Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-31T11:37:57.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What do we know about Crime Prevention?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2025

Brandon C. Welsh ,
David P. Farrington ,
Lawrence W. Sherman  and
Doris Layton MacKenzie
Brandon C. Welsh
Affiliation:
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Massachusetts Lowell
David P. Farrington
Affiliation:
Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge
Lawrence W. Sherman
Affiliation:
Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania
Doris Layton MacKenzie
Affiliation:
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper summarizes the main findings of what works, what does not work, and what is promising in preventing crime, and discusses the implications for public policy. The findings are based on the book Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, published in 2002. The book’s aim was to update and substantially revise the 1997 report, Preventing Crime : What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, by Lawrence Sherman and his colleagues at the University of Maryland. An analysis of nearly 700 program evaluations found that 29 program types worked, 25 did not work, and 28 were promising in preventing crime. These results suggest that we know a fair amount about how to prevent crime.

Results also suggest three broad-based courses of action : (1) we need to increase resources devoted to those program types with demonstrated effectiveness in preventing crime; (2) we need to stop funding those program types with proven evidence of ineffectiveness; and (3) we should begin further testing of those program types that are promising.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article fait le point sur les principales connaissances sur ce qui marche, ce qui ne marche pas, et ce qui est prometteur, en matière de prévention du crime, et discute des implications de ces connaissances pour les politiques publiques. Les constatations sont tirées de l’ouvrage Evidence-Based Crime Prevention publié en 2002. L’objet de cet ouvrage était de mettre à jour et de réviser substantiellement le rapport de 1997, Preventing Crime : What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, de Lawrence Sherman et ses collègues de l’Université du Maryland. L’analyse de quelque 700 évaluations de programmes montre que 29 types de programmes ont marché, 25 pas, et 28 étaient prometteurs en matière de prévention du crime. Les résultats suggèrent également de façon générale trois manières d’agir : 1. Il faut augmenter les ressources vouées à des types de programmes qui ont démontré leur efficacité dans la prévention du crime; 2. Il faut arrêter de subsidier des types de programmes qui ont démontré leur inefficacité; 3. Il faut tester plus avant les programmes prometteurs.

Resumen

Resumen

El presente artículo pasa en revista los principales conocimientos disponibles sobre lo que funciona bien, sobre lo que no funciona y sobre lo que aparece como auspicioso en materia de prevención del crimen, y discute en torno à las implicaciones de estos conocimientos en las políticas públicas. Las observaciones son extraídas del libro Evidence- Based Crime Prevention, publicado en 2002. El objeto de ese trabajo era de poner al día y revisar considerablemente el informe de 1997, Preventing Crime : What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, de Lawrence Sherman y sus colegas de la Universidad de Maryland.

El análisis de aproximadamente 700 evaluaciones de programas muestra que 29 tipos de programas funcionaron bien, 25 no funcionaron bien, y 28 aparecían como auspiciosos en la prevención del crimen. Los resultados también sugieren, de un modo general, tres maneras de actuar : 1. Es necesario aumentar los recursos reservados a los tipos de programas que demostraron su eficacia en la prevención del crimen; 2. Es preciso interrumpir las subvenciones a los tipos de programas que demostraron su ineficacia; 3. Es necesario profundizar las investigaciones en torno a los programas auspiciosos.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Annals of Criminology , Volume 40 , Issue 1-2 , 2002 , pp. 11 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 International Society for Criminology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R. & Lieb, R. 2001. «The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime: A Review of Research Findings with Implications for Washington State», in Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime, eds. B.C. Welsh, D.P. Farrington & L.W. Sherman, 149-175. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Blumstein, A. & Petersilia, J. 1995. «Investing in Criminal Justice Research», in Crime, eds. Wilson, J.Q. & Petersilia, J., 465–487. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.Google Scholar
Butterfield, F. 1997. «Most Efforts to Stop Crime Fall Short, Study Finds». New York Times, April 16, A20.Google Scholar
Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Cullen, F.T. 2002. «Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs», in Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, eds. J.Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia, 253-289. Oakland, California: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.Google Scholar
Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau, P. 2001. «From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century». Prison Journal, 81, 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duabet v. Merrell Dow. 1993. U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 92-102, June 28, 1993 [509 U.S. 579].Google Scholar
Dishion, T.J., McCord, J. & Poulin, F. 1999. «When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups and Problem Behavior». American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrell, G. 1995. «Preventing Repeat Victimization». In Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention (Crime and Justice, Voi. 19), eds. Tonry, M. & Farrington, D.P., 469–534. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Farrington, D.P. 1983. «Randomized Experiments on Crime and Justice». In Crime and Justice, Vol. 4., eds. Tonry, M. & Morris, N., 257–308. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Farrington, D.P. 2003a.«British Randomized Experiments on Crime and Justice». Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, in press.Google Scholar
Farrington, D.P. 2003b.«Methodological Quality Scales for Evaluation Research». Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, D.P. & Petrosino, A. 2000. «Systematic Reviews of Criminological Interventions: The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group». International Annals of Criminology, 38, 49–66.Google Scholar
Farrington, D.P. & Welsh, B.C., eds. 2001. What Works in Preventing Crime? Systematic Reviews of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research [Entire issue]. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 1–173.Google Scholar
Halladay, M. & Bero, L. 2000. «Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in Health Care». Public Money and Management, 20, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschi, T. 1986. «On the Compatibility of Rational Choice and Social Control Theories of Crime», in The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending, eds. Cornish, D.B. & Clarke, R.V., 105–118. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millenson, M.L. 1997. Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nutley, S. & Davies, H.T.O. 2000. «Making a Reality of Evidence- Based Practice: Some Lessons from the Diffusion of Innovations». Public Money and Management, 20, 35–42.Google Scholar
Nutley, S., Davies, H.T.O., & Tilley, N. 2000. «Editorial: Getting Research Into Practice». Public Money and Management, 20, 3–6.Google Scholar
Nuttall, C., Goldblatt, P. & Lewis, C., eds. 1998. Reducing Offending: An Assessment of Research Evidence on Ways of Dealing with Offending Behaviour. Home Office Research Study 187. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C. & Finckenauer, J.O. 2000. «Well-Meaning Programs can have Harmful Effects! Lessons from Experiments of Programs such as Scared Straight». Crime and Delinquency, 46, 354–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, A.J. JR. & Roth, J.A., eds. 1993. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Sherman, L.W. 1998. «Evidence-Based Policing». Ideas in American Policing, July. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D.C., Mackenzie, D.L., Eck, J.E., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S.D. 1997. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Sherman, L.W., Farrington, D.P., Welsh, B.C. & Mackenzie, D.L., eds. 2002. Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tittle, C.R. & Logan, C.H. 1973. «Sanctions and Deviance: Evidence and Remaining Questions». Law and Society Review, 7, 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonry, M. & Farrington, D.P. 1995. «Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention», in Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention (Crime and Justice, Vol. 19), eds. Tonry, M. & Farrington, D.P., 1–20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Visher, C.A. & Weisburd, D. 1998. «Identifying What Works: Recent Trends in Crime Prevention Strategies». Crime, Law and Social Change, 28, 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, D., Lum, C.L., & Petrosino, A. 2001. «Does Research Design Affect Study Outcomes in Criminal Justice?» Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, C.H. 1998. «Have We Learned Anything New About the Use of Evaluation?» American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, B.C. & Farrington, D.P. 2000. «Monetary Costs and Benefits of Crime Prevention Programs», in Crime and Justice, Vol. 27, ed. Tonry, M., 305–361. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Welsh, B.C. & Farrington, D.P. 2002. Crime Prevention Effects of Closed Circuit Television: A Systematic Review. Home Office Research Study 252. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P. & Sherman, L.W. 2001. «Improving Confidence in What Works and Saves Money in Preventing Crime: Priorities for Research», in Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime, eds. B.C. Welsh, D.P. Farrington, & L.W. Sherman, 269-278. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Williams, K.R. & Hawkins, R. 1986. «Perceptual Research on General Deterrence: A Critical Overview». Law and Society Review, 20, 545572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J.Q. 2002. «Crime and Public Policy», in Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, eds. J.Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia, 537-557. Oakland, California: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.Google Scholar