The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group continues to focus on issues of evidence: what studies count in a systematic review and how many studies are needed to claim an intervention works. They are not alone. Since the mid-1990s, a number of similar efforts have sprung up to provide guidance to policy makers who wish to adopt programs to prevent violence or drug use. Many of these are particularly relevant to school-based drug prevention programs. This article describes seven efforts to produce guides to research-based programs, focusing on the standards adopted to determine what evidence counts and how much of it is necessary to determine that it worked. The author concludes with a discussion of some of the issues raised by this review.
Binder, Arnold , and Virginia L. Binder. 2000. The relationship between research results and public policy. In Contemporary issues in crime and criminal justice: Essays in honor of Gilbert Geis, edited by Henry Pontell and David Shicor, 33-44. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Boruch, Robert F. , Anthony J. Petrosino, and Iain Chalmers. 1999. The Campbell Collaboration: A proposal for systematic, multi-national, and continuous reviews of evidence. Paper presented at the Research Synthesis and Public Policy Conference, 15-16 July, University College, London.
3.
Brown, C. Hendricks , Don Beanolt, Joseph H. Brinales, Xiang Zong, and Deepak Bhagwat. 2000. Evaluating the evidence of effectiveness for preventive interventions: Using a registry system to influence policy through science. Addictive Behaviors25(6): 955-964.
4.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) . 2001. Toward the 21st century: A primer on effective programs. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
5.
Davies, Philip , Anthony Petrosino, and Iain Chalmers. 1999. Proceedings of the International Meeting on Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Social and Educational Interventions. London: University College.
6.
Drug Strategies . 1996. Making the grade: A guide to school drug prevention programs. Washington, DC: Drug Strategies.
7.
Drug Strategies . 1999. Making the grade: A guide to school drug prevention programs. Updated and expanded. Washington, DC: Drug Strategies.
8.
Durlak, Joseph A. , and A. M. Wells. 1998. Evaluation of indicated preventive intervention (secondary prevention) mental health programs for children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology26(5): 775-802.
9.
Elliott, Delbert S.1998. Implementing and evaluating crime prevention and control programs and policies. Crime, Law and Social Change28:287-310.
10.
Ennett, Susan T. , Nancy S. Tobler, Christopher L. Ringwalt, and Robert Flewelling. 1994. How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health84(9): 1394-1401.
11.
Expert Panel on Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools . 1999. Guidelines for submitting safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools programs for designation as promising or exemplary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
12.
Farrington, David P.2003. Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science587:49-68.
13.
Farrington, David P. , Denise C. Gottfredson, Lawrence W. Sherman, and Brandon C. Welsh. 2002. The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In Evidence-based crime prevention, edited by Lawrence W. Sherman, David P. Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, and Doris Layton MacKenzie, 13-21. London: Routledge.
14.
Farrington, David P. , and Anthony Petrosino. 2000. Systematic reviews of criminological interventions: The Campbell Collaboration Crime & Justice Group. International Annals of Criminology38(1/2): 49-66.
15.
Glass, Gene V. , Barry McGaw, and Mary L. Smith. 1981. Meta-analysis in social research. London: Sage.
16.
Gorman, Dennis M.2002. Defining and operationalizing “research-based” prevention: A critique (with case studies) of the U.S. Department of Education’s Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Exemplary Programs. Evaluation and Program Planning25(3): 295-302.
17.
Gottfredson, Denise C.1997. School-based crime prevention. In Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. A report to the United States Congress, edited by Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise Gottfredson, Doris Layton MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn D. Bushway. College Park: University of Maryland.
18.
Gottfredson, Denise C. , David B. Wilson, and Stacy Skroban Najaka. 2001. School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology17(3): 247-272.
19.
Gottfredson, Denise C. . 2002.School-based crime prevention.In Evidence-based crime prevention, edited by Lawrence W. Sherman, David P. Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, and Doris Layton MacKenzie, 165-197. London: Routledge.
20.
Hallfors, D. , and D. Godette. 2002. Will the “principles of effectiveness” improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Education Research17(4): 461-470.
21.
Lipsey, Mark W.2003. Those confounded moderators in Meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science587:69-81.
22.
Metzler, C. W. , T. K. Taylor, and M. Eddy. 2002. The evidence standards of ten best practices lists and the evidence base of the top family-focused programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, May, Seattle, WA.
Schinke, Steven , Paul Brounstein, and Stephen E. Gardner. 2002. Science-based programs and principles: Third annual report. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
25.
Sherman, Lawrence W. , David P. Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, and Doris Layton MacKenzie, eds. 2002. Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge.
26.
Sherman, Lawrence W. , Denise Gottfredson, Doris Layton MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn D. Bushway. 1997. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. A report to the United States Congress. College Park: University of Maryland.
27.
Sherman, Lawrence W. . 1998. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. National Institute of Justice research in brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
28.
Sloboda, Zili , and Susan L. David. 1997. Preventing drug use among children and adolescents: A researchbased guide. NIH publication number 97-4212. Betheseda, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.
29.
Tobler, Nancy S. , and Howard H. Stratton. 1997. Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention18(1): 71-128.
30.
U.S. Department of Education. 2002. Purpose for system of expert panels. Retrieved 20 October 2002 from www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/purpose.html.
31.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . 2001. Youth violence: A report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
32.
Weisburd, David , Cynthia M. Lum, and Sue-Ming Yang. 2003. When can we conclude that treatments or programs “don’t work”?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science587: 31-48.
33.
Zaff, Jonathan F. , and Julia Calkins. 2001. Background for community-level work on mental health and externalizing disorders in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
