Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:34 pm
Time: 9:34 pm
Results for evidence-based policy
8 results foundAuthor: Aos, Steve Title: Fight Crime and Save Money: Development of an Investment Tool for States to Study Sentencing and Corrections Public Policy Options: Progress Report Summary: Can knowledge about “what works” to reduce crime be used to help a state achieve a win-win outcome of: (1) lower crime, and (2) lower taxpayer spending? This progress report describes the work underway by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to develop an analytical tool for Washington, and perhaps other states, to identify evidence-based policy options to reduce crime rates and lower the taxpayer costs of the criminal justice system. The Pew Charitable Trusts contracted with WSIPP to: (1) develop the tool, (2) apply it to the policy process currently underway in Washington State, and (3) help Pew make the tool available to other states. We do not present “bottom-line” results in this report. Rather, this progress report simply describes the structure of the tool being constructed. The current plan calls for initial estimates by August 2010. In addition, the tool will be used to support the work of the legislatively directed study being conducted by the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2010 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-04-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-04-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 120179 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyEconomicsEvidence-Based PolicySentencing Policies |
Author: Drake, Elizabeth Title: Washington State Juvenile Court Funding: Applying Research in a Public Policy Setting Summary: During the last 15 years, the Washington State Legislature has taken a number of steps to develop an “evidence-based” juvenile justice system. The central concept has been to identify and implement strategies shown — through rigorous research — to reduce crime cost-effectively. In 2009, the Legislature turned its attention to the mechanism through which Washington’s 33 juvenile courts receive state dollars. That year’s state budget bill directed a committee of stakeholders to develop a new funding formula that emphasizes “evidence-based programs … and disposition alternatives.” The legislation requires state funds for local juvenile courts to be administered as a “block grant.” A block grant is a sum of money distributed to a court with general provisions, resulting in local flexibility in how funds are spent. “Categorical grants,” Washington’s previous mechanism for distributing state funds to juvenile courts, have more restrictive provisions. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) was directed by the legislation to report to the Legislature and the Office of Financial Management on the administration of the block grant including (1) criteria used to allocate funding, and (2) report on participants in programs subject to the block grant. To provide a context for this report, we first summarize key policy reforms over the past 15 years that have established an emphasis on providing evidence-based programs in Washington’s juvenile justice system. We then discuss the funding formula developed by the committee. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-12-1201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/10-12-1201.pdf Shelf Number: 121678 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeEvidence-Based PolicyJuvenile Court (Washington State)Juvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Thompson, Carleen Title: Review of Empirically Based Risk/Needs Assessment Tools for Youth Justice: Amended Report for Public Release Summary: This report was commissioned on the 8 November, 2005 by the Office of Youth, Department of Communities. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the evidence base for youth justice risk/needs assessment tools and to make recommendations about which of these tools might best meet Queensland’s unique needs and current circumstances. What is an evidence base? Evidence-based policy has been defined as an approach that “helps people make well informed decisions about policies, programmes and projects by putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation” (Davis, 1999). Importantly, however, it must be recognised that not all research is of the same quality (Davis, Nutley, & Smith, 2000). Evidence-based policy and practice stresses that the research should not only be competently designed and carried out, but that data should support the findings and conclusions. Additionally, there should be a discussion of the methodological limitations of the study that may potentially bias results, indicate alternative explanations or limit the generalisability of the results (Rycus & Hughes, in press). Evidence-based policy requires a systematic approach to search for appropriate evidence, the critical appraisal of studies that are identified, and a balanced understanding of what the research evidence indicates, taking into account both its strengths and weaknesses (Davis et al., 2000). In recent years there has been a recognition that decision-making in the human services should be guided by evidence derived from scientific research (Gambrill, 1999; Gambrill & Shlonsky, 2000). This push for evidence-based practice arose from the realisation that practitioners did not routinely use the best available evidence for their decisions (R. Borum, 2003; Hoge, 2002; A. Rose, 2003; Wiebush, Baird, Krisberg, & Onek, 1995). Youth justice decision making is no exception to these findings, whereby judgements are often made on the basis of factors which lack empirical support. Furthermore, those variables grounded in empirical evidence are often excluded from the decision making process (R. Borum, 1996; Wiebush et al., 1995). The following report utilised numerous sources of evidence to elucidate best practice guidelines for risk/needs assessments and the evaluation of such tools in the youth justice field. The sources utilised in this report include: refereed journal articles, conference presentations and proceedings, independent evaluations commissioned by government agencies which were publicly available, and descriptions and evaluations provided by the risk/needs assessment developers and publishers. The most weight was accorded to empirical evidence derived from either quantitative research or surveys, or descriptive or qualitative research that was published in peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is the process through which experts in a field of study assess the quality of articles that are submitted to a journal for publication. Consequently, while the standard of journals vary, this process ensures that all articles published meet the standards for that publication. Conference presentations and proceedings do not meet the same benchmark standards as peer-reviewed journals. However, these reports are available for critical appraisal by the research community. Similarly, independently commissioned evaluation reports funded by governments, and available in the public domain, were also considered to be indicative of an evidence base. Internal government/ organisational reports were included because the description of many of the programs and the implementation of these programs was only available through internal reports. Because these reports were generally not subjected to independent critical appraisal, a lesser weight was accorded to them in respect to their contribution to the evidence base. These reports were assessed on the basis of the empirical evidence they presented and the methodological soundness of their research design. Details: Mt. Gravatt, QLD: Justice Modelling@Griffith University, 2006. 246p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2012 at: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/208206/Review-of-empiricall-based-risk_needs-assessment-tools.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Australia URL: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/208206/Review-of-empiricall-based-risk_needs-assessment-tools.pdf Shelf Number: 127113 Keywords: Evidence-Based PolicyJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Risk-Needs Assessment |
Author: Derrick-Mills, Teresa Title: Bridging Research and Practice for Juvenile Justice: Systematizing the Approach Summary: In 2015, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) entered into a cooperative agreement with the Urban Institute (Urban) to develop the Bridging Research and Practice Project to Advance Juvenile Justice and Safety (Bridge Project). The Bridge Project aims to facilitate the translation of juvenile justice research into actionable policy and practice changes through the development of practitioner-friendly, application-ready products. In the first year of the project, Urban's team of multidisciplinary researchers focused on identifying areas where research is not fully informing policy and practice. Using a systematic approach, the Urban team identified Applying a Child and Adolescent Developmental Approach to Practice as a pressing gap in the field—one in which practitioners, stakeholders, researchers, and national experts agreed that few practical tools for translation exist. As part of the systematic approach to identifying this focus area, the Urban team conducted literature and resource scans across a range of issue areas to become familiar with research, efforts, and initiatives in the field; synthesized findings from implementation research to ground the translation process; solicited input from the field through two focus groups and 32 in-depth interviews with key practitioners, researchers, and national experts (Love and Harvell 2016); and collaborated with OJJDP, including its research team, to ensure the proposed topic fit within current priorities. In every stage of these efforts, the developmental approach emerged as a pressing research-to-practice gap with few resources to help practitioners apply it in their daily practice. Though most key informants were aware of the importance of incorporating findings from developmental research in their work, many pointed to a gap in resources outlining how to do so effectively when working with system-involved youth. This document provides an overview of the project approach in four stages: (1) deciding what to translate, (2) translating the evidence into practice, (3) designing and developing products, and (4) disseminating work products. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2017 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/86726/bridging_research_and_practice_for_juvenile_justice.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/86726/bridging_research_and_practice_for_juvenile_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 144641 Keywords: Criminal Justice Research Evidence-Based PolicyJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Pesta, George Title: Translational Criminology -- Research and Public Policy: Final Summary Report Summary: The translation of knowledge from research to policy and practice is a varied, dynamic, and sequential process in criminal justice. This translational process can often involve competing ideologies, fear, public pressure, media scrutiny, bureaucratic resistance, and other influences. As a result, how and under what specific mechanisms research is acquired, interpreted, and effectively employed by policymakers and criminal justice practitioners remains unclear. The growing mandate for evidence-based policies and practices makes it imperative to identify and understand the specific mechanisms of knowledge translation within criminal justice. This report provides findings from a case study on translational criminology in Florida. It describes the process of knowledge translation and implementation of research evidence by statelevel decision-makers in the fields of juvenile and adult corrections. The case study involved gathering and analyzing data from multiple sources that included: (1) an extensive review and coding of the relevant prior literature on research and public policy in criminal justice, (2) openended interviews with key state agency and legislative practitioners and policymakers, (3) interviews with well-established academic researchers in adult and juvenile corrections, (4) close-ended web-based surveys of the participating researchers, policymakers and practitioners, (5) a review of relevant legislative and state agency documents, and (6) observations of archived legislative public hearings and committee meetings. Findings suggest that government sponsored or conducted research, peer networking, and evidence provided by intermediary policy and research organizations were more frequently accessed ways of transferring research knowledge than academic peer-reviewed publications and expert testimony. In addition, this study found that the process and model most often associated with successful research knowledge translation in corrections was the interaction model. We found that successful research knowledge translation in corrections is more likely to occur when researchers and practitioners regularly interact. The study also yielded policy implications; among them was that academics could do more to reach out and work with policymakers and practitioners. Details: Tallahassee, FL: College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250597.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250597.pdf Shelf Number: 144685 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Research Evidence-Based PolicyEvidence-Based Practices |
Author: Guevara, Meghan Title: Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections, 2nd ed Summary: Across the country, community corrections agencies are struggling to do more with less. Offender populations continue to grow, and policymakers and corrections officials look to community corrections to alleviate overcrowding in prisons and jails. In the face of shrinking budgets, community corrections agencies as well as elected and appointed government officials are looking for innovative solutions to reduce new crimes and new victimization. Fortunately, a substantial body of literature exists on cost-efficient practices that are proven to reduce offender risk. Unfortunately, knowledge of these evidence-based practices is not sufficient to implement and sustain this new way of doing business. Agencies and systems must have the capacity to undergo a significant shift in their business practices and organizational culture; they require a framework to guide this change. Through a cooperative agreement with the National Institute of Corrections, the Crime and Justice Institute and its partners developed the Integrated Model for the implementation of evidence-based policy and practice (Figure 1). The Model incorporates both research on effective corrections practice and practical approaches needed to create and sustain an evidence-based organization. The Model has three components: Evidence-Based Practice, Organizational Development, and Collaboration. The purpose of this paper is to outline the theoretical and empirical support for the model, as well as practical strategies for its implementation in community corrections settings. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2009. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://www.azp.uscourts.gov/sites/azp/files/1%20NIC.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.azp.uscourts.gov/sites/azp/files/1%20NIC.pdf Shelf Number: 122321 Keywords: Community Corrections Evidence-Based PolicyEvidence-Based Practices Prison Overcrowding |
Author: Home Office Title: Serious and Organized Crime: Home Office Research Priorities 2018/19 - 2020/21 Summary: Summary This document summarises research priorities to support the current and future needs of the Government's 2018 serious and organised crime (SOC) strategy. It aims to set out clearly the most important areas for research and analysis in this area, improving the evidence base on which policy choices are made and the targeting of resources on the most important risks and vulnerabilities. The research priorities presented here have been identified in discussion with a range of partners and relate specifically to the priorities set out in the current SOC strategy. This is to ensure that research is focused on the questions that are most relevant to current policy priorities and will have the greatest impact. They are grouped into the following four thematic areas, though there is considerable overlap between them and they should not be viewed in isolation. 1. Understanding the threat: It is likely that SOC will continue to operate in new ways and places. Improved research and intelligence in this area will help to develop a better evidence base on the changing landscape of SOC and the harms it presents. 2. Criminal markets: The supply and demand of illicit goods or services is a key characteristic of organised crime. Understanding more about the threat posed by SOC markets and their operating models will help to inform the most effective response. 3) Vulnerabilities: Organised crime groups (OCGs) exploit the vulnerabilities of individuals, businesses and society at large to further their criminal interests. Improving our understanding of the vulnerabilities of both victims and offenders will help to direct when and where to respond. 4. What works: The threat from SOC is complex and wide-ranging, requiring an equally diverse response. Improving the evidence base of what works in terms of prevention, disruption and tackling SOC, will achieve better value for money interventions. It can help to ensure that the most appropriate and up-to-date tools are used to respond at the most effective points. The remainder of this document sets out the key research questions underpinning these cross-cutting thematic topic areas, including a description of broad, high-level questions applying to the range of SOC threats as well as considering individual crime types where relevant. It also includes details of how we intend for this document to be used, outlines sources of funding for research and existing centres of expertise. Finally, it also includes contact details for Home Office analysts working in this area. We are committed to working collaboratively with the wider research community to improve the evidence base on SOC. Details: London, UK: Home Office, 2018. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 9, 2019 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/753188/serious-and-organised-crime-research-priorities-horr105.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/753188/serious-and-organised-crime-research-priorities-horr105.pdf Shelf Number: 154048 Keywords: Criminal MarketsEvidence-Based PolicyIllicit ServicesIllicit TradeOrganized CrimeOrganized Crime GroupsSerious and Organized Crime |
Author: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab Title: What works to prevent violence among youth? A white paper on youth violence, crime prevention, and the Mexican context Summary: What works in preventing and reducing violence among youth? This report draws on the global evidence base of evaluations of existing interventions designed to reduce or prevent violence and identifies those with the greatest evidence of effectiveness. We find six types of interventions for which there is strong evidence of effectiveness in preventing at-risk individuals and offenders from engaging in criminal and violent behavior-cognitive behavioral therapy, multidimensional therapy, drug courts and drug addiction treatment, focused deterrence, controls on the sale and abuse of alcohol, and hot spots policing. A much broader range of interventions have shown less conclusive proof of effectiveness-either because they have not been rigorously evaluated or because evaluations have yielded mixed results. In these cases, we identify the mechanisms that may lie behind potential success and explore how these might be extracted to promote innovative pilots in the Mexican context. The goal of the report is to provide a framework for increasing the use of evidence-informed policy in youth violence prevention efforts across Mexico, with a focus on state and local levels. Where the existing evidence base is strong, there is a basis for adopting programs that have proven successful elsewhere. We also identify a category of interventions that have been adopted widely in Mexico but for which there is little clear evidence base (and in some cases, evidence that these interventions may be ineffective), and recommend that these be scaled down. Finally, we identify a set of challenges in the Mexican context for which there are no clear "off-the-shelf" solutions, and for these we try to identify promising opportunities for innovation. This report draws on an extensive literature review of over 264 studies. Throughout, we draw on evidence produced by studies that met a high bar for methodological standards: using randomized experimental or quasi-experimental methods with appropriately designed comparison groups. Randomized evaluations (often called randomized controlled trials, or RCTs), offer the highest quality of evidence because they provide us a clear basis for making causal claims about the impact of a program or intervention (that in the absence of randomization, we might worry was in fact a result of selection bias or other characteristics that were in some way linked to participation in the program). We have given the greatest weight to RCT evidence where it exists. Setting the evidence bar this high means that the range of interventions and programs that we are able to identify as having a strong evidence base is relatively narrow. To ensure that we can offer relevant and broad-ranging policy advice, we therefore try to isolate the key elements of effective programming and the potential principles behind effective strategies to guide refinement of new interventions and innovations that may provide a basis for future evaluations. Details: Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 2018. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2019 at: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/documents/White%20Paper%20JPAL_Ingles_Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Mexico URL: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/documents/White%20Paper%20JPAL_Ingles_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 155669 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Evidence-Based PolicyViolence Violence Prevention Violent Crime Youth Violence |