NT OF ME J T US U.S. Department of Justice R T A I P C E E D

B

O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f Jeremy Travis, Director July 1998

Issues and Findings Preventing Crime: What Works, Discussed in this Brief: A con- gressionally mandated evaluation What Doesn’t, What’s Promising of State and local crime prevention by Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris L. MacKenzie, John Eck, programs funded by the U.S. Peter Reuter, and Shawn D. Bushway Department of Justice. Many crime prevention programs work. These are the major conclusions of a Key issues: What works to pre- Others don’t. Most programs have not yet 1997 report to Congress, which was based vent crime, especially youth vio- been evaluated with enough scientific on a systematic review of more than 500 lence? Out of all the hundreds of evidence to draw conclusions. Enough scientific evaluations of crime prevention different strategies used in com- evidence is available, however, to create practices. This Research in Brief summa- munities, families, schools, labor provisional lists of what works, what rizes the research methods and conclu- markets, places, police, and crimi- doesn’t, and what’s promising. Those sions found in that report. lists will grow more quickly if the Nation nal justice, which ones succeed, invests more resources in scientific In 1996, a Federal law required the and to what extent? What does evaluations to hold all crime prevention U.S. Attorney General to provide Con- the scientific evidence suggest programs accountable for their results. gress with an independent review of the about the effectiveness of federally funded crime prevention?

Key findings: Very few opera- hat Works? tional crime prevention programs have been evaluated using scien- W tifically recognized standards and • For infants: Frequent home visits • For older male ex-offenders: methodologies, including repeated by nurses and other professionals. Vocational training. tests under similar and different • For preschoolers: Classes with weekly • For rental housing with drug dealing: social settings. Based on a review home visits by preschool teachers. Nuisance abatement action on landlords. of more than 500 prevention pro- • For delinquent and at-risk • For high-crime hot spots: Extra police gram evaluations meeting mini- preadolescents: Family therapy and patrols. mum scientific standards, the parent training. • For high-risk repeat offenders: report concludes that there is mini- • For schools: —Monitoring by specialized police units. mally adequate evidence to estab- —Organizational development for —Incarceration. lish a provisional list of what innovation. • For domestic abusers who are works, what doesn’t, and what’s —Communication and reinforcement of employed: On-scene arrests. clear, consistent norms. promising. The evidence is current —Teaching of social competency skills. • For convicted offenders: Rehabilitation as of late 1996 when the literature —Coaching of high-risk youth in programs with risk-focused treatments. “thinking skills.” • For drug-using offenders in prison: Therapeutic community treatment continued… programs. R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Issues and Findings effectiveness of State and local crime • In places (such as businesses, 2 continued… prevention assistance programs funded hotels, and other locations). by the U.S. Department of Justice, “with review was completed and is ex- • By police. special emphasis on factors that relate pected to change continually as to juvenile crime and the effect of these • By criminal justice agencies after more program evaluation findings programs on youth violence.” The law arrest. are completed and reported. required that the review “employ rigorous Crime prevention programs in each of Target audience: Federal, State, and scientifically recognized standards these settings are legally eligible for Jus- and methodologies.” Framers of the and local policymakers; criminal tice Department crime prevention fund- law expected that the evaluation would and juvenile justice professionals, ing. However, because Congress requires measure: practitioners, and researchers; edu- that most funding decisions about spe- cators; and leaders of community “(a) reductions in delinquency, juvenile cific programs be decentralized to State organizations promoting preven- crime, youth gang activity, youth sub- and local governments, no detailed tion of crime, juvenile delinquency, stance abuse, and other high-risk factors; breakdown of funding is available by set- ting or by program. The review focused and drug abuse. (b) reductions in the risk factors in the community, schools, and family environ- on whether there is scientific evidence Updates: The most recent lists of ments that contribute to juvenile vio- favoring the types of programs that are what works, what doesn’t, and lence; and (c) increases in the protective eligible for funding, showing they can what’s promising are regularly factors that reduce the likelihood of de- accomplish their goals. 1 updated at the University of linquency and criminal behavior.” This Research in Brief describes the sci- Maryland Web site, http:// After an external, peer-reviewed competi- entific methodologies used to perform the www.preventingcrime.org. The full tion, the National Institute of Justice se- review as well as the limitations of the text of the 1997 report, this Re- lected the proposal of a group from the available data. It then summarizes the search in Brief, and annual updates University of Maryland’s Department of conclusions reached by the authors to de- can all be downloaded from that Criminology and Criminal Justice to per- velop three separate lists of programs for Web site. form the review. which a minimum level of scientific evi- dence was available: what works, what The review defined “crime prevention” doesn’t, and what’s promising. The text broadly as any practice shown to result in provides more details on the evaluations less crime than would occur without the of each type of program as well as cita- practice. It also examined any program tions to the sources of data the authors that claims to prevent crime or drug reviewed to reach their conclusions. abuse, especially youth violence, and, in Note: The page references in brackets and accordance with the congressional man- italics that follow the bibliographic cita- date, examined the effects of programs on tions refer the reader to the pages in the risk and protective factors for youth vio- printed version of the full 1997 report to lence and drug abuse. Congress where the authors discuss the topics in greater detail. Programs meeting any of these criteria were classified into seven local institu- tional settings in which these practices The science of crime operated: prevention

• In communities. To most practitioners, crime prevention is an art. But as the U.S. Congress indicated • In families. in the law requiring this report, the art • In schools. of crime prevention (like the art of medi- cine) can be evaluated and guided by the • In labor markets.

2 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f science of measuring program effects. about the way to test cause and effect detail in standard texts, notably Cook Scientific evaluations of crime preven- in any given study—a concept known and Campbell (1979). In the course of tion have both limitations and strengths. as “internal validity.” The rules are far preparing this review, the authors de- The major limitation is that scientific less clear, especially in social sci- veloped a shorthand means of summa- knowledge is provisional, because the ences, about how to judge how widely rizing these rules called the Maryland accuracy of generalizations to all pro- the results of any study may be gener- Scale of Scientific Methods [see pp. 2– grams drawn from one or even several alized—a concept known as “external 15 to 2–19 and the Appendix]. This tests of specific programs is always validity.” The results of a very strong, scale was modified from a similar sys- uncertain. The major strength of scien- internally valid test of how to reduce tem for coding evaluations in a major tific evaluations is that rules of science child abuse among rural, white teen- review of drug prevention work per- provide a consistent and reasonably age mothers, for example, may or may formed by the Center for Substance objective way to draw conclusions about not generalize to a population of inner- Abuse Prevention (1995) and was later cause and effect. city African-American mothers. The found to be similar to scales used to two populations are clearly different, assess the internal validity of clinical Limitations but the question of whether those dif- trials in medicine (Millenson, 1997, ferences change the effects of the pro- p. 131). These standards for assessing Scientific knowledge is provi- gram can best be answered by testing internal validity have been developed sional. The most important limitation the program in both populations. over the past century in a wide range of science is that the knowledge it pro- of fields and are directly responsive to duces is always becoming more re- There is a child abuse prevention pro- the congressional mandate to employ fined, and therefore no conclusion is gram discussed below that has been “rigorous and scientifically recognized permanent. All of the conclusions pre- found effective in both kinds of popu- standards and methodologies” in pre- sented in this Research in Brief, as in lations (Olds et al., 1988). Many pre- paring the report. the report to Congress, are provi- vention programs, however, have been sional—just as all scientific knowl- tested in only one kind of population. edge is provisional. As the U.S. Tests that have reasonably strong in- Research methods Supreme Court noted in its analysis ternal validity provide some evidence Deciding what works in the prevention of scientific evidence in the case of for external validity, but the strength of of crime called for applying rigorous Daubert vs. Merrell Dow (1993),3 no external validity cannot be assessed means for determining which programs theory (or program) of cause and effect using standard scientific methods and have had a demonstrated impact on the can ever be proved to be true. It can rules in the same way that we can as- reduction of crime and delinquency. only be disproved. Every test of a sess internal validity. The test of the theory provides an opportunity to dis- external validity or generalizability of The search for impact prove it. The stronger the test and the internally valid results of an evalua- evaluations more tests each theory survives, the tion is continued testing, that is, repli- more confidence we may have that the cation. Until replications become far The first step was to identify and re- theory is true. But all theories can be more common in crime prevention view reports evaluating the effective- disproved or, more likely, revised by evaluations, the field will continue to ness of crime prevention programs. new findings. All conclusions reported suffer from the uncertain external va- Impact versus process evaluations. in this Research in Brief reflect the lidity of both positive and negative The primary factor used to select such state of scientific knowledge as of late findings. 1996 when the initial review was con- evaluations was evidence about the impact of programs on crime. Many cluded. By the time this Research in Strengths Brief is published, new research re- evaluations funded by the Federal sults may be available that would The strength of the scientific method is Government—perhaps the majority— modify the conclusions. that there are widely agreed-upon are “process” evaluations describing rules for assessing the level of cer- what was done, rather than “impact” Generalizations are uncertain. The tainty that a conclusion in any one test evaluations assessing what effect the rules of science are relatively clear is correct. These rules are presented in program had on crime. While process

3 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f evaluations can produce much valuable mainstream outlets in criminology, analyses, was an overall rating based data on the implementation of programs such as governmental reports in other primarily on three factors: and the logic of their strategies, they countries. cannot offer evidence as to whether the • Control of other variables in the programs “work” to prevent crime. We anticipate that as this project con- analysis that might have been the true Evaluations containing both process tinues, new reports will be found that causes of any observed connection and impact measures provide the most may modify some conclusions and will between a program and crime. certainly improve the strength of the information, but they are rarely funded • Measurement error from such evidence. The project has clearly dem- or reported. things as subjects lost over time or low onstrated the need for a central regis- interview response rates. Crime and other effects. A related try of crime prevention evaluations so issue is whether an evaluation reports that all findings, published or unpub- • Statistical power to detect pro- the impact of a program on other mea- lished, can be integrated into the gram effects (including sample size, sures besides crime. There are many knowledge base. Because there is a base rate of crime, and other factors potential costs and benefits to any pro- widely reported bias against publish- affecting the likelihood of the study gram. Evidence about these costs and ing reports of statistically insignificant detecting a true difference not due to benefits might change the overall as- differences, the existence of a registry chance). sessment of whether the program would improve the scientific basis for Research design. Exhibit 1 summa- works. This report, however, had a fo- the conclusions reported in this Re- rizes the key elements in the scoring of cused mandate from Congress to con- search in Brief. This would help rein- evaluations. The scientific issues for centrate on crime impacts. Because force the value of learning what does inferring cause and effect vary some- Congress provided neither the time nor not work as well as what does. Both what by setting, and the specific crite- the mandate to examine the other ef- kinds of findings are essential for the ria for applying the scientific methods fects programs might have, the report scientific method. scale vary accordingly. Issues such as generally disregarded those issues and “sample attrition,” or subjects drop- excluded any evaluation that lacked The Maryland Scale of ping out of treatment or measurement, outcome measures of crime or crime Scientific Methods for example, do not apply to most risk factors. We developed and employed the evaluations of commercial security Published and unpublished re- Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods practices. But across all settings, the ports. With only 6 months to produce summarized below, ranking each study scientific methods scale does include the report, we limited our search for from 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest) on these core criteria, which define the scientific evidence to readily available overall internal validity. There were a five levels of the Maryland Scale of sources. Most accessible were the few modest differences across the Scientific Methods: evaluations that had been published in seven settings cited earlier in the exact Level 1. Correlation between a crime scientific journals, as well as several coding rules for scoring an evaluation, prevention program and a measure of reviews of such studies that had re- generally based on differences in the crime or crime risk factors at a single cently been completed. With the assis- evaluation literature across these set- point in time. tance of the National Institute of tings [see pp. 2–18 to 2–19]. The ap- Justice, we were also able to locate pendix to the full report shows the full Level 2. Temporal sequence between some unpublished evaluations. We rating instrument for seven different the program and the crime or risk out- made every effort to be comprehen- dimensions of the methods used in come clearly observed, or the presence sive, in that no eligible study that was each study, but this instrument could of a comparison group without demon- located was excluded. However, there not be used for coding studies from strated comparability to the treatment is a large “fugitive” literature of un- secondary reviews or meta-analyses. group. published crime prevention evalua- tions that could not be tapped in this What could be used with greatest con- Level 3. A comparison between two or study, including some that undoubt- sistency, for both individual evalua- more comparable units of analysis, one edly have been published outside the tions, secondary reviews, and meta- with and one without the program.

4 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Level 4. Comparison between multiple validity. The main threats to validity in- have been the true cause of any mea- units with and without the program, dicated in the four columns are these: sured change in crime. controlling for other factors, or using • Selection bias, or factors charac- comparison units that evidence only • Causal direction, the question of terizing the group receiving a program, minor differences. whether the crime caused the program to be present or the program caused that independently affect the observed Level 5. Random assignment and the observed level of crime. level of crime. analysis of comparable units to pro- • History, the passage of time or As exhibit 1 shows, each higher level gram and comparison groups. other factors external to the program of the Maryland scale from weakest to strongest removes more of these Threats to internal validity. The sci- that may have caused a change in threats to validity, with the highest entific importance of these elements is crime rather than the prevention pro- level on the scale generally controlling illustrated in the bottom half of exhibit gram itself. all four of them and the bottom level 1, showing the extent to which each • Chance factors, or events within suffering all four. The progressive re- level on the scientific methods scale the program group (such as imprison- moval of such threats to demonstrating controls for various threats to internal ing a few active offenders), that could

Exhibit 1: The Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods

A. Research Designs

Before-After Control Multiple Units Randomization

Methods Score

Level 1 O O X O

Level 2 X O O* O

Level 3 X X O O

Level 4 X X X O

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 O X X X

Level 3 O O X X

Level 4 O O O X

Level 5 O O O O

Key: X = present O = absent *Except where a comparison unit is employed without demonstrated comparability.

5 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f the causal link between the program in the kinds of social contexts in which the accumulation of many tests in many effect and crime is the logical basis for they have been evaluated and for settings with all major variations on the the increasing confidence scientists which the findings can be generalized program theme. None of the programs put into studies with fewer threats to to similar settings in other places and reviewed for this report have accumu- internal validity (Cook and Campbell, times. Programs coded as “working” lated such a body of knowledge so far. 1979). by this definition must have at least The conclusions drawn in the report two level 3 evaluations with statistical about what works and what doesn’t Deciding what works significance tests and the preponder- should be read, therefore, as more cer- ance of all available evidence showing tain to the extent that all conditions of The current state of the research- effectiveness. the programs that were evaluated (e.g., based evidence creates a dilemma in population demographics, program ele- • What doesn’t work. These are responding to the congressional man- ments, social context) are replicated in programs that we are reasonably cer- date: How high should the threshold of other settings. The greater the differ- tain from available evidence fail to scientific evidence be for answering ences on such dimensions between prevent crime or reduce risk factors for the congressional question about pro- evaluated programs and other programs crime, using the identical scientific gram effectiveness? A very conserva- using the same name, the less certain criteria used for deciding what works. tive approach might require at least the application of this report’s conclu- Programs coded as “not working” by two level 5 studies showing that a pro- sions must be. gram is effective (or ineffective), with this definition must have at least two the preponderance of the remaining level 3 evaluations with statistical evidence in favor of the same conclu- significance tests showing ineffective- What works? sion. Employing a threshold that high, ness and the preponderance of all Programs similar in prevention however, would leave very little to say available evidence supporting the approach and social setting to the about crime prevention, based on the same conclusion. evaluations cited for each program existing science. There is a clear • What’s promising. These are pro- discussed below are reasonably likely, tradeoff between the level of certainty grams for which the level of certainty but not guaranteed, to be effective in in the answers that can be given to from available evidence is too low to preventing some form of crime or drug Congress and the level of useful infor- support generalizable conclusions, but abuse. Each program type assessed as mation that can be gleaned from the for which there is some empirical basis “working” or “effective” meets the available science. The report takes the for predicting that further research standard of having two or more evalua- middle road between reaching very could support such conclusions. Pro- tions (as cited below) that were coded few conclusions with great certainty grams are coded as “promising” if they level 3 or higher on the Maryland and reaching very many conclusions were found effective in at least one Scale of Scientific Methods, and a pre- with very little certainty. level 3 evaluation and the preponder- ponderance of other evidence, in sup- ance of the remaining evidence. port of this conclusion. Based on the scientific strength and substantive findings of the available • What’s unknown. Any program evaluations, the report classifies all not classified in one of the three above In communities programs into one of four categories: categories is defined as having un- Using this standard, there are no com- what works, what doesn’t, what’s prom- known effects. munity-based crime prevention pro- ising, and what’s unknown. The crite- The weakest aspect of this classification grams proved to be effective at ria for classification applied across all system is that there is no standard preventing crime. Several, however, seven institutional settings are as fol- means for determining external validity: can be found on the list of promising lows [see more detailed definitions on exactly what variations in program programs, which have at least one pp. 2–20 to 2–21 of the full report]: content and setting might affect the evaluation at level 3 or higher showing a crime reduction effect and a prepon- • What works. These are programs generalizability of findings from existing derance of other evidence supporting that we are reasonably certain prevent evaluations. In the current state of sci- the same conclusion. crime or reduce risk factors for crime ence, that can be accomplished only by

6 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

In families In schools (L.S.T.), which teach over a long pe- riod of time such skills as stress man- • Frequent home visits to infants aged • Building school capacity to agement, problem solving, self-control, 0–2 by trained nurses and other help- initiate and sustain innovation and emotional intelligence, reduce ers reduce child abuse and other inju- through the use of school teams delinquency, and substance abuse ries to the infants (Gray et al., 1979; or other organizational develop- (Botvin, et al., 1984; Weissberg and Larson, 1980; Olds, 1986, 1988; ment strategies reduces crime and Caplan, 1994), or conduct problems Barth, Hacking, and Ash, 1988) delinquency (D. Gottfredson, 1986, (Greenberg et al., 1995) [see pp. 5–29 [see pp. 4–10 to 4–15]. 1987; Kenney and Watson, 1996) to 5–31; 5–36 to 5–38]. [see pp. 5–15 to 5–17]. • Preschool and weekly home • Training or coaching in think- visits by teachers to children under • Clarifying and communicating ing skills for high-risk youth using 5 substantially reduce arrests at least norms about behavior through rules, behavior modification techniques or through age 15 (Lally et al., 1988) and reinforcement of positive behavior, rewards and punishments reduces sub- up to age 19 (Berrueta-Clement et al., and schoolwide initiatives (such as stance abuse (Lochman et al., 1984; 1985) [see pp. 4–10 to 4–15]. antibullying campaigns) reduces crime Bry, 1982; Lipsey, 1992) [see pp. 5–43 and delinquency (Mayer et al., 1983; • Family therapy and parent to 5–46]. Olweus, 1991, 1992) and substance training about delinquent and abuse (Institute of Medicine, 1994; at-risk preadolescents reduce risk In labor markets Hansen and Graham, 1991) [see pp. factors for delinquency such as aggres- 5–17 to 5–20]. • Ex-offender job training for sion and hyperactivity (review by older males no longer under criminal Tremblay and Craig, 1995) [see pp. • Social competency skills curricu- justice supervision reduces repeat 4–19 to 4–24]. lums, such as Life Skills Training

W hat Doesn’t Work • Gun “buyback” programs. • Arrests of juveniles for minor offenses. • Community mobilization against crime in high-crime poverty • Arrests of unemployed suspects for domestic assault. areas. • Increased arrests or raids on drug market locations. • Police counseling visits to homes of couples days after • Storefront police offices. domestic violence incidents. • Police newsletters with local crime information. • Counseling and peer counseling of students in schools. • Correctional boot camps using traditional military basic training. • Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). • “Scared Straight” programs whereby minor juvenile offenders • Drug prevention classes focused on fear and other emotional visit adult prisons. appeals, including self-esteem. • Shock probation, shock parole, and split sentences adding jail • School-based leisure-time enrichment programs. time to probation or parole. • Summer jobs or subsidized work programs for at-risk youth. • Home detention with electronic monitoring. • Short-term, nonresidential training programs for at-risk youth. • Intensive supervision on parole or probation (ISP). • Diversion from court to job training as a condition of case • Rehabilitation programs using vague, unstructured counseling. dismissal. • Residential programs for juvenile offenders using challenging • Neighborhood watch programs organized with police. experiences in rural settings.

7 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f offending (Mallar and Thornton, 1978; turns as less active or serious offend- In schools Piliavin and Masters, 1981) [see pp. 6– ers are incarcerated (Visher, 1987; • Individual counseling and peer 10, 6–14 to 6–17]. Cohen and Canela-Cacho, 1994) [see counseling of students fail to reduce pp. 9–6 to 9–11]. substance abuse or delinquency In places • Rehabilitation programs for and can increase delinquency • Nuisance abatement threatening adult and juvenile offenders using (Gottfredson, 1986; G. Gottfredson, civil action against landlords for not treatments appropriate to their risk 1987; Lipsey, 1992) [see pp. 5–46 to addressing drug problems on the pre- factors reduces their repeat offending 5–48]. mises reduces drug dealing and crime rates (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipton • Drug Abuse Resistance Educa- in privately owned rental housing and Pearson, 1996) [see pp. 9–15 to tion (D.A.R.E.), a curriculum taught (Green, 1993, 1995; Eck and Wartell, 9–19]. by uniformed police officers primarily 1996) [see pp. 7–11 to 7–12]. • Drug treatment in prison in to 5th and 6th graders over 17 lessons, therapeutic community programs re- fails to reduce drug abuse when the By police duces repeat offending after release original D.A.R.E. curriculum (pre- • Extra police patrols in high- from prison (Wexler et al., 1992, 1995; 1993) is used (Ringwalt et al., 1994; crime hot spots reduce crime in Martin et al., 1995) [see pp. 9–41 to Rosenbaum et al., 1994; Clayton et al., those places (Press, 1971; Chaiken et 9–43]. 1996) [see pp. 5–28 to 5–29, 5–32 to al., 1975; Chaiken, 1978; Sherman 5–36]. and Weisburd, 1995; Koper, 1995) What doesn’t work? • Instructional programs focusing [see pp. 8–13 to 8–15]. on information dissemination, • Repeat offender units that reduce In communities fear arousal, moral appeal, self- the time on the streets of known high- • Gun buyback programs operated esteem, and affective education risk repeat offenders by monitoring without geographic limitations on the fail to reduce substance abuse (review them and returning them to prison eligibility of people providing guns for by Botvin, 1990) [see p. 5–29]. more quickly than when they are not money fail to reduce gun violence in • School-based leisure-time en- monitored reduces their crimes (Mar- cities, as evaluated in St. Louis and richment programs, including su- tin and Sherman, 1986; Abrahamse et Seattle (Rosenfeld, 1995; Callahan et pervised homework and self-esteem al., 1991) [see pp. 8–20 to 8–21]. al., 1995) [see pp. 3–28 to 3–30]. exercises, fail to reduce delinquency • Arresting domestic abusers re- • Community mobilization of resi- risk factors or drug abuse (Botvin, duces repeat domestic abuse by em- dents’ efforts against crime in 1990; Hansen, 1992; Ross et al., ployed suspects (Sherman and Smith, high-crime, inner-city areas of concen- 1992; Stoil et al., 1994; Cronin, 1996) 1992; Pate and Hamilton, 1992; Berk trated poverty fails to reduce crime in [see pp. 5–48, 5–50 to 5–53]. et al., 1992a, 1992b) as well as offend- those areas (review by Hope, 1995) ers living in neighborhoods where [see pp. 3–9 to 3–10]. In labor markets most households have an employed • Summer job or subsidized work adult (Marciniak, 1994) [see pp. 8–16 In families programs for at-risk youth fail to to 8–20]. • Home visits by police to couples reduce crime or arrests (Maynard, 1980; Piliavin and Masters, 1981; By criminal justice agencies after domestic violence incidents Ahlstrom and Havighurst, 1982) after arrest to provide counseling and monitoring failed to reduce repeat violence in [see pp. 6–18 to 6–25]. • Incarceration of offenders who Dade County, Florida, after either an • Short-term, nonresidential will continue to commit crime pre- arrest had been made or after a warn- training programs for at-risk youth, vents crimes they would commit on the ing had been issued (Pate et al., 1991), including JTPA (Job Training and street, but the number of crimes pre- and in public housing projects in New Partnership Act) and a more intensive vented by locking up each additional York City (Davis and Taylor, 1997) version of JTPA called JOBSTART, offender declines with diminishing re- [see pp. 4–16 to 4–18].

8 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f fail to reduce crime (Cave et al., 1993; • Increased arrests or raids on offenders only under community su- Bloom et al., 1994) [see pp. 6–18 to drug markets fail to reduce violent pervision and increase crime rates for 6–22]. crime or disorder for more than a few some groups (Vito and Allen, 1981; days, if at all (Sviridoff et al., 1992; Vito, 1984; Boudouris and Turnbull, • Diversion from court to job Annan and Skogan, 1993; Sherman 1985) [see pp. 9–14 to 9–15]. training for adult offenders as a con- and Rogan, 1995b) [see pp. 8–20 to dition of case dismissal fails to reduce • Home detention with electronic 8–25]. repeat offending during or after an monitoring for low-risk offenders adult program (Vera Institute, 1970; • Storefront police offices fail to fails to reduce offending compared to Baker and Sadd, 1981) and increased prevent crime in the surrounding areas the placement of similar offenders un- offending in a juvenile program (Wycoff and Skogan, 1986; Uchida et der standard community supervision (Leiber and Mawhorr, 1995) [see pp. al., 1992) [see pp. 8–25 to 8–29]. without electronic monitoring (Baumer 6–16, 6–13]. and Mendelsohn, 1991; Austin and • Police newsletters with local Hardyman, 1991) [see pp. 9–24 to crime information failed to reduce In places 9–25]. victimization rates in Newark, New Using the same assessment standard, Jersey, and Houston, Texas (Pate et • Intensive supervision on parole there are as yet no place-focused al., 1986) [see pp. 8–26 to 8–28]. or probation (ISP) does not reduce crime prevention programs proved to repeat offending compared to normal be ineffective. However, relative to By criminal justice agencies levels of community supervision, other areas of crime prevention, few after arrest although there are some exceptions; place-focused crime prevention meth- findings vary by site (Petersilia and • Correctional boot camps using ods have been studied by criminolo- Turner, 1993; Deschenes et al., 1995) traditional military basic training gists in the United States. [see pp. 9–19 to 9–24]. fail to reduce repeat offending after release compared to having similar • Rehabilitation programs using By police offenders serve time on probation or counseling that does not specifically • Neighborhood watch programs parole, both for adults (Flowers, Carr, focus on each offender’s risk factors organized with police fail to reduce and Ruback, 1991; MacKenzie, 1991, fail to reduce repeat offending (from burglary or other target crimes, espe- MacKenzie et al., 1995) and for juve- meta-analysis by Lipsey, 1992) cially in higher crime areas where niles (Peters, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c; [see pp. 9–15 to 9–19]. Bottcher et al., 1996) [see pp. 9–27 to voluntary participation often fails • Residential programs for juve- 9–31]. (Rosenbaum, 1986; Pate et al., 1987) nile offenders in rural settings using [see pp. 8–25 to 8–27]. • “Scared Straight” programs bring- “outward bound,” wilderness, chal- • Arrests of juveniles for minor ing minor juvenile offenders to visit lenge, or counseling programs fail to offenses cause them to become more maximum security prisons to see the reduce repeat offending significantly delinquent in the future than if police severity of prison conditions fail to in comparison to standard training exercise discretion to merely warn reduce the participants’ reoffending schools (Deschenes et al., 1996a; them or use other alternatives to for- rates and may increase crime Greenwood and Turner, 1993) mal charging (Farrington, 1977; Klein, (Finckenauer, 1982; Buckner and [see pp. 9–33 to 9–37]. 1986) [see pp. 8–16 to 8–18]. Chesney-Lind, 1983; Lewis, 1983) [see pp. 9–14 to 9–15]. What’s promising? • Arrests of unemployed suspects for domestic assault cause higher • Shock probation, shock parole, In communities rates of repeat offending over the long and split sentences, in which offend- term than nonarrest alternatives ers are incarcerated for a short period • Gang offender monitoring by (Sherman and Smith, 1992; Pate and of time at the beginning of the sen- community workers and proba- Hamilton, 1992) [see pp. 8–16 to tence and then supervised in the com- tion and police officers can reduce 8–20]. munity, do not reduce repeat offending gang violence (review by Howell, compared to the placement of similar 1995), although similar programs can

9 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

increase gang crime if they increase gang cohesion (Klein, 1968) [see pp. hat’s Promising? 3–10 to 3–19]. • Community-based mentoring W by Big Brothers/Big Sisters of • Proactive drunk driving • Job Corps residential training arrests with breath testing (may programs for at-risk youth (may America substantially reduced drug reduce accident deaths). reduce felonies). abuse in one experiment (rated level 5 • Community policing with meetings • Prison-based vocational education on the Maryland Scale) (Tierney and to set priorities (may reduce percep- programs for adult inmates (in Grossman, 1995), although evaluations tions of crime). Federal prisons). of other programs with mentoring as a • Police showing greater respect to • Moving urban public housing major component did not (McCord, arrested offenders (may reduce residents to suburban homes (may 1978, 1992; Fo and O’Donell, 1974, repeat offending). reduce risk factors for crime). 1975) [see pp. 3–21 to 3–26]. • Polite field interrogations of suspi- • Enterprise zones (may reduce area • Community-based afterschool cious persons (may reduce street unemployment, a risk factor for crime). recreation programs may reduce ju- crime). • Two clerks in already-robbed venile crime in the areas immediately • Mailing arrest warrants to domes- convenience stores (may reduce around the recreation center (review tic violence suspects who leave the robbery). by Howell, 1995) [see pp. 3–26 to scene before police arrive. • Redesigned layout of retail stores 3–28]. Similar programs based in • Higher numbers of police officers (may reduce shoplifting). schools, however, have failed to pre- in cities (may reduce crime generally). • Improved training and manage- vent crime [see pp. 5–48, 5–50 to • Gang monitoring by community ment of bar and tavern staff (may 5–53]. workers and probation and reduce violence, DUI). police officers. • Metal detectors (may reduce skyjack- In families • Community-based mentoring by ing, weapon carrying in schools). Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America • Battered women’s shelters were • Street closures, barricades, and (may prevent drug abuse). found to reduce at least the short-term rerouting (may reduce violence, • Community-based afterschool burglary). (6-week) rate of repeat victimization recreation programs (may reduce for women who take other steps to seek • “Target hardening” (may reduce local juvenile crime). help beyond staying in the shelter in vandalism of parking meters and crime • Battered women’s shelters (may involving phones). Santa Barbara (Berk et al., 1986) help some women reduce repeat [see p. 4–26]. • “Problem-solving” analysis unique domestic violence). to the crime situation at each • “Schools within schools” that location. In schools group students into smaller units • Proactive arrests for carrying • “Schools within schools” pro- (may prevent crime). concealed weapons (may reduce grams such as Student Training • Training or coaching in “thinking” gun crime). Through Urban Strategies (STATUS) skills for high-risk youth (may • Drug courts (may reduce repeat that group students into smaller units prevent crime). offending). for more supportive interaction or • Building school capacity through • Drug treatment in jails followed by flexibility in instruction have reduced organizational development (may urine testing in the community. prevent substance abuse). drug abuse and delinquency • Intensive supervision and aftercare (Gottfredson, 1990) [see pp. 5–26 to • Improved classroom management of juvenile offenders (both minor 5–27]. and instructional techniques (may and serious). reduce alcohol use). • Training or coaching in think- • Fines for criminal acts. ing skills for high-risk youth using behavior modification techniques or rewards and punishments may reduce

10 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f delinquency (Bry, 1982), and can re- • Enterprise zones with tax-break • Sky marshals on airplanes pro- duce substance abuse [see pp. 5–43 to incentives in areas of extremely high duced a slight reduction in hijacking 5–46]. unemployment reduced adult unem- in the period before the introduction of ployment rates in the targeted neigh- metal detectors for passenger screen- • Building school capacity to borhoods (a risk factor for crime) in ing (Landes, 1978) [see p. 7–29]. initiate and sustain innovation Indiana (Papke, 1994), although not in through the use of school teams • Street closures, barricades, and New Jersey (Boarnet and Bogart, 1996) or other organizational develop- rerouting reduced several types of [see pp. 6–29 to 6–35; 6–40 to 6–41]. ment strategies worked to reduce de- crime, including burglary (Atlas and linquency and substance abuse in one LeBlanc, 1994), homicides in Los An- In places study (D. Gottfredson, 1986) [see pp. geles (Lasley, 1996), and violent crime 5–15 to 5–17]. • Adding a second clerk may re- in Dayton (Newman, 1996), according duce robberies in already robbed to single studies [see pp. 7–33 to • Improved classroom manage- convenience stores but probably 7–35]. ment and instructional techniques does not prevent robberies in conve- reduced alcohol use in one study • “Target hardening” or use of nience stores that have never been (Battistich et al., 1996) [see p. 5–25]. strengthened materials and de- robbed (National Association of Con- signs reduced the use of slugs in New venience Stores, 1991) [see pp. 7–13, In labor markets York City parking meters (Decker, 7–16]. 1972) [see p. 7–39] and reduced • Job Corps, an intensive residential • Redesigning the layout of retail crimes involving telephones in New training program for at-risk youth, in stores can reduce shoplifting ac- York City’s Port Authority Bus Termi- one study reduced felony arrests for 4 cording to one evaluation in Great nal (Bichler and Clarke, 1996) and years after participants left the pro- Britain (Farrington et al., 1993) [see in one of its jails (LaVigne, 1994) gram and increased earnings and pp. 7–18 to 7–19]. [see pp. 7–38 to 7–39]. educational attainment (Mallar et al., 1982), although it also produced • Improving training and manage- • “Problem-solving” analysis higher rates of misdemeanor and traf- ment of bar and tavern staff can addressed to the specific crime fic arrests [see pp. 6–23 to 6–25]. substantially reduce tavern-related situation at each location violence, according to one Australian (Goldstein, 1990; Clarke, 1992) has • Prison-based vocational educa- evaluation (Felson et al., 1997; Homel been successful according to one tion programs for adult inmates in et al., 1997) and can reduce drunk experiment (rated level 5 on the Federal prisons can reduce postrelease driving (Saltz, 1987) and accidents Maryland Scale) in convenience stores repeat offending (Saylor and Gaes, (Putnam et al., 1993) [see pp. 7–20 to (Crow and Bull, 1975) and in an 1993), although the evidence is un- 7–21]. English public housing project at clear as to which of several vocational Kirkholt, according to one evaluation education programs had the effect and • Metal detectors can reduce (rated level 5 on the Maryland Scale) whether the effect was achieved weapon carrying in schools, ac- of a multitactic strategy to reduce through higher rates of employment cording to one study (Centers for Dis- repeat victimizations (Forrester et al., [see p. 6–15]. ease Control and Prevention, 1993), 1988) [see pp. 7–10 to 7–11, 7–16, although they did not reduce assaults • Dispersing inner-city public and 7–44]. Negative findings from the within or outside schools [see p. 7–30]. housing residents to scattered-site Minneapolis Repeat Call Address suburban public housing by rental • Airport metal detectors to Policing (RECAP) experiment (rated of single units in middle-income screen airplane passengers appear level 5 on the Maryland Scale), how- neighborhoods reduced risk factors for to reduce hijackings according to sev- ever, suggest that these strategies may crime, including high school dropout eral studies, one of which used scien- not work when applied across the uni- rates and parental unemployment tific methods approximating level 3 on verse of high-crime locations in a city (Rosenbaum, 1992) [see pp. 6–25 to the Maryland Scale (Landes, 1978) (Sherman, 1990; Buerger, 1994) 6–28]. [see pp. 7–29 to 7–30]. [see p. 8–31].

11 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

By police increase in the number of police offic- community-based corrections without ers was not accompanied by a drop in fines [see pp. 9–12 to 9–14]. • Proactive arrests for carrying crime [see pp. 8–8 to 8–10]. concealed weapons made by officers on directed patrols in gun crime hot Future research By criminal justice agencies spots, using traffic enforcement and after arrest The University of Maryland’s Depart- field interrogations, substantially ment of Criminology has established a reduced gun crimes in Kansas City • Drug courts that ordered and Crime Prevention Effectiveness Pro- (Sherman and Rogan, 1995a) monitored a combination of rehabilita- gram with the support of gifts and [see pp. 8–30 to 8–32]. tion and drug treatment reduced grants from private foundations and • Proactive drunk driving arrests repeat incarcerations compared to donors. The purpose is to continue the through systematic breath testing re- regular probation among offenders work summarized in this Research in duced deaths due to drunk driving in convicted of a first-time drug posses- Brief and to make it widely available Australia (Homel, 1990), with consis- sion felony (Deschenes et al., 1996b) through publications and the Internet tent but scientifically weaker evidence [see pp. 9–47 to 9–48]. at www.preventingcrime.org. More than from numerous evaluations in the • Drug treatment in jails followed 20,000 copies of the full report have United States [see pp. 8–20 to 8–24]. by urine testing in the community been downloaded from the Internet, has been found in one study to reduce with governors, State legislatures, con- • Community policing with meet- gressional committees, and several ings to set priorities reduced com- repeat arrests compared to drug-using inmates who did not receive treatment other nations requesting briefings on munity perceptions of the severity of the results in the first year after the crime problems in Chicago (Skogan and followup (Taxman and Spinner, 1996) [see pp. 9–45 to 9–46]. full report was submitted to Congress. and Hartnett, 1997) [see pp. 8–25 to The United Kingdom has relied 8–27]. • Intensive supervision and after- heavily on this report in drafting its care of minor juvenile offenders, • Policing with greater respect to new national strategy for reducing offenders reduced repeat offending in primarily status offenders like run- crime. These facts suggest widespread one analysis of arrested offenders (Pa- aways or truants, reduced future interest in using scientific evidence ternoster et al., 1997) and increased offending relative to status offenders about what works to prevent crime in respect for the law and police in an- who did not receive enhanced surveil- making policy and budget decisions. other (Sherman et al., 1997) [see pp. lance and services in North Carolina. The central conclusion of the report is 8–26 to 8–27]. The finding held true for first offenders but not for those with prior delin- that the current development of scien- • Field interrogations of suspi- quency in one experiment (rated level tific evidence is inadequate to the task cious persons reduced crime in a San 5 on the Maryland Scale) (Land et al., of policymaking. Many more impact Diego experiment without harming the 1990) [see pp. 9–37 to 9–41]. evaluations using stronger scientific legitimacy of the police in the eyes of methods are needed before even • Intensive supervision and after- the public (Boydstun, 1975) [see pp. minimally valid conclusions can be care of serious juvenile offenders 8–20 to 8–25]. reached about the impact on crime of in a Pennsylvania program reduced programs costing billions each year. • Mailing arrest warrants to rearrests compared to putting offend- Substantial progress does not require domestic violence suspects who ers on probation (Sontheimer and that all evaluations reach the “gold leave the scene before police ar- Goodstein, 1993) [see p. 9–39]. rive reduced repeat spouse abuse sub- standard” of level 5. In many areas, Fines for criminal acts stantially in Omaha (Dunford, 1990) • in combi- modifying research designs by adding [see pp. 8–16 to 8–20]. nation with other penalties may pro- a control group can raise the strength duce lower rates of repeat offending of an evaluation design method signifi- • Higher numbers of police offic- (Gordon and Glaser, 1991), and day cantly, from a level 2 to a level 3. That ers in cities generally reduced many fines may produce lower rates of tech- modest change would provide far more types of crime (Marvell and Moody, nical violations (Turner and Petersilia, information from which to derive more 1996), although in some cities an 1996) than sentencing offenders to certain conclusions about what works.

12 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

R ecommendations for a Statutory Evaluation Plan Three principles for evaluating crime pre- requires unless there is enough funding designed with a scientific methods score vention programs emerge from the evi- for strong science. Such studies routinely of 3 or more. This model can be achieved dence reviewed for this report: cost $15 million or more in other agen- by congressional enactment of the fol- cies and are often mandated by Con- lowing recommendations, according to Not every grant requires an evaluation. gress, but there is no precedent for such this study: Absent the resources and the skill needed “big science” at DOJ, according to the for achieving the statutory definition of study researchers. 1. Set aside 10 percent of all DOJ funding an evaluation as an impact assessment, of local assistance for crime prevention the requirement that all crime programs Impact evaluations should be conducted (as defined in this report) for operational be evaluated has resulted in few being at a level 3 scientific methods score or program funds to be controlled by a cen- evaluated. Spending adequate funds for higher. If Congress needs to know the ef- tral research office within OJP. strong evaluations in a few sites is far fectiveness of a program, it needs to more cost-effective than spending little know that answer to a reasonable degree 2. Authorize the research office to distrib- amounts of money for weak evaluations of scientific certainty. The study authors ute the 10 percent “evaluated program” in thousands of sites. suggest that just as the U.S. Supreme funds on the sole criterion of producing Court has asked Federal judges to be the rigorous scientific impact evaluations, the Evaluation funds should be conserved for gatekeepers of valid science to be placed results of which can be generalized to impact assessments. Limited funding re- in the hands of a jury, Congress can ask other locations nationwide. sources have forced DOJ to choose be- that independent peer review panels 3. Set aside an additional 10 percent of tween many descriptive evaluations or a serve the same function for congressional all DOJ local assistance appropriations for few impact evaluations, which do not evidence. The panels can be asked to crime prevention as defined in this report provide Congress with the information it certify that impact evaluations recom- to fund the scientific evaluation costs. mended for funding by DOJ are at least

Other parts of the full report address reader is referred to the report for all crime through the scientific standards other issues. One issue involves how these matters, especially chapters 1 employed in this report would double. the allocation of resources for crime and 10, as well as the final pages of prevention is made in relation to the chapters 3 through 9. Future reports Endnotes geography of crime, especially given from the University of Maryland will the concentration of youth homicide also address these issues in greater 1. 104th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Report 104–378. in a small number of inner-city areas. detail. Another issue is the direct implica- 2. A “place” is defined here as a very tions of these findings for congres- The need for more impact evaluations small area reserved for a narrow range of sional appropriations for various is shown most clearly by this final ob- functions, often controlled by a single prevention funding streams, such as servation. There are 15 programs on owner, and separated from the surrounding area. Byrne grants in the Anti-Drug Abuse the list of what works and 23 on the Act of 1988 as amended or the list of what doesn’t. The longest list, 3. Daubert vs. Merrell Dow (1993), U.S. 100,000 community police officers in however, is the 30 promising pro- Sup. Ct. No. 92–102, June 28, 1993 [509 the Crime Act of 1994 as amended. A grams. If even half of these programs U.S. 579]. final issue addressed in the full report were found effective with one addi- is the matter of Federal policy for tional level 3 impact evaluation, the crime prevention evaluations. The number of programs known to prevent

13 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

References Battistich, V., E. Schaps, M. Watson, and Bottcher, J., T. Isorena, M. Belnas (1996). D. Solomon (1996). “Prevention Effects LEAD: A Boot Camp and Intensive Parole Abrahamse, Allan F., Patricia A. Ebener, of the Child Development Project: Early Program: An Impact Evaluation: Second Peter W. Greenwood, Nora Fitzgerald, and Findings from an Ongoing Multi-Site Dem- Year Findings. Sacramento: State of Cali- Thomas E. Kosin (1991). “An Experimen- onstration Trial.” Journal of Adolescent fornia, Department of the Youth Authority, tal Evaluation of the Phoenix Repeat Research 11:12–35. Research Division. Offender Program.” Justice Quarterly 8:141–168. Baumer, T.L., and R. I. Mendelsohn Botvin, G.J., E. Baker, N.L. Renick, A.D. (1991). “Comparing Methods of Monitor- Filazzola, and E.M. Botvin (1984). Ahlstrom, Winton, and Robert J. ing Home Detention: The Results of a “A Cognitive Behavioral Approach to Havighurst (1982). “The Kansas City Field Experiment.” Paper presented to the Substance Abuse Prevention.” Addictive Work/Study Experiment.” In Daniel J. American Society of Criminology, San Behaviors 9:137–147. Safer, ed., School Programs for Disruptive Francisco. Adolescents. Baltimore, Maryland: Univer- Botvin, G. (1990). “Substance Abuse Pre- sity Park Press. Berk, Richard, Phyllis J. Newton, and vention: Theory, Practice, and Effective- Sarah F. Berk (1986). “What a Difference ness.” In M. Tonry and J.Q. Wilson, eds., Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R.D. Hoge, J. a Day Makes: An Empirical Study of the Drugs and Crime. Crime and Justice, vol Bonta, P. Gendreau, and F.T. Cullen Impact of Shelters for Battered Women.” 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1990). “Does Correctional Treatment Journal of Marriage and the Family Work? A Clinically Relevant and a Psy- Boudouris, J., and B.W. Turnbull (1985). 48:431–490. chologically Informed Meta-Analysis.” “Shock Probation in Iowa.” Journal of Criminology 28:369–404. Berk, Richard A., Alec Campbell, Ruth Offender Counseling Services and Klap, and Bruce Western (1992a). “A Rehabilitation 9:53–67. Annan, Sampson, and Wesley Skogan Bayesian Analysis of the Colorado Spouse (1993). Drug Enforcement in Public Hous- Boydstun, John (1975). The San Diego Abuse Experiment.” Journal of Criminal ing: Signs of Success in Denver. Washing- Field Interrogation Experiment. Washing- Law and Criminology 83:170–200. ton, D.C.: Police Foundation. ton, D.C.: Police Foundation. ______(1992b). “The Deterrent Atlas, Rabdal, and William G. LeBlanc Bry, B.H. (1982). “Reducing the Inci- Effect of Arrest in Incidents of Domestic (1994). “The Impact on Crime of Street dence of Adolescent Problems Through Violence: A Bayesian Analysis of Four Closures and Barricades: A Florida Case Preventive Intervention: One- and Five- Field Experiments.” American Sociologi- Study.” Security Journal 5:140–145. Year Follow-up.” American Journal of cal Review 57:698–708. Community Psychology 10:265–276. Austin, J., and P. Hardyman (1991). “The Berrueta-Clement, J.R., L.J. Schweinhart, Use of Early Parole With Electronic Moni- Buckner, J.C., and M. Chesney-Lind W.S. Barnett, A.S. Epstein, and D.P. toring to Control Prison Crowding: Evalua- (1983). “ Dramatic Cures for Juvenile Weikart (1985). Changed Lives: The Ef- tion of the Oklahoma Department of Crime: An Evaluation of a Prison-Run fects of the Perry Preschool Program on Corrections Pre-Parole Supervised Re- Delinquency Prevention Program.” Youths Through Age 19. Ypsilanti, Michi- lease With Electronic Monitoring.” Un- Criminal Justice and Behavior 10:227– gan: High Scope Press. published report to the National Institute 247. of Justice. Bichler, Gisela, and Ronald V. Clarke Buerger, Michael, ed. (1994). The Crime (1996). “Eliminating Pay Phone Toll Baker, Sally Hillsman, and S. Sadd, Prevention Casebook: Securing High-Crime Fraud at the Port Authority Bus Terminal (1981). Diversion of Felony Arrests: An Locations. Washington, D.C.: Crime Con- in Manhattan.” In Ronald V. Clarke, ed., Experiment in Pre-Trial Intervention: An trol Institute. Preventing Mass Transit Crime. Crime Evaluation of the Court Employment Prevention Studies, vol. 6. Monsey, New Callahan, Charles, Frederick Rivara, and Project, Summary Report. Washington, York: Criminal Justice Press. Thomas Koepsell (1995). “Money for D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Guns: Evaluation of the Seattle Gun Institute of Justice. Bloom, Howard et al. (1994). The National Buyback Program.” In Martha Plotkin, ed., JTPA Study: Overview of Impacts, Benefits, Barth, R.P., S. Hacking, and J.R. Ash Under Fire: Gun Buybacks, Exchanges, and Costs of Title IIA. Bethesda, Maryland: (1988). “Preventing Child Abuse: An Ex- and Amnesty Programs. Washington, D.C.: Abt Associates. perimental Evaluation of the Child-Parent Police Executive Research Forum. Enrichment Project.” Journal of Primary Boarnet, Marlin G., and William T. Bogart Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, Prevention 8:201–217. (1996). “Enterprise Zones and Employ- and Cyril Toussaint (1993). JOBSTART: ment: Evidence From New Jersey.” Jour- Final Report on a Program for High nal of Urban Economics 40:2:198–215.

14 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

School Dropouts. New York, New York: Demonstration—Final Report. La Jolla, Shoplifting.” In Ronald V. Clarke, ed., Manpower Demonstration Research California: Western Behavioral Sciences Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 1. Monsey, Corporation. Institute. New York: Criminal Justice Press. Centers for Disease Control and Preven- Daubert vs. Merrell Dow (1993), U.S. Sup. Felson, Marcus, Robyn Berends, Barry tion (1993). “The Violence-Related Ct. No. 92–102, June 28, 1993 [509 U.S. Richardson, and Arthur Veno (1997). “A Attitudes and Behaviors of High School 579]. Community Policing Initiative to Discour- Students—New York City, 1992.” Morbid- age Abuse of Alcohol.” In Ross Homel, ed., Davis, Robert C., and Bruce G. Taylor ity and Mortality Weekly Report 42:773– Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 7. Monsey, (1997) “A Proactive Response to Family 777. New York: Criminal Justice Press. Violence: The Results of a Randomized Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Experiment.” Criminology 35:307. Finckenauer, James O. (1982). Scared (1995). The National Structured Evaluation Straight and the Panacea Phenomenon. Decker, John F. (1972). “Curbside Deter- of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Preven- Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- rence: An Analysis of the Effect of a Slug tion. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Hall. Rejection Device, Coin View Window, and Health and Human Services. Warning Labels on Slug Usage in New Flowers, G.T., T.S. Carr, and R.B. Ruback Chaiken, Jan, M. Lawless, and K. York City Parking Meters.” Criminology (1991). Special Alternative Incarceration Stevenson (1975). “The Impact of Police 10:127–142. Evaluation. Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia Activity on Crime: Robberies on the New Department of Corrections. Deschenes, E.P., S. Turner, and J. York City Subway System.” Urban Analy- Petersilia (1995). “Intensive Community Fo, W.S.O., and C.R. O’Donell (1974). sis 3:173–205. Supervision in Minnesota: A Dual Experi- “The Buddy System: Relationship and Chaiken, Jan M. (1978). “What Is Known ment in Prison Diversion and Enhanced Contingency Conditioning in a Community About Deterrent Effects of Police Activi- Supervised Release.” Final Report to the Intervention Program for Youth With Non- ties.” In James A. Cramer, ed., Preventing National Institute of Justice. professionals as Behavior Change Agents.” Crime. Beverly Hills, California: Sage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- Deschenes, E.P., P. Greenwood, and G. ogy 42:163–69. Clarke, Ronald, ed. (1992). Situational Marshall. (1996a). The Nokomis Challenge Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Program Evaluation. Santa Monica, Cali- ______1975). “The Buddy System: Albany, New York: Harrow and Heston. fornia: RAND Corporation. Effect of Community Intervention on Delinquent Offenses.” Behavior Therapy Clayton, R.R., A.M. Cattarello, and B.M. Deschenes E.P., S. Turner, P. Greenwood, 6:522–524. Johnstone (1996). “The Effectiveness of and J. Chiesa (1996b). An Experimental Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project Evaluation of Drug Testing and Treatment Forrester, David H., Michael R. DARE): Five-Year Follow-up Results.” Interventions for Probationers in Maricopa Chatterton, and Ken Pease (1988). The Preventive Medicine 25:307–318. County, Arizona. Santa Monica, California: Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Demonstra- RAND Corporation. tion Project, Rochdale. Crime Prevention Cohen, Jacqueline, and Jose A. Canela- Unit Paper # 13. London: Home Office. Cacho (1994). “Incarceration and Violent Dunford, Franklyn W. (1990). “System- Crime.” In Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and Jeffrey Initiated Warrants for Suspects of Misde- Goldstein, Herman (1990). Problem- A. Roth, eds., Understanding and Prevent- meanor Domestic Assault: A Pilot Study.” Oriented Policing. New York, New York: ing Violence, vol. 4: Consequences and Justice Quarterly 7:631–653. McGraw-Hill. Control. Washington, D.C.: National Acad- Eck, John, and Julie Wartell (1996). Gordon, M.A., and D. Glaser (1991). emy Press. “Reducing Crime and Drug Dealing by “The Use and Effects of Financial Penal- Cook, Thomas, and Donald T. Campbell Improving Place Management.” Report to ties in Municipal Courts.” Criminology (1979). Quasi-Experimentation. Chicago: the San Diego Police Department. Wash- 29:651–676. Rand-McNally. ington, D.C.: Crime Control Institute. Gottfredson, Denise C. (1986). “An Em- Cronin, J. (1996). “An Evaluation of a Farrington, David P. (1977). “The Effects pirical Test of School-Based Environ- School-Based Community Service Pro- of Public Labeling.” British Journal of mental and Individual Interventions To gram: The Effects of Magic Me.” Techni- Criminology 17:112–125. Reduce the Risk of Delinquent Behavior.” cal Report available from Gottfredson Criminology 24:705–731. Farrington, David P., Sean Bowen, Associates, Inc., Ellicott City, Maryland. Abigail Buckle, Tony Burns-Howell, ______(1987). “An Evaluation of an Crow, W.J., and J.L. Bull (1975). Robbery John Burroughs, and Martin Speed (1993). Organization Development Approach to Deterrence: An Applied Behavioral Science “An Experiment on the Prevention of

15 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Reducing School Disorder.” Evaluation Research and Prevention. New York: Advances in Applied Developmental Psy- Review 11:739–763. Guilford Press. chology, vol. 3: Parent Education as Early Childhood Intervention: Emerging Direc- Gottfredson, Denise C. (1990). “Changing Homel, Ross, Marg Hauritz, Richard tions in Theory, Research, and Practice. School Structures To Benefit High-Risk Wortley, Gillian McIlwain, and Russell Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Youths.” In P.E. Leone, ed., Understanding Carvolth (1997). “Preventing Alcohol- Troubled and Troubling Youth. Newbury Related Crime Through Community Ac- Land, Kenneth C., P.L. McCall, and J.R. Park, California: Sage Publications. tion: The Surfer’s Paradise Safety Action Williams (1990). “Something That Works Project.” In Ronald V. Clarke, ed., Crime in Juvenile Justice: An Evaluation of the Gottfredson, Gary (1987). “Peer Group Prevention Studies (forthcoming). North Carolina Counselor’s Intensive Pro- Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Delin- tective Supervision Randomized Experi- quent Behavior: A Selective Review and a Hope, Tim (1995). “Community Crime mental Project, 1987–89.” Evaluation New Evaluation.” Criminology 25:671–714. Prevention.” In Michael Tonry and David Review 14:574–606. Farrington, eds., Building a Safer Society. Gray, J.D., C.A. Cutler, J.G. Dean, and Crime and Justice, vol. 19. Chicago: Uni- Landes, William M. (1978). “An Eco- C.H. Kempe (1979). “Prediction and versity of Chicago Press. nomic Study of U.S. Aircraft Hijacking, Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. 1961–1976.” Journal of Law and Econom- Journal of Social Issues 35:127–139. Howell, James C., ed. (1995). Guide for ics 21:1–2. Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy Green, Lorraine (1993). “Treating Deviant for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Lasley, James R. (1996). “Using Traffic Places: A Case Study Examination of the Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- Barriers To “Design Out” Crime: A Pro- Beat Health Program in Oakland, Califor- ment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice gram Evaluation of L.A.P.D.’s Operation nia.” Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers: The and Delinquency Prevention. Cul-de-Sac.” Report to the National Insti- State University of New Jersey. tute of Justice. Fullerton, California: Institute of Medicine (1994). Reducing ______(1995). “Cleaning Up Drug California State University, Fullerton. Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Hot spots in Oakland, California: The Dis- Preventive Intervention Research. Washing- LaVigne, Nancy G. (1994). “Rational placement and Diffusion Effects.” Justice ton, D.C.: National Academy Press. Choice and Inmate Disputes Over Phone Quarterly 12:737–754. Use on Riker’s Island. In Ronald V. Kenney, D.J., and T.S. Watson (1996). Greenberg, M.T., C.A. Kusche, E.T. Cook, Clarke, ed., Crime Prevention Studies, vol. “Reducing Fear in the Schools: Managing and J.P. Quamma (1995). “Promoting 3. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Conflict Through Student Problem Solv- Emotional Competence in School-Aged Press. ing.” Education and Urban Society Children: The Effects of the PATHS Cur- 28:436–455. Leiber, Michael J., and Tina L. Mawhorr riculum.” Development and Psychopathol- (1995). “Evaluating the Use of Social ogy 7:117–136. Klein, Malcolm (1968). From Association Skills Training and Employment with to Guilt: The Group Guidance Project in Greenwood, P.W., and S. Turner (1993). Delinquent Youth.” Journal of Criminal Juvenile Gang Intervention. Los Angeles: “Evaluation of the Paint Creek Center: Justice 23:127–141. University of Southern California. A Residential Program for Serious Delin- Lewis, R.V. (1983). “Scared Straight— quents.” Criminology 31:263–279. Klein, Malcolm (1986). “Labeling Theory California Style: Evaluation of the San and Delinquency Policy: An Empirical Hansen, W.B., and J.W. Graham (1991). Quentin Squire Program.” Criminal Justice Test.” Criminal Justice and Behavior “Preventing Alcohol, Marijuana, and and Behavior 10:209–226. 13:47–79. Cigarette Use Among Adolescents: Peer Lipsey, Mark W. (1992). “Juvenile Delin- Pressure Resistance Training Versus Koper, Christopher (1995). “Just Enough quency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Establishing Conservative Norms.” Police Presence: Reducing Crime and Inquiry into the Variability of Effects.” Preventive Medicine 20:414–430. Disorderly Behavior by Optimizing Patrol In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Time in Crime Hot Spots.” Justice Quar- Hansen, W.B. (1992). “School-Based Sub- Hartman, L.V. Hedges, R.V. Light, T.A. terly 12:649–671. stance Abuse Prevention: A Review of the Louis, and F. Mosteller, eds., Meta-Analy- State of the Art Curriculum 1980–1990.” Lally, J.R., P.L. Mangione, and A.S. Honig sis for Explanation. Beverly Hills: Sage. Health Education Research 7:403–430. (1988). “The Syracuse University Family Lipton, D.S., and Frank Pearson (1996). Development Research Project: Long- Homel, Ross (1990). “Random Breath “The CDATE Project: Reviewing Range Impact of an Early Intervention Testing and Random Stopping Programs in Research on the Effectiveness of Treat- with Low-Income Children and Their Australia.” In R.J. Wilson and R. Mann, ment Programs for Adult and Juvenile Families.” In D.R. Powell, ed., Annual eds., Drinking and Driving: Advances in

16 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Offenders.” Paper presented to the Improving Discipline: A Three-Year Pate, Tony, Mary Ann Wycoff, Wesley American Society of Criminology, Study.” Journal of Applied Behavior Skogan, and Lawrence W. Sherman Chicago, Illinois. Analysis 16:355–369. (1986). Reducing the Fear of Crime in Newark and Houston. Washington, D.C.: Lochman, J.E., Burch, P.R., Curry, J.F., Maynard, Rebecca (1980). The Impact of Police Foundation. and Lampron, L.B. (1984). “Treatment and Supported Work on Young School Dropouts. Generalization Effects of Cognitive-Behav- New York, New York: Manpower Demon- Pate, Antony, Edwin E. Hamilton, and ioral and Goal Setting Interventions With stration Research Corporation. Sampson Annan (1991). “Metro-Dade Aggressive Boys.” Journal of Consulting Spouse Abuse Replication Project: Draft McCord, Joan (1978). “A Thirty-Year and Clinical Psychology 52:915–916. Final Report.” Washington, D.C.: Police Followup of Treatment Effects.” The Foundation. MacKenzie, Doris (1991). “The Parole American Psychologist 33:284–289. Performance of Offenders Released From Pate, Antony, and Edwin E. Hamilton Millenson, Michael L. (1997). Demanding Shock Incarceration (Boot Camp Prisons): (1992). “Formal and Informal Deterrence Medical Excellence. Chicago: University of A Survival Time Analysis.” Journal of to Domestic Violence: The Dade County Chicago Press. Quantitative Criminology 3:213–36. Spouse Assault Experiment.” American National Association of Convenience Sociological Review 57:691–698. MacKenzie, Doris, Robert Brame, David Stores (1991). Convenience Store Security: McDowall, and Claire Souryal (1995). Pate, Antony M., Marlys McPherson, and Report and Recommendations. Alexandria, “Boot Camp Prisons and Recidivism in Glenn Silloway (1987). The Minneapolis Virginia: National Association of Conve- Eight States.” Criminology 33:327–358. Community Crime Prevention Experiment: nience Stores. Draft Evaluation Report. Washington, Mallar, Charles, and Craig V.D.Thornton Newman, Oscar (1996). Creating Defen- D.C.: Police Foundation. (1978). “Traditional Aid for Released sible Space. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Prisoners: Evidence from the LIFE Ex- Paternoster, Raymond, Bobby Brame, Department of Housing and Urban periment.” Human Resources 13:208–236. Ronet Bachman, and L.W. Sherman Development. (1997). “Do Fair Procedures Matter? The Mallar, Charles, Stuart Kerachsky, and Olds, D.L., C.R. Henderson, R. Effect of Procedural Justice on Spouse Craig V. Thornton. (1982). Third Follow- Chamberlin, and R. Tatelbaum (1986). Assault.” Law and Society Review 31:163– Up Report of the Evaluation of the Eco- “Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: 204. nomic Impact of the Job Corps. Princeton, A Randomized Trial of Nurse Home New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Re- Peters, M. (1996a). Evaluation of the Im- Visitation.” Pediatrics 78:65–78. search, Inc. pact of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders: ______(1988). “Improving the Life- Denver Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: Marciniak, Elizabeth (1994). “Community Course Development of Socially Disadvan- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juve- Policing of Domestic Violence: Neighbor- taged Mothers: A Randomized Trial of nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. hood Differences in the Effect of Arrest.” Nurse Home Visitation.” American Jour- Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland. ______(1996b) Evaluation of the Im- nal of Public Health 78:1436–1445. pact of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders: Martin, Susan E., and Lawrence W. Olweus, D. (1991). “Bully/Victim Prob- Cleveland Interim Report. Washington, Sherman (1986). “Selective Apprehension: lems Among Schoolchildren: Basic Facts D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office A Police Strategy for Repeat Offenders.” and Effects of a School Based Intervention of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Criminology 24:55–72. Program.” In D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin, Prevention. Martin, S.S., C.A. Butzin, and J. Inciardi eds., The Development and Treatment of ______(1996c) Evaluation of the Im- (1995). “Assessment of a Multi-Stage Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, New pact of Boot Camps on Juvenile Offenders: Therapeutic Community for Drug-Involved Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mobile Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: Offenders.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs ______(1992). “Bullying Among U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juve- 27:109–116. Schoolchildren: Intervention and Preven- nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Marvell, Thomas B., and Carlisle E. tion.” In R.D. Peters, R.J. McMahon, and Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner (1993). Moody (1996). “Specification Problems, V.L. Quinsey, eds., Aggression and Vio- Evaluating Intensive Supervision Police Levels and Crime Rates.” Criminol- lence Throughout the Life Span. Newbury Probation/Parole: Results of a Nationwide ogy 34:609–646. Park, California: Sage. Experiment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De- Mayer, G.R., T.W. Butterworth, M. Papke, Leslie E. (1994). “Tax Policy and partment of Justice, National Institute of Nafpakitis, and B. Sulzer-Azaroff (1983). Urban Development: Evidence from the Justice. “Preventing School Vandalism and Indiana Enterprise Zone Program.” Journal of Public Economics 54:7–49.

17 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Piliavin, Irving, and Stanley Masters Rosenfeld, Richard (1995). “Gun Sherman, Lawrence W., Heather Strang, (1981). The Impact of Employment Pro- Buybacks: Crime Control or Community and Geoffrey C. Barnes (1997). The RISE grams on Offenders, Addicts, and Problem Mobilization.” In Martha Plotkin, ed., Working Papers: the Canberra Reintegra- Youth: Implications From Supported Work. Under Fire: Gun Buybacks, Exchanges, tive Shaming Experiments. Canberra, Aus- Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wis- and Amnesty Programs. Washington, D.C.: tralia: Law Program, Research School for consin Institute for Research and Poverty Police Executive Research Forum. Social Sciences, Australian National Discussion Paper. University. Ross, J.G., P.J. Saabedra, G.H. Shur, F. Press, S.J. (1971). Some Effects of an Winters, and R.D. Felner (1992). “The Skogan, Wesley, and Susan Hartnett Increase in Police Manpower in the 20th Effectiveness of an After-School Program (1997). Community Policing, Chicago Precinct of New York City. New York: New for Primary Grade Latchkey Students on Style. New York: Free Press. York City Rand Institute. Precursors of Substance Abuse.” Journal Sontheimer, H., and L. Goodstein (1993). of Community Psychology, OSAP Special Putnam, Sandra L., Ian R. Rockett, and “Evaluation of Juvenile Intensive After- Issue 22–38. Miriam K. Campbell (1993). “Method- Care Probation: After-Care Versus System ological Issues in Community-Based Saltz, R.F. (1987). “The Role of Bars and Response Effects.” Justice Quarterly Program Effects.” In Thomas K. Restaurants in Preventing Alcohol- 10:197–227. Greenfield and Robert Zimmerman, eds., Impaired Driving: An Evaluation of Server Stoil, M., G. Hill, and P.J. Brounstein Experiences With Community Action Education.” Evaluation in Health Profes- (1994). “The Seven Core Strategies for Projects: New Research in the Prevention sions 10:5–27. ATOD Prevention: Findings of the of Alcohol and Other Problems. Center for Saylor, William G., and Gerald G. Gaes National Structure Evaluation of What is Substance Abuse Prevention Monograph (1993). Prep: Training Inmates Through Working Well Where.” Paper presented at 14. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department Industrial Work Participation and Voca- the 12th Annual Meeting of the American of Health and Human Services. tional and Apprenticeship Instruction. Public Health Association, Washington, Ringwalt, C., J. Green, S. Ennett, R. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Federal Bureau D.C. Iachan, R.R. Clayton, and C.G. Leukefeld of Prisons. Sviridoff, Michelle, et al. (1992). The (1994). Past and Future Directions of the Sherman, Lawrence W. (1990). “Police Neighborhood Effects of Street-Level Drug D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review: Crackdowns: Initial and Residual Deter- Enforcement: Tactical Narcotics Teams in Draft Final Report. Washington, D.C.: rence.” In Michael Tonry and Norval Mor- New York. New York: Vera Institute of U.S. Department of Justice, National Insti- ris, eds., Crime and Justice: A Review of Justice. tute of Justice. Research, vol. 12. Chicago: University of Taxman, Faye, and David L. Spinner Rosenbaum, D.P., R.L. Flewelling, S.L. Chicago Press. (1996). “The Jail Addiction Services (JAS) Bailey, C.L. Ringwalt, and D.L. Wilkinson Sherman, Lawrence W., and Douglas A. Project in Montgomery County, Maryland: (1994). “Cops in the Classroom: A Longi- Smith, 1992. “Legal and Informal Control Overview of Results From a 24-Month tudinal Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resis- of Domestic Violence.” American Socio- Followup Study.” Unpublished manu- tance Education (DARE).” Journal of logical Review 57:680–690. script. Department of Criminology and Research in Crime and Delinquency Criminal Justice, University of Maryland. 31:3–31. Sherman, Lawrence W., and David A. Weisburd (1995).” General Deterrent Ef- Tierney, Joseph P., and Jean Baldwin Rosenbaum, Dennis, Dan A. Lewis, and fects of Police Patrol in Crime ‘Hot Spots:’ Grossman with Nancy L. Resch (1995). Jane A. Grant (1986). “Neighborhood- A Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Justice Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Based Crime Prevention: Assessing the Quarterly 12:625–648. Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, Efficacy of Community Organizing in Chi- Pennsylvania: Public/Private Ventures. cago.” In Dennis Rosenbaum, ed., Com- Sherman, Lawrence W., and Dennis P. munity Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Rogan (1995a). “Effects of Gun Seizures Tremblay, Richard, and Wendy Craig Beverly Hills, California: Sage. on Gun Violence: ‘Hot Spots’ Patrol in (1995). “Developmental Crime Preven- Kansas City.” Justice Quarterly 12:755– tion.” In Michael Tonry and David Rosenbaum, James E. (1992). Black Pio- 781. Farrington, eds., Building a Safer Society. neers: “Do Their Moves to the Suburbs In- Crime and Justice, vol. 19. Chicago: crease Economic Opportunity for Mothers ______(1995b). “Deterrent Effects of University of Chicago Press. and Children?” Housing Policy Debate Police Raids on Crack Houses: A Ran- 2:1179–1213. domized Controlled Experiment.” Justice Quarterly 12:755–781.

18 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Turner, Susan, and Joan Petersilia (1996). Vito, G., and H.E. Allen (1981). “Shock University of Illinois at Chicago, Depart- Work Release: Recidivism and Corrections Probation in Ohio: A Comparison of Out- ment of Psychology. Costs in Washington State. Research in comes.” International Journal of Offender Wexler, H.K., G.P. Falkin, and D.S. Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department Therapy and Comparative Criminology Lipton (1992). “Outcome Evaluation of a of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 25:70–75. Prison Therapeutic Community for Sub- Uchida, Craig D., Brian Forst, and Vito, G. (1984). “Developments in Shock stance Abuse Treatment.” Criminal Sampson Annan (1992). Modern Policing Probation: A Review of Research Findings Justice and Behavior 17:71. and the Control of Illegal Drugs: Testing and Policy Implications.” Federal Proba- Wexler, H.K., W. F. Graham, R. New Strategies in Two American Cities. tion 48:22–27. Koronowski, and L. Lowe (1995). Evalua- Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Wasserman, Gail, and Laurie S. Miller tion of Amity In-Prison and Post-Release Department of Justice: National Institute (1998). “Serious and Violent Juvenile Substance Abuse Treatment Programs. of Justice. Offending.” In Rolf Loeber and David P. Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Vera Institute (1970). Pre-Trial Interven- Farrington, eds., Serious and Violent Juve- Drug Abuse. tion: The Manhattan Court Employment nile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Wycoff, Mary Ann, and Wesley Skogan Project. New York, New York: Vera Insti- Interventions. Thousand Oaks, California: (1986). “Storefront Police Offices: tute of Justice. Sage Publications. The Houston Field Test.” In Dennis Visher, Christy A. (1987). “Incapacitation Weissberg, R., and M.Z. Caplan (1994). Rosenbaum, ed., Community Crime Pre- and Crime Control: Does a ‘Lock ‘em Up’ “Promoting Social Competence and Pre- vention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills, Strategy Reduce Crime?” Justice Quarterly venting Anti-Social Behavior in Young California: Sage. 4:513–543. Adolescents.” Unpublished manuscript,

Findings and conclusions of the research re- The study reported in this Research in Brief Department of Criminology and Criminal ported here are those of the authors and do not was conducted by the Department of Crimi- Justice. necessarily reflect the official position or poli- nology and Criminal Justice, University of cies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Shawn D. Bushway is Assistant Professor, Maryland at College Park, under grant no. Department of Criminology and Criminal 96–MU–MU–0019. Justice, University of Maryland, and The National Institute of Justice is a com- Lawrence W. Sherman is Professor and Postdoctoral Fellow, National Consortium ponent of the Office of Justice Programs, Chair of the Department. on Violence Research. which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statis- Doris L. MacKenzie is Professor of This Research in Brief and the full report to tics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Criminology and Criminal Justice in the Congress are available online at the follow- Delinquency Prevention, and the Office Department. ing Web sites: for Victims of Crime.

Denise C. Gottfredson is also Professor of National Institute of Justice: NCJ 171676 Criminology and Criminal Justice in the http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Department. Justice Information Center: http://www.ncjrs.org John Eck is Associate Professor of Criminal University of Maryland: Justice, University of Cincinnati, and http://www.preventingcrime.org Research Fellow in the Crime Prevention Effectiveness Program, Department of A book version of the full report will be Criminology and Criminal Justice, Univer- available in 1999 from the Russell Sage sity of Maryland. Foundation, 112 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10021 (tel. 212–750–6000). Peter Reuter is Professor in the University of Maryland’s School of Public Affairs and

19