No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Translational Criminology: Toward Best Practice
Abstract
Over the past two decades, criminologists have attempted to better understand the process through which research is used by practitioners and policymakers to identify the conditions that facilitate its policy and practice use. As part of this effort, the current study examines the translational research process and the use of researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPPs) in two state correctional agencies. The methods include interviews with leading national researchers, Florida legislative personnel, and state-level decision makers in adult and juvenile corrections. The findings document barriers, facilitators, and mechanisms involved in the translation process and reveal the effectiveness of RPPs to translate research into policy and practice.
... While top-tier journals in the fields of criminology and criminal justice prioritize research translation into practical applications, academic publications frequently remain underutilized by practitioners (Laub, 2021). This underutilization stems from the complex and technical nature of these publications, which can be difficult for non-academics to understand, thereby restricting their practical application (Kim & Lee, 2024;Pesta et al., 2019). Despite recent initiatives to improve open access to criminological research, the inherent complexity of academic articles continues to impede their accessibility and utilization by those in the field (Ashby, 2020;Blomberg et al., 2024;Pesta et al., 2019). ...
... This underutilization stems from the complex and technical nature of these publications, which can be difficult for non-academics to understand, thereby restricting their practical application (Kim & Lee, 2024;Pesta et al., 2019). Despite recent initiatives to improve open access to criminological research, the inherent complexity of academic articles continues to impede their accessibility and utilization by those in the field (Ashby, 2020;Blomberg et al., 2024;Pesta et al., 2019). ...
... Translational criminologists suggest that developing and disseminating synopses tailored to practitioners may effectively inform criminal justice policy and practice (Huey & Mitchell, 2016). These summaries could be accessible and rich in practical, policy-relevant information, presenting clear results and actionable recommendations (Pesta et al., 2019). However, there has been no systematic evaluation of the potential effectiveness of such summaries (Laub, 2021). ...
Objectives This study aims to identify effective strategies for disseminating scholarly
evidence to corrections practitioners within the framework of translational
criminology.
Methods In this experimental study, corrections practitioners were randomly
assigned to receive weekly executive summaries, full-text articles, or corrections
news for five months. Data were collected through a pre-survey, a 2-month midpoint
survey, and a post-survey to evaluate engagement and knowledge uptake.
Results Participants receiving executive summaries showed the highest engagement
but did not demonstrate enhanced comprehension compared to those receiving
corrections news, who exhibited higher comprehension. Those accessing full-text
articles reported the least comprehension and lower engagement, despite finding the
information highly useful.
Conclusions Given the mixed effectiveness of executive summaries and full-text
articles, future research should develop tailored dissemination strategies to better
meet the needs of corrections practitioners. The study highlights the critical
roles of partnerships and pracademics in translating complex research for practical
application.
... The field of translational criminology seeks to understand how and when criminological empirical findings are used or not used in criminal justice policy decision-making. This research has suggested that the political context is one of the crucial challenges for criminology to make impact in criminal justice policy (Laub & Frisch, 2016;Pesta et al., 2019). When shaping punishment policies, policy makers must attend to the preferences of the general public. ...
... Public administration studies have demonstrated that in general, successful evidencebased policy requires access to available research that is sufficiently clear, relevant, and reliable (Oliver et al., 2014). Research further shows that criminological evidence that is difficult to interpret or use is less likely to influence criminal justice policy (Innes & Everett, 2008;Pesta et al., 2019;Pratt, 2008). The question remains what would happen when an individual policy maker with a direct say in policy decisions about prison sentences would be confronted with clear, relevant, and reliable criminological evidence without having to consider the explicit political context, and whether this would lead them to align their decisions with such evidence. ...
... Research on translational criminology has indicated that this is also true for criminal justice policy (Laub & Frisch, 2016;Pesta et al., 2019). It shows that beside ideological and bureaucratical obstacles, a main barrier for the use of criminological evidence in criminal justice policy seems to be research that is difficult to interpret or use (Innes & Everett, 2008;Pesta et al., 2019;Pratt, 2008). ...
Criminology has a strong potential to impact criminal justice policy. It is thought that criminology fails to shape policy because of the political context of such policies. The present study analyses, however, whether criminological knowledge has the capacity to shape policy decision making in the absence of an explicit political context. We do so through a vignette study (N = 212) comparing how participants make criminal sanction policy decisions with or without reading criminological findings about the deterrent effect of longer sentences and whether this can be influenced by making harm to victims salient. The study finds that criminological science can impact policy decision making outside an explicit political context, also with salient harm to victims. Our findings show that when there is no explicit political context present, criminological evidence does affect policy making, even when there is a countervailing factor such as victim salience. This shows that the science in of itself need not be the obstacle to better alignment with policy. The study offers a new research agenda to further generalize these results and to work towards a better incorporation of criminology in criminal justice policy.
... But we rarely have such evidence to draw from when providing input on policy and practice. Current social crisesrelated to mass shootings, increasing homicides, and police legitimacy, for example-mean that agencies, communities, and policymakers need guidance now (Pesta et al. 2019). Advising such entities to wait for more scholarly research to be completed is neither helpful nor realistic (Braga & Apel 2016). ...
... Additionally, researchers should be realistic about the time it takes to provide results. Especially in public agencies, term limits tied to election cycles mean that policymakers must confront real-world problems quickly, with or without scientifically informed solutions (Pesta et al. 2019). Because research is incremental and can take many years to provide results, there can be various challenges associated with implementing and sustaining programs and interventions over a sufficient time period. ...
... Although scholarly language is appropriate for academic conferences or publishing in peer-reviewed journals, it is otherwise an exclusionary and ineffective form of communication. In fact, it can serve to alienate diverse groups of stakeholders and impede relationships with practitioners, policymakers, and the public (Gendreau & Smith 2007, Pesta et al. 2019. Criminologists must figure out how to discuss research and evidence in a clear and straightforward way-one that does not rely on the crutch of academic jargon-and that maximizes uptake and interaction with wider audiences. ...
The relevance of criminology to matters of public policy has been hotly debated throughout the history of the discipline. Yet time and again, we have borne witness to the consequences of harmful criminal justice practices that do little to reduce crime or improve the lives of our most vulnerable populations. Given the urgent need for evidence-informed responses to the problems that face our society, we argue here that criminologists can and should have a voice in the process. Accordingly, this review describes challenges and prospects for evidence-informed policymaking on matters of crime and justice. In terms of challenges, we review discourse on what constitutes evidence, issues with providing guidance under conditions of causal uncertainty, and practical constraints on evidence-informed policymaking. For prospects, we consider the important roles of institutional support, graduate training, and multiple translational strategies for the evidence-informed movement. Finally, we end with several considerations for advancing translational criminology through expanded promotion and tenure criteria, curricula revision, and prioritizing the organization of knowledge. More broadly, our goals are to stimulate disciplinary thinking regarding the ways in which criminology may play a more meaningful role in effectively confronting the ongoing challenges of crime in society.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7 is January 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
... Collaborating with agencies to help put research into practice is the foundation of what is now referred to as "translational criminology" (TC). Translational criminology refers to the use of empirical research to inform policy and practice (Pesta et al., 2019). In order to be successful, this process requires a symbiotic relationship between researchers and practitioners. ...
... Second, successful translational research requires effective communication and trust between all parties (Laub, 2012). In a study conducted by Pesta et al. (2019), both academics and policymakers specifically pointed to poor relations as a barrier to putting research into practice. Policymakers cited lack of understanding of how research could benefit their agencies and a history of poor relationships with researchers as hindering the process. ...
... Policymakers cited lack of understanding of how research could benefit their agencies and a history of poor relationships with researchers as hindering the process. At the same time, academics reported negative interactions with politicians but also acknowledged that most criminologists prefer to be "office criminologists" and fail to reach out, network, or partner with agencies (Pesta et al., 2019). A lack of communication and trust can easily lead to practitioners to be skeptical of the results of formal evaluations and presentations of data and research (Lane et al., 2004;Petersilia, 2004). ...
The importance of researcher-practitioner collaborations is at the core of Edward J. Latessa’s work. He has been at the forefront of this domain by creating and disseminating evidence-based tools and practices throughout his career. His work with agencies has undoubtedly changed the face of correctional practices in America and throughout the world. The current essay outlines the work that Ed did to propagate the “what works” movement by doing translational criminology work, and the lessons learned from him on the road.
... "Translational criminology"-the process of bringing scientific research into criminal justice policy and practice (e.g., Laub 2011;Lum 2009;Lum and Koper 2017;Pesta et al. 2019)-has grown in importance as researchers, practitioners, and policymakers recognize the value of scientific evidence for effective programming. However, there is a gap between the production of research and its implementation in practice (Pesta et al. 2019;Prewitt et al. 2012). ...
... "Translational criminology"-the process of bringing scientific research into criminal justice policy and practice (e.g., Laub 2011;Lum 2009;Lum and Koper 2017;Pesta et al. 2019)-has grown in importance as researchers, practitioners, and policymakers recognize the value of scientific evidence for effective programming. However, there is a gap between the production of research and its implementation in practice (Pesta et al. 2019;Prewitt et al. 2012). A number of factors contribute to this gap, including resistance to research among practitioners and agency leaders (Lum 2009;Lum et al. 2012b;Nutley and Davies 1999;Pesta et al. 2019;Rojek et al. 2015;Weisburd and Neyroud 2011;Willis 2013) and a lack of support, training, and incentives for researchers to engage in "public" criminology or communicate and disseminate their findings in practitioner-appropriate formats (Bradley and Nixon 2009;Mayhew 2016;Pesta et al. 2019;Rosenbaum 2010;Telep and Gross Shader 2019;Uggen and Inderbitzin 2010). ...
... However, there is a gap between the production of research and its implementation in practice (Pesta et al. 2019;Prewitt et al. 2012). A number of factors contribute to this gap, including resistance to research among practitioners and agency leaders (Lum 2009;Lum et al. 2012b;Nutley and Davies 1999;Pesta et al. 2019;Rojek et al. 2015;Weisburd and Neyroud 2011;Willis 2013) and a lack of support, training, and incentives for researchers to engage in "public" criminology or communicate and disseminate their findings in practitioner-appropriate formats (Bradley and Nixon 2009;Mayhew 2016;Pesta et al. 2019;Rosenbaum 2010;Telep and Gross Shader 2019;Uggen and Inderbitzin 2010). Implementation science, which examines best practices for promoting the use of research and successfully implementing and scaling up programs (e.g., Eccles and Mittman 2006;Fixsen et al. 2005), can act as a bridge between research and practice to facilitate translation (Nilsen et al. 2013). ...
Security at U.S. airports has been a key priority since September 11, 2001. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was established shortly thereafter to oversee aviation security operations. However, there have been few rigorous evaluations of airport security strategies, and even less is known about how they are implemented in practice. As part of a larger study that used a “translational criminology” approach to map TSA’s “Playbook” security strategy onto effective policing and crime prevention practices, we conducted a first-of-its-kind survey of TSA personnel at U.S. airports to understand how the Playbook was implemented in practice. We found that while the Playbook was well implemented, adherence to its core components—targeted, focused prevention strategies and multi-agency collaboration—was varied. We conclude with research-informed recommendations for future program development.
... Despite growing recognition of the importance of evidence-based criminal justice, the translation of research into policy and practice remains poor (Laub & Frisch, 2016;Pesta et al., 2019). Developing a more complete understanding of the various processes through which practitioners and policy makers draw on research findings to inform policy and practice is essential (Pesta et al., 2019). ...
... Despite growing recognition of the importance of evidence-based criminal justice, the translation of research into policy and practice remains poor (Laub & Frisch, 2016;Pesta et al., 2019). Developing a more complete understanding of the various processes through which practitioners and policy makers draw on research findings to inform policy and practice is essential (Pesta et al., 2019). As we progress our theoretical and empirical understanding of how weather impacts crime across a suite of temporal and spatial scales, situational and cultural context it is essential that this knowledge translates into smart policy and practical outcomes. ...
The weather-crime association has intrigued scholars for more than 150 years. While there is a long-standing history of scholarly interest in the weather-crime association, the last decade has evidenced a marked increase in the volume and diversity of empirical studies concerned with weather and its social implications including crime. In this paper we conduct a review of the empirical literature on weather and crime. This is the first review on the topic for more than 30 years. We highlight the theoretic and empirical challenges that persist and act to impede our understanding and chart four interrelated thematic areas that require concerted attention. These are to: (1) strengthen and integrate theoretical explanations of the weather-crime association; (2) model multi-dimensional processes of the weather-crime association; (3) broaden the situational, climatic, and cultural contexts of study; and (4) to translate research into policy and practice. We conclude by advocating for scholarship to advance the four thematic areas such that we progress towards a more complete and robust understanding of the weather-crime association.
... For example, work from legal psychology has identified multiple risk factors in criminal cases that could result in wrongful convictions or other miscarriages of justice, such as the reliability of eyewitness testimony, possible biases in forensic evidence or the risk factors for false confessions (Garrett, 2020). The field of criminology, too, has provided rich insights that may be relevant for law, such as the way that individual factors, social environments and practical circumstances may be associated with offending behaviour (Blomberg et al. 2024;Laub and Frisch 2016;Pesta et al. 2019). Nonetheless, opponents of the use of social scientific research in law argue that social science is far from suitable for law, or at least, not suitable for answering all questions in law (Faigman 1989;Giesen 2015). ...
There have been strong proponents and opponents in academic debates about the use of social science in legal practice. However, in such academic discussions, little attention has been paid to what legal practitioners think about social science and its use in law. The present study shows that legal practitioners have complex views about social science. Drawing on in-depth interviews, it shows that there are five ideal-types of ‘social science consciousness’: enthusiast, pragmatist, indifferent, critical optimist and opponent. The paper shows what the implications are for law and social science, as well as a new research agenda on social science consciousness.
... . Translational criminology seeks to demonstrate how academic research is used in evidence-based criminal justice policies and practices and can influence decisionmaking processes (Grieco et al., 2014). Topical literature here examines how researcher-practitioner partnerships may lead to better criminal justice outcomes, how law enforcement agencies use research to guide their decision-making and/or the barriers that prevent the use of such research (e. g., Telep and Winegar, 2015;Pesta et al., 2019). ...
... Moreover, it shows that the body of work that has looked at providing science about deterrence must look beyond Marshall's original hypotheses about the death penalty, to assess its effects also for more commonly used forms of punishment such as imprisonment. Finally, it shows that translational criminology (Blomberg et al., 2022;Laub & Frisch, 2016;Nichols et al., 2019;Pesta et al., 2019)), which has sought to build evidence based criminal justice practice by enhancing exchanges between criminological science and practice, should also focus on scientific dissemination towards the general public. The present study points towards a collaboration between the fields of research on punishment preferences and translational criminology, to advance our understanding of how science can best be presented to truly make public punishment preferences more aligned with empirical insights. ...
Background setting
Punitive approaches to deter offending remain popular despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. This study investigated what effect presenting empirical criminological findings about the effectiveness of deterrence to a general public has on their punishment preferences. It builds on earlier research showing that such presentation reduces the public’s inclination towards strict punishment. The present study extended this research by exploring whether the impact of scientific evidence on public punishment preferences is affected by crime severity and by exploring cognitive and psychological factors that may underpin this relationship.
Methods
Using a vignette study paradigm, a general public sample of 330 participants were asked to make hypothetical punishment decisions to reduce crime (whether or not to double sentences) for one of three crime types that varied in severity. For each crime type, half of participants were additionally provided with a summary of research on the deterrent effect of punitive policy measures.
Results
Presenting scientific evidence reduced participants' preferences for stronger punishment and that this effect remained consistent regardless of crime severity—ranging from burglary to homicide. In addition, we did not find evidence that difference in individuals’ cognitive style, negative emotional reactions, perceptions about seriousness, or beliefs about redeemability moderated or mediated this relationship.
Conclusions
This study provides compelling findings that further clarify the circumstances required for scientific evidence to be successfully disseminated to a general public to bring their punishment preferences more in line with the state of empirical science.
... Further, Rojek et al. (2019) identified that most US law enforcement agencies surveyed were not involved in rigorous partnerships with researchers, defined as formal, long-running, and enabling integrative knowledge exchange. Developing a better understanding of the barriers that impede the establishment and maintenance of RPPs would enable researchers and practitioners seeking to engage in RPPs to avoid these obstacles, enhancing the potential for successful outcomes resulting from such partnerships (Pesta et al., 2018). ...
... During a crisis, the need for interaction among multiple disciplines and stakeholders makes translation more common. Yet, whether in crisis or not, investigations of the role of interpersonal dynamics in this translation process are scarce (see Pesta et al. 2019). ...
Crises present the scientific community with unusual demands, including the need for rapid solutions. This can translate into a greatly compressed time frame that curtails data collection and analysis procedures used in “normal” science. Researchers cope with these demands, while maintaining professional standards and a personal commitment to producing reliable work, by engaging in what we call performed separations. These are practices that allow people to adopt an ethical epistemic position while operating within constrained and urgent research situations. We distill the core features and effects of performed separations in the case of experts working to study archaeological looting in wartime Syria. We look specifically at how different practices of control allow for varying degrees of separation and the production of knowledge claims. By extension, performed separations facilitate making ethical claims about one’s role in the production of research and use of findings.
... The challenge of translating research into policy and practice is formidable, and much has been written both within criminology (e.g. Nichols, Wire, Wu, Sloan, & Scherer, 2019;Pesta, Blomberg, Ramos, & Ransom, 2019) and in other disciplines (e.g. Gentry, Milden, & Kelly, 2020;Martin, Mullan, & Horton, 2019) Criminology is a discipline that often seeks to influence policy and practice in the ...
Criminology produces policy-relevant research and criminologists often seek to influence practice, but most criminological research is confined to expensive subscription journals. This disadvantages researchers in the global south, policy makers and practitioners who have the skills to use research findings but do not have journal subscriptions. Open access seeks to increase availability of research, but take-up among criminologists has been low. This study used a sample of 12,541 articles published in criminology journals between 2017 and 2019 to estimate the proportion of articles available via different types of open access. Overall 22% of research was available to non-subscribers, about half that found in other disciplines, even though authors had the right to make articles open without payment in at least 95% of cases. Open access was even less common in many leading journals and among researchers in the United States. Open access has the potential to increase access to research for those outside academia, but few scholars exercise their existing rights to distribute freely the submitted or accepted versions of their articles online. Policies to incentivise authors to make research open access where possible are needed unlock the benefits of greater access to criminological research.
... We did not interview or survey court officials or community supervision officers to ascertain how the laws and policies influenced their everyday practices. Prior research highlights there is sometimes a disconnect between what is written in policy and how it is implemented in practice (Pesta et al., 2018). Future research may seek to explore how these policies are administered within the states included in this study. ...
The assessment and collection of monetary sanctions (fines, fees, and restitution) have become a common element of the U.S. criminal justice system, especially in community corrections. Although the application of monetary sanctions is often dictated by state-level legislation, court rules, and agency policy, little research has sought to organize and systematically examine a set of these policies to compare them across several community corrections contexts more broadly. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature by using thematic content analysis to examine legislative policies governing the use of monetary sanctions in six states from across the United States. Laws and policies regarding the assessment, waiver, and collection of monetary sanctions utilized by agencies of varying size and jurisdictional scope were considered to identify common themes. We conclude with a discussion of whether the policies and laws examined align with rehabilitative and punitive goals of community supervision and highlight emerging opportunities for research and policy reform.
... This is particularly true in the present case, since unlike other correctional fads of the past (e.g., boot camp prisons, scared straight programs, or restorative justice programs), specialty courts do not seem to be showing any signs of going away or of even slowing down (Morgan et al., 2016). So in the spirit of what has become known recently as "translational" or "public criminology" (Pesta, Blomberg, Ramos, & Ranson, 2018;Sullivan, Welsh, & Ilchi, 2017), we have some recommendations for specialty courts moving forward so that they might increase their odds of being effective for enhancing public safety. ...
Specialty courts—such as drug courts, mental health courts, or domestic violence courts—tend to assume, either implicitly or explicitly, that particular groups of offenders have unique problems that can be best met with specialized case processing. Put simply, specialty courts assume that offenders themselves are specialists when it comes to offending. There is, however, a criminological fly in the ointment. The problem is that criminological theory and research have long demonstrated that offenders tend to be generalists and that they rarely specialize in any given form of misbehavior. Accordingly, the authors argue here that the notion of the “generality of deviance” presents a problem for the potential effectiveness of specialty courts because they are likely operating on a faulty set of ideas about offending behavior. The authors offer strategies for moving forward to better integrate the notion of the generality of deviance into specialty courts: in particular, embracing a rehabilitative philosophy and adopting well-documented correctional treatment approaches such as cognitive-behavioral interventions and the risk-need-responsivity model. They conclude by highlighting the risks associated with granting system efficiency a position of privilege among the multiple goals of corrections.
This paper seeks to advance efforts to understand and extend translational criminology as a means by which to improve criminal justice research and policy, including laws, programs, and practices. To this end, it conceptualizes translational criminology as a collaborative activity, one that involves researchers and policymakers, practitioners, and communities, and is grounded in an evaluation research framework. Using this framework highlights that translational criminology can inform research, policy, and practice along five distinct dimensions: (1) Identifying the need for particular policies, (2) developing a strong theoretical and empirical foundation for them, (3) monitoring and improving implementation that aligns with the design of the policy and local context, (4) monitoring outcomes and assessing impacts, including potential harms, with a focus on identifying ways to increase effectiveness and minimize harms, and (5) creating accurate estimates of cost-efficiency and a foundation for informing assessment of whether policies should be terminated, continued, or expanded. Opportunities for translational criminology are substantial and hold the potential for advancing science and improving criminal justice policy creation and design, implementation, effectiveness, and cost-efficiency.
Translational criminology emerged from the evidence-based criminology movement, which relies on rigorous research to amass scientific evidence about how to improve fairness and effectiveness in criminal justice. While evidence-based criminology focuses primarily on developing scientific evidence about which programs, practices, and interventions are most effective, translational criminology is concerned with how to disseminate that knowledge to those practitioners and policy makers who can use it most. Moreover, it is concerned with ensuring that those practitioners and policy makers understand the evidence and know what to do with it. In this paper, we introduce theories and concepts from the study of intergroup communication and accommodation and illustrate their utility for understanding and improving translational criminology and related efforts to translate science into policy and practice.
In recent years, gun violence has surged in many cities along with increasing demands for effective intervention and prevention. Researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPPs) have been identified as a promising practice to effectively respond to a particular community’s gun violence with appropriately aligned intervention and prevention programs. However, recently, numerous sources have called for RPPs to include the perspectives of those with lived experiences as part of the RPP model, yet inclusion of these voices can present unique challenges for research translation. This case study contributes to the budding understanding of these specific RPPs by documenting the experienced procedures and challenges of a local community-engaged RPP. Specifically, we describe the development of this partnership, the research partner’s activities during the planning phase of this partnership, and, primarily, outline and assess the challenges encountered through the inclusion of community partners and voices during this phase and discuss the impact of these challenges on project progress. Documented challenges included weighing community perceptions of crime versus empirical data, putting the “cart before the horse,” and managing expectations. These challenges contributed to goals, roles, and expectations being misaligned with the focus of the partnership, competing priorities and recommendations for implementation strategies, and resistance to research translation. We conclude with tangible recommendations for the initiation of a community-engaged approach to RPPs, focusing on how to preemptively circumvent or more adeptly navigate these distinctive challenges.
This book addresses the gap in the existing literature on the governance of transdisciplinary research partnerships in transformational sustainability research by exploring the governance of knowledge co-production in coupled socio-ecological system dynamics.
Multiple social and ecological crises raise new cross-sectoral research questions that call for an evolution in contemporary science in the direction of society-wide knowledge co-production on sustainability transformations of interdependent social and ecological systems. This book proposes a new approach to this based on enabling capacities for collaboration among scientific researchers and societal actors with diverse values, perspectives, and research interests. By drawing upon the thriving literature on the conditions for community and multistakeholder-driven collective action, the analysis sheds new light on the governance arrangements for organizing so-called transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainability. This book identifies robust conditions that lead to effective collaborative research with societal actors and digs deeper into capacity building for partnership research through fostering social learning on sustainability values among research partners and organizing training and knowledge exchange at institutions of higher education.
The book proposes solutions for addressing collective action challenges in transdisciplinary partnerships in an accessible and broadly interdisciplinary manner to a large audience of sustainability scholars and practitioners. It will be of interest to students and researchers in the fields of sustainable development, social ecological transitions, and science policy, while also being a useful resource for engineers, QSE managers, and policymakers.
There has been increased research examining conservation rangers. Little is known, however, about female rangers, including their primary roles and workplace environment. Few studies have examined the profession within a Latin American context. This qualitative study explores ranger respondents’ perceptions towards the role, recruitment, and working environment of female rangers in Latin American countries. Based on data obtained from interviews with 28 respondents across 11 countries, findings suggest female rangers’ roles are largely consistent with that of their male counterparts. However, different strengths were highlighted. Additionally, female involvement in the profession was attributed to national employment-based quotas, increased education and exposure, and the presence of women in leadership. Factors that led to a supportive work environment for female rangers included camaraderie, opportunities for professional development and growth, and attentive supervisors and subordinates. Conversely, the persistence of a machismo culture and discriminatory policies and practices were viewed as obstacles. Findings have several implications regarding gender diversity within the ranger profession. Discussion on academic-practitioner collaborations is also provided.
In carceral settings such as prisons and jails, setting and achieving goals relates to keeping people safe, meting out punishment for prior violations of the law, and working to improve the lives of justice-involved individuals. The specific practices that transform a stated goal into a fulfilled goal tend to be more complex. In these social control organizations, corrections officers function as key agents for achieving carceral goal(s), but both organization and corrections scholars know relatively little about how corrections staff does this. This chapter frames the unique role of line-level corrections officers within the existing literature on goal setting theories from organization scholars such as Edwin Locke and John Bargh. It also explores how the American corrections officer translates and carries out organizational goals in carceral settings. In using discretionary decision making, organizational commitment, and role conflict as explanatory frameworks, both organization and corrections scholars will gain considerably from exploration of carceral goals and their achievement. As the larger criminal-legal system boasts goals uniquely situated in the social, political, and economic context of the United States, corrections practitioners and scholars must better understand how corrections officers contribute to goal achievement in carceral settings and in what ways it can be improved.
A longstanding divide between research and policy presents continuing problems for efforts to advance science and to improve public safety. The situation leads to poorly designed and implemented policies, little accountability, and limited effectiveness and cost-efficiency. Ripple effects of the divide include policies that proceed from ideology and guesswork, inadequate infrastructure for creating relevant and accessible data, and research that fails to systematically illuminate criminal justice operations or expand the boundaries of science. The solution? Put research at center stage in criminal justice policy. To do so will require overcoming a lack of awareness among policymakers and administrators about what research is, what it can be, and what is required to generate credible research-based evidence. It also will require integrating researchers into policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Bridging this divide will be essential for scientific progress and advancing policy.
Despite growing evidence on the harmful effects of pretrial detention on individuals’ criminal case processing and community integration, there has been limited empirical investigation of strategies to facilitate early release from detention. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the effects of risk assessment-informed early release decisions on case processing and recidivism outcomes. Participants were 1,327 individuals who were booked into a U.S. midwestern jail and assessed using a proxy risk assessment over a 1-year period. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the effects of early release on any criminal charge, any plea, any guilty disposition as well as any new or any arrest at 6- and 12-month postrelease. Results showed approximately 46.9% of the sample received early release an average of 3.5 hr after booking. Proxy assessments were moderate predictors of any arrest and any new arrest at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Proxy risk levels were moderately associated with early release decisions overall. Early release from detention did not predict likelihood of being charged, accepting a plea, or having a guilty disposition. However, defendants with lower risk scores who received early release were more likely to plead guilty relative to those who did not receive early release. Overall, early release was associated with a lower likelihood of any rearrest at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Our findings suggest brief screening strategies implemented at jail intake produce accurate assessments of risk and may serve as a mechanism to decrease exposure to the jail environment.
Researcher–policymaker/practitioner partnerships (RPPs) have emerged as a successful tool for translating research into policy and practice. However, the available research has focused on RPPs with law enforcement and correctional agencies. Notably absent are studies that describe and evaluate RPPs between researchers and legislative bodies. Specifically, questions remain about the establishment, unique constraints, best practices for effective implementation, and sustainability of partnerships between researchers and policymakers. This study contributes to the literature by describing a unique RPP between a university and a state legislature. Through this retrospective case analysis, we describe the steps taken to initiate the partnership, its implementation, and outcomes. Importantly, in the context of the prior research, we describe the lessons learned, next steps, and implications for partnerships with policymakers.
Diversion programs are increasingly being implemented as an alternative to more severe sanctions, especially within juvenile justice. The civil citation program in Florida is unique in that it diverts juveniles away from the justice system at the earliest decision point of arrest. However, despite its growing use in a number of states, there is little research on the program's implementation and outcomes, namely, it remains unknown if the program is being applied consistently across communities and for juveniles within those communities. Drawing from the larger sociology of punishment, race, and social control literature, and the associated theories of labeling and social threat, this study employs statewide data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice to explore the community and individual determinants of civil citation's use. Consistent with the theoretical arguments of labeling and social threat, the multilevel analysis finds that community and individual characteristics, in particular race, impact the likelihood of receiving civil citation. Implications for future research, theory, and policy are discussed.
Criminology produces policy-relevant research and criminologists often seek to influence practice, but most criminological research is confined to expensive subscription journals. This disadvantages researchers in the global south, policy makers and practitioners who have the skills to use research findings but do not have journal subscriptions. Open access seeks to increase availability of research, but take-up among criminologists has been low. This study used a sample of 12,541 articles published in criminology journals between 2017 and 2019 to estimate the proportion of articles available via different types of open access. Overall 22% of research was available to non-subscribers, about half that found in other disciplines, even though authors had the right to make articles open without payment in at least 95% of cases. Open access was even less common in many leading journals and among researchers in the United States. Open access has the potential to increase access to research for those outside academia, but few scholars exercise their existing rights to distribute freely the submitted or accepted versions of their articles online. Policies to incentivise authors to make research open access where possible are needed unlock the benefits of greater access to criminological research.
Translational criminology—the practice and process of bringing research evidence into strategies and decision-making in the criminal justice field—is growing in importance. However, there remain significant barriers to the development and sustainability of evidence-based policy and practice. In the United States, federal funding initiatives like the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation (BCJI) program have provided the impetus to further translational criminology efforts by promoting sustainable, data-driven partnerships between researchers, police and local government agencies, community organizations, and residents. In this chapter, we describe the factors needed to develop a successful partnership through a case study of the Seattle, WA BCJI program, Rainier Beach: A Beautiful Safe Place for Youth (ABSPY). We begin with a discussion of the literature on translational criminology, including barriers to and facilitators of successful translation. We then describe the history, characteristics, and key stakeholders of ABSPY and how we built an approach that reflects best practices in researcher-practitioner partnerships. We conclude with lessons learned and recommendations for sustaining similar efforts in collaborations between communities, local governments, and academics.
Although the media gives considerable attention to prison privatization, there have been few assessments of how newspapers portray the debate about it and how that portrayal aligns with what is known empirically about private prisons. This study addresses this gap in the literature by undertaking a content analysis of newspaper articles ( N = 131) about private prisons and private Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, respectively. The results show that few news stories discuss the broad range of factors that scholars highlight as important aspects of the privatization debate. It is also uncommon for news reports, especially those that discuss private immigration facilities, to refer to empirical research or its importance. The implications of this limited portrayal of private facilities are discussed.
The present study uses a mixed-methods research strategy to examine police practitioner-researcher partnerships. The study has two primary research objectives: (1) examine the prevalence of police practitioner-researcher partnerships in the United States; and (2) examine the factors that prevent or facilitate the development and sustainability of police practitioner-researcher partnerships. The subsequent goals to be accomplished through these objectives are as follows: (1) identify the current level of participation in partnerships with researchers among law enforcement agencies; (2) identify the characteristics of agencies who participate in these partnerships; and (3) gain an understanding of the important lessons learned from practitioners and researchers for forming these partnerships in order to inform future participants in these efforts. The study employs three data-collection strategies to accomplish these objectives and goals. First, a nationally-representative sample of law enforcement agencies was surveyed to capture the prevalence of police practitioner-researcher partnerships and associated information. Second, practitioner and researcher representatives from 89 separate partnerships were interviewed, which were identified through the national survey. The interviews were the primary data-collection effort for gaining insight into the barriers to and facilitators of the development and sustainability of these partnerships, as well as the benefits of partnering . Third, four case studies were conducted on model partnerships that were identified during interviews with practitioners and researchers. While these case studies provide a detailed look at sustainable partnerships, the primary purpose of the case studies is to support a multimedia component of this study. The videos that represent this multimedia component convey important information from one peer to another. This strategy is directed to the practitioner community in order to facilitate dissemination of these important relationships by credible sources.
Many social science studies are based on coded in-depth semistructured interview transcripts. But researchers rarely report or discuss coding reliability in this work. Nor is there much literature on the subject for this type of data. This article presents a procedure for developing coding schemes for such data. It involves standardizing the units of text on which coders work and then improving the coding scheme’s discriminant capability (i.e., reducing coding errors) to an acceptable point as indicated by measures of either intercoder reliability or intercoder agreement. This approach is especially useful for situations where a single knowledgeable coder will code all the transcripts once the coding scheme has been established. This approach can also be used with other types of qualitative data and in other circumstances.
Many social science studies are based on coded in-depth semistructured interview transcripts. But researchers rarely report or discuss coding reliability in this work. Nor is there much literature on the subject for this type of data. This article presents a procedure for developing coding schemes for such data. It involves standardizing the units of text on which coders work and then improving the coding scheme's discriminant capability (i.e., reducing coding errors) to an acceptable point as indicated by measures of either intercoder reliability or intercoder agreement. This approach is especially useful for situations where a single knowledgeable coder will code all the transcripts once the coding scheme has been established. This approach can also be used with other types of qualitative data and in other circumstances.
Research Summary
Supermaximum‐security prisons—or “supermaxes”—symbolize the “get tough” criminal justice policies that have developed over the past three decades in the United States and in other countries. Proponents believe that they effectively address critical prison system problems; opponents believe that they do not and that they create substantial harm. This essay examines the available evidence about supermaxes.
Policy Implications
A range of considerations are relevant to determining whether supermaxes constitute effective policy. These include (a) definitional problems in discussing supermax incarceration; (b) five critical dimensions along which evidence for policies is desirable and along which supermaxes fall short, including demonstration of policy need, credible policy theory, high‐quality implementation, impact, and benefits that exceed costs and do so more than other policies; (c) the challenge of assessing causal claims related to supermaxes; (d) legal and ethical issues; (e) policy and political challenges confronting states; (f) policy options other than supermaxes; and (g) research gaps that remain to be addressed. The essay argues that causal uncertainty about supermax incarceration makes it difficult at present to claim credibly that it achieves intended goals. Policy implications and recommendations are discussed.
Consistent with the current models of governance in public sector organizations, there have been an increasing number of advocates within the law enforcement community calling for agencies to participate in partnerships with researchers. Despite this support, little is known about the prevalence of police practitioner–researcher partnerships, nor has there been any examination into which agencies participate in partnerships with researchers or the reasons why agencies do not participate. The present study addresses these gaps in knowledge by reporting on findings from a national survey of law enforcement agencies on research partnership participation. The results reveal nearly one third of responding agencies reported they had participated in a research partnership within the last 5 years. The most common reason provided for not participating in these relationships was a lack of funding resources. Discussion on the future expansion of police practitioner–researcher partnerships in light of these findings is provided
The present-day interest in linking police practitioners and researchers in the USA finds its roots in a 40-year old recommendation made by the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Specifically, the Commission called for the use of social science to assist law enforcement agencies in their efforts to understand better and address the problems they face in their related communities. This advocacy spawned the rapid growth of empirical research intended to provide support to the law enforcement community. Moreover, these research endeavours found important support in federal grant funding initiatives from the US Department of Justice through the National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Despite this tremendous effort to link the police practitioner and research communities, there has been little knowledge on whether the resulting empirical knowledge is utilized by the law enforcement community in the USA. The article explores the degree of this utilization through the findings of a national survey of approximately 850 law enforcement agencies in the USA. The survey explored whether law enforcement executives utilize research to inform their decisions on policy development and operations, to what areas of agency operations they have applied this research and the sources they rely upon to find this empirical knowledge. The findings show that reported use of research findings may not necessarily reflect a connection with the empirical work of the research community.
Research Summary
Public scholarship aspires to bring social science home to the individuals, communities, and institutions that are its focus of study. In particular, it seeks to narrow the yawning gap between public perceptions and the best available scientific evidence on issues of public concern. Yet nowhere is the gap between perceptions and evidence greater than in the study of crime. Here, we outline the prospects for a public criminology, conducting and disseminating research on crime, law, and deviance in dialogue with affected communities. We present historical data on the media discussion of criminology and sociology, and we outline the distinctive features of criminology—interdisciplinary, a subject matter that incites moral panics, and a practitioner base actively engaged in knowledge production—that push the boundaries of public scholarship.
Policy Implications
Discussions of public sociology have drawn a bright line separating policy work from professional, critical, and public scholarship. As the research and policy essays published in Criminology & Public Policy make clear, however, the best criminology often is conducted at the intersection of these domains. A vibrant public criminology will help to bring new voices to policy discussions while addressing common myths and misconceptions about crime.
The next phase of evidence-based policing requires both scholars and practitioners to move from lists of specific studies
about “what works” to using that information strategically. This requires developing generalizations or principles on the
nature of effective police strategies and translating the field of police evaluation research into digestible forms that can
be used to alter police tactics, strategies, accountability systems, and training. In this article, we present a tool intended
for such use: the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix. The Matrix is a consistently updated, research-to-practice translation tool
that categorizes and visually bins all experimental and quasi-experimental research on police and crime reduction into intersections
between three common dimensions of crime prevention—the nature of the target, the extent to which the strategy is proactive
or reactive, and the specificity or generality of the strategy. Our mapping and visualization of 97 police evaluation studies
conducted through December 31, 2009, indicate that proactive, place-based, and specific policing approaches appear much more
promising in reducing crime than individual-based, reactive, and general ones. We conclude by discussing how the Matrix can
be used to guide future research and facilitate the adoption of evidence-based policing.
KeywordsEvidence-based policing–Effectiveness–Matrix–Evaluation–Experiments–Hot spots policing
Criminologists bemoan their lack of influence on U.S. crime policy, believing that the justice system would be improved if
their research findings were more central in decision making. I had an opportunity to test that notion as I participated in
California’s historic attempt to reform its prisons over the past 4years. I became an embedded criminologist, where I was able to observe and contribute to the inner workings of state government. This article reports on my accomplishments
with respect to fostering research activities and shifting the department’s focus towards prisoner reintegration. It discusses
some of the lessons I learned, including the personal toll that such work entails, the importance of the timing of policy
initiatives, and the power of rigorous methodology and clear communication. I conclude by recommending that other policy-oriented
criminologists seek out similar experiences, as I believe our academic skills are uniquely suited and ultimately necessary
to create a justice system that does less harm.
Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
This paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding the uses of research in policy and practice, findings from recent empirical work, and early lessons from the field. The framework describes the ways policymakers and practitioners define, acquire, interpret, and ultimately use research. Relationships are vital conduits for acquiring research. When confronted with questions about a program or reform, agencies and legislators often turn to trusted peers and intermediaries. Translation is also key. Because research does not speak for itself, policymakers and practitioners must always interpret its meaning and implications for their particular problems and circumstances. This means that identifying the right translators and creating productive conditions for translation are critical. Policymakers and practitioners use research in various ways, including instrumental, conceptual, political, imposed, and process uses. Increased knowledge of these nuances should enable researchers to produce more useful work and better engage with policymakers, practitioners, and intermediaries.
Recent calls for police to focus more on integrating research into practice require paying closer attention to how receptive frontline practitioners are to using research. Officers in four U.S. municipal agencies (n = 992) were surveyed to assess their exposure to research, knowledge about the evidence base, view of science, and willingness to evaluate interventions. Multivariate results show that officer awareness of evidence-based policing and willingness to work with researchers are influenced by education and prior research exposure. These factors strongly predict more specific indicators of receptivity. Results also suggest substantial variation in attitudes across agencies, emphasizing the importance of organizational context. The most receptive officers in our sample vary significantly from all others on multiple experience variables.
While there has been growth in the relationship between research and practice in policing, particularly police practitioner-researcher partnerships, there has been little effort until recently to examine their scope. This chapter presents the findings from a recent study conducted by two of the authors on police practitioner-researcher partnerships in the United States. Findings are presented on the prevalence of these partnerships, the benefits of participating in them, and the barriers and facilitators to their development and sustainability.
T his paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding the uses of research in policy and practice, findings from recent empirical work, and early lessons from the field. The framework describes the ways policymakers and practitioners define, acquire, interpret, and ultimately use research. Relationships are vital conduits for acquiring research. When confronted with questions about a program or reform, agencies and legislators often turn to trusted peers and intermediaries. Translation is also key. Because research does not speak for itself, policymakers and practitioners must always interpret its meaning and implications for their particular problems and circumstances. This means that identifying the right translators and creating productive conditions for translation are critical. Policymakers and practitioners use research in various ways, including instrumental, conceptual, political, imposed, and process uses. Increased knowledge of these nuances should enable researchers to produce more useful work and better engage with policymakers, practitioners, and intermediaries.
Chiefs and sheriffs play a key role in efforts to make police agencies more evidence-based. Understanding their views and
knowledge about evidence-based policing is thus crucial for assessing the current state of policing and areas where change
would be useful. We present findings from a survey of 45 Oregon police chiefs and sheriffs on receptivity to empirical research
and evidence-based policing. Our findings suggest that Oregon law enforcement executives are generally receptive to the ideas
of evidence-based policing, but that there are still gaps in knowledge and use of the research evidence. We compare our findings
to those of earlier surveys focused primarily on lower-level officers and conclude by discussing training efforts in Oregon
designed to enhance evidence-based policing statewide.
A cluster of recent police killings of African American men has sparked an unprecedented amount of public debate regarding policing in the United States. Critics and protesters have made sweeping allegations about the police; a presidential commission has been formed to study police misconduct; and reforms are being debated. These events provide a backdrop for this article’s review of recent poll data and discussion of research regarding police relations with African Americans, Latinos, and whites.
Evidence-based policing—using research and scientific processes to inform police decisions—is a complex approach to policing that involves various challenges. One primary difficulty is how research can be translated into digestible and familiar forms for practitioners. A central part of successful translation is the receptivity of decisionmakers to research as well as how research is presented and packaged to increase receptivity. In this article we first discuss the complexity of evidence-based policing, highlighting the much-lamented gap between research and practice. We review research from other disciplines and also in policing about what contributes to research being better received and used by practitioners. We then describe our own receptivity survey, offering preliminary findings about the receptivity of officers to research, researchers, and tactics influenced by research. Finally, we conclude with examples of the types of efforts practitioners and researchers can engage in that might improve receptivity to research. Specifically, we discuss the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix as a research translation tool, as well as multiple demonstrations conducted by the authors that focus on institutionalizing the use of research into daily police activities.
A confluence of factors — a perfect storm — interfered with the intractable rise of imprisonment and contributed to the emergence of a new sensibility defining continued mass imprisonment as non-sustainable. In this context, reducing America’s prisons has materialized as a viable possibility. For progressives who have long called for restraint in the use of incarceration, the challenge is whether the promise of downsizing can be met. The failure of past reforms aimed at decarceration stand as a sobering reminder that good intentions do not easily translate into good results. Further, a number of other reasons exist for why meaningful downsizing might well fail (e.g., the enormous scale of imprisonment that must be confronted, limited mechanisms available to release inmates, lack of quality alternative programs). Still, reasons also exist for optimism, the most important of which is the waning legitimacy of the paradigm of mass incarceration, which has produced efforts to lower inmate populations and close institutions in various states. The issue of downsizing will also remain at the forefront of correctional discourse because of the court-ordered reduction in imprisonment in California. This experiment is ongoing, but is revealing the difficulty of downsizing; the initiative appears to be producing mixed results (e.g., reductions in the state’s prison population but increased in local jail populations). In the end, successful downsizing must be “liberal but not stupid.” Thus, reform efforts must be guided not only by progressive values but also by a clear reliance on scientific knowledge about corrections and on a willingness to address the pragmatic issues that can thwart good intentions. Ultimately, a “criminology of downsizing” must be developed to foster effective policy interventions.
This paper describes the genesis, development, unanticipated complications, and short- and long-term value of a researcher–practitioner partnership between the Florida Department of Corrections and the Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Collaborations between criminal justice agencies and researchers are infrequent and, we argue, should be encouraged as a means to generate quality policy-relevant research and engender mutually beneficial relationships between researchers and practitioners. This results from the reality that practitioner agencies have a strong desire and need for quality empirical research to inform their policies and practices, have in-depth knowledge of their programs, and massive amounts of data. However, agencies are not funded adequately to devote dedicated resources to complex and time-consuming research. In contrast, non-practitioners such as universities have the expertise and ability to devote considerable dedicated time to conducting comprehensive research important to agencies and policy-makers with the benefit of independence from the agenda of an agency. We use our own experiences forming and maintaining a successful partnership through a grant by the National Institute of Justice to inform future partnerships of the many benefits of such collaborations as well as some potential obstacles that were encountered along the way.
By 1975, the long-standing rehabilitative ideal had collapsed, a demise that was sudden and advocated by conservatives and liberals alike. Through the prism of the author's personal involvement in the issue of correctional rehabilitation, what occurred from this time to the present is recounted. This story includes identifying a period of pessimism in which a “nothing works” doctrine was widely embraced and a period of optimism in which knowledge has grown about the effectiveness of offender treatment. Given the current context, eight developments are likely to unfold in coming years: the continued policy appeal of rehabilitation, widening influence of the risk-need-responsivity paradigm, popularity of desistance-based treatment models, use of reentry programs as a conduit for rehabilitation, integration of early intervention with correctional intervention, use of financial incentives to fund effective programs, spread of rehabilitation ceremonies, and growth of specialty courts that target treatment to specific categories of offenders. For the rehabilitative ideal to retain legitimacy, however, two major challenges will need to be addressed. First, with support from policy makers, practitioners must embrace evidence-based corrections and professionalism. And second, criminologists must take seriously their obligation to develop a correctional science that can invent treatment interventions capable of reducing offender recidivism.
Research Summary
This article reviews the causal turn in the social sciences and accompanying efforts by criminologists to make policy claims more credible. Although there has been much progress in techniques for the estimation of causal effects, we find that the link between evidence and valid policy implications remains elusive. Drawing on criminological theory and research insights from disciplines such as sociology, economics, and statistics, we assess principles and strategies for informing policy in a causally uncertain world. We identify three distinct domains of inquiry that form a part of the translational process from evidence to policy and that complicate the straightforward exportation of causal effects to policy recommendations: (a) mechanisms and causal pathways, (b) effect heterogeneity, and (c) contextualization. We elaborate these three concepts by examining research on broken windows theory, policing, video games and violence, the Moving to Opportunity voucher experiment, incarceration, and especially the rich set of experimental studies on domestic violence that originated in Minneapolis, MN in the early 1980s. We also articulate a set of conceptual tools for advancing the goal of policy translation and offer recommendations for how what we call “policy graphs”—causal graphs used to analyze the policy implications of a system of causal relations—can potentially integrate the theoretical and policy arms of criminology.
Policy Implications
Evidence, even if causal, does not necessarily inform policy. In fact, the question of “what works,” the focus of the growing evidence‐based movement in criminology, turns out to be a different question than, “what will work?” Evidence‐based policy research must therefore be concerned with much more than providing policy makers with research on causal effects, however precisely measured. The implication is that we must separate criminology's increasing focus on causality from its policy turn and formally recognize that the latter requires a different standard of theory and evidence than does the former. In particular, criminologists interested in making policy claims must ask hard questions about the potential mechanisms through which a treatment influences an outcome, heterogeneous effects across people and time, contextual variations, and all of the real‐world phenomena to which these challenges give rise—such as unintended consequences, policies that change incentive and opportunity structures, and the scale at which policies change in meaning. Theoretically guided causal graphs enhance this goal and help inform policy in a causally uncertain world. Translational criminology is ultimately a process that entails the constant interplay of theory, research, and practice.
Research Summary
In this paper, we argue that both science and the policy process are well served by research with high evidentiary value. We also argue that experimental research is valuable in the policy domain not only because of its high evidentiary content but also because of its transparency. To exemplify this point, we describe how a decade‐long research program on hot spots policing overturned the conventional wisdom that police could not affect crime and, in so doing, has profoundly altered police practice. Still, we recognize that for a variety of practical and ethical reasons, policy‐relevant research on policing and criminal justice policy more generally cannot be based entirely on experiments. We discuss two key features of randomization—balance in expectation between the treated and the control group on all potential confounders and exogeneity of treatment status—that are the source of the high evidentiary status of randomized experiments. We go on to describe how these same two features can be credibly replicated in quasi‐experimental studies that are not subject to the ethical and practical obstacles that may make experiments impractical in some circumstances.
Policy Implications
We urge criminologists to take greater advantage of quasi‐experimental research opportunities. We also recommend that criminologists go beyond simply identifying such opportunities. They should engage practitioners and policy makers and make clear what is required to allow for strong evidence of program effectiveness.
The origins of this Special Issue of Theoretical Criminology can be located in a ‘Modernizing Criminal Justice’ conference that we both attended in London in June 2002. The high-profile event was co-sponsored by John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, the Metropolitan Police and the FBI. Broadcasting crews were on hand to digest the plenary speeches of senior representatives of the British government, the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. It was also a highly corporate event, promoting the commercial products of global security and IT companies specializing in criminal justice ‘problem solving’. The opening session of the conference featured a slow motion replay of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers with a voice-over informing the audience that the course of criminal justice had changed forever. This ‘post 9/11’ global war on crime and terrorism theme echoed throughout the plenary speeches and keynote sessions. What was striking was the relegation of the scheduled criminology workshops to the margins of the conference. This set off a discussion between us, during a coffee break, about why academic criminological knowledge was extraneous to the interests of the policy audiences brought together by this conference. And, of course, this quickly moved to discussion of whether criminologists should have a central place in such a forum. But while this is how our interest in criminology and public policy was initially sparked, we later found ourselves trying to pinpoint, more systematically, the different positions criminologists have taken on questions of their relevance and status within larger public policy debates.2 Our purposes in this introduction, and in the Special Issue that follows, are twofold. One aim is to outline a range of views that have been offered by academic criminologists on the discipline’s public status and its relationship to public policy formation and intellectual practice. A second goal is to argue the need for a diversity of ‘public criminologies’ wherein explicit value is placed on moving policies in more progressive directions. Our own point of view is that much more could be done than at present, particularly since there would seem to be broad criminological consensus about many policy issues facing us including punitive policies around the globe as well as the detrimental consequences of a range of harms and risks.
It is a sad pleasure to contribute this article to a journal issue honoring the legacy of Howie Davis. It is fitting that this article should be dedicated to Howie, because he encouraged and supported my work on this subject with his characteristic enthusiasm. Without the continuing commitment that he and his office at NIMH maintained for research on knowledge utilization, very little of the work that I discuss in this article would have been done. All of us who are committed to using research as a strategy for reform owe a lasting debt to Howie for his farsightedness and his dedication to improving the linkage between knowledge and action.
Intercoder reliability is a measure of agreement among multiple coders for how they apply codes to text data. Intercoder reliability can be used as a proxy for the validity of constructs that emerge from the data. Popular methods for establishing intercoder reliability involve presenting predetermined text segments to coders. Using this approach, researchers run the risk of altering meanings by lifting text from its original context, or making interpretations about the length of codable text. This article describes a set of procedures that was used to develop and assess intercoder reliability with free-flowing text data, in which the coders themselves determined the length of codable text segments. Content analysis of open-ended interview data collected from twenty third-generation Japanese American men and women generated an intercoder reliability of more than .80 for fifteen of the seventeen themes, an average agreement of .90 across all themes, and consistency among the coders in how they segmented coded text. The findings suggest that these procedures may be useful for validating the conclusions drawn from other qualitative studies using text data.
This chapter explores the history of social science knowledge utilization in America. Four main functions that social science serves for government officials are discussed. The chapter suggests characteristics for making research more useful for decision makers.
Despite its accumulated theoretical and empirical heft, the discipline of criminology has had distressingly little impact on the course of public policy toward crime and criminal justice. This article addresses the sources of that troubling marginality, with special emphasis on the powerful disincentives to greater public impact that operate within the discipline itself and the research universities that mainly house it—including the pressure to publish ever more narrow research in peer-reviewed journals at the expense of efforts at synthesis and dissemination that could serve to educate a broader public. Achieving a greater voice in the world outside the discipline will require a concerted move toward a more explicitly public criminology, and seeing to it that the work of such a criminology is more reliably supported and rewarded within the universities and the profession as a whole.
Social Forces 82.4 (2004) 1639-1643
My job is to introduce a little tension into an otherwise harmonious system. Public sociology, along with its cousin policy sociology, are currently very popular. My guess is that the vast majority of the audience is in agreement with Burawoy's call for an enlargement of public sociology. And I suspect that most people in the U.S. today who call themselves sociologists somehow want to be molders of society. It is important, therefore, to challenge some issues implied by the call for more public sociology.
Yet, criticizing Burawoy's argument in a cogent way is difficult because his position is not entirely clear. Because what he means by "public sociology" is somewhat problematic, almost anything I say can be countered by a disclaimer that the object of my comment is not, in fact, part of his position or that it is not what he meant. Nevertheless, I will react to what I understand his points to be and to what I interpret his statements about public sociology to imply.
As I understand it, Burawoy argues that (1) public sociology bears an interactive and mutually stimulating relationship with other forms of sociology, particularly what he calls "professional sociology," (2) public sociology is a desirable activity to be encouraged; indeed, that it is vital to the health of the entire sociological enterprise, (3) public sociology depends on a base of strong professional sociology and that the two are not fundamentally incompatible. Further, from his remarks here and from his writings, I gather that public sociology encompasses many things, including: (1) engagement in political activities to promote somebody's conception (I guess his) of social justice, (2) actively revealing to nonprofessional audiences the knowledge that sociologists think they have or the truths they think they know, (3) orienting our research and writing around moral issues, (4) engaging the public in debate about moral questions based on sociological insights, and (5) helping various "publics" solve problems or gather information relevant to their concerns, or helping to create such publics.
If my interpretation of the meaning of "public sociology" is correct, then a program encouraging sociologists to become more "public" would appear to be a mistake. In my opinion, "public sociology" (1) involves some false assumptions, (2) endangers what little legitimacy sociology has, thereby helping to undermine the chances of sociological knowledge ever being taken seriously in public arenas, and (3) is, in fact, incompatible with good "professional sociology." Moreover, urging "public sociology" is contrary to one of the bases of a good society that Burawoy would probably endorse — participation on a more or less equal basis by all citizens.
Before setting forth my reasoning about these matters, I want to make it clear that I believe in the power of morality. I believe that moral questions are and ought to be at the center of human life, and that moral education is highly desirable. I take a back seat to no one in concerns for human suffering or the state of contemporary societies. Moreover, I believe that sociology and other social sciences hold the promise of providing information and insights that ultimately can be used to manipulate social conditions. My complaint with public sociology does not stem from lack of feeling or from lack of concern about the human condition. Rather, it flows from what I regard as defects in the notion itself.
First, public sociology appears to embrace some dubious assumptions. Advocates seem to think that what is "socially just" is clear and easily agreed upon among people with good will or sociological training. Actually, almost every social issue involves moral dilemmas, not moral clarity. What is or is not "just" is almost never unambiguous. Two examples will illustrate the point. In one of his writings Burawoy lists preventing the spread of disease as one of the goals of a just society and therefore one to be pursued by "public" sociologists. On a superficial level, most people would readily agree. Preventing diseases, however, often involves restrictions on human freedom and hard decisions about allocation of scare products or services. During the rise of the AIDS epidemic, for...
Practitioners within the criminal justice system have been cautious about claiming that their work with offenders directly impacts on the level of subsequent re-offending. This article provides an overview of the generation and use of evidence on effectiveness within the criminal justice system, particularly focusing on the supervision of offenders by the probation service. The article outlines the continuing debates about appropriate methodologies for evaluating effectiveness. It also describes some of the problems encountered in trying to get research evidence to have an impact on offender supervision practice. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the present move towards evidence-based criminal justice services are explored in order to provide learning opportunities for other public services.
Three decades ago, it was widely believed by criminologists and policymakers that “nothing works” to reform offenders and that “rehabilitation is dead” as a guiding correctional philosophy. By contrast, today there is a vibrant movement to reaffirm rehabilitation and to implement programs based on the principles of effective intervention. How did this happen? I contend that the saving of rehabilitation was a contingent reality that emerged due to the efforts of a small group of loosely coupled research criminologists. These scholars rejected the “nothing works” professional ideology and instead used rigorous science to show that popular punitive interventions were ineffective, that offenders were not beyond redemption, and that treatment programs rooted in criminological knowledge were capable of meaningfully reducing recidivism. Their story is a reminder that, under certain conditions, the science of criminology is capable of making an important difference in the correctional enterprise, if not far beyond.
This is the American Society of Criminology’s fiftieth year as a professional organization. In this signal year, I think it is appropriate to take stock of how far we have come and where we would like to go as an organization—and as a discipline.
Criminal justice policy making is a vertical and horizontal political dynamic. The criminal justice researcher who understands the decision-making process within state criminal justice policy-making agencies can influence decisions by providing research to meet policy makers’ needs. This paper provides a schematic view on the criminal justice decision-making process and discusses how researchers can make their work relevant within it.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
We examine here some of the interactions of research and policy over the past several decades. The “rehabilitation period”
was effectively terminated by nulleffect evaluations of various rehabilitation techniques. The “just deserts-utilitarian period”
was fed by research estimates of the deterrent and incapacitative effects of criminal justice activities. The more recent
“overt politicization period” saw the earlier attempt to bring rational and theory-based perspectives to policy development
replaced by much stronger emphasis on political concerns. We explore possible ways to reestablish the research-policy connections.
Manual para la investigación cualitativa en ciencias sociales, en el que se presentan -paso a paso- técnicas para recoger, enfocar y analizar datos cualitativos.
All programs & practices
- Crimesolutions
- Gov
CrimeSolutions.gov. (2017). All programs & practices. Retrieved from https://www.crimesolutions.
gov/Programs.aspx#programs.
Camerota Debate Crime Statistics
- N Gingrich
Gingrich, N. (2016). Camerota Debate Crime Statistics, retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016
/12/01/gingrich-camerota-crime-stats-newday.cnn.
From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda
- S M Nutley
- I Walter
- H T O Davies
- SM Nutley
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding
the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9, 125-148.
Translational criminology
- JH Laub
Laub, J. H. (2012). Translational criminology. Translational Criminology: Promoting Knowledge Exchange to
Shape Criminal Justice Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 4-5.
Member perspectives. The Criminologist
- E P Baumer
- EP Baumer
Baumer, E. P. (2015). Member perspectives. The Criminologist, 40, 8-10.