Search the Matrix

What strategies can be effective in reducing crime and disorder in policing? The Evidence-Based Policing Matrix is a research-to-practice translation tool that organizes moderate to very rigorous evaluations of police interventions visually, allowing agencies and researchers to view the field of research in this area. The Matrix is updated with all qualifying studies each year.

  • Reset

Individuals – Abrahamse et al. (1991)

Post-arrest case enhancement of repeat offenders increased odds of arrestees being incarcerated.

Individuals – Ariel et al. (2019)

Proactive engagement of prolific offenders led to lower offending in treated groups

Individuals – Bennett et al. (2018)

Truancy intervention led to a non-significant decrease in offending among treated students, despite control students experiencing a significant increase in offending over the same time period

Individuals – Berk et al. (1992)

Arrest of spousal abusers reduced recidivism

Individuals – Bonkiewicz et al. (2014)

Mental health post-crisis assistance program led to reductions in mental health calls for service, arrests, and emergency protective custody orders

Individuals – Casey et al. (2007)

Domestic violence victims receiving home visits have significantly less calls for service than comparison group

Individuals – Cho & Wilke (2010)

Arrest of intimate partner violence perpetrators associated with reduced victimization compared to non-arrest.

Individuals – Collins et al. (2017)

Diversion program for low-level offenders associated with significantly lower odds of a subsequent arrest and felony charge

Individuals – Dunford (1990)

Arrest warrant for domestic violence suspect reduced absent offender recidivism 50%

Individuals – Exum et al. (2014)

Suspects processed through the DV unit had significantly lower rates of re-offending

Individuals – Fox & Farrington (2015)

Behavioral profiles for burglary offenses and offenders increased arrest rates

Individuals – Fox et al. (2022)

Project Safe Neighborhoods led to reductions in violence and gun crime rates

Individuals – Goosey et al. (2017)

Domestic Abuse Service Coordination (DASC) Program led to a reduction in harm for treatment couples

Individuals – Greenspan et al. (2005)

Second Responder Program led to significant reductions in abusive acts

Individuals – Jolin et al. (1998)

Domestic violence unit designed to increase arrests and prosecutions of offenders and provide follow-up victim empowerment services associated with decline in victim-reported subsequent violence

Individuals – Knoxville P.D. (2002)

Police-probation collaborative program participants more likely to successfully complete probation

Individuals – Martin & Sherman (1986)

Targeted offenders in selective apprehension program more likely to be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated

Individuals – Messing et al. (2015)

A police-social service resulted in fewer victimization of physical violence.

Individuals – Mizrachi (2019)

Victims who received the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) were less likely to experience future intimate partner violence

Individuals – Perrone et al. (2022)

Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program reduced misdemeanor and felony arrests, as well as felony cases

Individuals – Sherman & Berk (1984)

Arrest condition for domestic violence associated with significantly less offender recidivism compared to separation and mediation.

Individuals – Sherman et al. (2000) (Violent Offenders)

Restorative justice conferences can be effective in reducing repeat offending for violent offenders

Individuals – Spergel et al. (2002)

Comparison of 258 program juveniles with 96 comparison youth showed the program youth had arrest levels 18 percent lower than the comparison youth over a 4-year period.

Individuals – Thomas (1998)

Coordinated Agency Network (CAN) program reduced recidivism rates and increased successful completion of probation conditions

Individuals – White et al. (2021)

Madison Addiction Recovery Initiative (MARI) reduced recidivism among participants who completed the program

Individuals – Worrall & Gaines (2006)

Police/probation officer partnership for juvenile offenders associated with citywide reductions in assault, burglary, and theft arrests

Individuals – Esbensen (2002)

Students in Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program were less likely to join gangs in cross-sectional study. The longitudinal study, however, failed to find a programmatic effect.

Individuals – Esbensen et al. (2012)

Police-led programs for gang prevention aimed at reduction in gang membership, reduction in violent offending, and improved attitudes toward the police

Individuals – Goldstein et al. (2021)

Youth in a diversion program were significantly less likely to experience an arrest compared to control youth; Differences were not significant when comparing youth to a quasi-control matched group

Individuals – Harmon (1993)

Those that receive D.A.R.E. significantly less likely to start using alcohol in year after program; no impact on cigarette or marijuana use

Individuals – McCold & Wachtel (1998)

Violent offenders in restorative justice program have lower recidivism rates, but this is a selection effect, not a treatment effect; no difference among property offenders

Individuals – Pate & Hamilton (1992)

Arrest for domestic violence had a deterrent effect for employed offenders, but increased recidivism among unemployed offenders

Individuals – Ruiz (2021)

Domestic Violence Initiative (DVI) increased the likelihood of reporting repeat incidents but significantly reduced the average harm experienced during these incidents

Individuals – Shapland et al. (2008) (Northumbria – Adult Offenders)

Restorative justice conference had no effect on reconvictions for assault cases, but did lead to fewer reconvictions of property cases

Individuals – Sherman et al. (1992)

Arrest for domestic violence had deterrent effect for married, employed, white high school graduates, but was criminogenic for unemployed, unmarried, black high school drop outs

Individuals – Sherman et. al (1991)

Arrest for domestic violence had no effect on recidivism at six months, and short arrest increased recidivism after 12 months

Individuals – Wan et al. (2018)

The Safer Pathway program decreased domestic violence-related outcomes in some treatment locations but produced no effect or backfire effects in other locations

Individuals – Becker et al. (1992)

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) had no significant impact on drug use

Individuals – Brame et al. (2015)

Court-imposed no-contact orders (NCOs) had no impact on victim safety or offender recidivism

Individuals – Brennan et al. (2018)

Early diversion program for low-risk female offenders did not significantly impact the probability of rearrest or the time to rearrest

Individuals – Broner et al. (2004)

Diversion program intended for adults with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders did not significantly impact criminal recidivism

Individuals – Clayton et al. (1996)

No significant impact of D.A.R.E. on cigarette, alcohol, or marijuana use one year after and over five year follow up

Individuals – Davis & Taylor (1997)

Home visits after domestic violence failed to reduce repeat violence; Public education about domestic violence failed to reduce violence

Individuals – Davis et al. (2007)

No reduction in subsequent abuse for households that receive second responder within 24 hours or after 7 days

Individuals – Dunford (1992)

Arrest for domestic violence increased offense frequency at 12 months

Individuals – Ennett et al. (1994)

D.A.R.E. has no significant impact on smoking, alcohol use, or heavy drinking immediately after, 1 year after, and 2 years; after program

Individuals – Giblin (2002)

Juveniles participating in CAN (police/probation partnership) were more likely to have new technical violations than were juveniles on regular probation

Individuals – Hirschel et al. (1990)

Arrest for domestic violence increases official recidivism

Individuals – Koppensteiner et al. (2019)

Second Responder Program did not have a significant impact on the number of domestic violence incidents recorded by police

Individuals – Pate et al. (1992)

Follow-up visits by detectives for spousal assault did not reduce subsequent victim-reported offenses, threats, or property damage

Individuals – Perry et al. (2003)

D.A.R.E. has no significant impact on any of the outcome measures (self-reported tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use; violence, victimization)

Individuals – Ridgeway et al. (2011)

Letter to gun buyers informing them about gun laws has no impact on likelihood gun will become crime gun

Individuals – Ringwalt et al. (1991)

D.A.R.E has no significant impact on smoking, alcohol use, or use of inhalants

Individuals – Rose & Hamilton (1970)

Juvenile diversion and supervision program has no impact on juvenile recidivism

Individuals – Rosenbaum & Hanson (1998)

D.A.R.E has no significant overall impact on using drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol

Individuals – Saunders et al. (2016)

Predictive policing intervention targeting individuals at high risk for gun violence did not significantly impact the likelihood of becoming a shooting or homicide victim

Individuals – Shanahan et al. (2017)

Cautioning strategy for cannabis offenses had no significant impact on self-reported cannabis use

Individuals – Shapland et al. (2008) (London – Burglary)

Restorative justice conference had no effect on burglary offenders

Individuals – Shapland et al. (2008) (London – Robbery)

Restorative justice conference had no effect on robbery offenders

Individuals – Shapland et al. (2008) (Northumbria – Juveniles)

Restorative justice conference had no effect on juvenile offenders

Individuals – Sherman et al. (2000) (Juvenile Property Offenders)

Restorative justice conferences did not reduce offending of juvenile property offenders

Individuals – Sherman et al. (2000) (Juvenile Shoplifting Offenders)

Restorative justice conference had no effect for juvenile shoplifting offenders

Individuals – Small et al. (2019)

Removing firearms at the scene of IPV incidents was not significantly associated with subsequent IPV incidents

Individuals – Stover et al. (2009)

Domestic violence home-visit intervention (DVHVI) increased the likelihood of victims calling the police for subsequent incidents

Individuals – Stover et al. (2010)

Home visit program for domestic violence victims has no significant impact on reported violence

Individuals – Uchida & Swatt (2013) [Chronic Offender Component]

Targeting violent repeat offenders did not significantly reduce crime when implemented on its own.

Individuals – Williams-Taylor (2009)

Intensive supervision program for sex offenders has no significant impact on rates of general recidivism, sexual, violent, violent sexual or non-compliance recidivism

Individuals – Davis & Medina-Ariza (2001)

More elderly abuse incidents and calls to police reported in houses that receive home visit and education; those that receive home visits only call the police more, but don’t report more abuse

Individuals – Gottfredson et al. (2020)

Increase in school resource officers (SROs) led to an increase in drug and weapon-related offenses

Individuals – Hovell et al. (2006)

Those that receive Family Violence Response Team treatment have a 1.7 times greater rate of re-abuse

Individuals – Klein (1986)

More formal arrest processing increased recidivism

Individuals – Sherman et al. (2000) (Drunk Driving)

Restorative justice conference led to possible backfire effects (with caveats) in rehabilitating drunk drivers

Individuals – Sloboda et al. (2009)

Negative program effect for adolescent substance abuse prevention program on use of alcohol and cigarettes and no effect for marijuana use.

Individuals – Sorg (2015)

GunStat program did not reduce violent crime during treatment period and was associated with significantly higher levels of gun crime during post-treatment period

Individuals – Uchida et al. (2019)

Focused deterrence program led to quicker recidivism for treatment participants

  • Reset