Frequently Asked Questions

CrimeSolutions is a central, reliable resource to help practitioners and policymakers understand what works in justice-related interventions. Its purpose is to assist in practical decision making and program implementation by gathering information on specific justice-related programs and practices and systematically reviewing the existing evaluation and meta-analysis research against standardized criteria. Learn more about CrimeSolutions.

The National Institute of Justice operates CrimeSolutions with additional funding from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

No. CrimeSolutions is a resource to assist justice practitioners and policymakers in using evaluation evidence for practical decision making. CrimeSolutions is not intended to be an exhaustive list of interventions that should or should not be adopted. The Office of Justice Programs and its components also recognize the importance of supporting innovative approaches and practices that may not yet have extensive evidence of effectiveness.

The platform provides evidence ratings for criminal justice, juvenile justice, and victim service-related interventions. CrimeSolutions has detailed intervention profiles, information about evaluation methods, and links to related resources and research.

“Evidence-based” typically refers to approaches with strong scientific evidence demonstrating effectiveness. “Evidence-informed” refers to approaches that incorporate elements from evidence-based practices but may have been adapted to different circumstances or may not have a rigorous evaluation of evidence.

While fidelity to the original program design is important, local adaption may be necessary to meet agency goals.

No. CrimeSolutions does not provide funding for interventions, but it does include cost information for programs, when available. Intervention profiles may also have contact information for researchers, program managers, or evaluators to obtain additional programmatic information outside of CrimeSolutions.

CrimeSolutions can help identify evidence-based interventions to address specific community challenges, which can strengthen funding applications by demonstrating that your proposed strategies are rooted in scientific evidence.

Rated interventions listed on CrimeSolutions undergo a comprehensive, multi-step process that relies on published research and reports. Research currently undertaken for emerging technology may take years to research and publish, which delays the opportunity for CrimeSolutions to find the research and start the evaluation process. Nominate an intervention for review by CrimeSolutions.

All information found on CrimeSolutions is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published, or otherwise used without permission. Information should be appropriately attributed to the National Institute of Justice and CrimeSolutions and include the disclaimer that analyses, interpretations, and derivative work does not represent CrimeSolutions, NIJ, or the Department of Justice.

We recommend the following citation format for intervention profiles and summaries:
Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. [Name of program or practice]. Retrieved [month, day, year profile was accessed], from CrimeSolutions, [URL of profile or summary].
For scoring instruments, we recommend the following citation format:
Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. [Program/Practice] scoring instrument. Retrieved [month, day, year profile was accessed], from CrimeSolutions, [URL of instrument page].

The Model Programs Guide focuses specifically on programs related to the juvenile justice system and covers the entire continuum of youth services from prevention through sanctions to reentry.

CrimeSolutions does not provide direct services. However, when available, we list contact information in the intervention profile for the program manager or researcher.

CrimeSolutions is not an exhaustive list of all justice-related programs and practices. If you cannot find the intervention you are looking for, you can do the following:

• Search for programs or practices that address similar outcomes using filters on the program and practice lists. See CrimeSolutions search tips.
  • Review the list of programs that have been screened out or considered. If the program is on the list, it means that the evaluation(s) associated with the program did not meet our criteria for review of inclusion.
  • You can also review the list of inconclusive programs that were reviewed but not rated and programs on hold for future consideration.
  • Review the list of practices that have been screened out or considered. If the practice is on the list, it means that the evaluation(s) associated with the practice did not meet our criteria for review or inclusion. You can also review the list of inconclusive practices that were reviewed but not rated.

Programs rated before March 2025 have a single study icon because the publications were based on a single study sample or the studies in the program’s evidence base did not demonstrate effects in a consistent direction. Programs ratings starting in March 2025 may have single study or multiple studies icons based on the number of studies used to determine the outcome rating, similar to the rating and graphic representation of practices.

Yes. Programs and practices from other countries are included in CrimeSolutions. The research must have English language citations and are otherwise subject to the same criteria used for programs and practices located within the United States.

At least two study reviewers independently assess the evaluation research for each program and the meta-analysis research for each practice under consideration by CrimeSolutions. All study reviewers are subject matter and research methods experts who complete training and certification prior to reviewing studies.

No. However, we do provide contact information in the intervention profile for the program developer, program director, training/technical assistance provider, and evaluator when available.

You can subscribe to CrimeSolutions or regularly visit the homepage to review recently rated interventions.

Programs that meet the minimum requirements for rating are placed into a queue and prioritized for review based on existing resources and agency priorities. Those that are not immediately prioritized for review are placed on hold for future consideration. See the list of programs on hold for future consideration.

CrimeSolutions classifies programs and practices in four levels: Effective, Promising, Ineffective, and Negative Effects based on the strength of the evaluation research that indicates an intervention achieves its goals (i.e., its justice-related outcomes).

Evidence Ratings

Evidence Rating	One-Study Icon	Multiple-Study Icon	Description
Effective			Program or practice is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).
Promising			Program or practice may result in the intended outcome(s).
Ineffective			Program or practice has strong evidence that the program did not have the intended effect. While programs and practices rated Ineffective may have some positive effects, the overall rating is based on a preponderance of the evidence
Negative Effects			Program or practice may result in negative outcomes.

A single study icon is used to identify programs and outcomes that have been evaluated with a single sample.

A multiple studies icon is used to represent a greater extent of evidence supporting the evidence rating. The icon depicts programs that have more than one study sample in the evidence base demonstrating effects in a consistent direction. 

More info on how we rate programs and how we rate practices.

Before evidence for an intervention is reviewed and rated, the program or practice is screened to determine whether it meets CrimeSolutions’ criteria for inclusion on the website. This includes a thorough review of the intervention’s purpose to determine its alignment with CrimeSolutions’ goals and the strength of the available evidence.

See how we rate programs and how we rate practices.

For practices, study reviewers analyze all of the eligible and applicable meta-analysis studies to determine whether there is evidence that the practice achieves its goal(s). See how we rate practices. 

For programs, study reviewers analyze the most rigorous evaluation research available to determine whether there is evidence that the program achieves its goal(s). Up to three studies prior to March 2025 and 10 after, representing the most rigorous evaluation research available, are selected to comprise the program’s evidence base.

Starting in March 2025, the rating process moved to ratings-by-outcome, eliminating an overall program rating. Similar to rating practices, study outcomes are determined and individually rated.

Not necessarily. Effective programs may not work equally well in all contexts or with all populations. Local factors should always be considered when selecting and implementing programs.

Not necessarily. A Promising rating indicates that there is some evidence of effectiveness, but more rigorous evaluation research is needed. These programs may still be impactful, especially if they align well with local needs. The foundation of the program can be adapted to local needs, and the research design can be enhanced to assist with improving outcomes.

CrimeSolutions includes Ineffective programs and practices to inform policymakers and practitioners about the current status of available evaluation evidence before planning or implementing similar efforts. While interventions with Ineffective ratings may have some evidence of positive effects, it is important to evaluate each intervention based on your specific goals.

Programs and practices rated Ineffective or Negative Effects have strong evidence that the program did have the intended effects or had harmful effects when trying to achieve justice-related outcomes. In cases where Negative Effects were found, CrimeSolutions will identify and describe observed negative effects.

Gaining an understanding as to why a program did not work can provide valuable insights. An Ineffective rating may only apply to specific outcomes, and the program may have other Effective or Promising outcomes in other dimensions of the evaluation.

The rating title was changed to better reflect the interventions that did not have their intended effect, even though some evaluations may have demonstrated certain positive outcomes. The new rating better communicates the evidence assessment of the intervention outcome.

You may notice that a practice’s outcome ratings may not be the same as the programs that are encompassed by that practice and vice versa. For example, some practices have outcomes that are rated Effective, but program outcomes listed in the Related Programs section are rated Promising, Ineffective, or Negative Effects.

This can happen because practice ratings reflect an assessment of the average effectiveness of a specific characteristic(s) common across programs, strategies, or procedures. Practice ratings do not take into account variations in implementation or other program-specific factors. If such variations impact the effectiveness of the essential practice characteristic(s), practice and program ratings may diverge as the program-specific effectiveness may differ from the average effectiveness across multiple programs.

Programs rated during and after March 2025 are rated-by-outcome, which will be a more direct comparison to outcomes rated in practices.

Yes. As new research becomes available, interventions may be re-reviewed and ratings may change to reflect the most current evidence base. Programs rated before March 2025 are going through a re-review process to transition their ratings using the ratings-by-outcome scoring instrument, providing more detailed information for each outcome instead of an overall program rating.

Practitioners can use the platform to identify evidence-based interventions in their field, compare effectiveness across similar programs, gain insight into implementation and resource requirements, and make informed decisions about resource allocation. CrimeSolutions can be used when planning for new programs, updating existing programs, and to learn about innovative collaborations used in other jurisdictions.

Policymakers can use CrimeSolutions to prioritize funding for effective intervention approaches, inform policy development using evidence-based data, and support the implementation of proven strategies in their jurisdiction.

Researchers can use CrimeSolutions to identify gaps in evidence, focus on Promising programs to build stronger evidence, and consult evidence standards to strengthen evaluation designs.

Media should accurately represent the ratings as displayed on CrimeSolutions, avoiding characterizing ratings as NIJ’s approval or disapproval of intentions. The ratings reflect the quality and consistency of the evidence, not just program popularity. The program ratings are for interventions implemented in specific settings, which may have varying results in other jurisdictions based on resources, implementation, and focus.