Must we settle for less rigorous evaluations in large area-based crime prevention programs? Lessons from a Campbell review of focused deterrence

Abstract

Evaluations from a recent Campbell systematic review of focused deterrence programs are critically reviewed to determine whether more rigorous evaluations are possible given methodological challenges such as developing appropriate units of analysis, generalizing findings beyond study sites, and controlling for the contamination of available comparison groups. We synthesize the available evaluation literature on focused deterrence programs completed before and after the publication of the Campbell review to assess opportunities to conduct randomized controlled trials and stronger quasi-experimental evaluations. We find that focused deterrence strategies are amenable to more rigorous evaluation methodologies such as block randomized place-based trials, multisite cluster randomized trials, and quasi-experimental evaluations that employ advanced statistical matching techniques. Focused deterrence programs can, and should, be subjected to more rigorous tests that generate more robust evidence on program impacts and provide further insight into the crime control mechanisms at work in these programs. More generally, our review supports the idea that program evaluators do not have to “settle for less” methodological rigor when testing large area-based crime prevention programs.