HOW DO WE KNOW IF IT WORKS?
Below are four sets of briefs to complete (A, B, and C). Sometimes readings will be combined within a set of briefs. Remember, each set of briefs should only be 1-2 single spaced pages (so this assignment will likely be anywhere between 3-6 pages at the most). Feel free to type your answers directly into this document (don’t forget to put your name on it when you turn it in!). For this first brief, I also provide some tips to help you get used to writing briefs.
- Blomberg et al. (2016) Chapter 2
- How does Mears distinguish between evaluation and assessment?
- What are some bad policies Mears discusses and how can they be overcome? Tip: think about his discussion of the evaluation hierarchy for good policies.
- What does Mears mean by causal uncertainty?
- Chalmers (2003)
- How does Chalmers (2003) perceive evidence-based crime policy?
- Chalmers (2003) makes a very strong statement about why we need to be committed to evidence-based crime policy. Summarize his argument.
- How does Chalmers (2003) perceive/define the “harm” that could result from not taking an evidence-based approach?
- Given Chalmers (2003), do you agree with those who argue that there is a moral obligation or imperative for evidence-based crime policy? Explain why.
- Reflecting on Chalmers’ (2003) in light of Weisburd et al.’s (2001) findings, what role do organizations like the Campbell Collaboration play in evidence-based crime policy?
- Farrington (2003)
- For Farrington (2003), what does methodological quality depend on? Discuss these in some detail.
- How does Farrington (2003) critique the work of Sherman et al. (1998)? What does he suggest to move forward with scientific inquiry?
- What are the challenges posed by Pawson and Tilley as it relates to the tradition of evaluation? Discuss in some detail.
Blomberg, T. G., Brancale, J. M., Beaver, K. M., & Bales, W. D. (Eds.). (2016). Advancing criminology and criminal justice policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
