What Works in Crime Prevention?: Comparison and Critical Review of Three Crime Prevention Registries
What Works in Crime Prevention?: Comparison and Critical Review of Three Crime Prevention Registries
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1745-9133.12228
复制
发表时间：
2016-08-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Buchanan, Molly
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fagan, Abigail A.;Buchanan, Molly
研究概述本文比较了三个登记处应用的标准和方法，这些登记处旨在确定什么在预防犯罪和犯罪方面起作用。我们讨论并展示了这些过程的方法严格性的差异如何影响被确定为基于证据的干预措施的数量，并为未来的清单制定提供建议，以帮助增加有效预防犯罪计划和做法的传播。政策含义随着对基于证据的犯罪预防的支持增加，对有效登记的支持也将增加。我们认为，这些清单必须采用科学严格的审查标准和系统审查程序，以保护公共资源，并确保建议传播的干预措施不会对参与者造成伤害。还必须建立清单，并以响应社区需求的方式传达调查结果。确保这一平衡将有助于增加公众对科学方法的信心，并确保更大程度地传播循证干预措施。
Research SummaryThis article compares the criteria and methods applied by three registries designed to identify what works in crime and delinquency prevention. We discuss and demonstrate how variation in the methodological rigor of these processes affects the number of interventions identified as evidence based and provide recommendations for future list-making to help increase the dissemination of effective crime prevention programs and practices.Policy ImplicationsAs support for evidence-based crime prevention grows, so too will reliance on what works registries. We contend that these lists must employ scientifically rigorous review criteria and systematic review processes to protect public resources and ensure interventions recommended for dissemination do not risk harming participants. Lists must also be constructed and findings communicated in ways that are responsive to community needs. Ensuring this balance will help increase public confidence in scientific methods and ensure greater diffusion of evidence-based interventions.