On this page find:
Overview of CrimeSolutions
The National Institute of Justice’s CrimeSolutions is comprised of two components — a web-based clearinghouse of programs and practices and a process for identifying and rating those programs and practices.
The clearinghouse, accessible via the CrimeSolutions website, present programs and practices that have undergone rigorous evaluations and meta-analyses. The site assesses the strength of the evidence about whether these programs achieve criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services outcomes in order to inform practitioners and policy makers about what works, what doesn't, and what's promising.
The programs and practices presented on CrimeSolutions are identified, screened, reviewed, and rated using a standardized process. Programs are reviewed based on evaluations and practices based on meta-analyses that synthesize different evaluations, but those evaluations have to be sufficiently rigorous. Each screened program and practice is reviewed by two certified reviewers using objective scoring instruments. Ratings are assigned based on the consensus score, which is subject to a documented dispute resolution process when necessary. Learn more about the rating process form programs and practices.
In this process, we consider rigorous evaluations and meta-analyses that result in a rating on the site to be strong “evidence” along a continuum in which we look at both the evidence — which tells us how certain we can be of the outcomes — and the direction of the evidence — was the program Effective, Promising , or No Effects. While the evidence that results in rated programs and practices is considered to be the strongest evidence, a continuum of evidence also identifies which programs and practices may have some evidence but it is either emerging, inconclusive, or unclear.
Learn more about the CrimeSolutions Evidence Continuum and the programs and practices identified but not rated on CrimeSolutions.
How to Use What You Find
Criminal justice practitioners can improve their effectiveness by:
- Familiarizing yourself with evaluated and rated programs and practices in your field.
- Replicating a program or practice.
- Adapting a program or practice.
Policymakers can inform funding decisions by:
- Creating incentives to use evaluated and rated programs and practices.
- Creating incentives for ongoing innovation and the generation of evidence-based programs and practices
Trainers can improve their training programs by:
- Developing training materials and resources for evaluated and rated programs.
Researchers can become more informed on criminal justice research by:
- Consulting CrimeSolutions evidence standards to strengthen program evaluation designs.
- Focusing on evaluating "Promising" programs using rigorous evaluation designs to build the body of evidence and increase confidence in program effectiveness.
Learn more on How to Use the Information You Find on CrimeSolutions.
Contact Us: Questions, Nominations, and Appeals
The information and ratings included on CrimeSolutions are not static. As additional evidence becomes available, our content will be updated and supplemented to reflect the most current information and research. We also rely on users to provide us with feedback about the CrimeSolutions website. What is useful and what is not? What additional features would you like to see on the site in the future? Do you have concerns about evidence ratings or information contained on CrimeSolutions? You can send us your thoughts via Submit Feedback and learn more about the appeals process.
CrimeSolutions and the Model Programs Guide welcome program and practice nominations.
When submitting a program or practice for consideration, it is helpful to include as much descriptive information as possible and to identify relevant social science evaluations, meta-analyses, or other research (including citations).
[note 1] CrimeSolutions does not constitute an endorsement of particular programs or practices. Furthermore, it is not intended to replace or supersede informed judgment and/or innovation. We recognize that rigorous evaluation evidence is one of several factors to consider in justice programming, policy, and funding decisions. We also recognize the importance of encouraging and supporting innovative approaches that may not yet have extensive evidence of effectiveness.