Better evidence for a better world

Campbell evidence and gap maps

Coming soon – Campbell EGMs are a new evidence synthesis product. Plain language summaries of our EGMs will be published on this website. The interactive EGMs and full EGM reports will be available in our journal on the Wiley Online Library platform: click here.



Learn more about Campbell EGMs

Other EGMs

Campbell has produced maps on other topics, sometimes in partnership with other organisations.



See our other EGMs
Better evidence for a better world
Better evidence for a better world

Better evidence for a better world (173)

Additional Info

  • Authors Brian Reichow, Erin Barton, Brian Boyd, Kara Hume
  • Published date 2014-11-03
  • Coordinating group(s) Education
  • Type of document Review
  • Title Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.9

Additional Info

  • Authors Jos Vaessen, Ana Rivas, Maren Duvendack, Richard Palmer Jones, Frans Leeuw, Ger van Gils, Ruslan Lukach, Nathalie Holvoet, Johan Bastiaensen, Jorge Garcia Hombrados, Hugh Waddington
  • Published date 2014-11-03
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development
  • Type of document Review
  • Title The effect of microcredit on women’s control over household spending in developing countries
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.8

Additional Info

  • Authors Hugh Waddington, Birte Snilstveit, Jorge Garcia Hombrados, Martina Vojtkova, Jock Anderson, Howard White
  • Published date 2014-09-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Education, International Development
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Farmer field schools for improving farming practices and farmer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/CSR.2014.6
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Farmer field schools improve agricultural practices, yields and incomes in small pilot programmes, but not in large-scale programmes

    Farmer field schools improve farmers’ knowledge and adoption of better practices, and increase agricultural production and income. However, knowledge of better practices does not spread to neighbouring farmers who do not participate in the program, and large-scale programmes are not effective.

    What is this review about?

    The purpose of farmer field schools is to improve farmers’ skills to empower them to make better decisions. Different programmes have different objectives, but they often aim to reduce pesticides use, promote better farming practices and boost yields or income. Field schools use facilitators who employ participatory, experiential learning methods over an entire growing season. For example, farmer field schools use ‘practice plots’ where farmers can compare results from different farming methods. In contrast to traditional agricultural extension projects, which mainly teach simple practices such as applying fertilisers, farmer field schools often teach holistic techniques, such as integrated pest management.

    Farmer field schools have been widely used across Asia, Africa and Latin America, reaching an estimated 10–15 million farmers.

    This review examines the effectiveness of farmer field schools in changing farmer knowledge and practice, and improving yields, income, environmental impact and farmer empowerment.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell Systematic Review examines the effectiveness of farmer field schools in improving intermediate outcomes (such as knowledge and pesticide use) and final outcomes (such as agricultural yields, incomes and empowerment) in low- and middle-income countries, as well as implementation factors associated with programme success and failure. The review sythesises evidence from 92 impact evaluations, of which 15 were of sufficient quality for policy-oriented findings, and 20 qualitative studies.

    What studies are included?

    The review includes 92 impact evaluation studies conducted in low or middle-income countries. The review also includes 20 qualitative evaluations of the barriers to and enablers of change in farmer field school projects.

    What are the effects of farmer field schools on agricultural and environmental outcomes?

    Farmer field schools improve farmers’ knowledge and adoption of beneficial practices, and reduce overuse of pesticides. This leads to positive outcomes for farmers: on average, a 13 per cent increase in agricultural yields and a 20 per cent increase in income. Farmer field schools also reduce pesticide use and environmental degradation. However, the evidence for these outcomes comes from short-term evaluations of pilot programmes, and no studies with a low risk of bias are available.

    In programmes that were delivered at a national scale, studies conducted more than two years after implementation did not show any positive outcomes from the programme. For large-scale programmes, recruiting and training appropriate facilitators was problematic.

    What are other outcomes of farmer field schools?

    Empowerment is a major objective of many farmer field schools, but few rigorous studies collected information on this outcome. A few qualitative studies suggest participating farmers feel more confident.

    Farmers who do not participate in farmer field schools do not learn from neighbours who do participate. The complex concepts taught in farmer field schools may be difficult to learn through conversations and self-study, so the experience gained in farmer field schools may be a key reason the intervention works.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    Farmer field schools can be effective in specific contexts and may be suitable for gradual scale-up, but are unlikely to be suitable for large-scale problems. However, the evidence base on large-scale implementation of farmer field schools is limited. Hence more rigorous studies, examining the implementation and effectiveness of nationwide programmes, are needed.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until October 2012.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Sean Grant, Amanda Parsons, Jennifer Burton, Paul Montgomery, Kristen Underhill, Evan Mayo-Wilson
  • Published date 2014-05-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Social Welfare
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Home visits for prevention of impairment and death in older adults
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.3
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Home visits appear not to be effective, but better evidence may show some benefits for some groups from some interventions

    Home visits by health and social care professionals aim to prevent cognitive and functional impairment in older adults, thus reducing institutionalisation and prolonging life. Overall, home visits do not achieve these aims. Higher quality evidence is needed to determine how and for whom home visits may be effective.

    What did the review study?

    Home visits by health and social care professionals are a preventive intervention targeted primarily towards older adults. Their main aim is to maintain the health and autonomy of community-dwelling older adults. This type of preventive intervention involves strategies to reduce a variety of risk factors older adults face for morbidity and mortality relating to physical, functional, psychological, environmental and social issues.

    This review examines the effectiveness of home visits in reducing impairment, institutionalization, and death in older adults. Factors that may moderate effects are identified.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of home visits in preventing impairment, institutionalization, and death in older adults, as well as identifying factors that may moderate effects. The review summarises findings from 64 studies.

    Fourteen of the studies were undertaken in Great Britain, and the USA each, 11 in Canada, 5 in the Netherlands, 3 in Japan, 4 in Australia and New Zealand each, 2 each in Denmark, Taiwan, and Sweden, and 1 each in Switzerland, Finland and Italy.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies are randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of visits by health or social care professionals (not directly related to recent hospital discharge) for persons aged 65 years and above who are living at home. Less than 50% of the study population had to be without dementia.

    A total of 64 studies with 28,642 participants were included. All studies are from developed countries, with the largest number from the USA and the UK, with 14 studies each.

    What are the main results in this review?

    Overall home visits are not effective in maintaining the health and autonomy of community-dwelling older adults. Preventive home visits did not reduce absolute mortality, and did not have a significant overall effect on the number of people who were institutionalised.

    There is high quality evidence of no effect on falls from interventions targeting fall prevention. There is low quality evidence of small statistically significant positive effects for functioning and quality of life.

    It is possible that some programmes have modest effects on institutionalisation and hospitalisation. However, heterogeneity in target population and intervention design, as well as poor reporting of in studies of design, implementation and the control condition make this difficult to determine.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    Home visits for community-dwelling older adults do not significantly reduce mortality and morbidity. Estimates of treatment effects were statistically precise. So further small studies of multi-component interventions compared with usual care would be unlikely to change the conclusion.

    However, there is a possibility that there may be beneficial effects of some interventions for some populations. Poor reporting of how interventions and comparisons were implemented means these cannot be identified in this review. If researchers continue evaluations on these types of interventions, a clear theory of change describing the programme theory of change and implementation is needed, and all measured outcomes must be reported.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until December 2012.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Clare Toon, Kurinchi Gurusamy
  • Published date 2014-05-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Forensic nurse examiners vs doctors for the forensic examination of rape and sexual assault complainants
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.5
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Forensic nurses provide cheaper and better clinical care for rape and sexual assault complainants than doctor counterparts

    Sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE) or Forensic nurse examiners (FNE) are fully qualified nurses, trained to gather forensic evidence in rape and sexual assault cases. This review compares the reliability and efficacy of FNE/SANE health professionals with that of doctors. FNE/SANE provides cheaper services and better clinical care. However, more research is needed, as the evidence base is weak.

    What did the review study?

    In the UK incidents of rape and sexual assaults are referred to a sexual assault referral centre (SARC). These are typically headed by forensic doctors who conduct forensic examinations, collecting and documenting findings and preparing statements for court when requested by the police. In the United States, the equivalent institution for SARCs are headed by sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE).

    This review compares the reliability and efficacy of forensic nurse examiners (FNE) with that of doctors for the forensic examinations of rape and sexual assault complaints.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review compares the reliability and efficacy of foreign nurse examiners/sexual assault nurse examiners with that of doctors for the forensic examinations of rape and sexual assault complaints. The review summarise findings from eight studies conducted in the USA and UK. The participants were complainants of rape or sexual assaults examined by SANE and non-SANE health professionals. A total of 2,700 participants were included in the studies with 1,223 complainants cared for by a SANE health professional and 1,477 by a non-SANE health professional.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies reported on the following outcomes using quasi-experimental trial designs: complainant quality of life, conviction and prosecution rates, complainant mortality within 30 days, time from complain to examination, provision of STI, pregnancy and HIV prophylaxis, collection and documentation of rape kits and forensic examination, number of rape kits admissible as evidence, and the average cost per price. Participants include complainants of rape or sexual assaults regardless of age or gender. The comparison group comprised of participants examined and treated by a non-SANE health professional.

    A total of 8 studies consisting of 2,700 participants were included in the final evaluation. The studies were conducted in the UK and USA.

    What are the main findings from this review?

    Treatment by forensic nurses results in better outcomes than treatment by doctors in a number of cases. Complainants receive better medical care: they are more likely to have a forensic examination (rape kit) and to have it documented, and they are more likely to receive STI and pregnancy prophylaxis than those in the non-SANE group.

    More rape kits in the SANE group were admissible as evidence in court from complainants handled by forensic nurses than doctors. However, no difference was found in conviction or prosecution rates. There was no data available on the complainant quality of life.

    Sexual assault nurse examiners are less expensive than their doctor counterparts.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    The main results presented in this review show that FNEs/SANEs are better in terms of providing better medical care and cheaper services than doctors for the forensic examinations of rape and sexual assault complaints. However due to the limited data available to this review, the evidence-base for this conclusion is weak and as such, the evidence is insufficient to support making any significant changes to current services provided for rape and sexual assault complainants.

    The most important outcome to be considered was the quality of life of the complainants. However, there was no data available on that. Further research is thus needed to investigate the quality of life of the complainants post rape and forensic examination, both on the short and long-term. Additionally, studies evaluating the overall quality and efficiency of nurse and doctor-led services with all the outcomes listed above should be conducted on a much larger scale than to establish a stronger evidence-base.

    Finally, research is necessary to identify the barriers to the implementation of a nurse-led service for the forensic examination of complainants of rape and sexual assault, particularly in the UK.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until February 2012.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Sally Simpson, Melissa Rorie, Mariel Elise Alper, Natalie Schell-Busey, William Laufer, N. Craig Smith
  • Published date 2014-05-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Corporate crime deterrence
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.4
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Corporate crime: laws and regulations have only small effects on corporations

    Laws have a modest effect on preventing non-compliance among firms and for the geographic unit governed by the law, but not on individuals. Regulatory policy deters non-compliance among individuals but not companies. Using more than one intervention at the same time was found to have a small and consistent deterrent effect both on individuals and corporations.

    What is this review about?

    Corporate crime includes crimes committed by individual employees and those committed by institutions. Some offences are minor violations. Others are more serious and complicated, involving multiple organisations, possibly across national boundaries.

    There is a lack of high-quality studies. The limited data on corporate crime is scattered, reporting is often inconsistent, and the quality and methods of research on corporate crime varies widely.

    Criminology has focused more on street crime rather than corporate crime. This lack has made it difficult to build evidence-based policies for corporate crime prevention and control.

    The review examines the effectiveness of formal legal and administrative strategies by law enforcement agencies, legislative bodies, and regulatory bodies to lower the risk of non- compliance at both the organisational level and individual level.                

     What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of interventions to deter corporate crime. The review examines the effectiveness of formal legal and administrative strategies to lower the risk of non-compliance. The authors summarized 106 studies, and the interventions are grouped into six intervention categories, each with sub-categories. The intervention groups are: (1) laws, (2) punitive sanctions (e.g. arrest, fines, or a likelihood of prosecution), (3) non-punitive actions by regulatory agencies (e.g. cease and desist orders) (4) regulatory policies (e.g. company inspections), (5) other sanctions, and (6) multiple treatments.

    What studies are included?

    This systematic review summarizes data from 106 studies of corporate crime prevention and control. These studies included a wide range of experimental and non-experimental methodologies using data from a wide variety of data sources, e.g. from official agencies, corporate reports, and survey responses.

    Six treatment types were identified: (1) laws, (2) punitive sanctions such as arrest, fines, or a likelihood of prosecution, (3) non-punitive sanctions by regulatory agencies such as cease and desist orders (4) regulatory policies, e.g. company inspections, and (5) multiple treatments.

    How effective are interventions to deter non-compliance?

    Legal interventions have a small deterrent effect on company non-compliance and at the geographical level. There is not enough data to determine the effects of legal interventions on deterring individual offending.

    Regulatory interventions have a modest but consistent deterrent effect on individual offending. Their effects on deterrence at the company level were mixed.

    The use of more than one intervention at the same time was found to have a small but consistent effect on deterring non-compliance among individuals and among corporations.

    Evidence on the effects of the other interventions on non-compliance was mixed. Conclusions about their effects therefore cannot be drawn.

    Overall, the quality of evidence was low, with several contradictory findings. Older studies were more likely to find significant effects, but this may reflect weaker study designs.

    What are the research and policy implications of this review?

    Given the potentially serious impacts of corporate crime, policy makers and decision makers need to identify ways to reduce corporate crime. However, the basic findings of this review are inconclusive. There is an urgent need for high-quality empirical studies of interventions to deter and control illegal behaviours. This research can be informed by specific insights reported in this review.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The search was completed in 2012.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Marc Winokur, Amy Holtan, Keri Batchelder
  • Published date 2014-03-03
  • Coordinating group(s) Social Welfare
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Kinship care for the safety, permanency and well-being of children removed from the home for maltreatment
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.2
  • Records available in English, Norwegian, Spanish, French
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    The health and well-being of children placed in kinship care is better than that of children in foster care

    The behavioural and mental health, and the well-being of children placed in kinship care is better than that of children placed in foster care. Children in kinship care experience fewer placement disruptions and incidents of institutional abuse. The likelihood that guardianship is awarded to relatives is higher for children in kinship care compared to foster care.

    There are no differences between kinship and foster care for the rates of reunification with birth parents, the length of stay in placement, children’s educational attainment, the strength of family relations or the degree to which developmental and physician services are utilised. However, children in foster care are more likely to utilise mental health services and to be adopted, which removes any involvement of their birth parents in their upbringing.

    What did the review study?

    Kinship care - the placement of children with a family related to the child - is increasingly utilised in many Western countries as an alternative to placing children who have been maltreated in residential settings or with unrelated foster families.

    This review examines the effect of kinship care compared to foster care on the safety, permanency and well-being of children removed from their home for maltreatment. Outcomes include children’s behavioural health, mental health, placement stability and permanency, educational attainment, family relations, service utilisation, and re-abuse.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines whether kinship care is more effective than foster care in ensuring the safety, permanency and wellbeing of children removed from their home for maltreatment. The review summarizes findings from 102 studies involving 666,615 children. 71 of these studies were included in meta-analyses.

    What studies are included?

    Studies included in this review compare data on the safety, permanency and well-being of children placed in kinship care with data for children placed in foster care.

    The review includes 102 studies, all of which were controlled experimental or quasi-experimental studies: 89 of were conducted in the USA, and the remainder in Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, UK, Israel, Sweden and Australia.

    Is kinship care more effective than foster care in ensuring the safety, permanency and well-being of children removed from their home for maltreatment?

    Children in kinship care have better behavioural and mental health than children in foster care, i.e. fewer internalising and externalising behaviours, better adaptive behaviours, fewer psychiatric disorders and better emotional health. They also experience greater stability and permanency in their placement and suffer from less institutional abuse than children in foster care. Also, the chance of relatives being awarded guardianship is greater for children in kinship care than for those in foster care.

    Children in foster care are more likely to be adopted than children in kinship care, and they utilise mental health services to a greater degree than children in kinship care.

    No differences between children in kinship and in foster care are found for the utilisation of other public services than mental health services (i.e. developmental services, or physician services), or for educational attainment, the rate of reunification with birth parents, or for the strength of their relations and attachment to their family.

    Some of the findings are context specific, notably the lesser support which may be given to kinship carers compared to foster carers, and whether permanency of the kinship or foster arrangement, adoption or reunification is the preferred end goal.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    Kinship care is a viable option for the children that need to be removed from the home for maltreatment. However, policy issues remain to balance the cost-effectiveness of kinship care with a possible need for increased levels of caseworker involvement and service delivery.

    A considerable number of the included studies showed weaknesses in their methodologies and designs. There is a need to conduct more high quality quantitative studies of the effects of kinship care based on robust longitudinal designs and psychometrically sound instruments.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    This review includes studies published between March 2007 and March 2011.

  • Norwegian

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Norwegian.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

  • French

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in French.

Additional Info

  • Authors Steven Lawry, Cyrus Samii, Ruth Hall, Aaron Leopold, Donna Hornby, Farai Mtero
  • Published date 2014-01-02
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2014.1
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Land property rights interventions improve agricultural productivity and investment in Latin America and Asia, but less in Africa

    Land property rights interventions increase investment, agricultural productivity and farmer incomes in Latin America and Asia but have weaker effects in Africa. But there can also be negative social outcomes such as displacing the poor and reducing women’s access to land.

    What is this review about?

    Farmers who have secure land rights can invest in long-term improvements to their farms without worrying that their land will be confiscated. Formalizing property rights may improve agricultural productivity, increase farmer income and improve access to credit.

    The most common approach to strengthening land rights in Latin America and Asia is to convert communal or non-demarcated rural land to freehold title, then register rights to the land in an official registry. In Africa, the more common approach is to demarcate and register existing customary rights. Underlying ownership remains with the state, and land sales are often restricted. This review examines the evidence on the impacts of such interventions on agricultural and livelihood outcomes in rural areas in low and middle-income countries.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell Systematic Review examines the effect of interventions to strengthen land property rights on outcomes such as investment, agricultural productivity and farmer incomes in rural areas in low and middle-income countries. The review summarises evidence from 20 quantitative studies (quasi-experimental studies with statistical adjustment for bias) and nine qualitative studies.

    What studies are included?

    The review includes 20 quantitative studies with quasi-experimental study designs with statistical adjustment for bias, and nine qualitative studies. The studies were conducted in Latin America, South Asia, East Asia and Africa, and each compared households or land parcels where the interventions did and did not occur. The time between intervention and assessment ranged from two years to 44 years.

    No studies of sufficient quality were found on another kind of land property right intervention: statutory recognition of customary land rights at a legal status equal to state and private ownership, and registration of these rights in an official registry).

    What are the main findings of this review?

    What are the effects of agricultural and livelihood outcomes of land property rights interventions?

    Land property rights improve productivity, consumption expenditure and income. However, caution is needed in interpreting this finding as there are few high-quality studies available.

    Where are land property rights interventions effective?

    Land property rights interventions have significant effects in Latin America and Asia. In Africa, the effects are positive, but much weaker. Landholders in Africa may have sufficient security from customary tenure arrangements and therefore have less need for formalization. They may also have less ability to invest in their farms after gaining land rights, due to lower incomes. And tenure reforms may not be coupled adequately with investments in training, roads, or other forms of “public capital.”

    What are the other outcomes of land property rights interventions?

    Qualitative studies show that social outcomes such as displacement, conflict or gender equality are unpredictable and sometimes negative, such as displacing the poor and reducing women’s access to land.

    How has this intervention worked?

    The studies suggest that land property rights interventions contribute to welfare through improved perceived security and resulting long-term investment. No studies showed that land property rights interventions improve access to credit.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    Land property rights interventions are promising in terms of economic outcomes but the context should be considered carefully, because benefits may not outweigh negative social consequences, especially in areas with strong existing customary land rights. More research is needed on social outcomes.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for qualitative and quantitative studies published until October 2012; the search for qualitative studies was updated in July 2013. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in January 2014.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Heather Strang, Lawrence W. Sherman, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel Woods, Barak Ariel
  • Published date 2013-11-04
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Title Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2013.12
  • Records available in English, Norwegian, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Face-to-face restorative justice conferences are cost-effective in reducing reoffending and increasing victim satisfaction

    Face-to-face restorative justice conferences (RJCs) between offenders and victims have a modest but highly cost-effective impact on reoffending. Victims’ satisfaction with the handling of their cases is consistently higher among those who attend RJCs, compared to those dealt with solely by standard criminal justice processes, usually the courts.

    What is this review about?

    Restorative justice approaches attempt to repair the harms caused by a crime rather than harming the offender. This review covers face-to-face RJCs in which the offender meets the victims of the crime to discuss the offence and its consequences.

    During face-to-face RJCs participants describe how they are connected to the crime, victims describe the harm caused, and everyone – including the offender – talks about how the harm might be repaired.

    This review compares the effects of face-to-face restorative justice conferencing with standard criminal justice alone on (a) repeat offending for a two-year period after the disposal of the case and (b) measures of victim satisfaction.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of face-to-face restorative justice conferences on repeat offending and victim satisfaction. The systematic review includes 10 studies.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies have all the following characteristics: (1) a randomized design to test the effects of face-to-face RJCs compared with standard criminal justice alone; (2) a report on face-to-face RJCs between at least one victim of a crime and at least one of the offenders involved; (3) provide data on the frequency of convictions or re-arrest for two years after the disposal of the case in a way which allows calculation of the effects of both treatments; and (4) published in English after 1994.

    Ten eligible studies were identified from the UK (7), Australia (2), and the USA (1). Different experiments randomly assigned cases to face-to-face RJC; some occurred at pre-trial diversion from prosecution, some occurred after conviction prior to sentencing, and others after offenders had been jailed or were on probation. The eligible studies included violent crime and property crime, as well as both youth and adult offenders.

    How effective are face-to-face RJC interventions?

    The average effect of the ten studies indicated that face-to-face RJCs resulted in offenders committing significantly less crime than their counterparts randomly assigned to standard criminal justice alone. The effect of RJCs on violent crime is larger than its effects on property crime.

    For victims, again comparing those whose cases were assigned to RJCs with those assigned to standard criminal justice, those taking part in face-to-face RJCs express higher levels of satisfaction with the handling of their cases, are more likely to receive an apology from offenders and rate these apologies as sincere, be less inclined to want to seek revenge, and suffer less from post traumatic stress symptoms.

    What are the implications of this review for policy makers and decision makers?

    Compared with standard criminal justice, usually through the courts, face-to-face RJCs reduce the frequency of subsequent crimes among offenders who are willing to take part in these programmes and whose victims are also willing to consent to RJCs.

    The effects of face-to-face RJCs on the frequency of subsequent offending are strongest when these programmes are in addition to conventional justice procedures. The use of face-to-face RJCs appears to be highly cost effective: data from the seven UK experiments indicates that the value of benefits of averted crimes is eight times the cost of delivering RJCs.

    What are the research implications of this review?

    Recruitment and retention for face-to-face RJCs among victims and offenders requires skill and more attention is needed about how to increase uptake.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The search was completed in 2012. This Campbell systematic review was published on 1 November 2013.

  • Norwegian

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Norwegian.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Ben Parker, William Turner
  • Published date 2013-11-04
  • Coordinating group(s) Social Welfare
  • Type of document Review
  • Title Psychoanalytic/psychodynamic psychotherapy for children and adolescents who have been sexually abused
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2013.13
Page 9 of 18

Contact us

  • P.O. Box 222 Skøyen
    0213 Oslo
    Norway
  • +47 2107 8100
  • info@campbellcollaboration.org