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

Other EGMs

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



See our other EGMs
Search Result: 19 Records found
Page 1 of 2

K2_THE_LATEST

Focused deterrence strategies effects on crime
  • Authors Anthony A. Braga, David L. Weisburd, Brandon Turchan
  • Published date 2019-09-09
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1051
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Focused deterrence is associated with moderate reductions in crime

    A relatively small number of groups and persons are responsible for a disproportionate share of crime. Focused deterrence strategies attempt to reduce offending behaviour for specific types of crime. These strategies are associated with moderate overall reductions in crime.

    Crime is not displaced to other areas, rather it is more likely that there is a diffusion of crime control benefits to adjacent areas and similar people and groups.

    What is this review about?

    Focused deterrence strategies combine law enforcement, community mobilisation, and social services in an attempt to reduce offending behaviour for specific crime types. A key feature of this crime control strategy is that the consequences of continued criminal offending and available social services are directly communicated to targeted subjects.

    This review examines the relationship between focused deterrence policing and crime, and gives consideration to the different types of focused deterrence strategies and programme evaluation designs.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of focused deterrence policing on crime. The review summarises and analyses results from 24 quasi-experimental evaluations of focused deterrence interventions, including 12 programmes targeting criminally active gangs or groups, nine programmes targeting open-air drug markets, and three programmes targeting high-risk individual offenders. All but one of the studies are from the USA.

    What studies are included?

    A total of 24 studies of focused deterrence policing interventions were identified. All studies were published from 2001 to 2015. Twenty-three studies were conducted in the USA and one in Scotland. None of the identified studies used a randomised controlled trial design.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    Is focused deterrence an effective approach to reducing criminal offending among problem persons and groups?

    Yes. The available evidence suggests an overall reduction in crime when focused deterrence strategies are used. The largest reductions are generated by focused deterrence programmes that target criminally active gangs or groups, followed by interventions that target chronic individual offenders and drug market interventions.

    Do some programmes work better than others?

    Yes. Gang/group intervention programmes have the largest effect, followed by the high-risk individuals programmes, with the smallest effect from drug market intervention (DMI) programmes. DMI programmes are most likely to suffer implementation problems, which reduce effectiveness.

    Does crime get displaced to other areas?

    No. No studies found significant crime displacement effects into surrounding areas. There is some evidence of the diffusion of crime control benefits.

    What do the findings of the review mean?

    Findings from this review support the growing use of focused deterrence as a proactive crime reduction strategy. Practitioners and policymakers should continue to implement focused deterrence programmes to address serious crime problems.

    The number of studies included in the updated review is more than double the number of studies included in the previous iteration of the review. However, despite the increase in eligible studies, no evaluations utilised a randomised controlled trial design. The growth of focused deterrence warrants more methodologically rigorous programme evaluations and further exploration into the specific components of the strategy, to improve our understanding into how the programme reduces crime.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies up to October 2015.

Disorder policing to reduce crime
  • Authors Anthony Braga, Brandon Welsh, Cory Schnell
  • Published date 2019-09-09
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1050
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Policing disorder through community and problem-solving policing is associated with reductions in crime, but aggressive, order maintenance approaches are not

    Disorderly conditions are seen as a precursor to more serious crime, fear of crime, and neighbourhood decline. Policing disorder is associated with reductions in crime, but only when community and problem-solving tactics are used. Aggressive, order maintenance based approaches are not effective.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of disorder policing interventions on crime. The review summarises evidence from 28 high-quality studies (representing 30 independent tests), including nine randomised controlled trials. Most the studies come from the USA.

    What is this review about?

    Policing social and physical disorderly conditions is rooted in the broken windows approach: disorder is a precursor to more serious crime, fear of crime, and neighborhood decline. Addressing disorder has become a central fixture of policing, especially in the USA. Yet, evaluations of the effectiveness of disorder policing strategies in controlling crime yield conflicting results.

    Policing disorderly conditions can be divided into two main strategies: (1) Order maintenance or zero tolerance policing, where police attempt to impose order through strict enforcement; and (2) Community policing and problem-solving policing, where police attempt to produce order and reduce crime through cooperation with community members and by addressing specific recurring problems.

    This review examined the effects of disorder policing strategies compared to traditional law enforcement actions (e.g., regular levels of patrol) on the rates of crime, including property crime, violent crime, and disorder/drug crime. This review also examined whether policing disorder actions at specific locations result in crime displacement (i.e., crime moving around the corner) or diffusion of crime control benefits (i.e., crime reduction in surrounding areas).

    What studies are included?

    A total of 28 disorder policing studies (representing 30 independent tests) met the criteria to be included in this review. The studies spanned the period from 1985 to 2012, and were mostly carried out in the USA. All of the studies used high-quality designs to evaluate the impact of the intervention; nine were randomised controlled trials. Twelve tests were completed in large cities (more than 500,000 residents), nine tests were completed in medium-sized cities (200,000 to 500,000 residents), and the other nine tests were completed in smaller cities. All of the tests were carried out in specific geographical settings, including small places (e.g., crime hot spots and problem buildings), smaller police-defined areas (e.g., patrol beats), neighbourhoods and selected stretches of highways, and larger police-defined areas (e.g., precincts and divisions).

    What are the main findings of this review?

    Do policing interventions focused on disorderly conditions reduce crime?

    Yes, in addition to an overall reduction in crime, there is a reduction in property crime, violent crime, and disorder/drug crime when disorder policing interventions are implemented.

    Do policing interventions focused on disorder result in crime being displaced or crime control benefits being diffused to surrounding areas?

    Disorder policing interventions are associated with diffusion of crime control benefits in areas surrounding targeted locations. This conclusion is based on 15 tests that measured displacement or diffusion effects.

    Of the two main strategies used in policing disorder, is one more effective than the other?

    Yes, policing disorder through community and problem-solving is associated with reductions in crime. Aggressive, order maintenance approaches are not effective.

    What do the findings of the review mean?

    The types of strategies used by police departments to address disorderly conditions seem to matter in controlling crime, and this holds important implications for police-community relations, justice, and crime prevention. Further research is needed to understand the key programmatic elements that maximise the capacity of these strategies

    How up-to-date is this review?

    This review includes studies completed before 2013.

Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime
  • Authors Anthony A. Braga, Brandon Turchan, Andrew V. Papachristos, David M. Hureau
  • Published date 2019-09-08
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1046
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Hot spots policing is associated with reductions in crime

    Hot spots policing is associated with small but meaningful reductions in crime at locations where criminal activities are most concentrated. Focusing police efforts at high activity crime places is more likely to produce a diffusion of crime prevention benefits into areas adjacent to targeted hot spots than crime displacement.

    What is this review about?

    Crime is concentrated in small places, or "hot spots," that generate half of all criminal events. Hot spots policing focuses police resources and attention on these high crime places. For the purpose of this review, hot spots programs must have consisted of police-led crime prevention efforts that targeted high-activity crime "places" rather than larger areas such as neighborhoods.

    This review considers both randomized controlled experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of the effects of hot spots policing interventions on crime where the control group in each study received routine levels of traditional police enforcement tactics.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review assesses the preventive effects of focusing police efforts on crime "hot spots" as compared to traditional police crime control strategies.  The review summarises evidence from 65 studies containing 78 tests of hot spots policing interventions, including 27 randomized controlled trials and 38 quasi-experimental evaluations.

    What studies are included?

    A total of 65 studies containing 78 tests of hot spots policing interventions were identified. However, standardized effects sizes were only calculated for 73 main effects tests due to reporting deficiencies in three included studies.

    All studies were published from 1989 to 2017: 51 studies were conducted in the USA, four in the UK, four in Sweden, and six in other countries.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    Does focusing crime prevention efforts on crime hot spots reduce crime?

    Yes. Hot spots policing generates statistically-significant small reductions in overall crime and disorder in areas where the strategy is implemented.

    These crime control gains were evident across specific categories of crime outcomes including drug offenses, disorder offenses, property crimes, and violent crimes.

    Does policing crime hot spots inevitably produce crime displacement effects?

    No. Overall, it is more likely that hot spots policing generates crime control benefits that diffuse into the areas immediately surrounding the targeted locations than displacing crime into nearby locations.

    What do the findings of the review mean?

    Findings from this review support hot spots policing as a proactive crime reduction strategy. Police departments should incorporate focusing resources at high-activity crime places as part of their broader approach to crime prevention.

    The majority of studies included in the updated review have been published since the previous iteration of the review and utilized rigorous research designs.

    Despite the drastic increase in eligible studies, only one study conducted a formal cost-benefit assessment of the hot spot policing intervention. The growth of hot spots policing warrants further empirical attention on the efficiency of hot spots policing for reducing crime.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies up to February 2017.

Factors associated with youth gang membership in low- and middle-income countries
  • Authors Angela Higginson, Kathryn Benier, Yulia Shenderovich, Laura Bedford, Lorraine Mazerolle, Joseph Murray
  • Published date 2018-11-29
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice, International Development
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.11
Police-initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior
  • Authors David B. Wilson, Iain Brennan, Ajima Olaghere
  • Published date 2018-06-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.5
School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion
  • Authors Sara Valdebenito, Manuel Eisner, David P. Farrington, Maria M. Ttofi, Alex Sutherland
  • Published date 2018-01-09
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice, Education
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.1
Sexual offender treatment for reducing recidivism among convicted sex offenders
  • Authors Martin Schmucker, Friedrich Loesel
  • Published date 2017-07-31
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2017.8
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 Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.3
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 Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2015.18
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
  • 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.

Page 1 of 2

Contact us