Better evidence for a better world

Campbell evidence and gap maps

Coming soon – Campbell EGMs are a new evidence synthesis product. Plain language summaries of our EGMs will be published on this website. The interactive EGMs and full EGM reports will be available in our journal on the Wiley Online Library platform: click here.



Learn more about Campbell EGMs

Campbell-partnered EGMs

Campbell has produced maps on other topics, sometimes in partnership with other organisations.



See the Campbell-partnered EGMs
Search Result: 48 Records found
Page 2 of 5

K2_THE_LATEST

Juvenile curfew effects on criminal behavior and victimization
  • Authors David Wilson, Charlotte Gill, Ajima Olaghere, Dave McClure
  • Published date 2016-03-23
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Juvenile curfew effects on criminal behavior and victimization
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.3
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Juvenile curfews are not effective in reducing crime and victimization

    The evidence suggests that juvenile curfews do not reduce crime or victimization.

    What is this review about?

    Curfews restrict youth below a certain age – usually 17 or 18 – from public places during night time. For example, the Prince George’s County, Maryland curfew ordinance restricts youth younger than 17 from public places between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. on weekdays and between midnight and 5 a.m. on weekends. Sanctions range from a fine that increases with each offense, community service, and restrictions on a youth’s driver’s license. Close to three quarters of US cities have curfews, which are also used in Iceland.

    A juvenile curfew has common sense appeal: keep youth at home during the late night and early morning hours and you will prevent them from committing a crime or being a victim of a crime. In addition, the potential for fines or other sanctions deter youth from being out in a public place during curfew hours.

    This review synthesizes the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review assesses the effects of juvenile curfews on crime and victimization. The review summarizes findings from 12 studies.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    What studies are included?

    Included studies test the effect of an official state or local policy intended to restrict or otherwise penalize a juvenile’s presence outside the home during certain times of day. This must have been a general preventive measure directed at all youth within a certain age range and not a sanction imposed on a specific youth.

    Twelve quantitative evaluations of the effects of curfews on youth criminal behavior or victimization are included in the review.

    Do curfews reduce crime and victimization?

    The pattern of evidence suggests that juvenile curfews are ineffective at reducing crime and victimization. The average effect on juvenile crime during curfew hours was slightly positive - that is a slight increase in crime - and close to zero for crime during all hours. Similarly, juvenile victimization also appeared unaffected by the imposition of a curfew ordinance.

    However, all the studies in the review suffer from some limitations that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Nonetheless, the lack of any credible evidence in their favor suggests that any effect is likely to be small at best and that curfews are unlikely to be a meaningful solution to juvenile crime and disorder.

    Other studies have suggested curfews may be ineffective as juvenile crime is concentrated in hours before and after school, and that under-resourced police forces focus on more urgent demands than enforcing curfews.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    Contrary to popular belief, the evidence suggests that juvenile curfews do not produce the expected benefits. The study designs used in this research make it difficult to draw clear conclusions, so more research is needed to replicate the findings. However, many of the biases likely to occur in existing studies would make it more, rather than less, likely that we would conclude curfews are effective. For example, most of these studies were conducted during a time when crime was dropping

    throughout the United States. Therefore, our findings suggest that curfews either don’t have any effect on crime, or the effect is too small to be identified in the research available.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The search for this review was updated in March 2014.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Preventive interventions to reduce youth gang violence in low- and middle-income countries
  • Authors Angela Higginson, Kathryn Ham Benier, Yulia Shenderovich, Laura Bedford, Lorraine Mazerolle, Joseph Murray
  • Published date 2015-11-02
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice, International Development
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Preventive interventions to reduce youth gang violence in low- and middle-income countries
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2015.18
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    There are no rigorous studies of preventive interventions to reduce youth involvement in gangs in low- and middle-income countries

    Youth gang crime poses a serious problem for low and middle-income countries costing billions of dollars in harm, loss of life and social disruption. Preventive interventions are intended to stop crime before it occurs, but there is no evidence as to their effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries.

    What did the review study?

    Youth gangs are commonly associated with high levels of crime and violence in low and middle-income countries. Gangs are often linked to youth trying to overcome extreme disadvantage and marginalisation.

    Preventive interventions are intended to stop crime before it occurs, either by preventing youth from joining gangs or by reducing recidivism by rehabilitating gang members outside of the criminal justice system. This review examines the effectiveness of these preventive interventions in achieving their aims, as well as identifying factors behind successful implementation in low and middle-income countries.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines why the implementation of preventive interventions to reduce youth involvement in gangs and gang crime may fail or succeed low and middle-income countries. The review summarises findings from four studies conducted in Latin America and the Caribbean. These include findings from field observations and interviews with 63 former gang members in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, 940 respondents in 3 Jamaican communities, 24 participants in Nicaragua and 25 participants in Peru.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies reported on youth gangs with participants aged 10-29 and were located in a low- or middle-income country. Effectiveness studies had to use a valid experimental or non-experimental design.

    There were no studies that met the criteria for an evaluation of effectiveness.

    Four studies evaluating the reasons for implementation success or failure were included in this review. Two of the studies used a purely qualitative study design while the other two used a mixed method study design. All four studies were conducted in Latin America and the Caribbean.

    What are the main results in this review?

    It is not possible to make any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of preventive interventions.

    Four factors may be important for intervention design and implementation:

    1. Having a range of programme components that appeal to youth such as arts and sports.
    2. Active engagement of youths and gang leaders in forming and implementing the programme.
    3. Ensuring continuity of social ties outside the gang which are fragile and may not be preserved after short-term interventions.
    4. Ongoing violence and gang involvement limits successful implementation so needs to be addressed.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    Preventive gang interventions may be more likely to be successfully implemented where the four factors listed above are present.

    The lack of rigorous evaluations of preventive gang interventions in low and middle-income countries means it is not possible to draw any conclusions about which interventions are most effective in reducing youth involvement in gangs in these contexts. More quantitative and qualitative research on the effectiveness of preventive gang programs is needed in order to determine the best intervention practice.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until September 2013.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

The effects on re-offending of custodial vs non-custodial sanctions
  • Authors Patrice Villettaz, Gwladys Gillieron, Martin Killias
  • Published date 2015-01-02
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title The effects on re-offending of custodial vs non-custodial sanctions
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2015.1
  • Records available in English, Norwegian, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Effects of custodial versus non-custodial sanctions on re-offending

    Custodial sentences, such as prison, are no better than non-custodial sentences in reducing re-offending.

    What is this review about?

    Those who commit illegal acts may re-offend. It is important to know which sanctions reduce re-offending and if some approaches are more effective than others.

    There are two kinds of sanctions. Custodial sanctions deprive offenders of their freedom of movement by placing them in institutions such as prisons, halfway houses, or ‘boot camps’. Non-custodial sanctions (also known as ‘alternative’ or ‘community’ sanctions) include community work, electronic monitoring, and fines. This review examines whether custodial and non-custodial sanctions have different effects on the rates of re-offending.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review compares effects of custodial and non-custodial sentences on re-offending. The authors found fourteen high-quality studies, including three randomised controlled trials and two natural experiments.

    Which studies are included in this review?

    Included studies had at least two groups: a custodial group and a non-custodial group. Sanctions had to be imposed following a criminal offence, and there had to be at least one measure of re-offending, such as new arrests.

    Fourteen high-quality studies comparing custodial and non-custodial sentences are included in the analysis. The studies span the period from 1961 to 2013 and are mostly from the USA, Europe and Australia.

    Do custodial sanctions have different effects from non-custodial sanctions on re-offending?

    No. High quality studies show that custodial sentences are no better or worse than non-custodial sentences in reducing re-offending.

    Some studies with weaker designs suggest that prison is followed by higher re-offending rates than non-custodial sanctions. However, these results may be affected by selection bias; that is, offenders who were less likely to re-offend were more likely to be given a non-custodial sentence.

    What do the results mean?

    Imprisonment is no more effective than community-based sanctions in reducing re-offending. Despite this evidence, almost all societies across the world continue to use custodial sentences as the main crime control strategy.

    In terms of rehabilitation, short confinement is not better or worse than “alternative” solutions. Many studies of sentencing practices were found that used weak and biased methods. Better evidence should be used by policy makers and practitioners, for example from randomised controlled trials or natural experiments. Although several such studies are included in this review, additional high quality studies are needed.

    Other non-custodial approaches to offender rehabilitation also need to be evaluated, such as those provided through employment or other social networks.

    How up to date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies done from 1961 up to 2013.

  • Norwegian

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Norwegian.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Forensic nurse examiners vs doctors for the forensic examination of rape and sexual assault complainants
  • Authors Clare Toon, Kurinchi Gurusamy
  • Published date 2014-05-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Forensic nurse examiners vs doctors for the forensic examination of rape and sexual assault complainants
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.5
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Forensic nurses provide cheaper and better clinical care for rape and sexual assault complainants than doctor counterparts

    Sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE) or Forensic nurse examiners (FNE) are fully qualified nurses, trained to gather forensic evidence in rape and sexual assault cases. This review compares the reliability and efficacy of FNE/SANE health professionals with that of doctors. FNE/SANE provides cheaper services and better clinical care. However, more research is needed, as the evidence base is weak.

    What did the review study?

    In the UK incidents of rape and sexual assaults are referred to a sexual assault referral centre (SARC). These are typically headed by forensic doctors who conduct forensic examinations, collecting and documenting findings and preparing statements for court when requested by the police. In the United States, the equivalent institution for SARCs are headed by sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE).

    This review compares the reliability and efficacy of forensic nurse examiners (FNE) with that of doctors for the forensic examinations of rape and sexual assault complaints.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review compares the reliability and efficacy of foreign nurse examiners/sexual assault nurse examiners with that of doctors for the forensic examinations of rape and sexual assault complaints. The review summarise findings from eight studies conducted in the USA and UK. The participants were complainants of rape or sexual assaults examined by SANE and non-SANE health professionals. A total of 2,700 participants were included in the studies with 1,223 complainants cared for by a SANE health professional and 1,477 by a non-SANE health professional.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies reported on the following outcomes using quasi-experimental trial designs: complainant quality of life, conviction and prosecution rates, complainant mortality within 30 days, time from complain to examination, provision of STI, pregnancy and HIV prophylaxis, collection and documentation of rape kits and forensic examination, number of rape kits admissible as evidence, and the average cost per price. Participants include complainants of rape or sexual assaults regardless of age or gender. The comparison group comprised of participants examined and treated by a non-SANE health professional.

    A total of 8 studies consisting of 2,700 participants were included in the final evaluation. The studies were conducted in the UK and USA.

    What are the main findings from this review?

    Treatment by forensic nurses results in better outcomes than treatment by doctors in a number of cases. Complainants receive better medical care: they are more likely to have a forensic examination (rape kit) and to have it documented, and they are more likely to receive STI and pregnancy prophylaxis than those in the non-SANE group.

    More rape kits in the SANE group were admissible as evidence in court from complainants handled by forensic nurses than doctors. However, no difference was found in conviction or prosecution rates. There was no data available on the complainant quality of life.

    Sexual assault nurse examiners are less expensive than their doctor counterparts.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    The main results presented in this review show that FNEs/SANEs are better in terms of providing better medical care and cheaper services than doctors for the forensic examinations of rape and sexual assault complaints. However due to the limited data available to this review, the evidence-base for this conclusion is weak and as such, the evidence is insufficient to support making any significant changes to current services provided for rape and sexual assault complainants.

    The most important outcome to be considered was the quality of life of the complainants. However, there was no data available on that. Further research is thus needed to investigate the quality of life of the complainants post rape and forensic examination, both on the short and long-term. Additionally, studies evaluating the overall quality and efficiency of nurse and doctor-led services with all the outcomes listed above should be conducted on a much larger scale than to establish a stronger evidence-base.

    Finally, research is necessary to identify the barriers to the implementation of a nurse-led service for the forensic examination of complainants of rape and sexual assault, particularly in the UK.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until February 2012.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Corporate crime deterrence
  • Authors Sally Simpson, Melissa Rorie, Mariel Elise Alper, Natalie Schell-Busey, William Laufer, N. Craig Smith
  • Published date 2014-05-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Corporate crime deterrence
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.4
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Corporate crime: laws and regulations have only small effects on corporations

    Laws have a modest effect on preventing non-compliance among firms and for the geographic unit governed by the law, but not on individuals. Regulatory policy deters non-compliance among individuals but not companies. Using more than one intervention at the same time was found to have a small and consistent deterrent effect both on individuals and corporations.

    What is this review about?

    Corporate crime includes crimes committed by individual employees and those committed by institutions. Some offences are minor violations. Others are more serious and complicated, involving multiple organisations, possibly across national boundaries.

    There is a lack of high-quality studies. The limited data on corporate crime is scattered, reporting is often inconsistent, and the quality and methods of research on corporate crime varies widely.

    Criminology has focused more on street crime rather than corporate crime. This lack has made it difficult to build evidence-based policies for corporate crime prevention and control.

    The review examines the effectiveness of formal legal and administrative strategies by law enforcement agencies, legislative bodies, and regulatory bodies to lower the risk of non- compliance at both the organisational level and individual level.                

     What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of interventions to deter corporate crime. The review examines the effectiveness of formal legal and administrative strategies to lower the risk of non-compliance. The authors summarized 106 studies, and the interventions are grouped into six intervention categories, each with sub-categories. The intervention groups are: (1) laws, (2) punitive sanctions (e.g. arrest, fines, or a likelihood of prosecution), (3) non-punitive actions by regulatory agencies (e.g. cease and desist orders) (4) regulatory policies (e.g. company inspections), (5) other sanctions, and (6) multiple treatments.

    What studies are included?

    This systematic review summarizes data from 106 studies of corporate crime prevention and control. These studies included a wide range of experimental and non-experimental methodologies using data from a wide variety of data sources, e.g. from official agencies, corporate reports, and survey responses.

    Six treatment types were identified: (1) laws, (2) punitive sanctions such as arrest, fines, or a likelihood of prosecution, (3) non-punitive sanctions by regulatory agencies such as cease and desist orders (4) regulatory policies, e.g. company inspections, and (5) multiple treatments.

    How effective are interventions to deter non-compliance?

    Legal interventions have a small deterrent effect on company non-compliance and at the geographical level. There is not enough data to determine the effects of legal interventions on deterring individual offending.

    Regulatory interventions have a modest but consistent deterrent effect on individual offending. Their effects on deterrence at the company level were mixed.

    The use of more than one intervention at the same time was found to have a small but consistent effect on deterring non-compliance among individuals and among corporations.

    Evidence on the effects of the other interventions on non-compliance was mixed. Conclusions about their effects therefore cannot be drawn.

    Overall, the quality of evidence was low, with several contradictory findings. Older studies were more likely to find significant effects, but this may reflect weaker study designs.

    What are the research and policy implications of this review?

    Given the potentially serious impacts of corporate crime, policy makers and decision makers need to identify ways to reduce corporate crime. However, the basic findings of this review are inconclusive. There is an urgent need for high-quality empirical studies of interventions to deter and control illegal behaviours. This research can be informed by specific insights reported in this review.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The search was completed in 2012.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction
  • Authors Heather Strang, Lawrence W. Sherman, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel Woods, Barak Ariel
  • Published date 2013-11-04
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2013.12
  • Records available in English, Norwegian, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Face-to-face restorative justice conferences are cost-effective in reducing reoffending and increasing victim satisfaction

    Face-to-face restorative justice conferences (RJCs) between offenders and victims have a modest but highly cost-effective impact on reoffending. Victims’ satisfaction with the handling of their cases is consistently higher among those who attend RJCs, compared to those dealt with solely by standard criminal justice processes, usually the courts.

    What is this review about?

    Restorative justice approaches attempt to repair the harms caused by a crime rather than harming the offender. This review covers face-to-face RJCs in which the offender meets the victims of the crime to discuss the offence and its consequences.

    During face-to-face RJCs participants describe how they are connected to the crime, victims describe the harm caused, and everyone – including the offender – talks about how the harm might be repaired.

    This review compares the effects of face-to-face restorative justice conferencing with standard criminal justice alone on (a) repeat offending for a two-year period after the disposal of the case and (b) measures of victim satisfaction.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of face-to-face restorative justice conferences on repeat offending and victim satisfaction. The systematic review includes 10 studies.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies have all the following characteristics: (1) a randomized design to test the effects of face-to-face RJCs compared with standard criminal justice alone; (2) a report on face-to-face RJCs between at least one victim of a crime and at least one of the offenders involved; (3) provide data on the frequency of convictions or re-arrest for two years after the disposal of the case in a way which allows calculation of the effects of both treatments; and (4) published in English after 1994.

    Ten eligible studies were identified from the UK (7), Australia (2), and the USA (1). Different experiments randomly assigned cases to face-to-face RJC; some occurred at pre-trial diversion from prosecution, some occurred after conviction prior to sentencing, and others after offenders had been jailed or were on probation. The eligible studies included violent crime and property crime, as well as both youth and adult offenders.

    How effective are face-to-face RJC interventions?

    The average effect of the ten studies indicated that face-to-face RJCs resulted in offenders committing significantly less crime than their counterparts randomly assigned to standard criminal justice alone. The effect of RJCs on violent crime is larger than its effects on property crime.

    For victims, again comparing those whose cases were assigned to RJCs with those assigned to standard criminal justice, those taking part in face-to-face RJCs express higher levels of satisfaction with the handling of their cases, are more likely to receive an apology from offenders and rate these apologies as sincere, be less inclined to want to seek revenge, and suffer less from post traumatic stress symptoms.

    What are the implications of this review for policy makers and decision makers?

    Compared with standard criminal justice, usually through the courts, face-to-face RJCs reduce the frequency of subsequent crimes among offenders who are willing to take part in these programmes and whose victims are also willing to consent to RJCs.

    The effects of face-to-face RJCs on the frequency of subsequent offending are strongest when these programmes are in addition to conventional justice procedures. The use of face-to-face RJCs appears to be highly cost effective: data from the seven UK experiments indicates that the value of benefits of averted crimes is eight times the cost of delivering RJCs.

    What are the research implications of this review?

    Recruitment and retention for face-to-face RJCs among victims and offenders requires skill and more attention is needed about how to increase uptake.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The search was completed in 2012. This Campbell systematic review was published on 1 November 2013.

  • Norwegian

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Norwegian.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems
  • Authors Patrick Tolan, David Henry, Michael Schoeny, Arin Bass, Peter Lovegrove, Emily Nichols
  • Published date 2013-09-02
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review
  • Title Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated problems
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.4073/csr.2013.10
'Scared straight' and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency
  • Authors Anthony Petrosino, John Buehler, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino
  • Published date 2013-05-02
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title 'Scared straight' and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2013.5
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Scared straight programs result in more crime

    Scared straight awareness programs aim to deter crime and criminal behaviour by providing first-hand experience of prison life and interaction with adult inmate to juvenile delinquents or children at risk of becoming delinquent. Contrary to their purpose, scared straight programs fail to deter crime, leading to more offending behaviour not less.

    What did the review study?

    Scared straight programs involve organised visits to prison by juvenile delinquents or children at risk of committing crime, also called pre-delinquents.

    Scared straight and similar programs are promoted as a crime prevention strategy, identifying children at risk of committing crime to discourage them from any future criminal conduct. This review assesses the effect of these programs on criminal behaviours by juvenile delinquents or pre-delinquents.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review assesses the effect of scared straight and similar programs on criminal behaviours by juvenile delinquents or children at risk of committing crime. The review summarises findings from nine studies conducted in the USA. Participants include juveniles and young adults between the ages 14-20. A total of 946 juveniles or young adults participated in all nine experimental studies.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies tested the effects of any program involving the organized visits of juvenile delinquents or pre-delinquents to prisons with juveniles and young adults between the ages of 14-20 as participants. Only studies that had used a random or quasi-random experimental design with no-treatment control condition, and at least one outcome measure of “post-visit” criminal behaviour were considered.

    All studies were conducted in eight different states in the USA, with two of the studies taking place in the state of Michigan.

    A total of 9 studies were included in the systematic review. The nine studies were conducted in eight different states in the United States, with no set of researchers conducting more than one experiment.

    What are the main results in this review?

    Scared straight interventions cause more harm than doing nothing. The nine studies provided no evidence for the effectiveness of scared straight or similar programs on subsequent delinquency.

    Furthermore, analysis of seven studies reporting reoffending rates showed that the intervention significantly increased the odds of offending on the part of both the juveniles and pre-delinquents.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    Scared straight and similar programs are likely to have a harmful effect and increase delinquency compared to doing nothing.

    Although three of the studies reported methodological problems, two of which had implications for statistical analysis, this did not significantly affect the overall findings. Thus scared straight interventions and similar programs cannot be recommended as a crime prevention strategy. However, should agencies continue to permit such programs, rigorous evaluations of them is recommended to ensure that at, the very least, they do not cause more harm than good.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until December 2011. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in May 2013.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Legitimacy in policing
  • Authors Lorraine Mazerolle, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis, Elise Sargeant, Matthew Manning
  • Published date 2013-01-02
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Legitimacy in policing
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2013.1
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Interventions to enhance police legitimacy increase public satisfaction with and confidence in the police, and reduce reoffending

    Effective policing requires voluntary public cooperation. Citizens are more likely to cooperate when they view the police as legitimate. This review assesses the direct and indirect benefits of interventions to enhance police legitimacy. These interventions increase public satisfaction with and confidence in the police and reduce reoffending.

    What did the review study?

    Police require voluntary cooperation from the general public to be effective in controlling crime and maintaining order. Research shows that citizens are more likely to comply and cooperate with police and obey the law when they view the police as legitimate.

    Procedural justice is the most common pathway used by the police to increase their legitimacy in the eyes of the general public. Procedural justice has four essential components: (1) citizen participation in the proceedings prior to an authority reaching a decision (or voice), (2) perceived neutrality of the authority in making the decision, (3) showing dignity and respect toward citizens throughout the interaction, and (4) the authority conveys trustworthy motives.

    This review assesses the direct and indirect benefits of public police interventions that use procedurally just dialogue.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review assesses the direct and indirect benefits of public police interventions that use procedurally just dialogue. The review summarises findings from 30 studies conducted in Australia, the United States and England. The participants were individuals (citizen, victim, offender etc.), groups (e.g. community) and third parties (e.g. religious advisors).

    What studies are included?

    Included studies were of police-led legitimacy interventions involving either a control condition or quasi-experimental interrupted time-series design. These studies had to to have measured an aggregate outcome such as crime rate, in equally spaced time intervals prior to and following the initiation of the police-led intervention.

    Included studies reported on at least one of the following direct or indirect outcomes: perceived legitimacy, procedural fairness, willingness to cooperate with police, compliance, satisfaction, social ties, confidence in police, reduction in reoffending, reduction in crime and reduction in social disorder.

    Thirty studies containing forty-one independent evaluations were included in the review. The studies focused on the way in which the police interact with individuals, groups and/or third parties. The studies were conducted in Australia, the USA and England.

    What are the main results in this review?

    Police-led interventions specifically aimed at increasing legitimacy have a significant impact on public satisfaction with and confidence in the police. Such interventions are also associated with significantly increased public compliance/cooperation, procedural justice (fairness, neutrality, etc.) and legitimacy (obligation to obey police/law). Interventions also had a minor effect on reoffending.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    The review provides consistent evidence that police-led legitimacy interventions have positive effects on citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy.

    The findings show that the dialogue component of front-line police-led interventions is important for promoting citizen satisfaction, confidence, compliance and cooperation with the police, and for enhancing perceptions of procedural justice. In practical terms, this means that police can achieve positive changes in citizen attitudes to police through adopting procedurally justice dialogue as a component part of any type of police intervention.

    There is a small, but growing amount of randomized experiments in the international literature that isolate specific interventions and test different modes of delivery, e.g. reassurance policing. The effectiveness of the studies would benefit from future studies on legitimacy policing employing this study design.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until April 2009. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in January 2013.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

The effectiveness of incarceration-based drug treatment on criminal behavior
  • Authors Ojmarrh Mitchell, Doris MacKenzie, David Wilson
  • Published date 2012-11-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title The effectiveness of incarceration-based drug treatment on criminal behavior
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2012.18
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Incarceration-based drug treatment programs have modest effects on criminal behaviour

    Incarcerated offenders often have substance abuse problems. They are likely to continue their criminal behaviour post-release without effective treatment. Incarceration-based drug treatment programs are modestly effective in reducing recidivism and drug use. Effects vary by program design. Therapeutic communities are most effective. Boot camps are ineffective.

    What did the review study?

    Many, if not most, incarcerated criminals are drug-dependent. In the absence of effective substance abuse treatment, a high proportion of these drug-dependent criminals will return to crime once released.

    Incarceration-based drug treatment programs allow correctional facilities to use force to encourage abusers to engage in treatment – many of who otherwise would not do so – as well as limit the availability of drugs with sufficient time available to focus on treatment and introspection.

    This review examines the effectiveness of incarceration-based drug treatment programs in reducing post-release recidivism and drug use.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness incarceration-based drug treatment interventions in reducing post-release recidivism and drug use. The review summarise findings from 74 studies, sixty-five of which were conducted in the USA, four in Canada, three in Australia, one in Taiwan and one in the UK.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies assess incarceration-based drug treatment interventions for incarcerated participants with substance abuse problems using experimental or two-group quasi-experimental research designs that included a treatment and comparison group.

    The incarceration-based drug treatment programs fell into four distinct types: therapeutic communities (TCs), group counseling, boot camps specifically for drug offenders and narcotics maintenance programs.

    A total of 74 independent evaluations were included in the review. Sixty-five of the studies were conducted in the USA, four in Canada, three in Australia, one in Taiwan and one the UK. The studies compare the methodology, samples and programme features of each program type.

    What are the main results in this review?

    Incarceration-based drug treatment programs are modestly effective in reducing criminal behaviour and drug use. The overall average effect of these programs is approximately a 15 to 17% reduction in recidivism and drug relapse.

    Effects vary by program design. Therapeutic communities have relatively consistent but modest reductions in recidivism and drug relapse. Counselling programs reduce recidivism but not drug relapse, narcotic maintenance programs cause sizeable reductions in drug relapse but not recidivism, and boot camps have negligible effects on both recidivism and drug relapse.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    The main evidence presented in this review suggests that the effectiveness of treatment programs varies by the type of treatment. These findings most strongly support the effectiveness of therapeutic communities, as these programs produced relatively consistent reductions in recidivism and drug use. Boot camps have no effect on either outcome.

    These conclusions should be read with caution given the limited number of such evaluations and general methodological weakness.

    Therapeutic community programs were the only programs to consistently show modest reductions in recidivism and drug relapse however, there is evidence of publication bias that could have over-estimated its effectiveness. Given all these shortcomings, further evidence regarding the effectiveness of this type of intervention is needed.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until November 2011. This Campbell systematic review was published in August 2012.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Page 2 of 5

Contact us