A variety of policies, programs, and practices are used to prevent and reduce crime and violence. Many of these could potentially be evidence-based, but establishing rigorous evidence requires considerable investments of time and resources. Only a relatively small number of all possible crime-reduction approaches have been tested sufficiently to merit the label “evidence-based.” Becoming an evidence-based program or practice is a developmental process that takes persistence, careful management, and often close collaboration with researchers.
Evidence-based policies refer to broad strategies that have been used to reduce crime and violence and that have been shown to be effective through rigorous research. For example, if high-quality research showed that wide-scale implementation of a community clean-up strategy was clearly associated with lower crime incidents, this might be termed an evidence-based policy, even if the research evidence addressed effects at the community level rather than at the level of individual or group behavior.
Evidence-based programs are usually brand-named interventions designed to change the behavior of individual offenders. These programs usually include manuals, protocols, training, technical assistance, and certification, often sold or endorsed by the program developers themselves. Various forms of family therapy and cognitive-behavioral interventions, for example, have been tested by researchers and found to have measurable effects on behavior.
To be considered evidence-based, a policy, program, or practice must be tested according to rigorous standards. Several experimental or many quasi-experimental studies — ideally carried out in different locations and at different times — must demonstrate significant improvements consistent with articulated goals.
Intervention approaches that do not meet evidence-based criteria, but that have other supporting evidence of effectiveness, may still be science-based or evidence-informed. A program found to be effective in just one or two studies, for example, might be useful for an agency considered research-based, even if not yet evidence-based. Some interventions not rigorously tested may still be considered “promising,” with potential to become research-based or evidence-based.
The Evidence Generation team recommends using evidence-informed programs and practices whenever possible, but it is important for agencies to pursue new and innovative practices if they fit their mission, their clientele, and their intervention philosophy. If an agency cannot locate an evidence-based program or practice consistent with its mission and approach, this does not prove the agency is off-target or misinformed. It may be due to bias or lack of vision among the policymakers and the funding organizations that control investments in social programs and evaluation research on those programs. If funding decisions reflect the values of the dominant culture, it would be difficult for new and innovative practices to break through.
____________________
Other Resources:
Butts, Jeffrey A., John K. Roman, and Katheryne Pugliese (2024). Evidence-oriented youth justice. Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Crime and Justice Policy. Brandon C. Welsh, Steven N. Zane, and Daniel P. Mears (Editors). New York: Oxford University Press.
Butts, Jeffrey A. (2012). What’s the Evidence for Evidence-Based Practice? Research and Evaluation Data Bits [2012-10]. New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.
Learn More
