Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
