FAQ Listing

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.

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.