Criminology Journals Research Articles

Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice journals in 1990–2000

The main aim of this research was to investigate changes in scholarly influence by identifying the most-cited scholars in twenty journals: five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars were also reported. Results obtained in 2000 were compared with previous findings in 1995 and 1990, and with results obtained from analyzing nine journals in 1996–2000. In 2000, the most-cited scholars were Robert J. Sampson in American criminology journals, Francis T. Cullen in American criminal justice journals, John Braithwaite in international criminology journals, and Robert D. Hare in international criminal justice journals. The expansion from nine to twenty journals benefited international scholars such as John Braithwaite and Richard V. Ericson and scholars in less mainstream areas such as Murray A. Straus. Overall, Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in these twenty journals in 2000, compared with Lawrence W. Sherman in 1995 and Marvin E. Wolfgang in 1990. The prevalence of citations (the number of different articles in which a scholar was cited) and specialization (where a scholar's influence was based on one or two highly-cited works) were also studied.

Social Conflicts and Modes of Action in China

(ProQuest-CSA LLC: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) Chinese society today is characterized by the coexistence of numerous social conflicts and social stability. This coexistence reveals the resilience of the Chinese political system.1 A resilient political system allows its citizens to use conflict-resolution mechanisms while preventing what Frederick Barghoorn has called "flabby flexibility" or "lack of principles".2 By this he means that citizens resort to non-institutionalized or illegal modes of action to pursue their interests. Undisciplined actions are likely to threaten political stability. In China, citizens have access to a number of channels of political participation,3 but state power prevents regime-threatening actions and allows the Party-state to maintain the social order amid a legion of social conflicts.4 However, the Party-state faces serious pressures because of the magnitude of conflicts and the recurrence of noninstitutionalized or illegal modes of action.5 These illegal modes of action reveal the limitations of the regular or permitted channels. Hence, an analysis of the factors that affect citizens' choice of the modes of action illuminates the degree of institutionalization of conflict resolution in China. The permitted channels of conflict resolution in China include both the use of the law and non-legal modes, such as petitions or mediation. These non-legal modes are, however, still "in the shadow of the law" in the sense that existing laws or government regulations are referred to when these modes are used to address social disputes.6 Research on Chinese citizens' use of permitted modes, especially the law, suggests a mixed picture. On the one hand, as Diamond et al. argue, "in today's China law matters more than it ever has" because it plays an unprecedented role in helping address social conflicts and citizens' grievances.7 Chinese citizens increasingly make use of the law in pressing their interests despite the widely known flaws of legal institutions.8 On the other hand, these flaws make successful action difficult. Effective lawsuits often require the use of tactics or political resources such as political connections. These tactics or resources require citizens to obtain support from the media or from sympathetic state agents, or to gain access to important institutions.9 Failure, especially when suing state agencies, is not rare.10 Such difficulties are also faced by those citizens who use non-legal modes of action. For example, research on the use of petitions has shown that petitioners often encounter serious or insurmountable hurdles in making state authorities pay serious attention to their grievances.11 The limited effectiveness of permitted channels has not driven the disgruntled to silence. In recent years, there have been numerous incidents of disruptive or illegal modes of action, including protests, demonstrations, violent confrontations, and even attacks on state agencies.12 It is these non-institutionalized modes of action that have led the central Party-state to set "the building of a harmonious society" as a top priority.13 If the use of the law and those non-legal modes of action that are "in the shadow of the law" can be an indicator of the degree of conflict resolution's institutionalization in a society, the recurrence of social protests in China suggests that this institutionalization is rather limited. The relationship between citizens' use of permitted modes and illegal modes of action has not been adequately addressed. The many existing studies on the permitted modes of action commonly point out their limitations, but they stop short of demonstrating the implications of these limitations. There is no systematic research on the likelihood of citizens' legal action escalating into illegal modes. Analysis of this likelihood illuminates the degree of pressure faced by the Party-state in maintaining social order. Previous research has not generated the data necessary to undertake such an analysis. …

Publication bias as a threat to the validity of meta-analytic results

This paper reviews the evidence in support of the contention that publication bias is a potential threat to the validity of meta-analytic results in criminology and similar fields. It then provides a critique of the traditional file drawer or failsafe N method for examining publication bias, and an overview of four newer methods that can be used to detect publication bias. These include two (trim and fill and cumulative meta-analysis) that enable the researcher to estimate the magnitude of the influence of publication bias on the overall mean effect size. Advantages and limitations of both traditional and newer methods are examined. The methods reviewed are illustrated through their application to a meta-analysis of the effects of drug courts on recidivism by Wilson et al. (Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459–487, 2006).

Offender Risk Assessment and Sentencing

I would like to thank the editors of this special issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice examining risk assessment and sentencing for inviting me to comment on the three articles that form the basis of the issue. I was surprised that the editors asked someone who for years has collaborated with Don Andrews and is, therefore, likely to provide a commentary that may not be very much different than one Andrews would write. I did disclose to the editors my close working relationship with him, and I would like the readers to know of my bias. Nevertheless, the editors felt that I might have something substantive to contribute to the discussion and asked me to write this commentary. Differentiating offenders in terms of their risk to re-offend has been a major preoccupation of corrections ever since Burgess developed a simple, actuarial measure in 1928 to assess who is a good risk for parole and who is not. However, it was not until the 1970s that social scientists took the risk-assessment business seriously and began to develop objective assessment instruments that yielded predictive accuracies surpassing the judgements of psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. The most important advance in offender risk assessment came from the work of Don Andrews and his colleagues, first seen in the 1980s (Andrews 1982) and elaborated in the 1990s (Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge 1990; Andrews and Bonta 1994). This was the integration of dynamic risk factors (or criminogenic needs) with static risk factors in risk/need instruments such as the Level of Service Inventory--Revised (LSI-R; Andrews and Bonta 1995). The use of evidence-based risk/need-assessment instruments in corrections has exploded in the last decade. All but two Canadian provincial and territorial correctional systems use an empirically defensible offender risk/need instrument, and the remaining two jurisdictions (Alberta and Quebec) are in the process of implementing such instruments (a similar trend is seen in the United States and the United Kingdom as well as other countries around the world). The value of risk/need instruments is not limited to decisions around who should be supervised more closely or who should be kept in custody for the protection of the public. Because these instruments also sample criminogenic needs, they can be used to direct rehabilitation services in order to reduce offender risk. The value of objective risk/needs instruments is readily apparent to correctional agencies. The question that the three papers here raise is whether risk/needs instruments have a place in pre-sentencing decisions. Andrews and Dowden argue that there is value in the courts' considering risk/need assessments, whereas Maurutto, Hannah-Moffat, and Cole are much more wary of a role for these instruments in the sentencing process. An exercise in knowledge destruction Rational empiricists highly value and respect evidence. It is systematic, objective, replicable evidence that makes or breaks a theory. Without a strong respect for evidence, we are left with personal, ideological explanations of a phenomenon. It is difficult for people, and scientists, to give up on notions that they have cultivated for years, as empirical evidence to the contrary grows. Look at how we have dealt with the issue of climate change. Although the alarm bells were sounded more than 30 years ago, it was not until this year that a consensus report from scientists from around the world unequivocally concluded that human beings have had a hand in climate change. How does one remain committed to a viewpoint that is contrary to evidence? The answer is to engage in knowledge-destruction techniques (Andrews and Bonta 2006). That is, adopt only that knowledge that supports one's position and discard knowledge to the contrary. The Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat article questions the very validity of risk/needs instruments, thereby pre-empting consideration of whether there is a useful role for these instruments in the sentencing process. …

Commentary on Risk Assessment

I am pleased both that the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice has undertaken a special issue on risk assessment and that I have been asked to provide a brief commentary on the articles that are being published on that subject. Without intending to offend, I wish to make a preliminary point that may have some relevance to my commentary. There is, in my view, a natural tension between, on the one hand, the empirical, social-science approach that underlies much of the research about risk assessments in the fields of cognitive psychology, sociology, and criminology, and, on the other hand, the approach taken to such subjects by lawyers. Although law (and its concomitant pursuit of justice) has sometimes been described as a science, it is better thought of as an art--and a very imperfect one at that. While the accumulation of evidence is common to all of these disciplines, law assesses evidence in a context bounded by values, rights (particularly constitutional rights), rules, and principles that are broader and, therefore, because of rules concerning the inadmissibility of certain types of evidence, more constraining than those governing scientific inquiry. It is not surprising, then, that lawyers exhibit considerable scepticism toward the empirical claims of instruments such as risk assessments. In providing this commentary, I will, therefore, be doing so through the lens of those legal concepts. If nothing else, a dialogue between our disciplines can potentially lead to a better understanding of each other's work. At best, ways may be found to bridge some of the gaps that exist between these professions in order that understanding of the risk of danger posed by some human beings and of the assessment of that risk can be advanced. I have been asked to comment upon three articles that appear in this issue: D.A. Andrews and Craig Dowden, Risk-Need-Responsivity Model of Assessment and Human Service in Prevention and Corrections: Crime-Prevention Jurisprudence; Paula Maurutto and Kelly Hannah-Moffat, Understanding Risk in the Context of the Youth Criminal Justice Act; and David P. Cole, Umpires Strike Back: Canadian Judicial Experience with Risk Assessment Instruments. I have placed them in this order because, on my reading of them, they rank in order of most supportive to least supportive of the use of risk assessments. In large measure (and to reveal my disciplinary bias), the ranking is a reflection of the extent to which legal principles and analysis are incorporated. The Cole article is very much in the legal tradition, and the Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat article is a blend of legal and social-science analysis. Although referring to legal concepts and principles, the Andrews and Dowden article is more oriented to the social-science approach. In describing the Andrews and Dowden article as the most in favour of risk assessment, I do not suggest that these authors have ignored difficulties in methodology and practice. They situate the use of risk assessments within the theoretical approach known as the personal, interpersonal, and community reinforcement (PIC-R) perspective and almost immediately narrow the focus of such assessments to the prevention of crime, rather than looking more broadly at therapy for offenders. Because of this focus, they also advocate determining criminogenic needs as opposed to non-criminogenic needs. This approach may be seen as a partial answer to the concerns expressed in the other two papers that the application of risk assessments may threaten to supersede the constitutional and legal requirements of proportionality in sentencing. Thus, Andrews and Dowden espouse what they call crime-prevention jurisprudence as marrying the law respecting just sanctions with the reduction of offending through Risk--Need--Responsivity (RNR)--identifying dynamic risk factors and criminogenic needs through proper assessments and responding with strategies attuned to the learning ability, motivation, and personality of an offender. …

To the Editors of the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

To the Editors of the <i>Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice</i>

The Essence of Process-Experiential/Emotion-Focused Therapy

Process-Experiential/Emotion-Focused Therapy (PE-EFT) is an empirically-supported, neo-humanistic approach that integrates and updates person-centered, Gestalt, and existential therapies. In this article, we first present what we see as PE-EFT's five essential features, namely neo-humanistic values, process-experiential emotion theory, person-centered but process-guiding relational stance, therapist exploratory response style, and marker-guided task strategy. Next, we summarize six treatment principles that guide therapists in carrying out this therapy: achieving empathic attunement, fostering an empathic, caring therapeutic bond, facilitating task collaboration, helping the client process experience appropriately to the task, supporting completion of key client tasks, and fostering client development and empowerment. In general, PE-EFT is an approach that seeks to help clients transform contradictions and impasses into wellsprings for growth.

Taming the shrew: regulating prisoners through women-centered mental health programming

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has received international praise for its new policies with female prisoners serving federal sentences of two or more years. Regarded as progressive, even radical, other countries have looked toward Canada for inspiration in the design of their own policies [Carlen, (2002) Criminal Justice 2(2)]. CSC’s “women-centered” mental health agenda, however, while rhetorically progressive, remains consistent with disciplinary processes which prioritize self-regulation and aim to correct or normalize those considered failed citizens [Kemshall, (2002), The Howard Journal 41(1), 41–58]. Using Nicolas Rose’s concept of governance through self-regulation [Rose 1991, b Rose (1996). Inventing Ourselves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Rose (2000). British Journal of Criminology 40, 321–339] as a theoretical framework, we argue that correctional mental health practices privileges a psychological discourse which serves to regulate women prisoners as opposed to empowering or supporting them. We examine the over use of psychiatric labelling of women, such as that of Boderline Personality Disorder, and the resulting treatment regime, Dialectical Behavior Therapy, to illustrate that the CSC has constructed women prisoners as disorderly and disordered and thus in need of taming. This discussion is followed by recommendations for new directions in feminist mental health treatment for women in prison that more adequately confront the inherent tensions and contradictions of prison therapeutic services and that incorporate multi-faceted understandings of the mental health needs of women offenders. We conclude with some policy and research implications of adopting a feminist informed mental health correctional strategy.

Changes in Scholarly Influence in Major International Criminology Journals

Changes in scholarly influence in four major international journals of the English-speaking world (ANZ, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology; BJC, British Journal of Criminology; CJC, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice; CRIM, Criminology) were measured by determining the most cited scholars in 1996 to 2000 and comparing them with the most cited scholars in 1991 to 1995 and 1986 to 1990.The number of cited authors increased by nearly 40% between 1986 to 1990 and 1996 to 2000. The most cited scholars in 1996 to 2000 were John Braithwaite in ANZ, Ken Pease in BJC, Julian V. Roberts in CJC and Robert J. Sampson in CRIM. The most cited works of the most cited authors showed that some scholars were specialized, because they had a large number of citations of one or two seminal works, usually books, and often theoretical in nature. Other scholars were versatile, because they had many different works cited a few times each. Between 1986 to 1990 and 1996 to 2000, the citations of American scholars in the other three journals decreased. Citations in the four journals in 2005 were also counted and compared with citations in 2000, 1995 and 1990. John Braithwaite was highly cited in all four journals in 11 of the 16 possible years.

Rape as genocide: some questions arising

One of the most significant developments in the jurisprudence of modern international criminal law is the determination of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in the Akayesu case...

Commodifying Terrorism

Commodifying Terrorism

Understanding and Preventing Criminal Recidivism Among Adults With Psychotic Disorders

Understanding and Preventing Criminal Recidivism Among Adults With Psychotic Disorders

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Changes in Scholarly Influence in Major American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals between 1986 and 2000

In order to investigate changes in scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice over a 15‐year time period, the most‐cited scholars in six major American journals were determined for the period 1996–2000, and results were compared with those obtained for 1991–1995 and 1986–1990. The number of cited authors in these journals increased by 50% over this time period. Some highly cited authors were specialists, because they had one or two major works (usually theoretical books) cited a lot, whereas others were versatile because they had many different works with fewer citations each. The most highly cited works tended to be books rather than articles. During this 15‐year time period, older scholars such as Marvin E. Wolfgang were being cited less often, while younger scholars such as Robert J. Sampson were becoming more highly cited. The most‐cited scholars in 1996–2000 were Robert J. Sampson in American criminology journals and Francis T. Cullen in American criminal justice journals. An analysis of citations in Criminology in 2005 showed the emergence of the next generation of highly cited scholars, such as Alex R. Piquero. The most highly cited scholars in American criminology journals focused on longitudinal/criminal career research and/or criminological theories. The most highly cited scholars in American criminal justice journals focused either on these topics or on criminal justice issues such as rehabilitation, sentencing, and law enforcement.

Assessing the Quality of Doctoral Programs in Criminology in the United States*

This study assessed the quality of doctoral programs in criminology in the United States by examining publication records of program graduates in select criminology journals. Descriptive information and other measures of quality are also considered alongside the primary findings in an effort to move towards a more comprehensive evaluation of doctoral programs in criminology. Findings revealed that graduates trained at the University of Maryland, State University of New York at Albany, Florida State University, and the University of Cincinnati were the most productive scholars over the period examined here. Discipline‐level trends and findings are also discussed. * Preliminary findings from this study were presented at the Summit meetings of the Association of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Program Directors, May, 2006, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas. The authors would like to thank Emily Wright, Jodi Sleyo, Tamara Madensen, and the reviewers (especially Reviewer 2) for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Letter to the Editor, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Letter to the Editor, <i>Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice</i>

Die Todesstrafe in der VR China (The Death Penalty in the People's Republic of China). Astrid Maier

Previous articleNext article No AccessReviewsDie Todesstrafe in der VR China (The Death Penalty in the People's Republic of China). Astrid Maier Børge BakkenBørge Bakken Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The China Journal Volume 57Jan., 2007 Published on behalf of the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/tcj.57.20066264 Views: 9Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright The China JournalPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:David T. Johnson The Jolly Hangman, the Jailed Journalist, and the Decline of Singapore’s Death Penalty, Asian Journal of Criminology 8, no.11 (May 2012): 41–59.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-012-9143-1

Editorial

This Issue sees the inauguration of The British Journal of Criminology’s new subtitle: An International Review of Crime and Society. There are two main reasons for the addition of a subtitle. First, The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, the Editors and the Editorial Board are agreed that, although it is desirable to retain the main title of a Journal which has gone from strength to strength during its long history, nowadays the Journal’s title should also reflect the increasingly international nature of its contents. Secondly, we thought that while we are adding a subtitle which will emphasise the Journal’s internationalism, we should also take the opportunity to remind potential contributors that the Journal welcomes submissions from a variety of perspectives focusing on crime and society; and especially articles written from sociological, historical, philosophical, geographical, psychological, jurisprudential, cultural, political or policy standpoints. The interests of the extensive Editorial and International Advisory Boards are catholic, neither narrowly ideological nor limited to rigid conceptions of what criminology either should be, or is currently, about. The two main criteria according to which articles submitted for publication will continue to be assessed are: the degree to which the article contributes new knowledge to an understanding of crime and society; the overall quality of the argument and its presentation.

Working for the Peasants? Strategic Interactions and Unintended Consequences in the Chinese Rural Tax Reform

Previous articleNext article No AccessWorking for the Peasants? Strategic Interactions and Unintended Consequences in the Chinese Rural Tax ReformLinda Chelan LiLinda Chelan Li Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The China Journal Volume 57Jan., 2007 Published on behalf of the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/tcj.57.20066242 Views: 72Total views on this site Citations: 23Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright The China JournalPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Mingrui Shen Introduction, (Feb 2020): 1–8.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1660-3_1Mingrui Shen Governing the Countryside Through State-Led Programs in Jiangning, (Feb 2020): 43–59.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1660-3_4Peng Wang Politics of Crime Control: How Campaign-Style Law Enforcement Sustains Authoritarian Rule in China, The British Journal of Criminology 16 (Oct 2019).https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz065Nicholas Loubere, Qiu Shen The Policy and Practice of Microcredit in Rural China: Toward a Relational Understanding of Heterogeneous Implementation, Modern China 44, no.44 (Jan 2018): 418–452.https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700417753734Mingrui Shen, Jianfa Shen Governing the countryside through state-led programmes: A case study of Jiangning District in Nanjing, China, Urban Studies 55, no.77 (Jul 2017): 1439–1459.https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017716857Yanwu Liu, Qiang Fu Changing demographic characteristics and motives for suicide in rural China, 1980–2009, Chinese Sociological Dialogue 2, no.3-43-4 (Sep 2017): 136–148.https://doi.org/10.1177/2397200917729529Margaret B. Holland, David M. Lansing Forests in Limbo: Assessing Costa Rica's Forest and Land Reform Policies, Society & Natural Resources 30, no.66 (Dec 2016): 738–749.https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1257080Jing Vivian Zhan, Shuang Qin The art of political ambiguity: top–down intergovernmental information asymmetry in China, Journal of Chinese Governance 2, no.22 (Jan 2017): 149–168.https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2016.1277507Qian Forrest Zhang, Jianling Wu Providing Rural Public Services Through Land Commodification: Policy Innovations and Rural–Urban Integration in Chengdu, (Dec 2016): 67–91.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1762-9_4Dorothy J. Solinger, Ting Jiang When Chinese Central Orders and Promotion Criteria Conflict, Modern China 42, no.66 (Aug 2016): 571–606.https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700416635507Matthias Stepan, Enze Han, Tim Reeskens Building the New Socialist Countryside: Tracking Public Policy and Public Opinion Changes in China, The China Quarterly 226 (May 2016): 456–476.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741016000369Sarah Rogers Betting on the strong: Local government resource allocation in China's poverty counties, Journal of Rural Studies 36 (Oct 2014): 197–206.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.08.001An Chen How Has the Abolition of Agricultural Taxes Transformed Village Governance in China? Evidence from Agricultural Regions, The China Quarterly 219 (Aug 2014): 715–735.https://doi.org/10.1017/S030574101400071XMartin Painter Governance Reforms in China and Vietnam: Marketisation, Leapfrogging and Retro-Fitting, Journal of Contemporary Asia 44, no.22 (Jan 2014): 204–220.https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2013.870829Louis Augustin-Jean, Björn Alpermann Introduction: Agro-Food Markets in China in Light of Economic Sociology, (Jan 2014): 1–24.https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137277954_1Graeme Smith Measurement, promotions and patterns of behavior in Chinese local government, Journal of Peasant Studies 40, no.66 (Nov 2013): 1027–1050.https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.866095John James Kennedy Finance and rural governance: centralization and local challenges, Journal of Peasant Studies 40, no.66 (Nov 2013): 1009–1026.https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.866096Leonardo A. N. Dioko, Rich Harrill, Peter W. Cardon The Wit and Wisdom of Chinese Tour Guides: A Critical Tourism Perspective 从批判角度探讨中国导游的智慧, Journal of China Tourism Research 9, no.11 (Jan 2013): 27–49.https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2013.756767Jean C. Oi, Kim Singer Babiarz, Linxiu Zhang, Renfu Luo, Scott Rozelle Shifting Fiscal Control to Limit Cadre Power in China's Townships and Villages, The China Quarterly 211 (Oct 2012): 649–675.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741012000823Wooyeal Paik Economic development and mass political participation in contemporary China: determinants of provincial petition ( Xinfang ) activism 1994–2002, International Political Science Review 33, no.11 (Jan 2012): 99–120.https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512111409528Mingxing Liu, Juan Wang, Ran Tao, Rachel Murphy The Political Economy of Earmarked Transfers in a State-Designated Poor County in Western China: Central Policies and Local Responses, The China Quarterly 200 (Dec 2009): 973–994.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741009990580Anna L. Ahlers, Gunter Schubert “Building a New Socialist Countryside” – Only a Political Slogan?, Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 38, no.44 (Dec 2009): 35–62.https://doi.org/10.1177/186810260903800403Gang Guo Vertical Imbalance and Local Fiscal Discipline in China, Journal of East Asian Studies 8, no.11 (Mar 2016): 61–88.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800005099

Improving the evaluation of anticrime programs: There’s work to be done

The summary version of the National Research Council’s report, Improving the Evaluation of Anticrime Programs, published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, was accompanied by eight commentaries from distinguished criminology researchers. This paper responds to those thoughtful and provocative commentaries by further discussing the two broad questions that they raised: What anticrime programs should be evaluated and what methods should be used to evaluate them. The main themes of this response are that (a) evaluation is needed for the programs, practices, and policies in actual use, not only those developed by criminologists; (b) programs developed and tested by criminologists are more likely to be used if they build on existing programs and give as much attention to “implementability” as to theory; and (c) evaluation of practices, policies, and area-wide programs will be limited unless credible applications of observational and quasi-experimental methods can be developed.