Journal of Political Science 38(1), 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cauley, J. & Im, E. (1988). Intervention policy analysis of skyjackings and other terrorist incidents. The American Economic Review 78(2), 27–31.Google Scholar
  7. Congressional Budget Office. (2002). The budget and economic outlook: Fiscal years 2003 to 2012. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States.Google Scholar
  8. Congressional Budget Office. (2005). The budget and economic outlook: Fiscal years 2006 to 2015. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  10. Crenshaw, M. (1992). Current research on terrorism: The academic perspective. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 15(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  11. Enders, W. & Sandler, T. (1993). The effectiveness of antiterrorism policies: A vector–autoregression–intervention analysis. The American Political Science Review 87(4), 829–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enders, W. & Sandler, T. (2000). Is transnational terrorism becoming more threatening? Journal of Conflict Resolution 44, 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enders, W., Sandler, T., & Cauley, J. (1990). UN conventions, terrorism, and retaliation in the fight against terrorism: An econometric evaluation. Terrorism and Political Violence 2(1), 83.Google Scholar
  14. Farrington, D. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrington, D. & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 58, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guinnessy, J. & Dawson, P. (2002). Terrorism drives Bush R and D money to defense and NIJ; The science funding flat in fiscal 2003. Physics Today 55, 30.Google Scholar
  17. Halkides, M. (1995). How not to study terrorism. Peace Review 7, 253–260.Google Scholar
  18. Hoffman, B. (1992). Current research on terrorism and low-intensity conflict. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 15, 25–37.Google Scholar
  19. Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland (Patten Commission). 1999. A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
  20. Issues in Science and Technology (Report). (2002). Federal R and D in FY 2002 will have biggest percentage gain in 20 years. Issues in Science and Technology 18, 23.Google Scholar
  21. Jefferson T., Demicheli, V., Deeks J., Graves, P., Pratt, M. & Rivetti, D. (1998). Vaccines for preventing anthrax. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000975. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000975.
  22. Kennedy, L. & Lum, C. (2003). Developing a foundation for policy relevant terrorism research in criminology. Prepared for the Center for the Study of Public Security, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  23. Landes, W. M. (1978). An economic study of U.S. aircraft hijackings, 1961–1976. Journal of Law and Economics 21, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lipsey, M. & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Applied social research methods series 49. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Macilwain, C. (2002). Bush goes to war as budget boosts R and D. Nature 415, 564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merari, A. (1991). Academic research and government policy on terrorism. In C. McCauley (Ed.), Terrorism research and public policy. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, R. (1988). The literature of terrorism. Terrorism 11, 63–87.Google Scholar
  28. Prunckun, H. & Mohr, P. (1997). Military deterrence of international terrorism: An evaluation of Operation El Dorado Canyon. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 20, 267–280.Google Scholar
  29. Romano, T. (1984). Terrorism: An analysis of the literature. Dissertation, Fordham University, Department of Sociology, Criminology and Penology.Google Scholar
  30. Rose, S., Bisson, J., Churchill, R. & Wessely, S. (2002). Psychological debriefing for preventing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000560. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000560.
  31. Schmid, A. P. & Jongman, A. J. (1988). Political terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, databases, theories and literature. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  32. Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for generalized causal inferences. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  33. Sherman, L. W. (2005). Enlightened Justice: Reducing Human Misery through Empirical Consequentialism. Presidential Panel at the 14th World Congress of Criminology. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  34. Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D. & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  36. Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C. & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence based crime prevention. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Silke, A. (ed.). (2004). Research on terrorism: Trends, achievements and failures. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  38. Silke, A. (2005). Fire of Iolaus: The role of state counter-measures in causing terrorism and what needs to be done. In T. Bjorgo (Ed.), Root causes of terrorism: Myths, reality and ways forward. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Stein, D. J., Zungu-Dirwayi, N., van der Linden, G. J. H. & Seedat, S. (2000). Pharmacotherapy for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD002795. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002795.
  40. Telhami, S. (2002). The Stakes: American in the Middle East - The Consequences of Power and the Choice for Peace. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Welsh, B. & Farrington, D. (2006). Closed-Circuit Television Surveillance. In B. Welsh & D. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Wilkinson, P. (1977). Terrorism and the liberal state. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Wilkinson, P. (1986). Terrorism and the Liberal State, rev. ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cynthia Lum
    • 1
  • Leslie W. Kennedy
    • 2
  • Alison Sherley
    • 2
  1. 1.Administration of Justice ProgramGeorge Mason UniversityManassasUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal Justice and Center for the Study of Public SecurityRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations