David B. Wilson’s research while affiliated with George Mason University and other places

Objective Early onset of gun carrying correlates with a heightened risk of violent offences and injuries. This research estimates the association between state firearm legislation and first-time handgun carrying in the USA. It further identifies specific policy measures that could be most effective in discouraging the onset of risky gun-carrying activities. Methods The study sample included 6194 youth (51% male, 49% female; 48% white, 27% black, 24% Hispanic and 1% other race and ethnicity) drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, with an average age of 14.3 at the first round of data collection. Participants self-reported when they first carried a handgun. Discrete-time survival analysis was used to model the likelihood of gun-carrying initiation over time, using an overarching state gun law environment score as well as proportionate scores for individual policy subcategories as primary predictors. Analyses were completed in 2024. Results Approximately 30% of the study sample had initiated handgun carrying by the end of the study period. Individuals in states with a greater number of gun laws were less prone to begin carrying handguns. This association was notably stronger for males and white individuals. Laws that extend the firearm acquisition process and increase purchaser accountability were associated with a greater reduction in the initiation rates than other types of policy measures. Conclusions State firearm legislation has the potential to deter the commencement of risky gun-carrying behaviour. It is recommended that states consider implementing, publicising and enforcing these laws to reduce gun-related mortality and morbidity.

Background False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter. Objectives The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions. Our objective was to assess the effects of interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects. Search Methods PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies. Selection Criteria All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approach (i.e., accusatorial, information‐gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known, and included information about confession rates. Data Collection and Analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta‐analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random‐effects network meta‐analysis based on the logged odds ratio. Main Results Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double‐blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with. For true confessions, there were 12 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, five estimating the effect between information‐gathering and direct questioning, and another five estimating the effect between accusatorial and information‐gathering. Compared to information‐gathering, on average, the accusatorial conditions observed fewer true confessions, although not statistically significant (combined OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.29, 1.05). The largest effects were between information‐gathering and direct questioning, with the former producing significantly more true confessions on average (combined OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.29, 4.59). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects. For false confessions, there were 20 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, 4 studies estimating the effect between information‐gathering and direct questioning, and 7 estimating the effect between accusatorial and information‐gathering. On average, accusatorial conditions yielded more false confessions than direct questioning (combined OR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.83, 5.02) or information‐gathering (combined OR = 4.41, 95% CI 1.77, 10.97), both of which are statistically significant. In contrast, direct questioning and information‐gathering had roughly similar rates of false confessions with nonsignificant and small effects that slightly favored information‐gathering (combined OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.27, 1.78). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects. For true confessions under a six‐node model, most of the direct, indirect, and combined network estimated mean odds ratios were not statistically significant. The only significant effects were for (1) information‐gathering versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more true confessions (combined OR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.38, 4.78); and (2) accusatorial‐evidence ploy versus information‐gathering with the former resulting in fewer true confessions (combined OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16, 0.84). For false confessions under a six‐node model, we found significant effects for (1) accusatorial‐evidence ploys versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.59, 5.59); (2) accusatorial‐evidence ploys versus information‐gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.47, 95% CI 1.46, 13.68); (3) accusatorial‐other versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 3.12, 95% CI 1.37, 7.10); (4) accusatorial‐other versus information‐gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.67, 95% CI 1.61, 13.55); and (5) information‐gathering versus minimization, with the latter resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08, 0.83). No other combined effects were significant. This model should be interpreted cautiously, however, as the Q statistics raised concerns regarding model consistency. Authors' Conclusions Overall, results support calls for reforming policies related to interviewing and interrogation practices to prohibit the use of accusatorial approaches and require the adoption of approaches that are science‐based.

Introduction The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross‐reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non‐intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist. Methods Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA)‐literature search extension (S) and PRISMA‐2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co‐chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated. Campbell Policy The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA‐2020. How to Use The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist during their work in formulating their protocol, carrying out their review, and reporting it. Authors will be asked to submit a completed checklist with their submission. We plan to develop an online tool to facilitate use of the form by author teams and those reviewing submissions. Providing Feedback We invite the scientific community to provide their comments using this anonymous google form. Plan for Updating We will update the Campbell Standards periodically in light of new evidence.

Background Parental substance misuse is a pervasive risk factor for a range of detrimental outcomes for children across the life course. While a variety of interventions have been developed for this population, the existing evidence‐base requires consolidation and consideration of the comparative effectiveness of different interventions to facilitate evidence‐informed decisions between different intervention approaches. Objectives This review aimed to use network meta‐analysis to synthesise the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. Network meta‐analysis was not possible; however, we synthesised the effects of a broad range of interventions on child psychosocial outcomes. Another aim was to examine potential moderators of the effects, yet this was also not possible due to data limitations. A secondary objective was to qualitatively synthesise economic, treatment completion, and treatment acceptability information for included studies. Search Methods Searches were performed in November 2020 and again in April 2021. Encompassing multiple disciplines, we searched 34 databases, 58 grey literature repositories, and 10 trial registers. Supplementary hand searches were conducted on 11 journals, along with harvesting the references of all included studies and existing reviews, and forward citation searching each report of all included studies. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data. Selection Criteria Eligible studies included randomised and quasi‐experimental evaluations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and/or legal interventions using either a placebo, no treatment, waitlist control, treatment‐as‐usual, or alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Study participants needed to be comprised of families with children under the age of 18 with one or more currently substance‐misusing parents (or caregivers). Studies were required to evaluate the eligible intervention using a child‐focused psychosocial outcome. If reported in eligible studies, the following secondary outcomes were also synthesised in the review: cost‐effectiveness, treatment completion, length of time in treatment and acceptability of treatment (e.g., participant perspectives of the intervention). There were no restrictions placed on publication status or geographic location, however only research written in English was included. Data Collection and Analysis Standard methodological procedures were followed across all stages of the review, as guided by the published protocol for the review (Eggins et al., 2020). Due to the inability to conduct network meta‐analyses, random effects pairwise meta‐analyses with inverse variance were used to synthesise effects when two or more studies with conceptually similar interventions and outcomes were available. Results of the meta‐analyses are displayed in forest plots, and separate analyses are provided for conceptually distinct outcomes and time‐points of measurement. Sensitivity analyses are used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity in the absence of sufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses. Main Results 99 studies (reported in 231 documents) met review inclusion criteria, encompassing 22,213 participants. Most studies were conducted in the United States (k = 76), almost half were randomised controlled trials (k = 46), and the most common comparator was treatment‐as‐usual (k = 50). Interventions were evaluated using a large range of child psychosocial outcomes which broadly fell under: (a) child welfare; (b) child development; (c) child emotional and behavioural; and (d) educational domains. Intervention models were rarely only legal or pharmacological in nature, with most studies evaluating integrated psychosocial treatments with either pharmacology, coordinated health care, case‐management, and/or judicial or child welfare oversight and coordination. Thirty‐six meta‐analyses and 227 single effect sizes were used to appraise the effectiveness of included interventions, based on 68 studies with sufficient data for effect size calculation. The size and direction of the effects varied across interventions, type of outcomes, and time‐point of measurement. Twenty‐seven meta‐analyses and 186 single effect sizes suggested null effects. Only five single effect size estimates based on three studies indicated negative effects including: higher depressive and somatisation symptoms (parent‐report), hopelessness (child‐report), educational achievement difficulties (parent‐report), and substantiated child protection reports for those engaged with interventions versus treatment‐as‐usual or no treatment. Nine meta‐analyses and 36 single study effect estimates suggest that psychosocial, pharmacological and/or legal interventions have a positive effect on a range of specific child welfare, developmental, and emotional/behavioural outcomes for children. The risk of bias varied across domains and studies, which further lowers confidence in the results. Based on a subset of included studies, treatment completion tends to vary, yet cost‐benefits can be achieved when intervening with children whose parents misuse substances. Authors' Conclusions Despite a large body of evaluation evidence, disparate outcomes, and missing data precluded analyses to formally examine the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. The large amount of unreported (missing) data meant that many effect estimates were underpowered due to single studies and small sample sizes. The review findings suggest that interventions for families affected by parental substance misuse can be effective when they holistically address multiple domains such as parent wellbeing/mental health, parenting, children's wellbeing, and/or other factors impacting family wellbeing (e.g., housing).

This is the protocol for a Campbell Collaboration systematic review. Our objective is to synthesize what is known about the effectiveness of strategies for reducing community violence, focusing on those strategies that have been subjected to a systematic review. We aim to answer the following questions in this review: what strategies to reduce community violence have been rigorously evaluated through systematic reviews; which have sufficient evidence of effectiveness, which seem promising, and which appear ineffective; and what implications for practice and policy can be drawn from this large body of research? We anticipate categorizing the results of our review similarly to the original review by Abt and Winship (2016). That is, categorizing reviews by people‐based approaches, place‐based approaches, and behavior‐based approaches. However, given that this is an updated review and we will be incorporating additional studies, we may find that an alternative or additional categorization is warranted and update our categorization accordingly. Implications for policy and practice as they relate to these categories will be discussed.

One of the key policing innovations of the last three decades has been community-oriented policing. It is particularly important because it is one of the only proactive policing approaches that consistently improves citizen evaluations of the police. At the same time, a series of reviews have concluded that there is not persuasive evidence that community policing reduces crime. In this paper we argue that these conclusions are likely flawed because of what we term crime reporting sensitivity (CRS) bias. CRS bias occurs because community policing leads to more cooperation with the police and subsequently increased crime reporting. Such increased crime reporting bias adjusts crime prevention outcomes of community policing downward. We illustrate this process by reanalyzing data from the Brooklyn Park ACT Experiment (Weisburd et al., 2021). We begin by showing the specific crime categories that contribute most to CRS bias. We then use a difference-in-differences panel regression approach to assess whether the experimental intervention in Brooklyn Park led to significant CRS bias. Finally, we use bounded estimates from the Brooklyn Park Experiment to adjust meta-analytic results from prior community policing studies to examine whether the conclusion that community policing does not impact on crime would need to be revisited if CRS bias was accounted for. We find that adjusted estimates tell a very different, more positive, story about community policing, suggesting that future studies should recognize and adjust for CRS bias, or identify other measures not influenced by this mechanism.

Research summary The primary outcome desired for juvenile delinquency programs is the cessation of delinquent and related problematic behaviors. However, this outcome is almost always pursued by attempting to change intermediate outcomes, such as family functioning, improved mental health, or peer relations. We can conceptualize intermediate outcomes that are related to reduced delinquency as change levers for effective intervention. A large meta‐analysis identified several school‐related change levers, including school engagement (i.e., improved attendance and reduced truancy), nondelinquent problem behaviors, and attitudes about school and teachers. In addition, family functioning and reducing substance use were also effective change levers. In contrast, effects on youth getting/keeping a job, peer relationships, and academic achievement were not associated with reduced delinquency. Policy implications Only a small percentage of rehabilitative programs provided to youth involved in the juvenile justice system have been established as evidence based. Moreover, there are constraints on what local policy makers and practitioners can do regarding the selection, adoption, and implementation of programs from the available lists of evidence‐based programs. Adopting programs that focus on effective change levers and avoiding those that concentrate on ineffective ones has the potential to increase the likelihood that a local agency is engaged in effective programming. Based on our data, programs known to improve family functioning, attachment to and involvement in schooling, and reducing substance use are justified by the change lever evidence, even if these programs’ effectiveness in reducing delinquency has not been directly proven. In contrast, programs focusing on vocational skills, academic achievement, and peer relations are less likely to be beneficial. Furthermore, a change lever perspective can help frontline staff select appropriate programs for different juvenile offenders and focus their quality control efforts on those aspects of a program that are likely to be essential to maintaining effectiveness.