Abstract
In 1997, the Office of Justice Programs published Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J. E., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. D. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs). The report was commissioned by the US Congress and was prepared by a team of criminologists from the University of Maryland. It aspired to be a methodologically rigorous and comprehensive review of the effectiveness of crime prevention programmes, ranging from prenatal home visits to community policing to parole. This 20-year review of the ‘what works’ report finds that it has been influential in elevating both the scientific and public policy discourse on crime prevention. It did this on three main fronts. First, it reaffirmed that not all evaluation designs are equally valid and made clear that only designs that provide confidence in observed effects should contribute to the evidence base. Secondly, it advanced the equally important task of assessing research evidence and, despite some limitations, adopted a more rigorous method for this purpose. Thirdly, undergirding all of this was the report’s commitment to the communication of science for the benefit of all parties: policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and the public. Implications for policy—with special reference to evidence-based policing—and research are discussed.
Disinformation squared: Was the HIV-from-Fort-Detrick myth a Stasi Success? — CORRIGENDUM
