Content uploaded by Jillian J Turanovic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jillian J Turanovic on Sep 04, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
Annual Review of Criminology
Challenges and Prospects for
Evidence-Informed Policy in
Criminology
Thomas G. Blomberg,∗Jennifer E. Copp,∗
and Jillian J. Turanovic∗
College of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA;
email: tblomberg@fsu.edu
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024. 7:11.1–11.20
The Annual Review of Criminology is online at
criminol.annualreviews.org
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-022422-
124116
Copyright © 2024 by the author(s).
All rights reserved
∗All authors contributed equally to this article and
are listed alphabetically
Keywords
evidence, policy, translational criminology, practical constraints,
knowledge organization
Abstract
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 poli-
cymaking. 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.
11.1
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
INTRODUCTION
Proponents of evidence-informed policymaking highlight its potential to improve the operation of
the criminal justice system and, by extension, the lives of American citizens.And yet there often ex-
ist mismatches between the scientic evidence and the public’s understanding of our most pressing
social problems. Therefore, how we go about producing knowledge and sharing that knowledge
with practitioners, policymakers, and the broader public has the potential to help bridge this di-
vide, which is especially urgent in the contemporary context as we confront numerous social crises
and an expanding discourse of science mistrust.
Over the past few years, we have faced a public health crisis that dominated life across the
globe and, more locally, have been grappling with growing public concerns about violent crime
(Rosenfeld et al. 2022), mass shootings (Schildkraut & Turanovic 2022), and a wave of civil
unrest following a series of deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police (Buchanan et al.
2020, Putnam et al. 2020). At the same time, a growing sector of the American public has lost
trust in science and become increasingly skeptical of expert knowledge. The current social and
cultural context is one in which there is a need for policy responses to the problems that face
our society. Yet there is a sizeable gap between public perceptions and the scientic evidence
(Esberg & Mummolo 2018, Uggen & Inderbitzin 2010). When mixed with heightened fear and
anger over crime, these conditions set the stage for policymaking to go wrong (Farrall et al. 2021,
Petrich et al. 2021)—for populist discourse about crime and punishment to guide penal policy
and for criminological experts and penal professionals to become increasingly marginalized in
the process (Cullen & Gilbert 2012, Drakulich & Baranauskas 2021). After decades of observing
the social toll of ideologically driven, ineffective, overly punitive policies—including three strikes
laws, mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, and life without parole for juveniles,
among others (DiIulio 1994, Latessa et al. 2020)—it is now more important than ever to narrow
the gap between perceptions and evidence when it comes to criminal justice policy and practice.
Here, we argue that a critical step toward narrowing this gap is for criminologists to further
embrace a translational agenda—one in which knowledge is integrated across academic disciplines
and with nonacademic stakeholders to address pressing social problems. This approach goes be-
yond simply producing rigorous scientic evidence to also producing socially robust knowledge
that engages stakeholders in signicant ways throughout the research process (Nowotny 2003,
Reingle Gonzalez & Akers 2017). Our hope is that doing so may (re)attribute epistemic au-
thority to criminological experts and facilitate the inuence of criminological knowledge in the
development of policy.
In this review, we chart the history of the discipline to highlight criminology’s early, and
more recently renewed, focus on translating research into policy and practice. Drawing on our
own work and the work of other translational scholars in the eld, we describe challenges and
prospects for evidence-informed policymaking on matters of crime and justice. We use the term
evidence-informed in lieu of evidence-based to reect the role of scientic knowledge and experts
in collectively contributing—alongside other key considerations and actors—to the policymaking
process. This characterization makes clear that although the evidence helps inform policy, it is
not prescriptive (see, e.g., Bowers & Testa 2019). In what follows, we provide an overview of what
constitutes evidence, including how criminology may still inuence crime policy in the absence
of causal certainty. Next, we discuss practical constraints to evidence-informed policymaking as
well as 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. The broader purpose is to stimulate
11.2 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
disciplinary thinking regarding the ways in which criminology may play a more meaningful role
in effectively confronting the ongoing challenges of crime in society.
TRANSLATIONAL CRIMINOLOGY AND THE PURSUIT
OF EVIDENCE-INFORMED POLICY
Throughout criminology’s history, translational approaches have not always been embraced.
Heated debates over whether criminologists can or should provide input on solving social
problems have persisted throughout time, often coinciding with criticisms of the discipline more
broadly.From the Michael-Adler Report and its scathing critiques of the futility of criminological
research and the incompetence of criminologists in science (Michael & Adler 1933) to the
Martinson Report that set the stage for the “nothing works” doctrine in rehabilitative efforts
(Martinson 1974), Cressey’s (1978, p. 177) trepidations that too many criminologists abandoned
science to become “technical assistant[s] to politicians,” and Austin’s (2003, p. 558) concern
that “criminologists have very little good ‘science’ to offer policymakers,” there is no shortage
of disparaging remarks to be found regarding trust and condence in criminological research.
Time and again, these critiques are often levied by those who urge criminologists to refrain from
public discourse and instead focus more on studying the nature and sources of crime using more
rigorous methods and better theories (Austin 2003, Cressey 1978, Tittle 2004).
Either implicitly or explicitly, criticisms such as these have contributed to a privileging of sci-
entic searches for the causes of crime and a marginalization of applied work—a division that
continues to permeate our discipline. This often fuels a misconception that theoretical scholarship
and policy-related research are somehow separate or incompatible, despite this being at odds with
the foundations of criminology as both an applied eld and a theoretical eld with sociological
origins (Laub 2006). Indeed, beginning with the Chicago School at the turn of the twentieth cen-
tury and aided by funding from Rockefeller and other major industrialists, early studies on crime
were initiated to eliminate the pathological features of the slums that were believed to be causing
crime and other social problems. This early work had a decidedly applied, urban social work fo-
cus (Blomberg 2019). Soon, theoretical explanations of the social and economic causes of crime
were developed, including the Chicago School’s culture conict theory (Park & Burgess 1921),
Sutherland’s (1934) differential association theory, and Merton’s (1938) anomie theory, which all
retained a broader orientation toward solving social ills.
Over the next several decades, a series of theoretical renements and shifts occurred (e.g.,
Cloward & Ohlin 1960, Cohen 1955), including labeling and conict theories with their respective
focus on the role of criminal justice agencies and the broader social, political, and economic con-
ditions of American capitalism in contributing to crime (e.g., Becker 1963, Lemert 1951,Quinney
1970, Turk 1969). In more recent years, criminology has experienced several efforts to integrate
elements of earlier theoretical contributions (e.g., Elder 1974, Hirschi 1969) to develop interdisci-
plinary,life-course approaches to the study of crime (Cullen 2011, Giordano et al. 2002, Sampson
& Laub 1993). Overall, criminology’s development has been cumulative and integrative, and this
has contributed to the eld’s growing support of various efforts to translate our extensive theory
and research into policy.
This translational turn is also apparent in the mounting discourse and associated initiatives
related to increasing the role of criminological research and theory in crime policy. Beginning
in 2000, an applied policy role was prominently proposed by the American Society of Crimi-
nology (ASC) and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), the two major criminology
professional associations, as a needed addition to criminology’s scientic quest to determine the
causes of crime. In 2001, Criminology & Public Policy was established, with an explicit focus on the
dissemination of policy-relevant articles. The ASC Division of Experimental Criminology, whose
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.3
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
objective is to advance applied methods and increase the visibility of experimental and quasi-
experimental scholarship, was founded in 2009. Over the past decade and a half, the Division
of Experimental Criminology has worked to bring together scholars engaged in experimental
criminology and reward exceptional achievements in experimental scholarship. In addition,
the Journal of Experimental Criminology was established expressly to publish experimental (and
quasi-experimental) research.
We have also witnessed increasing efforts to organize and assess criminological evidence, a
topic to which we return, through the establishment of several clearinghouses (e.g., the Campbell
Collaboration, Crime Solutions, Blueprints), and a growing emphasis on meta-analyses and sys-
tematic reviews to synthesize what works in crime prevention. A rich body of evidence has now
accumulated demonstrating that some programs and practices are effective, both for preventing
the onset of problem behaviors and for successfully intervening with those entangled in the crim-
inal justice system (Lipsey & Cullen 2007, Mihalic & Elliott 2015). This change in ndings from
“nothing works” to now having repositories devoted to disseminating information on the effec-
tiveness of prevention programs and practices is the result of both major improvements in the
quality of evaluation research and improved program design and implementation (MacDonald
2023). These disciplinary developments clearly signal a commitment to the development, organi-
zation, and dissemination of evidence to inform policy, a commitment that is similarly reected in
the addresses of many past presidents of the ASC (see, e.g., Clear 2010,Cullen 2005, Nagin 2022,
Petersilia 1991, Rosenfeld 2011, Skolnick 1995). Yet despite these developments and disciplinary
discourse, we have a long and challenging road ahead.
CHALLENGES OF EVIDENCE-INFORMED POLICYMAKING
During much of the twentieth century,there was a pattern of reluctance from criminologists to get
involved in matters of public policy and practice (see, e.g., Laub 1983). This reluctance, coupled
with a consuming focus on identifying crime’s causes, resulted in considerable discourse over
whether to embrace a translational or evidence-informed focus (Blomberg 2010, Rosenfeld 2011,
Tittle 2004, Wellford 2010). Among the questions addressed was at what point criminological
research and theory were sufciently established to inform criminal justice policy.An increasingly
widespread view from the eld is that we can target the problem while simultaneously striving
for greater causal certainty and that this dual focus should be the pursuit of the discipline of
criminology.
The “targeting the problem” approach has two primary purposes, namely to (a) directly
intervene and (b) effectively ameliorate the empirically identied proximate and malleable factors
associated with the problem in question. As summarized by Sampson et al. (2013), in pursuing
policy-relevant research many criminologists have shifted their object of study to factors that are
amenable to state intervention. Although criminology continues to pursue causal explanations
of crime, the best available research evidence provides a path for targeting the problem; that
is, by ameliorating those proximate and malleable factors associated with the problem. And
yet we recognize the challenge of drawing policy and practice recommendations from research
evidence that is often nuanced or incomplete. Accordingly, we begin our discussion of challenges
and prospects of evidence-informed policymaking by attempting to establish some basic pa-
rameters around what constitutes evidence, followed by a discussion of practical constraints to
evidence-informed policymaking.
What Constitutes Evidence?
Critics often lament that insufcient criminological research has been conducted of high enough
quality to say much about what works with any condence (Austin 2003, Doleac 2019, Wellford
11.4 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
2010). One does not have to dig deep to learn that our research tends to leave much of the variation
in crime unexplained (Weisburd & Piquero 2008), we are not always great at establishing cause
and effect (Berk 2010, Tittle 2004), and criminology has “long been rich in theory but poor in
evidence” (Sherman 2009, p. 6).
The assumption behind many of these critiques is that there exists a hierarchy of evidence
based on causal certainty, in which most criminological scholarship does not make it very high
up the ladder. It is generally assumed that at the apex of such evidentiary pyramids are high-
quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or, better, meta-analyses of such RCTs (Puddy &
Wilkins 2011, Turanovic & Pratt 2021). After RCTs are natural experiments (e.g., results from
studies using regression discontinuity, instrumental variable, or difference-in-difference designs),
followed by other quasi-experimental research studies with matched comparison groups and then
the results from studies using rich control variables. At the bottom tend to sit the results from raw
correlational research, along with evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study. As we go
higher on the evidentiary pyramid, it is assumed that the research is better, the ndings are more
trustworthy, and the causal inferences are more unbiased.
The devotion to such evidence hierarchies has fueled an experimental turn in criminology in
recent decades (Farrington et al. 2020, Sampson 2010). And for the most part, the increase in
experimental methods is a good thing. As a scientic eld, it is important that we strive to pro-
duce research with higher evidentiary value and more causal certainty where possible (Farrington
et al. 2020). Indeed, if properly conducted, RCTs can carry signicant weight in policy settings
by producing transparent ndings that are difcult to dispute and easy for practitioners and poli-
cymakers to understand (Nagin & Weisburd 2013)—particularly when contrasted with the more
elaborate statistical methods that often need to be applied to observational data.
In an ideal world, when using evidence to inform policymakers about how best to address
a given concern, we would have an abundance of high-quality RCTs and corresponding meta-
analyses of their ndings to draw from. The reality, though, is that we rarely have this luxury.
Often, we are tasked with providing advice to policymakers and practitioners on pressing issues
based on limited information and without causal certainty (Blomberg et al. 2013). We may even be
asked to weigh in on issues where establishing causality is not feasible, such as when evaluating the
efcacy of institutions or systems (Abt 2017). So what do we do in the face of causal uncertainty?
Sit back and say nothing to those seeking expert guidance? Tell them to wait for more (causal)
research to be conducted? Or provide the guidance we can based on the best available evidence?
Admittedly,there are no easy answers to these questions. Our position, though, is that we can still
inform policy responsibly in the absence of experimental evidence. We argue this, in part,because
there is always uncertainty involved when translating research to practice.
Indeed, experiments have high internal validity, yet external validity and scalability are fun-
damental to effective policy (Nagin & Sampson 2019, Sampson 2010). Even with evidence from
a high-quality RCT (and with same-site replication), the same effects may not transfer to other
areas, populations, or sociocultural contexts. A recent example of this is Project HOPE (Hawaii’s
Opportunity Probation and Enforcement program)—a program based on “swift, certain, and fair”
sanctioning for probation violators—which showed remarkable effects on reducing recidivism in
Hawaii but nowhere else (Cullen et al. 2016, 2018; Lattimore et al. 2016). RCTs can do well to
establish whether a treatment or program works somewhere, but policymakers and practitioners
need to know whether “it will work for us” (Cartwright 2011, p.767)—a judgment call that always
involves some amount of guesswork.
Moreover,although experimental research is assumed to provide less biased and more objective
evidence, theoretical assumptions and value-laden inferences must still be made when explaining
why something worked as it did under experimental conditions. Thus, ndings from even the
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.5
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
most well-designed RCTs still require some subjective interpretation by researchers. As Sampson
(2010, p. 491, italics in original) argued:
Causal inference is ultimately tied up with causal explanation, which resides at a theoretical level and
is not something that comes directly from the data. Data never “speak for themselves”—making sense
of causal patterns requires theoretical claims about unobserved mechanisms and social processes no
matter what the experiment or statistical method employed.
Addressing external validity here requires directing attention to substantive differences be-
tween counterfactual worlds and using theory to specify causal mechanisms (Nagin & Sampson
2019). In doing so, observational and qualitative methods can be used to complement experimen-
tal research to provide rich information on why and how an intervention works (Miller & Miller
2015). Such methodological tools typically rank low on hierarchies of evidence, but they can be
invaluable to the understanding of complex social problems (Cullen 2011).
None of this is to say that experimental evidence is unimportant. It is. But we rarely have
such evidence to draw from when providing input on policy and practice. Current social crises—
related 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). There are many subelds of criminology—violence prevention in particular—where
signicant evidentiary gaps remain and where our understanding of what works is continually
updated and rened in an iterative scientic process (Abt 2017). By drawing on the best available
evidence, including decades of criminological scholarship on proximate and malleable factors (Hay
2009, Sampson et al. 2013), it is possible to responsibly provide much-needed insights on crime
control policies.
Lastly,good evidence that can be generated by an experiment or intervention is not necessarily
the same as good evidence that can inform policy and practice. Hierarchies of evidence provide
important ways to rank research in terms of an intervention effect, yet causal identication is only
one of many issues relevant to policy decisions. As Nagin & Sampson (2019, p. 141) aptly put it,
“Experiments are not a panacea for escaping uncertainty about answers to questions that are at
the core of advancing both sound public policy and science.” To guide discussions on evidence
in the real world, other important elements to consider are (a) whether the evidence in question
is the most useful to address a particular policy concern, (b) whether the data are constructed in
ways that best serve policy goals, and (c) whether the evidence is applicable to the local context
(Parkhurst & Abeysinghe 2016).
Methodological quality will always be important. But criminological problems require taking
a more pluralistic stance on what constitutes good evidence to best serve communities in the
here and now (Braga 2022)—something that cannot be achieved by a singular type of method.
In this sense, there is not one answer to the question of what “sufcient” evidence is across all
bodies of criminological scholarship. What the evidentiary base looks like in hot-spots policing,
for instance—which is rich in RCTs (Braga et al. 2019)—is far different than the less developed
evidentiary base on effective gun control legislation (Fridel 2021). Criminologists must use
their knowledge and methodological expertise to make decisions based on the best available
evidence out there at a given point in time—whether that evidence is quasi-experimental or
nonexperimental—and be willing to continually update their inferences in the face of newer
and more rigorous research as it becomes available. Being upfront and transparent about the
limitations of existing research and communicating that uncertainty to relevant audiences are
also imperative throughout this process.
11.6 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
Practical Constraints
Beyond decisions about what constitutes evidence, there are other challenges for criminologists to
consider when collaborating with agencies, practitioners, and policymakers on issues of evidence-
informed policy. These include understanding (a) resource constraints, (b) political constraints,
(c) stakeholder performance metrics and incentives, and (d) language barriers.
In terms of resources, there are budget, time,and personnel constraints involved in developing
(or supporting the development of ) evidence-informed policies and programs. Across the United
States, criminal justice entities faced signicant budget decreases in the COVID-19 era, with cor-
rectional departments, law enforcement agencies, and victim service organizations facing severe
stafng crises (Duret & Li 2023, Smith 2021, Wetzel & Davis 2020). Researchers must manage
the scale of interventions and their expectations for organizations to carry out what is feasible
amid budget and staff shortages. 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 scientically 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 sufcient time period.
Political and ideological constraints associated with translating research to practice must also be
considered. The assumption that evidence-informed policymaking primarily entails implementing
the best evidence in a timely,cost-effective way is a form of “naive rationalism”(Russell et al. 2008,
p. 40). The use of evidence in criminal justice policy almost always reects a complex struggle
over morals and values, especially on polarizing issues (e.g., gun control laws). It is critical for
researchers to understand the political contexts they are operating within and which evidence-
informed approaches are going to be viable versus dead-on-arrival. This is especially the case
under political regimes that want to avoid appearing soft on crime (Pratt 2019).
Political constraints also emerge when researchers must implement evidence-informed ap-
proaches alongside existing practices that are politically popular but lack empirical support. Some
of the most effective programs for reducing school violence, for example, focus on improving
school climate and inclusivity—such as by promoting friendship skills, increasing protective social
connections, instilling appropriate bystander responses to bullying and victimization, and training
teachers and staff to better assist students in need (Low et al. 2014, Turanovic & Siennick 2022).
And yet some of the most widely scaled school violence programs that are embraced by policy-
makers and the general public include the use of armed guardians, zero-tolerance disciplinary
policies, and the expansion of police ofcers in schools—all of which have been shown to make
schools more hostile and less inclusive (Turanovic et al. 2022). How best to operate and implement
effective programs within these sorts of political constraints will always present a challenge.
Additionally, scholars must understand the unique performance metrics and incentives under
which policymakers and criminal justice organizations operate. Different stakeholders may come
to the table with their own unique expectations for demonstrating success. For policing-based
interventions, based on certain reward structures, some stakeholders may expect to see increased
arrests and clearance rates or reductions in the number of serious crime reports, whereas others
may seek documented improvements in citizen trust and condence in the police (Lum & Nagin
2017, Sparrow 2015). Some stakeholders may also be reluctant to implement programs that affect
how their organization scores on a given metric. Community corrections agencies, for instance,
may be hesitant to adopt policies that can reduce probation caseloads too dramatically—especially
if agency funding is based on the size of certain populations under supervision ( Jalbert et al. 2011,
Shames 2013). Similar challenges can arise when working with jails and prisons that have contracts
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.7
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
with private corporations to maintain high occupancy rates (Pfaff 2016). Having a good under-
standing of these varying incentives and performance metrics at the outset, and navigating them
effectively, can go a long way in keeping stakeholders committed and engaged.
Lastly, when working with entities outside of academia, scholars may have to learn how to
communicate like a “real person” again (Pratt 2008, p. 46). Academic training, in many ways, in-
volves learning a new language—one full of obscure theoretical and methodological jargon—that,
for the most part, only other academics understand (Kittler 2018). 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 pub-
lic (Gendreau & Smith 2007, Pesta et al. 2019). Criminologists must gure 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. Doing so
often entails going beyond traditional modes of disseminating research ndings (e.g., publishing
in academic journals, books, monographs) to facilitate broader engagement (Ross-Hellauer et al.
2020). Alternative modes of dissemination may include the creation of research or policy briefs,
infographics, op-eds, agency trainings,websites or videos, and presentations given directly to com-
munities, practitioners, and policymakers. There is no one way to disseminate research ndings,
and some strategies may be better for a specic target audience than others. But regardless of the
mode chosen, the use of plain and simple language is key.
PROSPECTS FOR EVIDENCE-INFORMED POLICYMAKING
Translational criminology is not for every research academic in the discipline. Overcoming these
practical constraints requires researchers’ and practitioners’ time and space. Some may prefer to
focus on the puzzle solving that is characteristic of a more traditional professional criminolog-
ical research agenda (see, e.g., Burawoy 2004, Uggen & Inderbitzin 2010). However, for those
who are inclined to engage with practitioner partners to help them solve problems and learn what
works, we must ensure that the appropriate supports and training are in place. As we discuss be-
low, despite longstanding recognition of the faculty disincentives around translational work, we
have witnessed little change at the institutional level. And although we are quick to lament the
disconnect between criminological research and policymaking, we do relatively little, as a disci-
pline, to prepare the next generation of scholars to do better. Furthermore, we often think about
evidence-informed policy in terms of what we, as researchers, can bring to the policymaking table.
Here, we discuss the inherent—yet often untapped—value of our practitioner partners and other
useful considerations for working alongside professionals in the eld. We must attend to these
three elements—institutional support, graduate training, and multiple translational strategies—if
we are to realize the full promise of a translational agenda within the discipline.
Changing Incentive Structures Within Higher Education and Graduate Training
Writing around the peak period of incarceration in the United States, Currie (2007) reected on
the reasons for the very marginal role of criminology in the shaping of social policy. Key among
them were the institutional disincentives to conducting public criminology (see also Laub & Frisch
2016, Petersilia 2008). Those of us who work in universities,and research universities in particular,
are well aware of the emphasis on publishing in peer-reviewed journals that drives the promotion
and tenure process. Part of the problem, then,is that our discipline generally privileges some types
of scholarship over others by rewarding individuals for engagement in original research and under-
valuing the important efforts that go into synthesizing our work or sharing that work with people
11.8 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
outside of the discipline. These arguments are not new, yet the disciplinary culture appears to have
undergone little change. It remains the case that many universities reward scholarly productivity,
as reected in the number of articles published in academic journals, while undercounting the type
of reexive and collective knowledge construction that is best suited to inform policy.1There is a
need for a disciplinary reckoning of sorts to consider our core values, including our commitment
to the public, and pull institutional assessment and incentive structures into line with these. This
disciplinary reorientation of the types of scholarship that are valued and rewarded is especially
pressing in the current context of Americans’ growing lack of trust in science and expertise (Boyle
2022).
Yet if we take seriously this mission of increasing the impact of criminological research by em-
bracing a translational agenda (Laub & Frisch 2016), we need to prepare our graduate students
accordingly.Current models of doctoral degree programs typically offer instruction in the areas of
theory,methods, statistics, and a range of substantive courses. Several provide a few applied offer-
ings, such as program evaluation or policy analysis. Still, despite the increasing endorsement of a
more public-facing criminology, we do not prepare our students to take on these translational
roles. Some may argue that a plea for enhancing our eld’s translational focus is unnecessary
or even misguided (Tittle 2004, Wellford 2010).2Although many translational efforts may fail
to make their mark on policy, they nevertheless expose criminologists to the policymaking pro-
cess, direct them toward the types of research that are most policy-relevant, and educate them
on the policy complexities that exist beyond the science. They also make policymakers aware of
the research evidence, even if they ultimately base their policy decisions on other nonscientic
considerations. Thus, translational efforts would appear to confer capacity-building benets to all
involved parties.
What would graduate training in translational research entail? Here, there are both practical
and theoretical components. On the practical side, we must teach students what constitutes ev-
idence, the channels through which that evidence makes its way to policymakers, how to guide
policymakers’ interpretation of the evidence, and ultimately how to use it as they formulate policy
initiatives (see also Blomberg et al. 2013). These processes are best depicted in settings that directly
engage policymaker, practitioner, and legislative partners, as these relationships are at the core of
a successful translational agenda. In addition to this applied emphasis, however, there is a need
for strong theoretical training. As highlighted above, others have written about the causal turn in
criminology (Sampson 2010) and what it means for criminological contributions to policy (see,
e.g., Sampson et al. 2013).These discussions have included attention to concerns about conating
causal estimates with policy prescriptions. We agree with this assessment and further argue that
in the eld’s hyperfocused pursuit of experimental and quasi-experimental evidence, we have lost
sight of the inherent limits to scientic knowledge. We nd ourselves striving to achieve greater
1The current incentive structure is likely to blame, at least in part, for the increasingly myopic focus of much
criminological research. Burawoy (2005, p.17) described a gradual disengagement between research academics
and the public within the eld of sociology, resulting in academic “insularity” and research centered on “the
seemingly irrelevant.” Tonry (2010, p. 784) referred to a similar phenomenon in criminology, where publica-
tions in our eld’s agship journal often veer on the obscure, detached, and self-referential (i.e.,“the works of
people who carry statistical hammers and look for database nails to hit”).
2For example, Tonry (2010) identied several areas of criminological research, and leading scholars within
those areas, who have had an immense inuence on policy. These examples,in our view, represent the exception
and not the rule in translational work. Few of us will be called to testify before Congress, serve on a committee
convened by the National Academy of Sciences, or speak to policymaking groups at the federal level; however,
many may work with state departments of corrections, local law enforcement, and other state and local criminal
justice agencies.
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.9
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
causal clarity by relying on more data, executing more analyses, and accumulating more evidence.
Yet “the pursuit of perfect knowledge is asymptotic. Uncertainty, ignorance, and indeterminacy
are always present” ( Jasanoff 2007, p. 33). We must therefore train students to recognize these
limits and to look beyond science to other ways of knowing, starting with theory.
A comprehensive approach to translational training must also teach students other methods
to accommodate the limited nature of criminological evidence (i.e., technologies of humility)
( Jasanoff 2007). This will entail, for example, teaching students how to identify and reect on
the uncertainty and contingencies in our policy questions and separate the technical from the
normative issues in the problems we seek to address. These considerations are often best explored
alongside practitioners to consider what action is best, for whom, under what conditions, with
what margin of error, and at what cost (Copp et al. 2022). Science cannot answer these questions.
And although some may say that confronting these layers of uncertainty is the job of stakehold-
ers, not criminologists (see, e.g., Berk et al. 2018), we argue that translational criminologists are
uniquely positioned to provide theoretical and conceptual expertise to aid in the collective con-
struction of policy solutions alongside their practitioner partners. Given the policy missteps of the
past, including those that contributed to the current state of our criminal justice system, it seems
prudent that we contribute to the process of sorting through these often competing ethical and
political considerations that emerge at the limits of scientic knowledge (Tonry 2019).
An Interrelated Continuum of Translational Strategies
Many researchers conduct policy-relevant research that contributes to a criminological evidence
base to which policymakers can turn. Some of this research is focused on providing policy
solutions or evaluating existing policies. Yet policy research is not translational research. Draw-
ing on Weber, in his presidential address to the American Sociological Association, Burawoy
(2005) mapped out the sociological division of labor based on different types of audiences and
knowledge. This categorization drew a line between instrumental and reexive dimensions. This
heuristic is useful for thinking about the distinction between policy and translational research
within criminology; policy research privileges instrumental knowledge while translational re-
search privileges reexive knowledge. The reexivity of a translational agenda thus requires that
researchers directly engage and interact with policymaking and practitioner communities.
Translational criminology, then, can be conceptualized as an interrelated continuum that in-
cludes multiple strategies. Importantly, the translational process is dependent upon rigorous
research results often published in peer-reviewed journals, relevant policy briefs, op-eds, presen-
tations to both scholarly and practitioner audiences, legislative testimony, working with legislative
champions, development of researcher and practitioner partnerships, and conducting implemen-
tation delity assessments and outcome validations of newly enacted evidence-informed policies.
We illustrate this continuum of translational research practices in Figure 1.
Although the media tend to position practitioners as the experts on crime, the research com-
munity often discounts their practical expertise. This is not the case with translational criminology,
where practitioners are equal partners in the knowledge construction process. Relative to research
academics, practitioners are often better positioned to address some of the complexities of real-
world problems, including the potential collateral consequences of a given policy or program in a
specic time and place. They are aware of the local resources available (e.g., money, stafng) for
given policy needs, can help elicit support from key stakeholders, and can make researchers aware
of other constraints (e.g., political, nancial) and local contextual considerations.Partnerships also
enable researchers to provide more timely responses to problems on the ground. Whereas policy
researchers may swoop in after a given program or policy has been implemented to conduct an
11.10 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
Conducting
implementation
delity
assessments and
outcome validation
of evidence-
informed policy
and programming
Assisting in the
development of
legislation for
evidence-informed
policy and
programming
through testimony
and consultation
Developing
researcher–
practitioner
partnerships and
identifying
champions for
evidence-informed
policymaking
Publishing peer-
reviewed articles,
writing policy
briefs and op-eds,
presenting to
academic and
practitioner
audiences
Conducting
rigorous research
that targets the
problem’s
proximate and
malleable factors
Continuum of translational practices
Tested and validated evidence-informed policy
Figure 1
A continuum of translational practices resulting in tested and validated evidence-informed policy.
evaluation, translational researchers are often engaged with the local community from the outset.
This provides several advantages to conducting research and informing local policy, as transla-
tional researchers are already familiar with the lay of the land and the key local players, data sharing
agreements and other contractual matters are often already in place, and researchers have a work-
ing knowledge of the local data. Established partnerships also help researchers and partners stay
abreast of relevant funding opportunities as they become available, in contrast to the more cus-
tomary approach of researchers/practitioners hunting for partners when solicitations are released.
In order to leverage the expertise and related support of practitioners, however, it is impor-
tant to identify champions within their organizations. We dene a practitioner champion as “a
person(s) who supports and is willing to advocate for the work being undertaken, is respected
by other stakeholders, and is willing to try and build bridges to move this type of translational
work forward” (Blomberg et al. 2022, p. 1112). Because researchers within these partnerships of-
ten straddle the line of insider/outsider in practice settings, they are able to lean on champions
to onboard project team members and rally local support; help reinforce the value of the science
being brought to bear and the credibility of the research partners; and make possible the dissemi-
nation of communications, ndings, and other project-related information throughout the course
of the partnership. These relationships take time to develop and require nurturing, checking in,
and making sure that the exchanges in the researcher–practitioner partnership are not one-sided
(i.e., that the partners are also benetting from their engagement).
Given various practical constraints that we discussed previously,it is possible that the decisions
around policies and practices within partner agencies will often emanate from considerations other
than science. Importantly, we should not shy away from translational research or disengage from
our practitioner partners when the research takes a backseat to other nonscientic factors. In the
long run, this will drive a wedge between academics and their practitioner partners and ultimately
detract from the overall contributions of research to policy.
As we reect on criminologists who have struck the right balance between promoting the
production and use of research within policy settings while recognizing the other practical and
normative considerations that leaders must weigh, we are reminded of many celebrated members
of our discipline who have spent a large part of their careers working alongside criminal justice
organizations and government agencies. One in particular is Joan Petersilia, who served as a key
advisor to former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on criminal justice reform. In re-
ecting on her experience as an “embedded criminologist,” Petersilia (2008) shared some of her
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.11
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
lessons learned (an invaluable guide for policy-oriented criminologists) and spoke very candidly
about the personal and professional sacrices made to inuence crime policy. She concluded by
stressing that she would not have been able to contribute in the ways that she did had she not fully
immersed herself in the culture of California government. Few of our experiences will reach the
same heights, or be characterized by the same pressures, as Petersilia’s, and yet there is much we
can take from her efforts. Perhaps most fundamentally, if we are to increase the eld’s inuence
on policy, more of us need to get out into the policy world to understand how it operates.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR ADVANCING
EVIDENCE-INFORMED CRIMINOLOGY
Throughout the twentieth century, criminologists were largely focused on scientic discoveries
of the causes of crime. Over the past couple of decades, however, that singular focus was ceded to
a dual causal and evidence-informed purpose. This transition was not abrupt and, in many ways,
is still underway. Yet it appears that members of the scholarly community have overwhelmingly
replaced their skepticism regarding the translation of causally uncertain research ndings into
policy (e.g., Tittle 2004, Wellford 2010) with a growing embrace of efforts to promote original
scientic research while also using the best available scientic evidence to inform policy (e.g.,
Blomberg 2010, Blumstein 2011, Nagin & Weisburd 2013, Rosenfeld 2011, Sampson et al. 2013).
In advancing criminology’s dual causal and evidence-informed policy purpose, it will be es-
sential to elevate discourse regarding the necessary disciplinary changes required to effectively
confront the challenges to evidence-informed policy. Continuation of past practices in which, for
example, ASC’s and ACJS’s annual meetings were organized upon applied and evidence-informed
policy themes has been useful in further stimulating discussion. Additionally, special issues of crim-
inology’s major journals and edited volumes focused on the implementation and evaluation of
evidence-informed policy will continue to play an important role. Absent other changes to our
values (as reected in existing rewards structures), professional training, and approach to con-
structing and applying knowledge for policy purposes, however, we are unlikely to reach our eld’s
full potential. Several recommended considerations follow.
Expanding Promotion and Tenure Criteria
In Petersilia’s (1991) presidential address to the ASC, she argued that although criminology
had prospered by following a time-honored scientic model of scholarship, it was time for the
eld to reconsider its values. More so than other social science disciplines, Petersilia argued that
criminology was founded to help address the practical concerns of the criminal justice system.
And yet over time, we have become more and more divorced from these more practical, applied
roots. She attributed this to multiple factors but highlighted that universities with prominent
criminology programs continue to judge and reward faculty largely upon research productivity
rather than applied research and policy interests. This is similar to discussions highlighted above
by other prominent members of the sociological and criminological communities (e.g., Burawoy
2005, Currie 2007, Laub & Frisch 2016,Uggen & Inderbitzin 2010) but accords particular weight
to the disjuncture between the type of research that inuences criminal justice policy and practice
and the type of research that we value as an academic discipline given criminology’s applied
origins and the pressing nature of the crime problem (see also Petersilia 2008). Importantly, as
Petersilia notes, not all criminologists want to pursue applied research, but for those who do, the
reward structure should be modied to recognize these practical and policy-related contributions.
We recommend that universities seriously consider the importance of applied work by crim-
inologists and incorporate criteria that recognize and reward applied research in promotion and
11.12 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
tenure decisions (see also Laub & Frisch 2016). Given that many university criminology programs
include well-established senior faculty, it would seem that these faculty could help to modernize
promotion and tenure expectations to recognize the accomplishments of scholars who pursue a
more traditional academic path, in addition to those who choose to participate in both scientic
and applied activities. This will include attention to individuals’ track records of academic and
other applied publications as well as external funding for research and policy projects, agency
partnerships, trainings, and presentations to practitioner and policymaking groups. Indeed, in re-
viewing the record of many prominent criminologists who are known for both their scholarly
and applied contributions, the distinction between scientic and applied research is necessarily
blurred. Sound applied work must be based upon sound scientic research. Accordingly, our call
to expand promotion and tenure criteria is not meant to undercut the value of original scientic
research or suggest that an applied agenda can or should exist absent a basic scientic one. Instead,
we seek to ensure that those who embrace the eld’s growing dual focus are rewarded for their
rigorous scientic and applied contributions.
Curricula Revision
As highlighted above, although many master’s and PhD criminology programs offer courses on
program evaluation or policy analysis, current models of graduate training largely neglect key
emphases within translational criminology (e.g., how to identify evidence for policy purposes,
translating research into evidence-informed policies, the related legislative processes). As such,
we emphasize that courses specically based on translational criminology, politics, and practice
should be offered. Such courses should aim to (a) trace the development of the discipline of
criminology culminating in the current translational/evidence-informed policy movement and
(b) assess the value of multiple strategies in efforts to navigate the practical challenges rou-
tinely encountered in translating research into evidence-informed policies. Introductory lectures
could be provided on the causal turn in criminology, the growing role of applied research and
evidence-informed policy, and the legislative policy process. Such courses could also make use
of inviting various researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to attend and participate in dis-
cussions of vital policy issues, with particular attention to major research ndings and related
recommendations for policy/practice, practical challenges and mitigation strategies, dissemination
initiatives and engagement with practitioner and more general publics, and promising practices
for evidence-informed policy efforts.
Importantly, programs interested in expanding student knowledge about the translation and
implementation of evidence-informed policies may consider conducting their own program
reviews to consider potential ways in which graduate training may be restructured to pro-
vide much-needed emphases on topics related to translational criminology. In addition to new
course offerings, programs may consider changes to existing theory, methods and statistics, and
substantive-area courses to infuse these with relevant instruction on topics related to knowledge
construction, evidence translation, and policy implementation and evaluation.
In addition, graduate programs should attempt to contend directly with the inherently incom-
plete nature of scientic evidence—particularly as it pertains to policy. This is not to say that we
should in any way scale back on rigorous methodological and statistical training for students, es-
pecially not in the types of research designs and approaches that are most consistent with causal
interpretations. Instead, it encourages instruction in other sources of knowledge,recognizing that
problems related to crime and the criminal justice system are markedly complex and that even the
most high-quality science can only provide part of the solution.
Adopting such an approach will require humility on the part of researchers to make space for
different knowledges and other types of analyses to inform policy decisions (see, e.g., Jasanoff
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.13
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
2022). For policymakers, research is but one input and thus must be weighed against other eco-
nomic, political, and normative considerations (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider 2020, Weiss
1986). Humility thus encourages us to accept, for example, that the science holds no more privi-
leged a position than ethical dimensions or the knowledge acquired from lived experience. It also
helps us recognize the contours of our scientic uncertainty, including whether our ignorance is
attributable to the complexity of the problems we seek to address or the types of knowledge we
choose to pursue. Exercising humility is especially important in the current context, as we are
increasingly confronted with a lack of trust in science and loss of condence in expertise. The
default response to antiscience views among members of the scientic community has been to
presume the ignorance or scientic illiteracy of those who hold such viewpoints (Kenrick et al.
2018). Restoring legitimacy will require researchers to work collectively with practitioners and
other members of the public to consider the science, questions of values, and other complexities
that characterize key policy questions. Rather than pushing such considerations aside, we should
strive to teach methods to accommodate them.
Prioritizing the Organization of Knowledge
To advance criminology’s evidence-informed purpose, it is also important to have a clear un-
derstanding of what the full evidence in support of a particular program or policy looks
like. The knowledge organization movement has gained momentum in public criminology
in recent decades with the Maryland Report on what works (Sherman et al. 1997) and the
establishment of several clearinghouses such as the Campbell Collaboration (https://www.
campbellcollaboration.org/), the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) Crime Solutions database
(https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/), and Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development (https://
www.blueprintsprograms.org/). Each registry rates programs or interventions for effectiveness,
with the primary concern being evaluation using stringent methodological criteria (Mihalic &
Elliott 2015). Evidence in favor of program effectiveness is weighted by scientic rigor, with ev-
idence from RCTs or meta-analyses of RCTs given the most (or sometimes only) weight. Such
an approach is useful for centralizing information and translating it into practice. Within NIJ’s
Crime Solutions registry, for example, programs rated “effective” are endorsed, programs rated
“promising” are reevaluated, and programs rated “ineffective” are discouraged.
Still, such an approach is not without its drawbacks. As we mentioned, an evaluation may have
high internal validity and meet standards of causal certainty, but that may have little bearing on
its external validity (Nagin & Sampson 2019). Showing that a program works is not the same
as showing that it will work (Sampson et al. 2013). Additionally, with rigid scientic evaluation
criteria being of utmost concern, existing clearinghouses do not make room for assessing a pro-
gram’s moral or ethical issues, political viability, or social appropriateness (Sweeten 2016). Most
registries contain basic information on program implementation, rationale, goals, target popula-
tion, outcomes and methodology, and references to the literature.Not listed or evaluated are other
important sources of information, such as (a) potential pitfalls of the program or unintended con-
sequences, (b) mixed effects or lack of replicability across social contexts (e.g., differential impacts
in rural versus urban areas or on marginalized populations), (c) reasons for mixed ndings or failed
replications, (d) issues with stakeholder or community buy-in, or (e) common implementation is-
sues. Again, the idea that all programs can t neatly into boxes of something that works or is
promising suggests there is a single metric of success. As Sweeten (2016, p. 71) noted in his dis-
cussion of such registries, “Given the complexity of individuals, neighborhoods, and cities that
receive these treatments, it would be wise to consider more than one type of outcome.”
Moving forward, existing program registries should be continually invested in and expanded
on to determine not only what works using the best available evidence but also for whom and
11.14 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
under what conditions. Useful tools for assessing such variations include systematic reviews of the
broader research literature and larger-scale meta-analyses that make use of moderator analysis
(Turanovic & Pratt 2021). As applied to meta-analytic data, moderator analysis can determine
empirically the circumstances under which an intervention effect is strongest or weakest according
to population demographics (e.g., age, sex,race and ethnicity) and research settings (e.g., the home,
school, the community, prisons and jails), the impacts of research evaluation design (e.g., RCT
versus a quasi-experimental design), and evaluation criteria and outcomes (e.g., to see whether the
effects are stronger for certain offenses, forms of recidivism, or other psychosocial and behavioral
indicators of well-being).
Funding should also be made available to better prioritize meta-analyses and systematic re-
views generally, which can be incredibly time-consuming and labor intensive when applied to
large bodies of work. NIJ, for example, has allocated funding for knowledge organization efforts
to take stock of the research produced thus far in key areas—including the sources of school vi-
olence, the use and impacts of restrictive housing in prisons, and factors that promote desistance
from crime (e.g., Garcia & Cain 2016, Kazemian 2021, Turanovic & Siennick 2022). Better un-
derstanding of what we know so far—as well as what we do not know—can be highly illuminating
when attempting to translate research into policy.
From a broader standpoint, though, knowledge organization methods can also be applied to un-
derstand the impact of criminological research on policy and practice generally.Countless funded
and unfunded criminology research studies have been completed, but their respective roles in af-
fecting policy and practice are not always known. A fundamental need for the advancement of
criminology’s research and applied evidence-informed policy purpose is to chronicle the record
of these initiatives as well as their successes and failures. The development of such a database
will enable researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to access decades of research and ap-
plied policy projects from which numerous relevant lessons can be drawn in the ongoing applied
evidence-informed policy movement. An expanded repository such as this can provide an empir-
ical foundation to facilitate knowledge building in criminology’s continuing effort to effectively
employ research in evidence-informed policy and help determine what has and has not worked
and why.
CONCLUSION
The current social and cultural context in America is characterized by growing discontent about
crime and violence, in addition to ongoing civil unrest stemming from police brutality and broader
issues of systemic racism. Meanwhile, the public, while demanding that more needs to be done
to confront these alarming social problems, remains skeptical of scientic evidence and expert
knowledge. The promotion of research in criminal justice policy and practice will thus require
narrowing the gap between perceptions and evidence—a task we are unlikely to accomplish by
simply insisting on the rigor of our evidence or the authority of our expertise. Instead, we call for
an increasing embrace of a translational agenda, in which we bring communities and key system
actors into the fold to collectively contribute to the construction of solutions to some of our most
pressing problems.
As evidenced by our discipline’s history, such an agenda is likely to face criticism. And yet in
many ways, it represents a return to our roots, thus reafrming our commitment to advancing
theory and basic science on the causes of crime while also informing public policy using the best
available evidence. Pushing forward criminology’s translational agenda will require confronting
numerous challenges at the disciplinary level and beyond, including consideration of multiple
aspects of the discipline’s incentives and rewards structures, graduate training, and knowledge
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.15
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
organization. It will also require greater collaboration and investment from professional associ-
ations (e.g., ASC, ACJS), our institutions of higher education, and traditional funding agencies.
The task ahead for the translation of criminology’s scientic research into evidence-informed
policies is formidable; however, in our view, our relevance as a discipline will be measured by
not only our contributions to knowledge but also our commitment to improving criminal justice
policy and practice.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Kaylee Noorman for her research support during the preparation of this
review article.
LITERATURE CITED
Abt TP. 2017. Towards a framework for preventing community violence among youth. Psychol. Health Med.
22(Suppl. 1):266–85
Austin J. 2003. Why criminology is relevant. Criminol. Public Policy 2(3):557–64
Becker HS. 1963. Outsiders:Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press
Berk R. 2010. What you can and can’t properly do with regression. J. Quant. Criminol. 26(4):481–87
Berk R, Heidari H, Jabbari S, Kearns M, Roth A. 2018. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: the state
of the art. Sociol. Methods Res. 50(1):3–44
Blomberg TG. 2010. Proles in crime and justice. In Exploring Criminal Justice:The Essentials, ed. R Regoli,
J Hewitt, p. 6. Burlington, MA: Jones Bartlett Publ.
Blomberg TG. 2019. Making a difference in criminology: past, present, and future. Am. J. Crim. Justice
44(4):670–88
Blomberg TG, Copp JE, Thrasher J. 2022. Translational criminology, politics, and promising practices. Am.
J. Crim. Justice 47(6):1099–115
Blomberg TG, Mestre J, Mann K. 2013. Seeking causality in a world of contingency: criminology, research,
and public policy. Criminol. Public Policy 12(4):571–84
Blumstein A. 2011. Bringing down the U.S. prison population. Prison J. 91(Suppl. 3):12S–26S
Bogenschneider K, Bogenschneider BN. 2020.Empirical evidence from state legislators: how, when, and who
uses research. Psychol. Public Policy Law 26(4):413–24
Bowers J, Testa PF.2019. Better government, better science: the promise of and challenges facing the evidence-
informed policy movement. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 22:521–42
Boyle P. 2022. Why do so many Americans distrust science? AAMCNEWS.https://www.aamc.org/news-
insights/why-do-so-many-americans-distrust-science
Braga AA. 2022. Gun violence is a public health crisis that needs more applied criminologists.Criminol. Public
Policy 21(4):811–37
Braga AA, Apel R. 2016. And we wonder why criminology is sometimes considered irrelevant in real-world
policy conversations. Criminol. Public Policy 15(3):813–29
Braga AA, Turchan BS, Papachristos AV, Hureau D. 2019. Hot spots policing and crime reduction: an update
of an ongoing systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Exp. Criminol. 15:289–311
Buchanan L, Bui Q, Patel JK. 2020. Black lives matter may be the largest movement in U.S. history. New
York Times, July 3. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-oyd-protests-
crowd-size.html
Burawoy M. 2004. Public sociologies: contradictions, dilemmas, and possibilities. Soc. Forces 82(4):1603–18
Burawoy M. 2005. For public sociology. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70(1):4–28
11.16 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
Cartwright N. 2011. Predicting “it will work for us”: (way) beyond statistics. In Causality in the Sciences, ed.
PM Illari, F Russo, J Williamson, pp. 750–68. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Clear TR. 2010. Policy and evidence: the challenge to the American Society of Criminology: 2009 presidential
address to the American Society of Criminology. Criminology 48(1):1–25
Cloward RA, Ohlin LE. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity:A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press
Cohen AK. 1955. Delinquent Boys:The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free Press
Copp JE, Casey W, Blomberg TG,Pesta G. 2022. Pretrial risk assessment instruments in practice: the role of
judicial discretion in pretrial reform. Criminol. Public Policy 21(2):329–58
Cressey DR. 1978. Criminological theory, social science,and the repression of crime. Criminology 16(2):171–91
Cullen FT. 2005. Twelve people who saved rehabilitation: how the science of criminology made a difference.
Criminology 43(1):1–42
Cullen FT. 2011. Beyond adolescence-limited criminology: choosing our future—the American Society of
Criminology 2010 Sutherland address. Criminology 49(2):287–330
Cullen FT, Gilbert K. 2012. Reafrming Rehabilitation. New York: Routledge
Cullen FT, Pratt TC, Turanovic JJ. 2016. It’s hopeless: beyond zero-tolerance supervision. Criminol. Public
Policy 15(4):1215–27
Cullen FT, Pratt TC, Turanovic JJ, Butler L. 2018. When bad news arrives: project HOPE in a post-factual
world. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 34:13–34
Currie E. 2007. Against marginality: arguments for a public criminology. Theor. Criminol. 11(2):175–90
DiIulio JJ. 1994. Instant replay: three strikes was the right call. Am. Prospect 18:12–15
Doleac JL. 2019. “Evidence-based policy” should reect a hierarchy of evidence. J. Policy Analysis Manag.
38(2):517–19
Drakulich K, Baranauskas AJ. 2021. Anger versus fear about crime: how common is it, where does it come
from, and why does it matter? Crime Law Soc. Change 76:451–72
Duret D, Li W. 2023.It’s not just a police problem, Americans are opting out of government jobs.The Marshall
Project, Jan. 21. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/01/21/police-hiring- government-jobs-
decline
Elder GH. 1974. Children of the Great Depression:Social Change in Life Experience. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
Esberg J, Mummolo J. 2018. Explaining misperceptions of crime. SSRN Work. Pap. 3208303. https://papers.
ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3208303
Farrall S, Gray E, Jones PM. 2021. Worrying times: the fear of crime and nostalgia. Curr. Issues Crim. Justice
33(3):340–58
Farrington DP, Lösel F, Braga AA,Mazerolle L, Raine A,et al. 2020.Experimental criminology: looking back
and forward on the 20th anniversary of the Academy of Experimental Criminology. J. Exp. Criminol.
16(4):649–73
Fridel E. 2021. The futility of shooting down strawmen: a response to Kleck 2020. Justice Q. 38(5):925–41
Garcia M, Cain CM. 2016. Restrictive housing in the U.S. Natl. Inst. Justice Rep. NCJ 250315, Off. Justice
Progr., Washington, DC. https://www.ojp.gov/pdfles1/nij/250315.pdf
Gendreau P, Smith P. 2007. Inuencing the “people who count”: some perspectives on the reporting of meta-
analytic results for prediction and treatment outcomes with offenders. Crim. Justice Behav. 34(12):1536–
59
Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL.2002. Gender, crime,and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive
transformation. Am. J. Sociol. 107(4):990–1064
Hay C. 2009. Examining key causes of crime in terms of their potential responsiveness to policy manipulation.
Criminologist 34(2):5–8
Hirschi T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Jalbert S, Rhodes W, Kane M, Clawson E, Bogue B, et al. 2011. A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation
caseload size in an evidence-based practice setting. Natl. Inst. Justice Rep. NCJ 234596, Off. Justice Progr.,
Washington, DC. https://www.ojp.gov/pdfles1/nij/grants/234596.pdf
Jasanoff S. 2007. Technologies of humility. Nature 450:33
Jasanoff S. 2022. The discontents of truth and trust in 21st century America. Daedalus 151(4):25–42
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.17
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
Kazemian L. 2021. Pathways to desistance from crime among juveniles and adults:applications to criminal justice policy
and practice. Natl. Inst. Justice Rep. NCJ 301503, Off. Justice Progr., Washington, DC. https://www.ojp.
gov/pdfles1/nij/301503.pdf
Kenrick DT, Cohen AB, Neuberg SL, Cialdini RB. 2018. The science of antiscience thinking. Sci. Am.
319(1):36–41
Kittler M. 2018. Do we understand each other? Discussing academic exchange from a cross-cultural
communication perspective. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 48(3):333–51
Latessa EJ, Johnson SL, Koetzle D. 2020. What Works (and Doesn’t) in Reducing Recidivism. New York:
Routledge
Lattimore PK, MacKenzie DL, Zajac G, Dawes D, Arsenault E, Tueller S. 2016. Outcome ndings from
the HOPE demonstration eld experiment: Is swift, certain, and fair an effective supervision strategy?
Criminol. Public Policy 15(4):1103–41
Laub JH. 1983. Criminology in the Making:An Oral History. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press
Laub JH. 2006. Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael-Adler Report: searching for the soul of criminology
seventy years later. Criminology 44(2):235–58
Laub JH, Frisch NE. 2016. Translational criminology: a new path forward. In Advancing Criminology and
Criminal Justice Policy, ed. TG Blomberg, JM Brancale, KM Beaver, WD Bales, pp. 52–62. New York:
Routledge
Lemert EM. 1951. Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill
Lipsey MW, Cullen FT. 2007. The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic reviews.
Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3:297–320
Low S, van Ryzin MJ, Brown EC, Smith BH, Haggerty KP. 2014. Engagement matters: lessons from assessing
classroom implementation of steps to respect: a bullying prevention program over a one-year period.
Prev. Sci. 15(2):165–76
Lum C, Nagin DS. 2017. Reinventing American policing. Crime Justice 46:339–93
MacDonald J. 2023.Criminal justice reform guided by evidence: social control works—the Academy of Exper-
imental Criminology 2022 Joan McCord Lecture. J. Exp. Criminol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-
023-09558-w
Martinson R. 1974. What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest 35:22–54
Merton RK. 1938. Social structure and anomie. Am. Sociol. Rev. 3:672–82
Michael J, Adler MJ. 1933. Crime,Law and Social Science. New York: Harcourt Brace
Mihalic SF, Elliott DS. 2015. Evidence-based programs registry: blueprints for healthy youth development.
Eval. Progr. Plan. 48:124–31
Miller JM, Miller HV. 2015. Rethinking program delity for criminal justice. Criminol. Public Policy 14(2):339–
49
Nagin DS. 2022. Unraveling mass incarceration: criminology’s role in the policy process. Criminology
60(3):401–5
Nagin DS, Sampson RJ. 2019. The real gold standard: measuring counterfactual worlds that matter most to
social science and policy. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2:123–45
Nagin D, Weisburd D. 2013. Evidence and public policy: the example of evaluation research in policing.
Criminol. Public Policy 12(4):651–79
Nowotny H. 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Sci. Public Policy 30(3):151–56
Park RE, Burgess EW. 1921. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Parkhurst JO, Abeysinghe S. 2016. What constitutes “good” evidence for public health and social policy-
making? From hierarchies to appropriateness. Soc. Epistemol. 30(5–6):665–79
Pesta GB, Blomberg TG, Ramos J, Ranson JA. 2019. Translational criminology: toward best practice. Am. J.
Crim. Justice 44(3):499–518
Petersilia J. 1991.Policy relevance and the future of criminology—the American Society of Criminology 1990
presidential address. Criminology 29(1):1–15
Petersilia J. 2008. Inuencing public policy: an embedded criminologist reects on California prison reform.
J. Exp. Criminol. 4(4):335–56
Petrich DM, Pratt TC, Jonson CL, Cullen FT. 2021. Custodial sanctions and reoffending: a meta-analytic
review. Crime Justice 50(1):353–424
11.18 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
Pfaff J. 2016. The complicated economics of prison reform. Mich. Law Rev. 114(6):951–81
Pratt TC. 2008. Rational choice theory, crime control policy, and criminological relevance. Criminol. Public
Policy 7(1):43–52
Pratt TC. 2019. Addicted to Incarceration:Corrections Policy and the Politics of Misinformation in the United States.
New York: Sage. 2nd ed.
Puddy RW, Wilkins N. 2011. Understanding evidence part 1:best available research evidence. A guide to the con-
tinuum of evidence of effectiveness. Rep., Cent. Dis. Control Prev., Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/pdf/understanding_evidence-a.pdf
Putnam L, Chenoweth E, Pressman J. 2020. The Floyd protests are the broadest in U.S. history—and are
spreading to white, small-town America. Washington Post, June 6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/2020/06/06/oyd-protests-are-broadest- us-history-are-spreading-white- small-town-
america/
Quinney R. 1970. The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little Brown
Reingle Gonzalez JM, Akers TA. 2017. Transdisciplinary research perspective: epidemiological criminology
as an emerging theoretical framework for substance abuse research. In Research Methods in the Study of
Substance Abuse, ed. J VanGeest, T Johnson, S Alemagno, pp. 27–40. New York: Springer
Rosenfeld R. 2011. The big picture: 2010 presidential address to the American Society of Criminology.
Criminology 49(1):1–26
Rosenfeld R, Boxerman B, Lopez E. 2022. Pandemic, social unrest, and crime in U.S. cities: mid-year 2022
update. Council on Criminal Justice.https://counciloncj.org/mid-year-2022- crime-trends/
Ross-Hellauer T, Tennant JP, Banelyte V, Gorogh E, Luzi D, et al. 2020. Ten simple rules for innovative
dissemination of research. PLOS Comput. Biol. 16(4):e10007704
Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Byrne E, McDonnell J. 2008. Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis.
J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 13(1):40–46
Sampson RJ. 2010. Gold standard myths: observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology.
J. Quant. Criminol. 26(4):489–500
Sampson RJ, Laub JH. 1993. Crime in the Making:Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
Sampson RJ, Winship C, Knight C. 2013. Translating causal claims: principles and strategies for
policy-relevant criminology. Criminol. Public Policy 12(4):587–616
Schildkraut J, Turanovic JJ. 2022. A new wave of mass shootings? Exploring the potential impact of COVID-19.
Homicide Stud. 26:362–78
Shames A. 2013. Performance incentive funding: aligning scal and operational responsibility to produce more
safety at less cost. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 25(3):197–206
Sherman LW. 2009. Evidence and liberty: the promise of experimental criminology. Criminol. Crim. Justice
9(1):5–28
Sherman LW, Gottfredson D, MacKenzie D, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway S. 1997. Preventing crime:what works,
what doesn’t,what’s promising. Natl. Inst. Justice Rep. NCJ 165366, Off. Justice Progr., Washington, DC.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdfles/171676.pdf
Skolnick JE. 1995. What not to do about crime—the American Society of Criminology 1994 presidential
address. Criminology 33(1):1–15
Smith HP. 2021.Introduction to the special edition on correctional ofcer wellness and resiliency. Crim. Justice
Stud. 34(4):353–60
Sparrow MK. 2015. Measuring performance in a modern police organization. Psychosociol. Issues Hum. Resour.
Manag. 3(2):17–52
Sutherland EH. 1934. Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. 2nd ed.
Sweeten G. 2016. What works, what doesn’t, what’s constitutional? The problem with assessing an
unconstitutional police practice. Criminol. Public Policy 15(1):67–73
Tittle C. 2004. The arrogance of public sociology. Soc. Forces 82(4):1639–43
Tonry M. 2010. “Public criminology” and evidence-based policy. Criminol. Public Policy 9(4):783–97
Tonry M, ed. 2019. American Sentencing:What Happens and Why? Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Turanovic JJ, Pratt TC. 2021. Meta-analysis in criminology and criminal justice: challenging the paradigm
and charting a new path forward. Justice Eval. J. 4(1):21–47
www.annualreviews.org •Evidence-Informed Policy in Criminology 11.19
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
CR07CH11_Blomberg ARjats.cls August 5, 2023 12:35
Turanovic JJ, Pratt TC, Kulig TC, Cullen FT. 2022. Confronting School Violence:A Synthesis of Six Decades of
Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Turanovic JJ, Siennick SE. 2022. The causes and consequences of school violence:a review. Natl. Inst. Justice Rep.
NCJ 302346, Off. Justice Progr., Washington, DC. https://www.ojp.gov/pdfles1/nij/302346.pdf
Turk AT. 1969. Criminality and Legal Order. Chicago: Rand McNally
Uggen C, Inderbitzin M. 2010. Public criminologies. Criminol. Public Policy 9(4):725–49
Weisburd D,Piquero AR. 2008. How well do criminologists explain crime? Statistical modeling in published
studies. Crime Justice 37(1):453–502
Weiss CH. 1986. The circuitry of enlightenment: diffusion of social science research to policymakers. Sci.
Commun. 8(2):274–81
Wellford CF. 2010. Criminologists should stop whining about their impact on policy and practice. In Contem-
porary Issues in Criminal Justice Policy:Policy Proposals from the American Society of Criminology Conference,
ed. NA Frost, JD Freilich, TR Clear, pp. 17–24. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Wetzel JE, Davis JM. 2020. The response to the COVID-19 crisis by the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections. Vict. Offenders 15(7–8):1298–304
11.20 Blomberg •Copp •Turanovic
, .•
·�- Review in Advance first posted on
August 16, 2023. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2024.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Florida State University on 08/19/23. For personal use only.
