Skip to main content

Implementing and evaluating crime prevention and control programs and policies

Crime, Law and Social Change volume 28, pages 287–310 (1997)Cite this article

Abstract

The history of crime prevention and control efforts in the United States has demonstrated little progressive improvement in our ability to deter crime. The major obstacles to implementing effective interventions and policies have been a weak scientific knowledge base about how to prevent crime, the research community's inability to effectively disseminate what is known about the causes of crime and to translate this knowledge into operational programs and policies, and a resistance on the part of practitioners and policy makers to evaluate programs and policies and to use this information in the development of new programs and policies. In the last decade, there have been major advances in our understanding about the causes of crime and we have now demonstrated the effectiveness of selected prevention programs. But there is little evidence that this scientific knowledge is informing current practice or policy. Problems in the dissemination of this information and the resistance to utilizing it remain. These problems are discussed and suggestions are made for addressing them. Our knowledge base remains modest, but it is now sufficient to inform policy and practice. The research community must work to do a better job of disseminating this information and overcoming the resistance to utilizing it before we will be successful in implementing effective crime prevention programs and policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. R. Martinson, 1974. "What Works?" Questions and Answers About Prison Reform. Public Interest, (June): 22–25.

  2. D. Lipton, R. Martinson and J. Wilks, The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment-A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies, 1975. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. Romig, Justice for Our Children, 1978. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  4. L. Sechrest, S.O. White and E.D. Brown, 1979 (eds.) The Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problems and Prospects. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Erickson and J. Gibbs, Punishment, Deterrence and Juvenile Justice, 1980. pp. 183–202, in D. Shichor and D.H. Kelly (eds.), Critical Issues in Juvenile Delinquency. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Martin, L. Sechrest and R. Redner, (eds.) 1981. New Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders.

  7. P.H. Tolan and N.G. Guerra, What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 1994.

  8. L.W. Sherman, D.C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter and S. Bushway, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising: A Report to the U.S. Congress, 1997. University of Maryland (unpublished).

  9. D.C. Gottfredson, School-Based Crime Prevention, 1997, pp. (5) 1–74, in L.W. Sherman, D.C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter and S. Bushway (eds.) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising: A Report to the United States Congress. University of Maryland (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  10. J.C. Howell, Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins and J.J. Wilson (eds.), 1995. Sourcebook on Serious Violence and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  12. L. Davis and P.H. Tolan, Alternative and Preventive Intervention, in P.H. Tolan and B.J. Cohler (eds.) Handbook of Clinical Research and Practice with Adolescents, 1993. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B. Krisberg and D. Onek, Proven Prevention and Intervention Programs for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, 1994. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

    Google Scholar 

  14. National Research Council, 1993. Losing Generations: Adolescents in High Risk Settings. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. McGuire, What Works: Reducing Re-Offending,1995. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  16. L. Dusenburg and M. Falco, Keeping Score: What Are We Getting for Our Federal Drug Control Dollars?, 1995. Washington, D.C.: Drug Strategies.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K.E. Powell and D.F. Hawkins, Youth Violence Prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1996, 12 (Supplement): 1–134.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M.W. Lipsey and D.B. Wilson, Effective Interventions for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Synthesis of Research, 1997. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington (forthcoming), Never Too Early, Never Too Late: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, 1997. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  20. D.P. Farrington, Early Developmental Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 1994, 4: 209–227.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P.W. Greenwood, K.E. Model, C.P. Rydell and J. Chiesa, Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits, 1996 (unpublished). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J.D. Hawkins, R.F. Catelano and J.Y.Miller, Risk and Protective Factors for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention. Psychologist Bulletin, 1992, 112: 64–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. J.O. Finckenauer, Scared Straight! and the Panacea Phenomenon, 1982. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R.L.Dukes, J.B. Ullman and J.A. Stein, Three-Year Follow-Up of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 1996, 20: 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  25. D. Bishop, C.E. Frazier, L. Lanza-Kadice and L. Winner, The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Does it Make a Difference? Crime and Delinquency, 1996, 42: 171–191.

    Google Scholar 

  26. T.J. Dishon and D.W. Andrews, Preventing Escalation in Problem Behaviors with High-Risk Young Adolescents: Immediate and 1-Year Outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1995, 63: 538–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. W. DeJong, A Short-Term Evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education): Preliminary Indicators of Effectiveness. Journal of Drug Education, 1987, 17: 279–294.

    Google Scholar 

  28. S.T. Ennett, N.S. Tobler, C.L. Ringwalt and R.L. Flewelling, How Effective is Drug Abuse Resistance Education?: A Meta Analysis of Project DARE Outcome Evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 1994, 84: 1394–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. D.W. Webster, The Unconvincing Case for School-Based Conflict Resolution. Health Affairs, 1993, 12 (4): 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. M.W. Lipsey, Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of Effects, 1992, pp. 83–128, in T. Cook et al. (eds.) Meta Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  31. M.W. Lipsey, Can Intervention Rehabilitate Serious Delinquents?: Research on the Central Premise of the Juvenile Justice System. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Future of the Juvenile Court, Philadelphia, 1997.

  32. M.R. Podkopacz and B. Field, The End of the Line: An Empirical Study of Judicial Waiver. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1996, 86: 449–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. J.W. Shaw and D.L. MacKenzie, 1992. The One-Year Community Supervision Performance of Drug Offenders and Louisiana DOC-Identified Substance Abusers Graduating from Shock Incarceration. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20: 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. D.L. MacKenzie, J.W. Shaw and C. Souryal, 1992. Characteristics Associated with Successful Adjustment to Supervision: A Comparison of Parolees, Probationers, Shock Participants and Shock Dropouts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19: 437–454.

    Google Scholar 

  35. D.L. MacKenzie and R.W. Brame, 1995. Shock Incarceration and Positive Adjustment during Community Supervision. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11: 111–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. J. Fagan, A. Schiff and P. Orden, The Comparative Impacts of Juvenile and Criminal Court Sanctions on Adolescent Felony Offenders, 1991. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. Fagan, 1996. The Comparative Advantage of the Juvenile versus Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism among Adolescent Felony Offenders. Law and Policy, 18: 77–112.

    Google Scholar 

  38. C.E. Frazier, D.M. Bishop and L. Lanza-Kaduce, 1997. "Get Tough" Juvenile Reforms: Does "Adultification" Make Matters Worse?, unpublished paper. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

  39. C.L. Clark, D.W. Aziz and D.L. MacKenzie, Shock Incarceration in New York: Focus on Treatment, 1994. National Institute of Justice, Program Focus. August, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  40. E.L. Cowles, T.C. Castellano and L.A. Gransky, "Boot Camp" Drug Treatment and Aftercare Interventions: An Evaluation Review. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, July, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

  41. S.W. Henggler, J.D. Rodnick, C.M. Bordvin, C.L. Hanson, S.M. Watson and J.R. Urey, Multisystemic Treatment of Juvenile Offenders: Effects on Adolescent Behavior and Family Interaction. Developmental Psychology, 1986, 22: 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. D.S. Elliott, Blueprints for Violence Prevention–Introduction, Volume 1. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado.

  43. G.J. Botvin, E. Baker, L. Dusenbury, E.M. Botvin and T. Diaz, Long-Term Follow-Up Results of a Randomized Drug Abuse Prevention Trial in a White Middle-Class Population. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 273: 1106–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. M.A. Pentz, D.P. MacKinnon, J.H. Dwyer, E.Y. Wang, W.B. Hansen, B.R. Flag and C.A. Johnson, Longitudinal Effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project on Regular and Experimental Smoking in Adolescents. Preventive Medicine, 1989, 18: 304–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. D.L. Olds, J. Eckenrode, H. Kitzman, C.R. Henderson, J. Powers, R. Cole, K. Sidora and P. Morris, Long-Term Effects of Home Visitation on Maternal Life Course and Child Abuse and Neglect: 15 Years Follow-Up at a Randomized Trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1997, 278: 637–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. A. Hahn, Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program (QUOP): Did the Program Work? A Report on the Post Secondary Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of the QUOP Program (1989-1993).Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Center for Human Resources.

  47. J.P. Tierney, J.B. Grossman and N.L. Resch, Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters, 1995. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

    Google Scholar 

  48. J. McCord, 1992. The Cambridge-Sommerville Study: A Pioneering Longitudinal-Experimental Study of Delinquency Prevention, pp. 196–209, in J. McCord and R. Tremblay (eds.), Preventing Anti-Social Behavior: Interventions from Birth to Adolescence. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. W.J. Shadish Jr., T.D. Cook and L.C. Leviton, 1991. Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  50. A deterrent effect is defined as the difference in outcome between experimental and control groups when the control group has received no treatment or planned intervention; it is the reduction in crime attributable to participation in the program compared to having no intervention. However, in most program evaluations, the experimental vs. control group comparisons involve alternative treatments or interventions and the difference in observed crime rates reflects the difference between these alternative programs. This is called a marginal deterrent effect and reflects the difference between receiving one treatment compared to another. Marginal deterrent effects may seriously under estimate the true deterrent effect of a program.

  51. J.A. Fox, 1996. Trends in Juvenile Violence: A Report to the United States Attorney General on Current and Future Rates of Juvenile Offending. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  52. H.N. Snyder and M. Sickmond, 1995. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  53. J.A. Mercy and Mark L. Rosenberg, 1997 (forthcoming). Preventing Firearm Violence in and around Schools, in D.S. Elliott, B. Hamburg and K.R. Williams (eds.), Violence in American Schools. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. A.J. Reiss and J.A. Roth, 1993. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. D. McDowall, C. Loftin and B. Wiersema, A Comparative Study of the Preventive Effects of Mandatory Sentencing Laws for Gun Crimes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1992, 83: 378–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. D. McDowall, C. Loftin and B. Wiersema, Easing Concealed Firearm Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1995, 86: 378–394.

    Google Scholar 

  57. D. Rossman, F. Paul, G.L. Pierce, J. McDevitt and W. Bowers, Massachusetts' Mandatory Minimum Sentence Gun Law: Enforcement, Prosecution and Defense Impact. Criminal Law Bulletin, 1980, 61: 160–163.

    Google Scholar 

  58. G.L. Pierce and W. Bowers, The Bartley-Fox Gun Law's Short-Term Impact on Crime in Boston, 1991. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 455: 120–137.

    Google Scholar 

  59. M.W. Klein, 1979. Deinstitutionalization and Diversion of Juvenile Offenders: A Litany of Impediments,1979, pp. 145–201, in N. Morris and M. Tonny (eds.) Crime and Justice, 1978. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. F.W. Dunford, D.W. Osgood and H. F. Weichelbaum, 1981. National Evaluation of Diversion Projects. Final Report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  61. F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968. Journal of Legal Study, 1975, 4: 133–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. D.M. Gottfredson and M.R. Gottfredson, 1980. Data for Criminal Justice Evaluation: Some Resources and Pitfalls, pp. 97–118, in M.W. Klein and K.S. Teilmann (eds.) The Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  63. J. Kitsuse and A. Cicourel, 1963. A Note on the Uses of Official Statistics. Social Problems, 11: 131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  64. D.S. Elliott, 1995. Lies, Damn Lies, and Arrest Statistics. The Sutherland Address, American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Boston.

  65. K.R. Williams, N.G. Guerra and D.S. Elliott, Human Development and Violence Prevention: A Focus on Youth, 1997. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  66. M.W. Lipsey, 1992. The Effect of Treatment on Juvenile Delinquents: Results from Meta-Analysis, pp. 131–143, in F. Losel, D. Bender and T. Bliesener (eds.) Psychology and Law. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  67. M.W. Klein and K.S. Teilmann, 1980. Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  68. D.T. Campbell, 1975. Reforms as Experiments, pp. 71–100, in: E.L. Struening and M. Guttentag (eds.) Handbook of Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  69. E.L. Struening and M. Guttentag (eds.) 1975. Handbook of Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  70. W. Edwards, Multiattribute Utility for Evaluation: Structures, Uses and Problems, 1980, pp. 177–216, in M. Klein and K.S. Teilmann (eds.) Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  71. J. Cohen, Selective Incapacitation: An Assessment. University of Illinois Law Review, 1984 (3): 253–290.

    Google Scholar 

  72. A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. Roth and C. Visher (eds.), 1986, " Criminal Careers" and "Career Criminals ."Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. J.H. Skolnick, A Critical Look at the National Drug Control Policy. Yale Law and Policy Review, 1990, 8: 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  74. J.H. Skolnick, What Not To Do About Crime? Criminology, 1995, 33: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. P.W. Greenwood, C.P. Rydell, A.F. Abrahamse, J.P. Caulkins, J. Chiesa, K.E. Model and S.P. Klen, 1994. Three Strikes and You're Out. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  76. P.W. Greenwood, K.E. Model and C. Rydell, 1995. The Cost Effectiveness of Early Intervention as a Strategy for Reducing Violent Crime. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  77. L.E. Ohlin, A.D. Miller and R.B. Coates, Juvenile Correctional Reform in Massachusetts, 1977. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  78. A.D. Miller, L.E. Ohlin and R.B. Coates, 1977. A Theory of Social Reform: Correctional Reform in Two States. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  79. A.D. Miller, R.B. Coates and L.E. Ohlin, 1980. Evaluating Correctional Systems under Normalcy and Change, pp. 593–610, in M.W. Klein and K.S. Teilmann (eds.) Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  80. L.T. Empey, 1980. Field Experimentation in Criminal Justice: Rationale and Design, pp. 143–167, in M.W. Klein and K.S. Teilmann (eds.) The Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Sharon Mihalic from the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado, worked with the author in the development of the Comprehensive Evaluation Plan.

  82. For a listing of established risk and protective factors for criminal behavior, see Howell, J.C. (ed.), Guide for Implementing the Comprehesive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, 1995. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  83. S. Kobrin, Outcome Variables in Program Evaluation: Crime, Control, Social Control and Justice, 1980, pp. 447–458, in M. Klein and K.S. Teilmann (eds.) Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Delbert S. Elliott

Authors
  1. Delbert S. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elliott, D.S. Implementing and evaluating crime prevention and control programs and policies. Crime, Law and Social Change 28, 287–310 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008285516978

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008285516978

Keywords

  • Crime Rate
  • Criminal Behavior
  • Crime Prevention
  • Deterrent Effect
  • Juvenile Offender