Abstract
The National Research Council (NRC) Report on Improving Evaluation of Anticrime Programs raises a fundamental question about the mission of evaluation research. The implicit premise of the report is that the mission of evaluation is to answer questions about programs developed by others; in short, to test anti-crime programs. In contrast, the mission of experimental criminology has, historically, been to develop anti-crime programs as well as to test them. There are times when an arm’s-length relationship between program and evaluation may be appropriate. Yet, such a separation necessarily produces a courtroom-like adjudication role for evaluators, rather than the laboratory-like, participant–inventor role that has characterized the best of experimental criminology. The recent case of the Chicago police’s “evaluating” the use of sequential suspect identification methods developed by academic psychologists shows the many flaws of the “testing-only” model. This suggests that providing “effective guidance of criminal justice policy and practice,” as the NRC report defines its focus [Lipsey, M. ed (2005). http://newton.nap.edu/pdf/0309097061/pdf_image/R1.pdf] will not only require evaluation research (defined as arm’s-length testing) but the full toolbox of experimental criminology to develop and test anti-crime programs.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Diamond, Shari Seidman (2006). Police lineups and eyewitnesses. Letter to the New York Times. April 24, 2006. Correction appended Sect A; Column 6; Editorial Desk; p. 18.
Fielding, H. (1751). An enquiry into the causes of the late increase of robbers, etc., with Some proposals for remedying this growing evil. London: A. Millar.
Gartin, Patrick R. (1995). Dealing with design failures in randomized field experiments: analytic issues regarding the evaluation of treatment effects. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32, 425–445.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown.
Gottfredson, D. C. (1986). An empirical test of school-based environmental and individual interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behavior. Criminology 24, 705–731.
Gottfredson, D. C. (1987). An evaluation of an organizational development approach to reducing school disorder. Evaluation Review 11, 739–763.
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In H. C. T.D. Cook, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McQuire (Ed.), WHat works? Reducing reoffending. New York: Wiley.
Lipsey, M. ed., (2005). http://newton.nap.edu/pdf/0309097061/pdf_image/R1.pdf.
Losel, F. & Schmucker, Martin (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology 1, 117–146.
Mecklenburg, Sheri H., on Behalf of the Illinois State Police (2006). Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures. Chicago: Sheri Mecklenburg, March 17, 2006. Downloaded on March 30 from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/FACULTY/gwells/Illinois_Report.pdf.
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Chamberlin, R. & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics 78, 1436–1445.
Petrosino, A. (1997). What Works? Revisited Again: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Experiments in Individually-Focused Crime Reduction Interventions. School of Criminal Justice. Newark, Rutgers University. PhD.
Petrosino, A. & Soydan, H. (2005). The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: Results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of Experimental Criminology 1, 435–450.
Sherman, L. W. (2005). The use and usefulness of criminology: Enlightened justice and its failures. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600, 115–134.
Sherman, L. W. & Strang, H. (2004). Verdicts or inventions? Interpreting results from randomized experiments in criminology. American Behavioral Scientist 47(5), 575–607.
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, Denise C., MacKenzie, Doris L., Eck, John, Reuter, Peter & Bushway, Shawn D. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Uglow, J. (2002). The lunar men: Five friends whose curiosity changed the world. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Weisburd, D. & Green, Lorraine (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice 12(4), 711–735.
Wells, Gary (2006). Comments on the Illinois Report. Downloaded May 28, 2006 from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/FACULTY/gwells/Illinois_Project_Wells_comments.pdf.
Zernike, Kate (2006). Questions Raised Over New Trends in Police Lineups. New York Times, April 19, p. 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sherman, L.W. “To develop and test:” The inventive difference between evaluation and experimentation. J Exp Criminol 2, 393–406 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-006-9008-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-006-9008-7