Hide Main content block

Home Page News Section

Home Page News Section

    PAHO/WHO/Campbell logos

    The organizations will promote evidence-informed decisions together
    The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and Campbell agreed to collaborate on improving the quality and availability of research that guides decisions relevant to health systems and social determinants of health, especially those relevant towards achieving universal health and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, in the region of the Americas.

    Read more


    Our major sponsor passing the baton
    The Norwegian Institute for Public Health has been key to the success and stability of Campbell since 2008, but the contract for this support is nearing conclusion. Becoming a major donor is an opportunity for a funding organisation or individual to ensure the continuity and growth of Campbell as a well-respected and increasingly influential research non-profit. Outreach, citations, partnerships with civil and governmental organisations, and production are at a historical high. 

    Read more

  • Excellent scientific citation rate for Campbell Systematic Reviews

    An article by Vivian Welch and Julia Littell focuses on Campbell Collaboration's citation rates, using Google scholar and other measures. "Our google scholar citation journal impact factor was 4.95 in 2017, calculated as the total citations in 2017 to each of 29 reviews published in 2015 and 2016, divided by the number of reviews.This calculation approximates the journal impact factor calculation. This bodes well for our journal impact factor, which we are currently seeking." Read the article to see how the authors further demonstrate Campbell's excellent academic citation rate.

    Read more

  • Meet Campbell author Dr. Trine Filges

    In our latest blog article
    we hear from a senior researcher and statistician who has published 13 Campbell systematic reviews since 2012. Three of the reviews published this year have examined controversial subjects such as the effect of class sizes on student achievement, the impact of military deployment on soldiers' mental health, and the effect of reduced unemployment benefit duration on job-finding rates.

    Learn more 


Home Page Latest Campbell Evidence

Home Page Featured Review


Featured Review

officer arrests youthsPolice-initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior by David B. Wilson, Iain Brennan, Ajima Olaghere

Overly punitive responses to youth misconduct may have the unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood of future delinquency; yet, overly lenient responses may fail to serve as a corrective for the misbehavior. Police diversion schemes are a collection of strategies police can apply as an alternative to court processing of youth. Police-initiated diversion schemes aim to reduce reoffending by steering youth away from deeper penetration into the criminal justice system and by providing an alternative intervention that can help youth address psychosocial development or other needs that contribute to their problem behavior.

The general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police-led diversion reduces the future delinquent behavior of low-risk youth relative to traditional processing. Assuming a 50 percent reoffending rate for the traditional processing condition, the results suggest a reoffending rate of roughly 44 percent for the diverted youth. This overall benefit of diversion holds for the random assignment studies judged to be free from any obvious risks of bias. The findings from this systematic review support the use of police-led diversion for low-risk youth with limited or no prior involvement with the juvenile justice system. Thus, police departments and policy-makers should consider diversionary programs as part of the mix of solutions for addressing youth crime.

What is this review about?

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects police-initiated diversion programs on delinquent behavior, compared to traditional system processing. The review summarizes evidence from nineteen high-quality studies, including 13 randomized controlled trials and six quasi-experimental studies.

Read More


We use cookies to improve our website. By continuing to use this website, you are giving consent to cookies being used by Google Analytics, and those social media channels you expressly select by clicking on buttons (links). Cookie policy. I accept cookies from this site. Agree