DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 423 321 UD 032 521

AUTHOR Sherman, Lawrence W.; Gottfredson, Denise C.; MacKenzie,Doris L.; Eck, John; Reuter, Peter; Bushway, Shawn D.

TITLE Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What'sPromising. Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice.

INSTITUTION Department of Justice, Washington, DC. National Inst. ofJustice.

REPORT NO NCJ-171676PUB DATE 1998-07-00NOTE 21p.

PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative (142)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adult Education; *Crime Prevention; Drug Education;

Educational Innovation; Elementary Secondary Education;Interpersonal Competence; Literature Reviews; PreschoolEducation; *Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation;*Research Methodology; Thinking Skills; *Training; UrbanYouth; Validity

ABSTRACTThis Research in Brief describes the scientific

methodologies used to perform a review of crime prevention programs and thendiscusses what research has shown to work, what it has shown not to work, andwhat approaches seem promising for crime prevention. The first step was toidentify and review reports evaluating the effectiveness of crime preventionprograms, looking for evidence about program impact. The Maryland Scale ofScientific Methods was developed to rank studies on overall internalvalidity, and it was used to rank the studies examined. Strong researchsupport for the efficacy of the following programs was found: (1) home visitsfor infants by nurses and other professionals; (2) preschool classes withweekly home visits by preschool teachers; (3) family therapy and parenttraining for delinquent and at-risk preadolescents; (4) organizationdevelopment for innovation in schools; (5) communication and reinforcement ofclear and consistent norms in schools; (6) teaching social competency; (7)

coaching high-risk youth in thinking skills; (8) vocational training forolder male offenders; (8) nuisance abatement action on landlords; (9) extrapolice patrols; (10) monitoring and incarceration of repeat offenders; (11)on-scene arrests for domestic abuse; (12) rehabilitation programs withrisk-focused treatments; and (13) therapeutic community treatment programsfor drug users in prison. Other approaches have been identified that do notwork, including such common techniques as individual and peer counseling ofstudents, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program, and some school-basedleisure time enrichment programs. Programs that are seen as promising,especially in schools, include training in thinking skills and improvedclassroom management and instructional techniques. (Contains 1 exhibit and145 references.) (SLD)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

ationalL

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffide of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

)3( This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

,uze 0-

1

us-CceETTMTC

Jeremy Travis, Director

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: A con-

gressionally mandated evaluation

of State and local crime prevention

programs funded by the U.S.

Department of Justice.

Key issues: What works to pre-

vent crime, especially youth vio-

lence? Out of all the hundreds of

different strategies used in com-

munities, families, schools, labor

markets, places, police, and crimi-

nal justice, which ones succeed,

and to what extent? What does

the scientific evidence suggest

about the effectiveness of federally

funded crime prevention?

Key findings: Very few opera-

tional crime prevention programs

have been evaluated using scien-

tifically recognized standards and

methodologies, including repeated

tests under similar and different

social settings. Based on a review

of more than 500 prevention pro-

gram evaluations meeting mini-

mum scientific standards, the

report concludes that there is mini-

mally adequate evidence to estab-

lish a provisional list of what

works, what doesn't, and what's

promising. The evidence is current

as of late 1996 when the literature

continued...

PIE

Preventing Crime: What Works,What Doesn't, What's Promisingby Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise C Gottfredson, Doris L. MacKenzie, John Eck,

Peter Reuter, and Shawn D. Bushway

Many crime prevention programs work.Others don't. Most programs have not yetbeen evaluated with enough scientificevidence to draw conclusions. Enoughevidence is available, however, to createprovisional lists of what works, whatdoesn't, and what's promising. Thoselists will grow more quickly if the Nationinvests more resources in scientificevaluations to hold all crime preventionprograms accountable for their results.

hat Works?

For infants: Frequent home visitsby nurses and other professionals.

For preschoolers: Classes with weeklyhome visits by preschool teachers.

For delinquent and at-riskpreadolescents: Family therapy andparent training.

For schools:

Organizational development forinnovation.Communication and reinforcement ofclear, consistent norms.Teaching of social competency skills.Coaching of high-risk youth in"thinking skills."

2

July 1998

These are the major conclusions of a1997 report to Congress, which was basedon a systematic review of more than 500scientific evaluations of crime preventionpractices. This Research in Brief summa-rizes the research methods and conclu-sions found in that report.

In 1996, a Federal law required theU.S. Attorney General to provide Con-gress with an independent review of the

For older male ex-offenders:Vocational training.

For rental housing with drug dealing:Nuisance abatement action on landlords.

For high-crime hot spots: Extra policepatrols.

For high-risk repeat offenders:

Monitoring by specialized police units.Incarceration.

For domestic abusers who areemployed: On-scene arrests.

For convicted offenders: Rehabilitationprograms with risk-focused treatments.

For drug-using offenders in prison:Therapeutic community treatmentprograms.

BEST il0FIc AVAILABLE

LIO

M g3TEIP GD MTSTO

Issues and Findingscontinued...

review was completed and is ex-

pected to change continually as

more program evaluation findings

are completed and reported.

Target audience: Federal, State,

and local policymakers; criminal

and juvenile justice professionals,

practitioners, and researchers; edu-

cators; and leaders of community

organizations promoting preven-

tion of crime, juvenile delinquency,

and drug abuse.

Updates: The most recent lists of

what works, what doesn't, and

what's promising are regularly

updated at the University of

Maryland Web site, http://

wvvw.preventingaime.org. The full

text of the 1997 report, this Re-

search in Brief, and annual updates

can all be downloaded from that

Web site.

effectiveness of State and local crimeprevention assistance programs fundedby the U.S. Department of Justice, "withspecial emphasis on factors that relateto juvenile crime and the effect of theseprograms on youth violence." The lawrequired that the review "employ rigorousand scientifically recognized standardsand methodologies." Framers of thelaw expected that the evaluation wouldmeasure:

"(a) reductions in delinquency, juvenilecrime, youth gang activity, youth sub-stance abuse, and other high-risk factors;(b) reductions in the risk factors in thecommunity, schools, and family environ-ments that contribute to juvenile vio-lence; and (c) increases in the protectivefactors that reduce the likelihood of de-linquency and criminal behavior."

After an external, peer-reviewed competi-tion, the National Institute of Justice se-lected the proposal of a group from theUniversity of Maryland's Department ofCriminology and Criminal Justice to per-form the review.

The review defined "crime prevention"broadly as any practice shown to result inless crime than would occur without thepractice. It also examined any programthat claims to prevent crime or drugabuse, especially youth violence, and, inaccordance with the congressional man-date, examined the effects of programs onrisk and protective factors for youth vio-lence and drug abuse.

Programs meeting any of these criteriawere classified into seven local institu-tional settings in which these practicesoperated:

In communities.

In families.

In schools.

In labor markets.

LILILI 2 EIDE

In places (such as businesses,hotels, and other locations).2

By police.

By criminal justice agencies afterarrest.

Crime prevention programs in each ofthese settings are legally eligible for Jus-tice Department crime prevention fund-ing. However, because Congress requiresthat most funding decisions about spe-cific programs be decentralized to Stateand local governments, no detailedbreakdown of funding is available by set-ting or by program. The review focusedon whether there is scientific evidencefavoring the types of programs that areeligible for funding, showing they canaccomplish their goals.

This Research in Brief describes the sci-entific methodologies used to perform thereview as well as the limitations of theavailable data. It then summarizes theconclusions reached by the authors to de-velop three separate lists of programs forwhich a minimum level of scientific evi-dence was available: what works, whatdoesn't, and what's promising. The textprovides more details on the evaluationsof each type of program as well as cita-tions to the sources of data the authorsreviewed to reach their conclusions.Note: The page references in brackets anditalics that follow the bibliographic cita-tions refer the reader to the pages in theprinted version of the full 1997 report toCongress where the authors discuss thetopics in greater detail.

The sdence of c[dmepreverrdonTo most practitioners, crime prevention isan art. But as the U.S. Congress indicatedin the law requiring this report, the artof crime prevention (like the art of medi-cine) can be evaluated and guided by the

3

ri 12 g3T,EPT GO up

science of measuring program effects.Scientific evaluations of crime preven-tion have both limitations and strengths.The major limitation is that scientificknowledge is provisional, because theaccuracy of generalizations to all pro-grams drawn from one or even severaltests of specific programs is alwaysuncertain. The major strength of scien-tific evaluations is that rules of scienceprovide a consistent and reasonablyobjective way to draw conclusions aboutcause and effect.

Limitations

Scientific knowledge is provi-sional. The most important limitationof science is that the knowledge it pro-duces is always becoming more re-fined, and therefore no conclusion ispermanent. All of the conclusions pre-sented in this Research in Brief, as inthe report to Congress, are provi-sionaljust as all scientific knowl-edge is provisional. As the U.S.Supreme Court noted in its analysisof scientific evidence in the case ofDaubert vs. Merrell Dow (1993),3 notheory (or program) of cause and effectcan ever be proved to be true. It canonly be disproved. Every test of atheory provides an opportunity to dis-prove it. The stronger the test and themore tests each theory survives, themore confidence we may have that thetheory is true. But all theories can bedisproved or, more likely, revised bynew findings. All conclusions reportedin this Research in Brief reflect thestate of scientific knowledge as of late1996 when the initial review was con-cluded. By the time this Research inBrief is published, new research re-sults may be available that wouldmodify the conclusions.

Generalizations are uncertain. Therules of science are relatively clear

about the way to test cause and effectin any given studya concept knownas "internal validity." The rules are farless clear, especially in social sci-ences, about how to judge how widelythe results of any study may be gener-alizeda concept known as "externalvalidity." The results of a very strong,internally valid test of how to reducechild abuse among rural, white teen-age mothers, for example, may or maynot generalize to a population of inner-city African-American mothers. Thetwo populations are clearly different,but the question of whether those dif-ferences change the effects of the pro-gram can best be answered by testingthe program in both populations.

There is a child abuse prevention pro-gram discussed below that has beenfound effective in both kinds of popu-lations (Olds et al., 1988). Many pre-vention programs, however, have beentested in only one kind of population.Tests that have reasonably strong in-ternal validity provide some evidencefor external validity, but the strength ofexternal validity cannot be assessedusing standard scientific methods andrules in the same way that we can as-sess internal validity. The test of theexternal validity or generalizability ofinternally valid results of an evalua-tion is continued testing, that is, repli-cation. Until replications become farmore common in crime preventionevaluations, the field will continue tosuffer from the uncertain external va-lidity of both positive and negativefindings.

StrengthsThe strength of the scientific method isthat there are widely agreed-uponrules for assessing the level of cer-tainty that a conclusion in any one testis correct. These rules are presented in

LEE 3 EEO

detail in standard texts, notably Cookand Campbell (1979). In the course ofpreparing this review, the authors de-veloped a shorthand means of summa-rizing these rules called the MarylandScale of Scientific Methods [see pp. 215 to 2-19 and the Appendix]. Thisscale was modified from a similar sys-tem for coding evaluations in a majorreview of drug prevention work per-formed by the Center for SubstanceAbuse Prevention (1995) and was laterfound to be similar to scales used toassess the internal validity of clinicaltrials in medicine (Millenson, 1997,p. 131). These standards for assessinginternal validity have been developedover the past century in a wide rangeof fields and are directly responsive tothe congressional mandate to employ"rigorous and scientifically recognizedstandards and methodologies" in pre-paring the report.

Research methodsDeciding what works in the preventionof crime called for applying rigorousmeans for determining which programshave had a demonstrated impact on thereduction of crime and delinquency.

The search for impactevaluationsThe first step was to identify and re-view reports evaluating the effective-ness of crime prevention programs.

Impact versus process evaluations.The primary factor used to select suchevaluations was evidence about theimpact of programs on crime. Manyevaluations funded by the FederalGovernmentperhaps the majorityare "process" evaluations describingwhat was done, rather than "impact"evaluations assessing what effect theprogram had on crime. While process

Tg3Te111Qk 1:3 TbG,6

evaluations can produce much valuabledata on the implementation of programsand the logic of their strategies, theycannot offer evidence as to whether theprograms "work" to prevent crime.Evaluations containing both processand impact measures provide the mostinformation, but they are rarely fundedor reported.

Crime and other effects. A relatedissue is whether an evaluation reportsthe impact of a program on other mea-sures besides crime. There are manypotential costs and benefits to any pro-gram. Evidence about these costs andbenefits might change the overall as-sessment of whether the programworks. This report, however, had a fo-cused mandate from Congress to con-centrate on crime impacts. BecauseCongress provided neither the time northe mandate to examine the other ef-fects programs might have, the reportgenerally disregarded those issues andexcluded any evaluation that lackedoutcome measures of crime or crimerisk factors.

Published and unpublished re-ports. With only 6 months to producethe report, we limited our search forscientific evidence to readily availablesources. Most accessible were theevaluations that had been published inscientific journals, as well as severalreviews of such studies that had re-cently been completed. With the assis-tance of the National Institute ofJustice, we were also able to locatesome unpublished evaluations. Wemade every effort to be comprehen-sive, in that no eligible study that waslocated was excluded. However, thereis a large "fugitive" literature of un-published crime prevention evalua-tions that could not be tapped in thisstudy, including some that undoubt-edly have been published outside the

mainstream outlets in criminology,such as governmental reports in othercountries.

We anticipate that as this project con-tinues, new reports will be found thatmay modify some conclusions and willcertainly improve the strength of theevidence. The project has clearly dem-onstrated the need for a central regis-try of crime prevention evaluations sothat all findings, published or unpub-lished, can be integrated into theknowledge base. Because there is awidely reported bias against publish-ing reports of statistically insignificantdifferences, the existence of a registrywould improve the scientific basis forthe conclusions reported in this Re-search in Brief. This would help rein-force the value of learning what doesnot work as well as what does. Bothkinds of findings are essential for thescientific method.

The Mary0and Scale ofScienVfk Methods

We developed and employed theMaryland Scale of Scientific Methodssummarized below, ranking each studyfrom 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest) onoverall internal validity. There were afew modest differences across theseven settings cited earlier in the exactcoding rules for scoring an evaluation,generally based on differences in theevaluation literature across these set-tings [see pp. 2-18 to 2-19]. The ap-pendix to the full report shows the fullrating instrument for seven differentdimensions of the methods used ineach study, but this instrument couldnot be used for coding studies fromsecondary reviews or meta-analyses.

What could be used with greatest con-sistency, for both individual evalua-tions, secondary reviews, and meta-

0111111 4 0E10

analyses, was an overall rating basedprimarily on three factors:

Control of other variables in theanalysis that might have been the truecauses of any observed connectionbetween a program and crime.

Measurement error from suchthings as subjects lost over time or lowinterview response rates.

Statistical power to detect pro-gram effects (including sample size,base rate of crime, and other factorsaffecting the likelihood of the studydetecting a true difference not due tochance).

Research design. Exhibit 1 summa-rizes the key elements in the scoring ofevaluations. The scientific issues forinferring cause and effect vary some-what by setting, and the specific crite-ria for applying the scientific methodsscale vary accordingly. Issues such as"sample attrition," or subjects drop-ping out of treatment or measurement,for example, do not apply to mostevaluations of commercial securitypractices. But across all settings, thescientific methods scale does includethese core criteria, which define thefive levels of the Maryland Scale ofScientific Methods:

Level 1. Correlation between a crimeprevention program and a measure ofcrime or crime risk factors at a singlepoint in time.

Level 2. Temporal sequence betweenthe program and the crime or risk out-come clearly observed, or the presenceof a comparison group without demon-strated comparability to the treatmentgroup.

Level 3. A comparison between two ormore comparable units of analysis, onewith and one without the program.

5

Level 4. Comparison between multipleunits with and without the program,controlling for other factors, or usingcomparison units that evidence onlyminor differences.

Level 5. Random assignment andanalysis of comparable units to pro-gram and comparison groups.

Threats to internal validity. The sci-entific importance of these elements isillustrated in the bottom half of exhibit1, showing the extent to which eachlevel on the scientific methods scalecontrols for various threats to internal

validity. The main threats to validity in-dicated in the four columns are these:

Causal direction, the question ofwhether the crime caused the programto be present or the program causedthe observed level of crime.

History, the passage of time orother factors external to the programthat may have caused a change incrime rather than the prevention pro-gram itself.

Chance factors, or events withinthe program group (such as imprison-ing a few active offenders), that could

Li

have been the true cause of any mea-sured change in crime.

Selection bias, or factors charac-terizing the group receiving a program,that independently affect the observedlevel of crime.

As exhibit 1 shows, each higher levelof the Maryland scale from weakest tostrongest removes more of thesethreats to validity, with the highestlevel on the scale generally controllingall four of them and the bottom levelsuffering all four. The progressive re-moval of such threats to demonstrating

Exhibit 1: The Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods

A. Research Designs

Before-After Control Multiple Units Randomization

Methods Score

Level 1 0 0 X 0

Level 2 X 0 0* 0

Level 3 X X 0 0

Level 4 X X X 0

Level 5 X X X X

B. Threats to Internal Validity

Causal Direction History Chance Factors Selection Bias

Methods Score

Level 1 X X X X

Level 2 0 X X X

Level 3 0 0 X X

Level 4 0 0 0 X

Level 5 0 0 0 0

Key: X = present0 = absent

*Except where a comparison unit is employed without demonstrated comparability.

DEE 5 EIDE6

;t. [3 g

the causal link between the programeffect and crime is the logical basis forthe increasing confidence scientistsput into studies with fewer threats tointernal validity (Cook and Campbell,1979).

Decng what worksThe current state of the research-based evidence creates a dilemma inresponding to the congressional man-date: How high should the threshold ofscientific evidence be for answeringthe congressional question about pro-gram effectiveness? A very conserva-tive approach might require at leasttwo level 5 studies showing that a pro-gram is effective (or ineffective), withthe preponderance of the remainingevidence in favor of the same conclu-sion. Employing a threshold that high,however, would leave very little to sayabout crime prevention, based on theexisting science. There is a cleartradeoff between the level of certaintyin the answers that can be given toCongress and the level of useful infor-mation that can be gleaned from theavailable science. The report takes themiddle road between reaching veryfew conclusions with great certaintyand reaching very many conclusionswith very little certainty.

Based on the scientific strength andsubstantive findings of the availableevaluations, the report classifies allprograms into one of four categories:what works, what doesn't, what's prom-ising, and what's unknown. The crite-ria for classification applied across allseven institutional settings are as fol-lows [see more detailed definitions onpp. 2-20 to 2-21 of the full report]:

What works. These are programsthat we are reasonably certain preventcrime or reduce risk factors for crime

in the kinds of social contexts in whichthey have been evaluated and forwhich the findings can be generalizedto similar settings in other places andtimes. Programs coded as "working"by this definition must have at leasttwo level 3 evaluations with statisticalsignificance tests and the preponder-ance of all available evidence showingeffectiveness.

What doesn't work. These areprograms that we are reasonably cer-tain from available evidence fail toprevent crime or reduce risk factors forcrime, using the identical scientificcriteria used for deciding what works.Programs coded as "not working" bythis definition must have at least twolevel 3 evaluations with statisticalsignificance tests showing ineffective-ness and the preponderance of allavailable evidence supporting thesame conclusion.

What's promising. These are pro-grams for which the level of certaintyfrom available evidence is too low tosupport generalizable conclusions, butfor which there is some empirical basisfor predicting that further researchcould support such conclusions. Pro-grams are coded as "promising" if theywere found effective in at least onelevel 3 evaluation and the preponder-ance of the remaining evidence.

What's unknown. Any programnot classified in one of the three abovecategories is defined as having un-known effects.

The weakest aspect of this classificationsystem is that there is no standardmeans for determining external validity:exactly what variations in programcontent and setting might affect thegeneralizability of findings from existingevaluations. In the current state of sci-ence, that can be accomplished only by

DEE 6 DOE

7

the accumulation of many tests in manysettings with all major variations on theprogram theme. None of the programsreviewed for this report have accumu-lated such a body of knowledge so far.The conclusions drawn in the reportabout what works and what doesn'tshould be read, therefore, as more cer-tain to the extent that all conditions ofthe programs that were evaluated (e.g.,population demographics, program ele-ments, social context) are replicated inother settings. The greater the differ-ences on such dimensions betweenevaluated programs and other programsusing the same name, the less certainthe application of this report's conclu-sions must be.

What works?Programs similar in preventionapproach and social setting to theevaluations cited for each programdiscussed below are reasonably likely,but not guaranteed, to be effective inpreventing some form of crime or drugabuse. Each program type assessed as44 working" or "effective" meets thestandard of having two or more evalua-tions (as cited below) that were codedlevel 3 or higher on the MarylandScale of Scientific Methods, and a pre-ponderance of other evidence, in sup-port of this conclusion.

in communities

Using this standard, there are no com-munity-based crime prevention pro-grams proved to be effective atpreventing crime. Several, however,can be found on the list of promisingprograms, which have at least oneevaluation at level 3 or higher showinga crime reduction effect and a prepon-derance of other evidence supportingthe same conclusion.

Tg3GE.PC 8 up I 1 3 r e G.

in families

Frequent home visits to infants aged0-2 by trained nurses and other help-ers reduce child abuse and other inju-ries to the infants (Gray et al., 1979;Larson, 1980; Olds, 1986, 1988;Barth, Hacking, and Ash, 1988)[see pp. 4-10 to 4-15].

Preschool and weekly homevisits by teachers to children under5 substantially reduce arrests at leastthrough age 15 (Lally et al., 1988) andup to age 19 (Berrueta-Clement et al.,1985) [see pp. 4-10 to 4-15].

Family therapy and parenttraining about delinquent andat-risk preadolescents reduce riskfactors for delinquency such as aggres-sion and hyperactivity (review byTremblay and Craig, 1995) [see pp.4-19 to 4-24].

hat Doesn't Work

in schoois

Building school capacity toinitiate and sustain innovationthrough the use of school teamsor other organizational develop-ment strategies reduces crime anddelinquency (D. Gottfredson, 1986,1987; Kenney and Watson, 1996)[see pp. 5-15 to 5-17].

Clarifying and communicatingnorms about behavior through rules,reinforcement of positive behavior,and schoolwide initiatives (such asantibullying campaigns) reduces crimeand delinquency (Mayer et al., 1983;Olweus, 1991, 1992) and substanceabuse (Institute of Medicine, 1994;Hansen and Graham, 1991) [see pp.5-17 to 5-20].

Social competency skills curricu-lums, such as Life Skills Training

Gun "buyback" programs.

Community mobilization against crime in high-crime poverty

areas.

Police counseling visits to homes of couples days after

domestic violence incidents.

Counseling and peer counseling of students in schools.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.).

Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional

appeals, including self-esteem.

School-based leisure-time enrichment programs.

Summer jobs or subsidized work programs for at-risk youth.

Short-term, nonresidential training programs for at-risk youth.

Diversion from court to job training as a condition of case

dismissal.

Neighborhood watch programs organized with police.

(L.S.T.), which teach over a long pe-riod of time such skills as stress man-agement, problem solving, self-control,and emotional intelligence, reducedelinquency, and substance abuse(Botvin, et al., 1984; Weissberg andCaplan, 1994), or conduct problems(Greenberg et al., 1995) [see pp. 5-29to 5-31; 5-36 to 5-38].

Training or coaching in think-ing skills for high-risk youth usingbehavior modification techniques orrewards and punishments reduces sub-stance abuse (Lochman et al., 1984;Bry, 1982; Lipsey, 1992) [see pp. 5-43to 5-46].

Iln labor markets

Ex-offender job training forolder males no longer under criminaljustice supervision reduces repeat

Arrests of juveniles for minor offenses.

Arrests of unemployed suspects for domestic assault.

Increased arrests or raids on drug market locations.

Storefront police offices.

Police newsletters with local crime information.

Correctional boot camps using traditional military basic training.

"Scared Straight" programs whereby minor juvenile offenders

visit adult prisons.

Shock probation, shock parole, and split sentences adding jail

time to probation or parole.

Home detention with electronic monitoring.

Intensive supervision on parole or probation (ISP).

Rehabilitation programs using vague, unstructured counseling.

Residential programs for juvenile offenders using challenging

experiences in rural settings.

DOD 7 Opp

ni2 gGE.CF CC GO 13 Cr MG' 6

offending (Mallar and Thornton, 1978;Piliavin and Masters, 1981) [see pp. 610,6-14 to 6-17].

On places

Nuisance abatement threateningcivil action against landlords for notaddressing drug problems on the pre-mises reduces drug dealing and crimein privately owned rental housing(Green, 1993, 1995; Eck and Wartell,1996) [see pp. 7-11 to 7-12].

By police

Extra police patrols in high-crime hot spots reduce crime inthose places (Press, 1971; Chaiken etal., 1975; Chaiken, 1978; Shermanand Weisburd, 1995; Koper, 1995)[see pp. 8-13 to 8-15].

Repeat offender units that reducethe time on the streets of known high-risk repeat offenders by monitoringthem and returning them to prisonmore quickly than when they are notmonitored reduces their crimes (Mar-tin and Sherman, 1986; Abrahamse etal., 1991) [see pp. 8-20 to 8-21].

Arresting domestic abusers re-duces repeat domestic abuse by em-ployed suspects (Sherman and Smith,1992; Pate and Hamilton, 1992; Berket al., 1992a, 1992b) as well as offend-ers living in neighborhoods wheremost households have an employedadult (Marciniak, 1994) [see pp. 8-16to 8-20].

By criminal justice agendesafter arrest

Incarceration of offenders whowill continue to commit crime pre-vents crimes they would commit on thestreet, but the number of crimes pre-vented by locking up each additionaloffender declines with diminishing re-

turns as less active or serious offend-ers are incarcerated (Visher, 1987;Cohen and Canela-Cacho, 1994) [seepp. 9-6 to 9-11].

Rehabilitation programs foradult and juvenile offenders usingtreatments appropriate to their riskfactors reduces their repeat offendingrates (Andrews et al., 1990; Liptonand Pearson, 1996) [see pp. 9-15 to9-19].

Drug treatment in prison intherapeutic community programs re-duces repeat offending after releasefrom prison (Wexler et al., 1992, 1995;Martin et al., 1995) [see pp. 9-41 to9-43].

What doesn't work?

In communities

Gun buyback programs operatedwithout geographic limitations on theeligibility of people providing guns formoney fail to reduce gun violence incities, as evaluated in St. Louis andSeattle (Rosenfeld, 1995; Callahan etal., 1995) [see pp. 3-28 to 3-30].

Community mobilization of resi-dents' efforts against crime inhigh-crime, inner-city areas of concen-trated poverty fails to reduce crime inthose areas (review by Hope, 1995)[see pp. 3-9 to 3-10].

On families

Home visits by police to couplesafter domestic violence incidentsto provide counseling and monitoringfailed to reduce repeat violence inDade County, Florida, after either anarrest had been made or after a warn-ing had been issued (Pate et al., 1991),and in public housing projects in NewYork City (Davis and Taylor, 1997)[see pp. 4-16 to 4] 8].

ODD 8 LIDO

In schools

Individual counseling and peercounseling of students fail to reducesubstance abuse or delinquencyand can increase delinquency(Gottfredson, 1986; G. Goufredson,1987; Lipsey, 1992) [see pp. 5-46 to5-48].

Drug Abuse Resistance Educa-tion (D.A.R.E.), a curriculum taughtby uniformed police officers primarilyto 5th and 6th graders over 17 lessons,fails to reduce drug abuse when theoriginal D.A.R.E. curriculum (pre-1993) is used (Ringwalt et al., 1994;Rosenbaum et al., 1994; Clayton et al.,1996) [see pp. 5-28 to 5-29,5-32 to5-36].

Instructional programs focusingon information dissemination,fear arousal, moral appeal, self-esteem, and affective educationfail to reduce substance abuse (reviewby Botvin, 1990) [see p. 5-29].

School-based leisure-time en-richment programs, including su-pervised homework and self-esteemexercises, fail to reduce delinquencyrisk factors or drug abuse (Botvin,1990; Hansen, 1992; Ross et al.,1992; Stoil et al., 1994; Cronin, 1996)[see pp. 5-48,5-50 to 5-53].

in labor markets

Summer job or subsidized workprograms for at-risk youth fail toreduce crime or arrests (Maynard,1980; Piliavin and Masters, 1981;Ahlstrom and Havighurst, 1982)[see pp. 6-18 to 6-25].

Short-term, nonresidentialtraining programs for at-risk youth,including JTPA (Job Training andPartnership Act) and a more intensiveversion of JTPA called JOBSTART,

9

fail to reduce crime (Cave et al., 1993;Bloom et al., 1994) [see pp. 6-18 to6-22].

Diversion from court to jobtraining for adult offenders as a con-dition of case dismissal fails to reducerepeat offending during or after anadult program (Vera Institute, 1970;Baker and Sadd, 1981) and increasedoffending in a juvenile program(Leiber and Mawhorr, 1995) [see pp.6-16,6-13].

On places

Using the same assessment standard,there are as yet no place-focusedcrime prevention programs proved tobe ineffective. However, relative toother areas of crime prevention, fewplace-focused crime prevention meth-ods have been studied by criminolo-gists in the United States.

By police

Neighborhood watch programsorganized with police fail to reduceburglary or other target crimes, espe-cially in higher crime areas wherevoluntary participation often fails(Rosenbaum, 1986; Pate et al., 1987)[see pp. 8-25 to 8-27].

Arrests of juveniles for minoroffenses cause them to become moredelinquent in the future than if policeexercise discretion to merely warnthem or use other alternatives to for-mal charging (Farrington, 1977; Klein,1986) [see pp. 8-16 to 8-18].

Arrests of unemployed suspectsfor domestic assault cause higherrates of repeat offending over the longterm than nonarrest alternatives(Sherman and Smith, 1992; Pate andHamilton, 1992) [see pp. 8-16 to8-20].

Increased arrests or raids ondrug markets fail to reduce violentcrime or disorder for more than a fewdays, if at all (Sviridoff et al., 1992;Annan and Skogan, 1993; Shermanand Rogan, 1995b) [see pp. 8-20 to8-25].

Storefront police offices fail toprevent crime in the surrounding areas(Wycoff and Skogan, 1986; Uchida etal., 1992) [see pp. 8-25 to 8-29].

Police newsletters with localcrime information failed to reducevictimization rates in Newark, NewJersey, and Houston, Texas (Pate etal., 1986) [see pp. 8-26 to 8-28].

By criminal jtustice agendesafter arrest

Correctional boot camps usingtraditional military basic trainingfail to reduce repeat offending afterrelease compared to having similaroffenders serve time on probation orparole, both for adults (Flowers, Can,and Ruback, 1991; MacKenzie, 1991,MacKenzie et al., 1995) and for juve-niles (Peters, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c;Bottcher et al., 1996) [see pp. 9-27 to9-31].

"Scared Straight" programs bring-ing minor juvenile offenders to visitmaximum security prisons to see theseverity of prison conditions fail toreduce the participants' reoffendingrates and may increase crime(Finckenauer, 1982; Buckner andChesney-Lind, 1983; Lewis, 1983)[see pp. 9-14 to 9-15].

Shock probation, shock parole,and split sentences, in which offend-ers are incarcerated for a short periodof time at the beginning of the sen-tence and then supervised in the com-munity, do not reduce repeat offendingcompared to the placement of similar

00E 9 00010

offenders only under community su-pervision and increase crime rates forsome groups (Vito and Allen, 1981;Vito, 1984; Boudouris and Turnbull,1985) [see pp. 9-14 to 9-15].

Home detention with electronicmonitoring for low-risk offendersfails to reduce offending compared tothe placement of similar offenders un-der standard community supervisionwithout electronic monitoring (Baumerand Mendelsohn, 1991; Austin andHardyman, 1991) [see pp. 9-24 to9-25].

Intensive supervision on paroleor probation (ISP) does not reducerepeat offending compared to normallevels of community supervision,although there are some exceptions;findings vary by site (Petersilia andTurner, 1993; Deschenes et al., 1995)[see pp. 9-19 to 9-24].

Rehabilitation programs usingcounseling that does not specificallyfocus on each offender's risk factorsfail to reduce repeat offending (frommeta-analysis by Lipsey, 1992)[see pp. 9-15 to 9-19].

Residential programs for juve-nile offenders in rural settings using"outward bound," wilderness, chal-lenge, or counseling programs fail toreduce repeat offending significantlyin comparison to standard trainingschools (Deschenes et al., 1996a;Greenwood and Turner, 1993)[see pp. 9-33 to 9-37].

What's prorrdsing?

In communities

Gang offender monitoring byconununity workers and proba-tion and police officers can reducegang violence (review by Howell,1995), although similar programs can

ri &5TE117

hat's Promising?

Proactive drunk drivingarrests with breath testing (mayreduce accident deaths).

Community policing with meetingsto set priorities (may reduce percep-tions of crime).

Police showing greater respect toarrested offenders (may reducerepeat offending).

Polite field interrogations of suspi-cious persons (may reduce streetcrime).

Mailing arrest warrants to domes-tic violence suspects who leave thescene before police arrive.

Higher numbers of police officersin cities (may reduce crime generally).

Gang monitoring by communityworkers and probation andpolice officers.

Community-based mentoring byBig Brothers/Big Sisters of America(may prevent drug abuse).

Community-based afterschoolrecreation programs (may reducelocal juvenile crime).

Battered women's shelters (mayhelp some women reduce repeatdomestic violence).

"Schools within schools" thatgroup students into smaller units(may prevent crime).

Training or coaching in "thinking"skills for high-risk youth (mayprevent crime).

Building school capacity throughorganizational development (mayprevent substance abuse).

Improved classroom managementand instructional techniques (mayreduce alcohol use).

Job Corps residential trainingprograms for at-risk youth (mayreduce felonies).

Prison-based vocational educationprograms for adult inmates (inFederal prisons).

Moving urban public housingresidents to suburban homes (mayreduce risk factors for crime).

Enterprise zones (may reduce areaunemployment, a risk factor for crime).

Two clerks in already-robbedconvenience stores (may reducerobbery).

Redesigned layout of retail stores(may reduce shoplifting).

Improved training and manage-ment of bar and tavern staff (mayreduce violence, DUI).

Metal detectors (may reduce skyjack-ing, weapon carrying in schools).

Street closures, barricades, andrerouting (may reduce violence,burglary).

"Target hardening" (may reducevandalism of parking meters and crimeinvolving phones).

"Problem-solving" analysis uniqueto the crime situation at eachlocation.

Proactive arrests for carryingconcealed weapons (may reducegun crime).

Drug courts (may reduce repeatoffending).

Drug treatment in jails followed byurine testing in the community.

Intensive supervision and aftercareof juvenile offenders (both minorand serious).

Fines for criminal acts.

1 1II CI El 1 0 El II E

increase gang crime if they increasegang cohesion (Klein, 1968) [see pp.

3-10 to 3-19].

Community-based mentoringby Big Brothers/Big Sisters ofAmerica substantially reduced drugabuse in one experiment (rated level 5on the Maryland Scale) (Tierney andGrossman, 1995), although evaluationsof other programs with mentoring as amajor component did not (McCord,1978, 1992; Fo and O'Donell, 1974,1975) [see pp. 3-21 to 3-26].

Community-based afterschoolrecreation programs may reduce ju-venile crime in the areas immediatelyaround the recreation center (reviewby Howell, 1995) [see pp. 3-26 to3-28]. Similar programs based inschools, however, have failed to pre-vent crime[see pp. 5-48,5-50 to5-53].

On families

Battered women's shelters werefound to reduce at least the short-term(6-week) rate of repeat victimizationfor women who take other steps to seekhelp beyond staying in the shelter inSanta Barbara (Berk et al., 1986)[see p. 4-26].

On schools

"Schools within schools" pro-grams such as Student TrainingThrough Urban Strategies (STATUS)that group students into smaller unitsfor more supportive interaction orflexibility in instruction have reduceddrug abuse and delinquency(Gottfredson, 1990) [see pp. 5-26 to5-27].

Training or coaching in think-ing skills for high-risk youth usingbehavior modification techniques orrewards and punishments may reduce

delinquency (Bry, 1982), and can re-duce substance abuse [see pp. 5-43 to5-46].

Building school capacity toinitiate and sustain innovationthrough the use of school teamsor other organizational develop-ment strategies worked to reduce de-linquency and substance abuse in onestudy (D. Gottfredson, 1986) [see pp.

5-15 to 5-17].

Improved classroom manage-ment and instructional techniquesreduced alcohol use in one study(Battistich et al., 1996) [see p. 5-25].

On labor markets

Job Corps, an intensive residentialtraining program for at-risk youth, inone study reduced felony arrests for 4years after participants left the pro-gram and increased earnings andeducational attainment (Mallar et al.,1982), although it also producedhigher rates of misdemeanor and traf-fic arrests [see pp. 6-23 to 6-25].

Prison-based vocational educa-tion programs for adult inmates inFederal prisons can reduce postreleaserepeat offending (Saylor and Gaes,1993), although the evidence is un-clear as to which of several vocationaleducation programs had the effect andwhether the effect was achievedthrough higher rates of employment[see p. 6-15].

Dispersing inner-city publichousing residents to scattered-sitesuburban public housing by rentalof single units in middle-incomeneighborhoods reduced risk factors forcrime, including high school dropoutrates and parental unemployment(Rosenbaum, 1992) [see pp. 6-25 to6-28].

Enterprise zones with tax-breakincentives in areas of extremely highunemployment reduced adult unem-ployment rates in the targeted neigh-borhoods (a risk factor for crime) inIndiana (Papke, 1994), although not inNew Jersey (Boarnet and Bogart, 1996)[see pp. 6-29 to 6-35; 6-40 to 6-41].

On pOaces

Adding a second clerk may re-duce robberies in already robbedconvenience stores but probablydoes not prevent robberies in conve-nience stores that have never beenrobbed (National Association of Con-venience Stores, 1991) [see pp. 7-13,7-16].

Redesigning the layout of retailstores can reduce shoplifting ac-cording to one evaluation in GreatBritain (Farrington et al., 1993) [see

pp. 7-18 to 7-19].

Improving training and manage-ment of bar and tavern staff cansubstantially reduce tavern-relatedviolence, according to one Australianevaluation (Felson et al., 1997; Homelet al., 1997) and can reduce drunkdriving (Saltz, 1987) and accidents(Putnam et al., 1993) [see pp. 7-20 to7-21].

Metal detectors can reduceweapon carrying in schools, ac-cording to one study (Centers for Dis-ease Control and Prevention, 1993),although they did not reduce assaultswithin or outside schools [see p. 7-30].

Airport metal detectors toscreen airplane passengers appearto reduce hijackings according to sev-eral studies, one of which used scien-tific methods approximating level 3 onthe Maryland Scale (Landes, 1978)[see pp. 7-29 to 7-30].

ELIO ii 111 q

Sky marshals on airplanes pro-duced a slight reduction in hijackingin the period before the introduction ofmetal detectors for passenger screen-ing (Landes, 1978) [see p. 7-29].

Street closures, barricades, andrerouting reduced several types ofcrime, including burglary (Atlas andLeBlanc, 1994), homicides in Los An-geles (Lasley, 1996), and violent crimein Dayton (Newman, 1996), accordingto single studies [see pp. 7-33 to7-35].

"Target hardening" or use ofstrengthened materials and de-signs reduced the use of slugs in NewYork City parking meters (Decker,1972) [see p. 7-39] and reducedcrimes involving telephones in NewYork City's Port Authority Bus Termi-nal (Bichler and Clarke, 1996) andin one of its jails (LaVigne, 1994)[see pp. 7-38 to 7-39].

"Problem-solving" analysisaddressed to the specific crimesituation at each location(Goldstein, 1990; Clarke, 1992) hasbeen successful according to oneexperiment (rated level 5 on theMaryland Scale) in convenience stores(Crow and Bull, 1975) and in anEnglish public housing project atKirkholt, according to one evaluation(rated level 5 on the Maryland Scale)of a multitactic strategy to reducerepeat victimizations (Forrester et al.,1988) [see pp. 7-10 to 7-11,7-16,and 7-44]. Negative findings from theMinneapolis Repeat Call AddressPolicing (RECAP) experiment (ratedlevel 5 on the Maryland Scale), how-ever, suggest that these strategies maynot work when applied across the uni-verse of high-crime locations in a city(Sherman, 1990; Buerger, 1994)[see p. 8-31].

Mi2g3GEIP Q Gil b up 13 TST6

By poike

Proactive arrests for carryingconcealed weapons made by officerson directed patrols in gun crime hotspots, using traffic enforcement andfield interrogations, substantiallyreduced gun crimes in Kansas City(Sherman and Rogan, 1995a)[see pp. 8-30 to 8-32].

Proactive drunk driving arreststhrough systematic breath testing re-duced deaths due to drunk driving inAustralia (Homel, 1990), with consis-tent but scientifically weaker evidencefrom numerous evaluations in theUnited States [see pp. 8-20 to 8-24].

Community policing with meet-ings to set priorities reduced com-munity perceptions of the severity ofcrime problems in Chicago (Skoganand Hartnett, 1997) [see pp. 8-25 to8-27].

Policing with greater respect tooffenders reduced repeat offending inone analysis of arrested offenders (Pa-ternoster et al., 1997) and increasedrespect for the law and police in an-other (Sherman et al., 1997) [see pp.8-26 to 8-27].

Field interrogations of suspi-cious persons reduced crime in a SanDiego experiment without harming thelegitimacy of the police in the eyes ofthe public (Boydstun, 1975) [see pp.8-20 to 8-25].

Mailing arrest warrants todomestic violence suspects wholeave the scene before police ar-rive reduced repeat spouse abuse sub-stantially in Omaha (Dunford, 1990)[see pp. 8-16 to 8-20].

Higher numbers of police offic-ers in cities generally reduced manytypes of crime (Marvell and Moody,1996), although in some cities an

increase in the number of police offic-ers was not accompanied by a drop incrime [see pp. 8-8 to 8-10].

By crirninai justke agenciesafter arrest

Drug courts that ordered andmonitored a combination of rehabilita-tion and drug treatment reducedrepeat incarcerations compared toregular probation among offendersconvicted of a first-time drug posses-sion felony (Deschenes et al., 1996b)[see pp. 9-47 to 9-48].

Drug treatment in jails followedby urine testing in the communityhas been found in one study to reducerepeat arrests compared to drug-usinginmates who did not receive treatmentand followup (Taxman and Spinner,1996) [see pp. 9-45 to 9-46].

Intensive supervision and after-care of minor juvenile offenders,primarily status offenders like run-aways or truants, reduced futureoffending relative to status offenderswho did not receive enhanced surveil-lance and services in North Carolina.The finding held true for first offendersbut not for those with prior delin-quency in one experiment (rated level5 on the Maryland Scale) (Land et al.,1990) [see pp. 9-37 to 9-41].

Intensive supervision and after-care of serious juvenile offendersin a Pennsylvania program reducedrearrests compared to putting offend-ers on probation (Sontheimer andGoodstein, 1993) [see p. 9-39].

Fines for criminal acts in combi-nation with other penalties may pro-duce lower rates of repeat offending(Gordon and Glaser, 1991), and dayfines may produce lower rates of tech-nical violations (Turner and Petersilia,1996) than sentencing offenders to

0 0 El 12 El 0 0

n

community-based corrections withoutfines [see pp. 9-12 to 9-14].

-

FuturerresearchThe University of Maryland's Depart-ment of Criminology has established aCrime Prevention Effectiveness Pro-gram with the support of gifts andgrants from private foundations anddonors. The purpose is to continue thework summarized in this Research inBrief and to make it widely availablethrough publications and the Internetat www.preventingcrime.org. More than20,000 copies of the full report havebeen downloaded from the Internet,with governors, State legislatures, con-gressional committees, and severalother nations requesting briefings onthe results in the first year after thefull report was submitted to Congress.The United Kingdom has reliedheavily on this report in drafting itsnew national strategy for reducingcrime. These facts suggest widespreadinterest in using scientific evidenceabout what works to prevent crime inmaking policy and budget decisions.

The central conclusion of the report isthat the current development of scien-tific evidence is inadequate to the taskof policymaking. Many more impactevaluations using stronger scientificmethods are needed before evenminimally valid conclusions can bereached about the impact on crime ofprograms costing billions each year.Substantial progress does not requirethat all evaluations reach the "goldstandard" of level 5. In many areas,modifying research designs by addinga control group can raise the strengthof an evaluation design method signifi-cantly, from a level 2 to a level 3. Thatmodest change would provide far moreinformation from which to derive morecertain conclusions about what works.

13

Tg312E,PCCN

ecommendations for a Statutory Evaluation Plan

Three principles for evaluating crime pre-

vention programs emerge from the evi-dence reviewed for this report:

Not every grant requires an evaluation.Absent the resources and the skill needed

for achieving the statutory definition ofan evaluation as an impact assessment,

the requirement that all crime programsbe evaluated has resulted in few being

evaluated. Spending adequate funds forstrong evaluations in a few sites is far

more cost-effective than spending littleamounts of money for weak evaluationsin thousands of sites.

Evaluation funds should be conserved for

impact assessments. Limited funding re-

sources have forced DOJ to choose be-

tween many descriptive evaluations or afew impact evaluations, which do notprovide Congress with the information it

Other parts of the full report addressother issues. One issue involves howthe allocation of resources for crimeprevention is made in relation to thegeography of crime, especially giventhe concentration of youth homicidein a small number of inner-city areas.Another issue is the direct implica-tions of these findings for congres-sional appropriations for variousprevention funding streams, such asByrne grants in the Anti-Drug AbuseAct of 1988 as amended or the100,000 community police officers inthe Crime Act of 1994 as amended. Afinal issue addressed in the full reportis the matter of Federal policy forcrime prevention evaluations. The

requires unless there is enough fundingfor strong science. Such studies routinelycost $15 million or more in other agen-cies and are often mandated by Con-gress, but there is no precedent for such"big science" at Dal, according to thestudy researchers.

Impact evaluations should be conductedat a level 3 scientific methods score orhigher. If Congress needs to know the ef-fectiveness of a program, it needs toknow that answer to a reasonable degreeof scientific certainty. The study authorssuggest that just as the U.S. Supreme

Court has asked Federal judges to be thegatekeepers of valid science to be placedin the hands of a jury, Congress can ask

that independent peer review panelsserve the same function for congressionalevidence. The panels can be asked to

certify that impact evaluations recom-mended for funding by Dal are at least

reader is referred to the report for allthese matters, especially chapters 1and 10, as well as the final pages ofchapters 3 through 9. Future reportsfrom the University of Maryland willalso address these issues in greaterdetail.

The need for more impact evaluationsis shown most clearly by this final ob-servation. There are 15 programs onthe list of what works and 23 on thelist of what doesn't. The longest list,however, is the 30 promising pro-grams. If even half of these programswere found effective with one addi-tional level 3 impact evaluation, thenumber of programs known to prevent

El DÜ 13

designed with a scientific methods scoreof 3 or more. This model can be achieved

by congressional enactment of the fol-lowing recommendations, according tothis study:

1. Set aside 10 percent of all Dal fundingof local assistance for crime prevention(as defined in this report) for operationalprogram funds to be controlled by a cen-tral research office within OJP.

2. Authorize the research office to distrib-ute the 10 percent "evaluated program"funds on the sole criterion of producingrigorous scientific impact evaluations, theresults of which can be generalized toother locations nationwide.

3. Set aside an additional 10 percent ofall Dal local assistance appropriations forcrime prevention as defined in this reportto fund the scientific evaluation costs.

crime through the scientific standardsemployed in this report would double.

Endnotes1. 104th Congress, 1st Session, House ofRepresentatives, Report 104-378.

2. A "place" is defined here as a verysmall area reserved for a narrow range offunctions, often controlled by a singleowner, and separated from the surroundingarea.

3. Daubert vs. Merrell Dow (1993), U.S.Sup. Ct. No. 92-102, June 28, 1993 [509U.S. 579].

T;t, &IT QN PBTI

References

Abrahamse, Allan F., Patricia A. Ebener,Peter W. Greenwood, Nora Fitzgerald, andThomas E. Kosin (1991). "An Experimen-tal Evaluation of the Phoenix RepeatOffender Program." Justice Quarterly8:141-168.

Ahlstrom, Winton, and Robert J.Havighurst (1982). "The Kansas CityWork/Study Experiment?, In Daniel J.Safer, ed., School Programs for DisruptiveAdolescents. Baltimore, Maryland: Univer-sity Park Press.

Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J.Bonta, P. Gendreau, and F.T. Cullen(1990). "Does Correctional TreatmentWork? A Clinically Relevant and a Psy-chologically Informed Meta-Analysis."Criminology 28:369-404.

Annan, Sampson, and Wesley Skogan(1993). Drug Enforcement in Public Hous-ing: Signs of Success in Denver. Washing-ton, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Atlas, Rabdal, and William G. LeBlanc(1994). "The Impact on Crime of StreetClosures and Barricades: A Florida CaseStudy." Security Journal 5:140-145.

Austin, J., and P. Hardyman (1991). "TheUse of Early Parole With Electronic Moni-toring to Control Prison Crowding: Evalua-tion of the Oklahoma Department ofCorrections Pre-Parole Supervised Re-lease With Electronic Monitoring." Un-published report to the National Instituteof Justice.

Baker, Sally Hillsman, and S. Sadd,(1981). Diversion of Felony Arrests: AnExperiment in Pre-Trial Intervention: AnEvaluation of the Court EmploymentProject, Summary Report. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice.

Barth, R.P., S. Hacking, and J.R. Ash(1988). "Preventing Child Abuse: An Ex-perimental Evaluation of the Child-ParentEnrichment Project." Journal of PrimaryPrevention 8:201-217.

Battistich, V., E. Schaps, M. Watson, andD. Solomon (1996). "Prevention Effectsof the Child Development Project: EarlyFindings from an Ongoing Multi-Site Dem-onstration Trial." Journal of AdolescentResearch 11:12-35.

Baumer, T.L., and R. I. Mendelsohn(1991). "Comparing Methods of Monitor-ing Home Detention: The Results of aField Experiment." Paper presented to theAmerican Society of Criminology, SanFrancisco.

Berk, Richard, Phyllis J. Newton, andSarah F. Berk (1986). "What a Differencea Day Makes: An Empirical Study of theImpact of Shelters for Battered Women."Journal of Marriage and the Family48:431-490.

Berk, Richard A., Alec Campbell, RuthKlap, and Bruce Western (1992a). "ABayesian Analysis of the Colorado SpouseAbuse Experiment." Journal of CriminalLaw and Criminology 83:170-200.

(1992b). "The DeterrentEffect of Arrest in Incidents of DomesticViolence: A Bayesian Analysis of FourField Experiments." American Sociologi-cal Review 57:698-708.

Berrueta-Clement, J.R., L.J. Schweinhart,W.S. Barnett, A.S. Epstein, and D.P.Weikart (1985). Changed Lives: The Ef-

fects of the Perry Preschool Program onYouths Through Age 19. Ypsilanti, Michi-gan: High Scope Press.

Bichler, Gisela, and Ronald V. Clarke(1996). "Eliminating Pay Phone TollFraud at the Port Authority Bus Terminalin Manhattan." In Ronald V. Clarke, ed.,Preventing Mass Transit Crime. CrimePrevention Studies, vol. 6. Monsey, NewYork: Criminal Justice Press.

Bloom, Howard et al. (1994). The NationalJTPA Study: Overview of Impacts, Benefits,and Costs of Title IM. Bethesda, Maryland:Abt Associates.

Boarnet, Marlin G., and William T. Bogart(1996). "Enterprise Zones and Employ-ment: Evidence From New Jersey." Jour-nal of Urban Economics 40:2:198-215.

LiLILII 14 E

Bottcher, J., T. Isorena, M. Belnas (1996).LEAD: A Boot Camp and Intensive ParoleProgram: An Impact Evaluation: SecondYear Findings. Sacramento: State of Cali-fornia, Department of the Youth Authority,Research Division.

Botvin, G.J., E. Baker, N.L. Renick, A.D.Filazzola, and E.M. Botvin (1984)."A Cognitive Behavioral Approach toSubstance Abuse Prevention." AddictiveBehaviors 9:137-147.

Botvin, G. (1990). "Substance Abuse Pre-vention: Theory, Practice, and Effective-ness." In M. Tonry and J.Q. Wilson, eds.,Drugs and Crime. Crime and Justice, vol3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boudouris, J., and B.W. Turnbull (1985)."Shock Probation in Iowa." Journal ofOffender Counseling Services andRehabilitation 9:53-67.

Boydstun, John (1975). The San DiegoField Interrogation Experiment. Washing-ton, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Bry, B.H. (1982). "Reducing the Inci-dence of Adolescent Problems ThroughPreventive Intervention: One- and Five-Year Follow-up." American Journal ofCommunity Psychology 10:265-276.

Buckner, J.C., and M. Chesney-Lind(1983). " Dramatic Cures for JuvenileCrime: An Evaluation of a Prison-RunDelinquency Prevention Program."Criminal Justice and Behavior 10:227-247.

Buerger, Michael, ed. (1994). The CrimePrevention Casebook: Securing High-CrimeLocations. Washington, D.C.: Crime Con-trol Institute.

Callahan, Charles, Frederick Rivara, andThomas Koepsell (1995). "Money forGuns: Evaluation of the Seattle GunBuyback Program." In Martha Plotkin, ed.,Under Fire: Gun Buybacks, Exchanges,and Amnesty Programs. Washington, D.C.:Police Executive Research Forum.

Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle,and Cyril Toussaint (1993). JOBSTART:Final Report on a Program for High

15

ct, TEIEF Th

School Dropouts. New York, New York:Manpower Demonstration ResearchCorporation.

Centers for Disease Control and Preven-tion (1993). "The Violence-RelatedAttitudes and Behaviors of High SchoolStudents-New York City, 1992." Morbid-ity and Mortality Weekly Report 42:773-777.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention(1995). The National Structured Evaluationof Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Preven-tion. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services.

Chaiken, Jan, M. Lawless, and K.Stevenson (1975). "The Impact of PoliceActivity on Crime: Robberies on the NewYork City Subway System." Urban Analy-sis 3:173-205.

Chaiken, Jan M. (1978). "What Is KnownAbout Deterrent Effects of Police Activi-ties." In James A. Cramer, ed., PreventingCrime. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Clarke, Ronald, ed. (1992). SituationalCrime Prevention: Successful Case Studies.Albany, New York: Harrow and Heston.

Clayton, R.R., A.M. Cattarello, and B.M.Johnstone (1996). "The Effectiveness ofDrug Abuse Resistance Education (ProjectDARE): Five-Year Follow-up Results."Preventive Medicine 25:307-318.

Cohen, Jacqueline, and Jose A. Canela-Cacho (1994). "Incarceration and ViolentCrime." In Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and JeffreyA. Roth, eds., Understanding and Prevent-ing Violence, vol. 4: Consequences andControl. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-emy Press.

Cook, Thomas, and Donald T. Campbell(1979). Quasi-Experimentation. Chicago:Rand-McNally.

Cronin, J. (1996). "An Evaluation of aSchool-Based Community Service Pro-gram: The Effects of Magic Me." Techni-cal Report available from GottfredsonAssociates, Inc., Ellicott City, Maryland.

Crow, W.J., and J.L. Bull (1975). RobberyDeterrence: An Applied Behavioral Science

Demonstration-Final Report. La Jolla,California: Western Behavioral SciencesInstitute.

Daubert vs. Merrell Dow (1993), U.S. Sup.Ct. No. 92-102, June 28,1993 [509 U.S.579].

Davis, Robert C., and Bruce G. Taylor(1997) "A Proactive Response to FamilyViolence: The Results of a RandomizedExperiment." Criminology 35:307.

Decker, John F. (1972). "Curbside Deter-rence: An Analysis of the Effect of a SlugRejection Device, Coin View Window, andWarning Labels on Slug Usage in NewYork City Parking Meters." Criminology10:127-142.

Deschenes, E.P., S. Turner, and J.Petersilia (1995). "Intensive CommunitySupervision in Minnesota: A Dual Experi-ment in Prison Diversion and EnhancedSupervised Release." Final Report to theNational Institute of Justice.

Deschenes, E.P., P. Greenwood, and G.Marshall. (1996a). The Nokomis ChallengeProgram Evaluation. Santa Monica, Cali-fornia: RAND Corporation.

Deschenes E.P., S. Turner, P. Greenwood,and J. Chiesa (1996b). An ExperimentalEvaluation of Drug Testing and TreatmentInterventions for Probationers in MaricopaCounty, Arizona. Santa Monica, California:RAND Corporation.

Dunford, Franklyn W. (1990). "System-Initiated Warrants for Suspects of Misde-meanor Domestic Assault: A Pilot Study."Justice Quarterly 7:631-653.

Eck, John, and Julie Wartell (1996)."Reducing Crime and Drug Dealing byImproving Place Management." Report tothe San Diego Police Department. Wash-ington, D.C.: Crime Control Institute.

Farrington, David P. (1977). "The Effectsof Public Labeling." British Journal ofCriminology 17:112-125.

Farrington, David P., Sean Bowen,Abigail Buckle, Tony Burns-Howell,John Burroughs, and Martin Speed (1993)."An Experiment on the Prevention of

171 El 15 0 16

Shoplifting." In Ronald V. Clarke, ed.,Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 1. Monsey,New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Felson, Marcus, Robyn Berends, BarryRichardson, and Arthur Veno (1997). "ACommunity Policing Initiative to Discour-age Abuse of Alcohol." In Ross Homel, ed.,Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 7. Monsey,New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Finckenauer, James 0. (1982). ScaredStraight and the Panacea Phenomenon.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Flowers, G.T., T.S. Carr, and R.B. Ruback(1991). Special Alternative IncarcerationEvaluation. Atlanta, Georgia: GeorgiaDepartment of Corrections.

Fo, W.S.O., and C.R. O'Donell (1974)."The Buddy System: Relationship andContingency Conditioning in a CommunityIntervention Program for Youth With Non-professionals as Behavior Change Agents."Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy 42:163-69.

1975). "The Buddy System:Effect of Community Intervention onDelinquent Offenses." Behavior Therapy6:522-524.

Forrester, David H., Michael R.Chatterton, and Ken Pease (1988). TheKirkholt Burglary Prevention Demonstra-tion Project, Rochdale. Crime PreventionUnit Paper # 13. London: Home Office.

Goldstein, Herman (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Gordon, M.A., and D. Glaser (1991)."The Use and Effects of Financial Penal-ties in Municipal Courts." Criminology29:651-676.

Gottfredson, Denise C. (1986). "An Em-pirical Test of School-Based Environ-mental and Individual Interventions ToReduce the Risk of Delinquent Behavior."Criminology 24:705-731.

(1987). "An Evaluation of anOrganization Development Approach to

D

Reducing School Disorder." EvaluationReview 11:739-763.

Gottfredson, Denise C. (1990). "ChangingSchool Structures To Benefit High-RiskYouths." In P.E. Leone, ed., UnderstandingTroubled and Troubling Youth. NewburyPark, California: Sage Publications.

Gottfredson, Gary (1987). "Peer GroupInterventions to Reduce the Risk of Delin-quent Behavior: A Selective Review and aNew Evaluation." Criminology 25:671-714.

Gray, J.D., C.A. Cutler, J.G. Dean, andC.H. Kempe (1979). "Prediction andPrevention of Child Abuse and Neglect.Journal of Social Issues 35:127-139.

Green, Lorraine (1993). "Treating DeviantPlaces: A Case Study Examination of theBeat Health Program in Oakland, Califor-nia." Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers: TheState University of New Jersey.

(1995). "Cleaning Up DrugHot spots in Oakland, California: The Dis-placement and Diffusion Effects." JusticeQuarterly 12:737-754.

Greenberg, M.T., C.A. Kusche, E.T. Cook,and J.P. Quamma (1995). "PromotingEmotional Competence in School-AgedChildren: The Effects of the PATHS Cur-riculum." Development and Psychopathol-ogy 7:117-136.

Greenwood, P.W., and S. Turner (1993)."Evaluation of the Paint Creek Center:A Residential Program for Serious Delin-quents." Criminology 31:263-279.

Hansen, W.B., and J.W. Graham (1991)."Preventing Alcohol, Marijuana, andCigarette Use Among Adolescents: PeerPressure Resistance Training VersusEstablishing Conservative Norms."Preventive Medicine 20:414-430.

Hansen, W.B. (1992). "School-Based Sub-stance Abuse Prevention: A Review of theState of the Art Curriculum 1980-1990."Health Education Research 7:403-430.

Homel, Ross (1990). "Random BreathTesting and Random Stopping Programs inAustralia." In R.J. Wilson and R. Mann,eds., Drinking and Driving: Advances in

Research and Prevention. New York:Guilford Press.

Homel, Ross, Marg Hauritz, RichardWortley, Gillian McIlwain, and RussellCarvolth (1997). "Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Through Community Ac-tion: The Surfer's Paradise Safety ActionProject." In Ronald V. Clarke, ed., CrimePrevention Studies (forthcoming).

Hope, Tim (1995). "Community CrimePrevention." In Michael Tonry and DavidFarrington, eds., Building a Safer Society.Crime and Justice, vol. 19. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Howell, James C., ed. (1995). Guide forImplementing the Comprehensive Strategyfor Serious, Violent, and Chronic JuvenileOffenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Institute of Medicine (1994). ReducingRisks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers forPreventive Intervention Research. Washing-ton, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Kenney, D.J., and T.S. Watson (1996)."Reducing Fear in the Schools: ManagingConflict Through Student Problem Solv-ing." Education and Urban Society28:436-455.

Klein, Malcolm (1968). From Associationto Guilt: The Group Guidance Project inJuvenile Gang Intervention. Los Angeles:University of Southern California.

Klein, Malcolm (1986). "Labeling Theoryand Delinquency Policy: An EmpiricalTest." Criminal Justice and Behavior13:47-79.

Koper, Christopher (1995). "Just EnoughPolice Presence: Reducing Crime andDisorderly Behavior by Optimizing PatrolTime in Crime Hot Spots." Justice Quar-terly 12:649-671.

Lally, J.R., P.L. Mangione, and A.S. Honig(1988). "The Syracuse University FamilyDevelopment Research Project: Long-Range Impact of an Early Interventionwith Low-Income Children and TheirFamilies." In D.R. Powell, ed., Annual

El ri 16

ri

Advances in Applied Developmental Psy-chology, vol. 3: Parent Education as EarlyChildhood Intervention: Emerging Direc-tions in Theory, Research, and Practice.Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Land, Kenneth C., P.L. McCall, and J.R.Williams (1990). "Something That Worksin Juvenile Justice: An Evaluation of theNorth Carolina Counselor's Intensive Pro-tective Supervision Randomized Experi-mental Project, 1987-89." EvaluationReview 14:574-606.

Landes, William M. (1978). "An Eco-nomic Study of U.S. Aircraft Hijacking,1961-1976." Journal of Law and Econom-ics 21:1-2.

Lasley, James R. (1996). "Using TrafficBarriers To "Design Out" Crime: A Pro-gram Evaluation of L.A.P.D.'s OperationCul-de-Sac." Report to the National Insti-tute of Justice. Fullerton, California:California State University, Fullerton.

LaVigne, Nancy G. (1994). "RationalChoice and Inmate Disputes Over PhoneUse on Riker's Island. In Ronald V.Clarke, ed., Crime Prevention Studies, vol.3. Monsey, New York: Criminal JusticePress.

Leiber, Michael J., and Tina L. Mawhorr(1995). "Evaluating the Use of SocialSkills Training and Employment withDelinquent Youth." Journal of CriminalJustice 23:127-141.

Lewis, R.V. (1983). "Scared Straight-California Style: Evaluation of the SanQuentin Squire Program." Criminal Justiceand Behavior 10:209-226.

Lipsey, Mark W. (1992). "Juvenile Delin-quency Treatment: A Meta-AnalyticInquiry into the Variability of Effects."In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H.Hartman, L.V. Hedges, R.V. Light, T.A.Louis, and F. Mosteller, eds., Meta-Analy-sis for Explanation. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lipton, D.S., and Frank Pearson (1996)."The CDATE Project: ReviewingResearch on the Effectiveness of Treat-ment Programs for Adult and Juvenile

1 7

12 (3' TEIEPO Go

Offenders." Paper presented to theAmerican Society of Criminology,Chicago, Illinois.

Lochman, J.E., Burch, P.R., Curry, J.F.,and Lampron, L.B. (1984). "Treatment andGeneralization Effects of Cognitive-Behav-ioral and Goal Setting Interventions WithAggressive Boys." Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology 52:915-916.

MacKenzie, Doris (1991). "The ParolePerformance of Offenders Released FromShock Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons):A Survival Time Analysis." Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 3:213-36.

MacKenzie, Doris, Robert Brame, DavidMcDowall, and Claire Souryal (1995)."Boot Camp Prisons and Recidivism inEight States." Criminology 33:327-358.

Mallar, Charles, and Craig V.D.Thornton(1978). "Traditional Aid for ReleasedPrisoners: Evidence from the LIFE Ex-periment." Human Resources 13:208-236.

Mallar, Charles, Stuart Kerachsky, andCraig V. Thornton. (1982). Third Follow-Up Report of the Evaluation of the Eco-nomic Impact of the Job Corps. Princeton,New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Re-search, Inc.

Marciniak, Elizabeth (1994). "CommunityPolicing of Domestic Violence: Neighbor-hood Differences in the Effect of Arrest."Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.

Martin, Susan E., and Lawrence W.Sherman (1986). "Selective Apprehension:A Police Strategy for Repeat Offenders."Criminology 24:55-72.

Martin, S.S., C.A. Butzin, and J. Inciardi(1995). "Assessment of a Multi-StageTherapeutic Community for Drug-InvolvedOffenders." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs27:109-116.

Marvell, Thomas B., and Carlisle E.Moody (1996). "Specification Problems,Police Levels and Crime Rates." Criminol-ogy 34:609-646.

Mayer, G.R., T.W. Butterworth, M.Nafpakitis, and B. Sulzer-Azaroff (1983)."Preventing School Vandalism and

Improving Discipline: A Three-YearStudy." Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis 16:355-369.

Maynard, Rebecca (1980). The Impact ofSupported Work on Young School Dropouts.New York, New York: Manpower Demon-stration Research Corporation.

McCord, Joan (1978). "A Thirty-YearFollowup of Treatment Effects." TheAmerican Psychologist 33:284-289.

Millenson, Michael L. (1997). DemandingMedical Excellence. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

National Association of ConvenienceStores (1991). Convenience Store Security:Report and Recommendations. Alexandria,Virginia: National Association of Conve-nience Stores.

Newman, Oscar (1996). Creating Defen-sible Space. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment.

Olds, D.L., C.R. Henderson, R.Chamberlin, and R. Tatelbaum (1986)."Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect:A Randomized Trial of Nurse HomeVisitation." Pediatrics 78:65-78.

(1988). "Improving the Life-Course Development of Socially Disadvan-taged Mothers: A Randomized Trial ofNurse Home Visitation." American Jour-nal of Public Health 78:1436-1445.

Olweus, D. (1991). "Bully/Victim Prob-lems Among Schoolchildren: Basic Factsand Effects of a School Based InterventionProgram." In D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin,eds., The Development and Treatment ofChildhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

(1992). "Bullying AmongSchoolchildren: Intervention and Preven-tion." In R.D. Peters, R.J. McMahon, andV.L. Quinsey, eds., Aggression and Vio-lence Throughout the Life Span. NewburyPark, California: Sage.

Papke, Leslie E. (1994). "Tax Policy andUrban Development: Evidence from theIndiana Enterprise Zone Program."Journal of Public Economics 54:7-49.

Pate, Tony, Mary Ann Wycoff, WesleySkogan, and Lawrence W. Sherman(1986). Reducing the Fear of Crime inNewark and Houston. Washington, D.C.:Police Foundation.

Pate, Antony, Edwin E. Hamilton, andSampson Annan (1991). "Metro-DadeSpouse Abuse Replication Project: DraftFinal Report." Washington, D.C.: PoliceFoundation.

Pate, Antony, and Edwin E. Hamilton(1992). "Formal and Informal Deterrenceto Domestic Violence: The Dade CountySpouse Assault Experiment." AmericanSociological Review 57:691-698.

Pate, Antony M., Marlys McPherson, andGlenn Silloway (1987). The MinneapolisCommunity Crime Prevention Experiment:Draft Evaluation Report. Washington,D.C.: Police Foundation.

Paternoster, Raymond, Bobby Brame,Ronet Bachman, and L.W. Sherman(1997). "Do Fair Procedures Matter? TheEffect of Procedural Justice on SpouseAssault." Law and Society Review 31:163-204.

Peters, M. (1996a). Evaluation of the Im-pact of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders:Denver Interim Report. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juve-nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

(1996b) Evaluation of the Im-pact of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders:Cleveland Interim Report. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

(1996c) Evaluation of the Im-pact of Boot Camps on Juvenile Offenders:Mobile Interim Report. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juve-nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner (1993).Evaluating Intensive SupervisionProbation/Parole: Results of a NationwideExperiment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-partment of Justice, National Institute ofJustice.

LJ 17 El El 1 8

[2,2g3 Tolh 13cPbTg

Piliavin, Irving, and Stanley Masters(1981). The Impact of Employment Pro-grams on Offenders, Addicts, and ProblemYouth: Implications From Supported Work.Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wis-consin Institute for Research and PovertyDiscussion Paper.

Press, S.J. (1971). Some Effects of anIncrease in Police Manpower in the 20thPrecinct of New York City. New York: NewYork City Rand Institute.

Putnam, Sandra L., Ian R. Rockett, andMiriam K. Campbell (1993). "Method-ological Issues in Community-BasedProgram Effects." In Thomas K.Greenfield and Robert Zimmerman, eds.,Experiences With Community ActionProjects: New Research in the Preventionof Alcohol and Other Problems. Center forSubstance Abuse Prevention Monograph14. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services.

Ringwalt, C., J. Green, S. Ennett, R.Iachan, R.R. Clayton, and C.G. Leukefeld(1994). Past and Future Directions of theD.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review:Draft Final Report. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Insti-tute of Justice.

Rosenbaum, D.P., R.L. Flewelling, S.L.Bailey, C.L. Ringwalt, and D.L. Wilkinson(1994). "Cops in the Classroom: A Longi-tudinal Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resis-tance Education (DARE)." Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency31:3-31.

Rosenbaum, Dennis, Dan A. Lewis, andJane A. Grant (1986). "Neighborhood-Based Crime Prevention: Assessing theEfficacy of Community Organizing in Chi-cago." In Dennis Rosenbaum, ed., Com-munity Crime Prevention: Does It Work?Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Rosenbaum, James E. (1992). Black Pio-neers: "Do Their Moves to the Suburbs In-crease Economic Opportunity for Mothersand Children?" Housing Policy Debate2:1179-1213.

Rosenfeld, Richard (1995). "GunBuybacks: Crime Control or CommunityMobilization." In Martha Plotkin, ed.,Under Fire: Gun Buybacks, Exchanges,and Amnesty Programs. Washington, D.C.:Police Executive Research Forum.

Ross, J.G., P.J. Saabedra, G.H. Shur, F.Winters, and R.D. Felner (1992). "TheEffectiveness of an After-School Programfor Primary Grade Latchkey Students onPrecursors of Substance Abuse." Journalof Community Psychology, OSAP SpecialIssue 22-38.

Saltz, R.F. (1987). "The Role of Bars andRestaurants in Preventing Alcohol-Impaired Driving: An Evaluation of ServerEducation." Evaluation in Health Profes-sions 10:5-27.

Saylor, William G., and Gerald G. Gaes(1993). Prep: Training Inmates ThroughIndustrial Work Participation and Voca-tional and Apprenticeship Instruction.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Federal Bureauof Prisons.

Sherman, Lawrence W. (1990). "PoliceCrackdowns: Initial and Residual Deter-rence." In Michael Tonry and Norval Mor-ris, eds., Crime and Justice: A Review ofResearch, vol. 12. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Sherman, Lawrence W., and Douglas.A.Smith, 1992. "Legal and Informal Controlof Domestic Violence." American Socio-logical Review 57:680-690.

Sherman, Lawrence W., and David A.Weisburd (1995)." General Deterrent Ef-fects of Police Patrol in Crime 'Hot Spots:'A Randomized, Controlled Trial." JusticeQuarterly 12:625-648.

Sherman, Lawrence W., and Dennis P.Rogan (1995a). "Effects of Gun Seizureson Gun Violence: 'Hot Spots' Patrol inKansas City." Justice Quarterly 12:755-781.

(1995b). "Deterrent Effects ofPolice Raids on Crack Houses: A Ran-domized Controlled Experiment." JusticeQuarterly 12:755-781.

0 [71 111 18 DEE

Sherman, Lawrence W., Heather Strang,and Geoffrey C. Barnes (1997). The RISEWorking Papers: the Canberra Reintegra-tive Shaming Experiments. Canberra, Aus-tralia: Law Program, Research School forSocial Sciences, Australian NationalUniversity.

Skogan, Wesley, and Susan Hartnett(1997). Community Policing, ChicagoStyle. New York: Free Press.

Sontheimer, H., and L. Goodstein (1993)."Evaluation of Juvenile Intensive After-Care Probation: After-Care Versus SystemResponse Effects." Justice Quarterly10:197-227.

Stoil, M., G. Hill, and P.J. Brounstein(1994). "The Seven Core Strategies forATOD Prevention: Findings of theNational Structure Evaluation of What isWorking Well Where." Paper presented atthe 12th Annual Meeting of the AmericanPublic Health Association, Washington,D.C.

Sviridoff, Michelle, et al. (1992). TheNeighborhood Effects of Street-Level DrugEnforcement: Tactical Narcotics Teams inNew York. New York: Vera Institute ofJustice.

Taxman, Faye, and David L. Spinner(1996). "The Jail Addiction Services (JAS)Project in Montgomery County, Maryland:Overview of Results From a 24-MonthFollowup Study." Unpublished manu-script. Department of Criminology andCriminal Justice, University of Maryland.

Tiemey, Joseph P., and Jean BaldwinGrossman with Nancy L. Resch (1995).Making a Difference: An Impact Study ofBig Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia,Pennsylvania: Public/Private Ventures.

Tremblay, Richard, and Wendy Craig(1995). "Developmental Crime Preven-tion." In Michael Tonry and DavidFarrington, eds., Building a Safer Society.Crime and Justice, vol. 19. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

19

Turner, Susan, and Joan Petersilia (1996).Work Release: Recidivism and CorrectionsCosts in Washington State. Research inBrief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Uchida, Craig D., Brian Forst, andSampson Annan (1992). Modern Policingand the Control of Illegal Drugs: TestingNew Strategies in Two American Cities.Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice: National Instituteof Justice.

Vera Institute (1970). Pre-Trial Interven-tion: The Manhattan Court EmploymentProject. New York, New York: Vera Insti-tute of Justice.

Visher, Christy A. (1987). "Incapacitationand Crime Control: Does a 'Lock 'em Up'Strategy Reduce Crime?" Justice Quarterly4:513-543.

The study reported in this Research in Briefwas conducted by the Department of Crimi-nology and Criminal Justice, University ofMaryland at College Park, under grant no.

96MUMU-0019.

Lawrence W. Sherman is Professor andChair of the Department.

Doris L. MacKenzie is Professor of

Criminology and Criminal Justice in theDepartment.

Denise C. Gottfredson is also Professor ofCriminology and Criminal Justice in theDepartment.

John Eck is Associate Professor of CriminalJustice, University of Cincinnati, andResearch Fellow in the Crime PreventionEffectiveness Program, Department ofCriminology and Criminal Justice, Univer-

sity of Maryland.

Peter Reuter is Professor in the Universityof Maryland's School of Public Affairs and

Vito, G., and H.E. Allen (1981). "ShockProbation in Ohio: A Comparison of Out-comes." International Journal of OffenderTherapy and Comparative Criminology25:70-75.

Vito, G. (1984). "Developments in ShockProbation: A Review of Research Findingsand Policy Implications." Federal Proba-tion 48:22-27.

Wasserman, Gail, and Laurie S. Miller(1998). "Serious and Violent JuvenileOffending." In Rolf Loeber and David P.Farrington, eds., Serious and Violent Juve-nile Offenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions. Thousand Oaks, California:Sage Publications.

Weissberg, R., and M.Z. Caplan (1994)."Promoting Social Competence and Pre-venting Anti-Social Behavior in YoungAdolescents." Unpublished manuscript,

Department of Criminology and CriminalJustice.

Shawn D. Bushway is Assistant Professor,Department of Criminology and CriminalJustice, University of Maryland, andPostdoctoral Fellow, National Consortiumon Violence Research.

This Research in Brief and the full report toCongress are available online at the follow-

ing Web sites:

National Institute of Justice:

http://www.ojp.usdolgov/mjJustice Information Center:httplIwww.ncjrs.orgUniversity of Maryland:http://www.preventingcrime.org

A book version of the full report will beavailable in 1999 from the Russell SageFoundation, 112 East 64th Street, NewYork, NY 10021 (tel. 212-750-6000).

2 00E1E1 19 EEO

University of Illinois at Chicago, Depart-ment of Psychology.

Wexler, H.K., G.P. Falkin, and D.S.Lipton (1992). "Outcome Evaluation of aPrison Therapeutic Community for Sub-stance Abuse Treatment." CriminalJustice and Behavior 17:71.

Wexler, H.K., W. F. Graham, R.Koronowski, and L. Lowe (1995). Evalua-tion of Amity In-Prison and Post-ReleaseSubstance Abuse Treatment Programs.Washington, D.C.: National Institute onDrug Abuse.

Wycoff, Mary Ann, and Wesley Skogan(1986). "Storefront Police Offices:The Houston Field Test." In DennisRosenbaum, ed., Community Crime Pre-vention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills,California: Sage.

Findings and conclusions of the research re-ported here are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the official position or poli-cies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a com-ponent of the Office of Justice Programs,which also includes the Bureau of JusticeAssistance, the Bureau of Justice Statis-tics, the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention, and the Officefor Victims of Crime.

NCJ 171676

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

7-kC\ L

11111))1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

26506 21DIRECTORDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONEDUC RESOURCES INFO CTR (ERIC)CAPITOL PLACE555 NEW JERSEY AUE NW RM 202AWASHINTON DC 20001-2029

BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/NIJPermit No. G-91

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice ol Educational Research and Improvement (0ERI)

Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

I lc I

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").