PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Payment for environmental services (PES) remains high-risk strategy for climate change mitigation until rigorous impact evaluations can determine its effects

Programmes that provide economic incentives to reduce the negative environmental impact of land use are a popular means to reduce deforestation and degradation and mitigate climate change. In some cases they also aim to improve socio-economic outcomes. The effects of Payment for environmental services (PES) programmes on these outcomes, however, remain unclear due to the low quality of available evidence.

What is this review about?

Greenhouse gas is released by unsustainable practices in the land use sector. PES programmes seek to create positive environmental outcomes by providing an economic incentive to the owners and managers of environmental services in low- and middle-income countries to change their behaviour.

This review uses existing evidence to assess whether PES programmes have positive effects on environmental and socio-economic outcomes. It also assesses how these effects vary across different contexts and implementation strategies.

What is the aim of this review?

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) programmes on environmental and socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. The review summarises findings from 44 quantitative and 60 qualitative studies from 12 countries.

What studies are included?

Studies were included that evaluated a PES programme in low- and middle-income countries and targeted populations living in or near forests, agricultural land, wetlands, grasslands and mangroves.

Forty-four impact evaluations and 60 qualitative studies were included. They covered 18 programmes from 12 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

Ten of the 18 programmes had as their objectives the improvement of both environmental and socio-economic outcomes.

What are the main findings of this review?

PES may produce reduced deforestation, improved forest cover and increased household income. These findings are, however, based on low and very low quality evidence from a small number of countries, and should be treated with caution.

Qualitative data indicates that the effects will vary, depending on where and to whom projects are targeted, the quality of implementation, presence of governance structures, contextual factors, and attitudes towards environmental protection and towards PES itself.

What do the findings of the review mean?

Until higher quality research is conducted, the large-scale implementation of PES programmes should be considered a high-risk strategy for mitigating climate change.

Based on the current evidence, strong conclusions about the impact of PES cannot be made, however effective targeting and including strong governance structures may improve project results.

To address the evidence gap, funders and implementing agencies should collaborate to develop rigorous methods for impact evaluation. They should also invest in the collection and analysis of qualitative data that examines diverse research participants and follows change over longer periods.

How up-to-date is this review?

The review authors searched for studies in August and September 2017.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Focused deterrence is associated with moderate reductions in crime

A relatively small number of groups and persons are responsible for a disproportionate share of crime. Focused deterrence strategies attempt to reduce offending behaviour for specific types of crime. These strategies are associated with moderate overall reductions in crime.

Crime is not displaced to other areas, rather it is more likely that there is a diffusion of crime control benefits to adjacent areas and similar people and groups.

What is this review about?

Focused deterrence strategies combine law enforcement, community mobilisation, and social services in an attempt to reduce offending behaviour for specific crime types. A key feature of this crime control strategy is that the consequences of continued criminal offending and available social services are directly communicated to targeted subjects.

This review examines the relationship between focused deterrence policing and crime, and gives consideration to the different types of focused deterrence strategies and programme evaluation designs.

What is the aim of this review?

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of focused deterrence policing on crime. The review summarises and analyses results from 24 quasi-experimental evaluations of focused deterrence interventions, including 12 programmes targeting criminally active gangs or groups, nine programmes targeting open-air drug markets, and three programmes targeting high-risk individual offenders. All but one of the studies are from the USA.

What studies are included?

A total of 24 studies of focused deterrence policing interventions were identified. All studies were published from 2001 to 2015. Twenty-three studies were conducted in the USA and one in Scotland. None of the identified studies used a randomised controlled trial design.

What are the main findings of this review?

Is focused deterrence an effective approach to reducing criminal offending among problem persons and groups?

Yes. The available evidence suggests an overall reduction in crime when focused deterrence strategies are used. The largest reductions are generated by focused deterrence programmes that target criminally active gangs or groups, followed by interventions that target chronic individual offenders and drug market interventions.

Do some programmes work better than others?

Yes. Gang/group intervention programmes have the largest effect, followed by the high-risk individuals programmes, with the smallest effect from drug market intervention (DMI) programmes. DMI programmes are most likely to suffer implementation problems, which reduce effectiveness.

Does crime get displaced to other areas?

No. No studies found significant crime displacement effects into surrounding areas. There is some evidence of the diffusion of crime control benefits.

What do the findings of the review mean?

Findings from this review support the growing use of focused deterrence as a proactive crime reduction strategy. Practitioners and policymakers should continue to implement focused deterrence programmes to address serious crime problems.

The number of studies included in the updated review is more than double the number of studies included in the previous iteration of the review. However, despite the increase in eligible studies, no evaluations utilised a randomised controlled trial design. The growth of focused deterrence warrants more methodologically rigorous programme evaluations and further exploration into the specific components of the strategy, to improve our understanding into how the programme reduces crime.

How up-to-date is this review?

The review authors searched for studies up to October 2015.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Policing disorder through community and problem-solving policing is associated with reductions in crime, but aggressive, order maintenance approaches are not

Disorderly conditions are seen as a precursor to more serious crime, fear of crime, and neighbourhood decline. Policing disorder is associated with reductions in crime, but only when community and problem-solving tactics are used. Aggressive, order maintenance based approaches are not effective.

What is the aim of this review?

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of disorder policing interventions on crime. The review summarises evidence from 28 high-quality studies (representing 30 independent tests), including nine randomised controlled trials. Most the studies come from the USA.

What is this review about?

Policing social and physical disorderly conditions is rooted in the broken windows approach: disorder is a precursor to more serious crime, fear of crime, and neighborhood decline. Addressing disorder has become a central fixture of policing, especially in the USA. Yet, evaluations of the effectiveness of disorder policing strategies in controlling crime yield conflicting results.

Policing disorderly conditions can be divided into two main strategies: (1) Order maintenance or zero tolerance policing, where police attempt to impose order through strict enforcement; and (2) Community policing and problem-solving policing, where police attempt to produce order and reduce crime through cooperation with community members and by addressing specific recurring problems.

This review examined the effects of disorder policing strategies compared to traditional law enforcement actions (e.g., regular levels of patrol) on the rates of crime, including property crime, violent crime, and disorder/drug crime. This review also examined whether policing disorder actions at specific locations result in crime displacement (i.e., crime moving around the corner) or diffusion of crime control benefits (i.e., crime reduction in surrounding areas).

What studies are included?

A total of 28 disorder policing studies (representing 30 independent tests) met the criteria to be included in this review. The studies spanned the period from 1985 to 2012, and were mostly carried out in the USA. All of the studies used high-quality designs to evaluate the impact of the intervention; nine were randomised controlled trials. Twelve tests were completed in large cities (more than 500,000 residents), nine tests were completed in medium-sized cities (200,000 to 500,000 residents), and the other nine tests were completed in smaller cities. All of the tests were carried out in specific geographical settings, including small places (e.g., crime hot spots and problem buildings), smaller police-defined areas (e.g., patrol beats), neighbourhoods and selected stretches of highways, and larger police-defined areas (e.g., precincts and divisions).

What are the main findings of this review?

Do policing interventions focused on disorderly conditions reduce crime?

Yes, in addition to an overall reduction in crime, there is a reduction in property crime, violent crime, and disorder/drug crime when disorder policing interventions are implemented.

Do policing interventions focused on disorder result in crime being displaced or crime control benefits being diffused to surrounding areas?

Disorder policing interventions are associated with diffusion of crime control benefits in areas surrounding targeted locations. This conclusion is based on 15 tests that measured displacement or diffusion effects.

Of the two main strategies used in policing disorder, is one more effective than the other?

Yes, policing disorder through community and problem-solving is associated with reductions in crime. Aggressive, order maintenance approaches are not effective.

What do the findings of the review mean?

The types of strategies used by police departments to address disorderly conditions seem to matter in controlling crime, and this holds important implications for police-community relations, justice, and crime prevention. Further research is needed to understand the key programmatic elements that maximise the capacity of these strategies

How up-to-date is this review?

This review includes studies completed before 2013.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Hot spots policing is associated with reductions in crime

Hot spots policing is associated with small but meaningful reductions in crime at locations where criminal activities are most concentrated. Focusing police efforts at high activity crime places is more likely to produce a diffusion of crime prevention benefits into areas adjacent to targeted hot spots than crime displacement.

What is this review about?

Crime is concentrated in small places, or "hot spots," that generate half of all criminal events. Hot spots policing focuses police resources and attention on these high crime places. For the purpose of this review, hot spots programs must have consisted of police-led crime prevention efforts that targeted high-activity crime "places" rather than larger areas such as neighborhoods.

This review considers both randomized controlled experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of the effects of hot spots policing interventions on crime where the control group in each study received routine levels of traditional police enforcement tactics.

What is the aim of this review?

This Campbell systematic review assesses the preventive effects of focusing police efforts on crime "hot spots" as compared to traditional police crime control strategies.  The review summarises evidence from 65 studies containing 78 tests of hot spots policing interventions, including 27 randomized controlled trials and 38 quasi-experimental evaluations.

What studies are included?

A total of 65 studies containing 78 tests of hot spots policing interventions were identified. However, standardized effects sizes were only calculated for 73 main effects tests due to reporting deficiencies in three included studies.

All studies were published from 1989 to 2017: 51 studies were conducted in the USA, four in the UK, four in Sweden, and six in other countries.

What are the main findings of this review?

Does focusing crime prevention efforts on crime hot spots reduce crime?

Yes. Hot spots policing generates statistically-significant small reductions in overall crime and disorder in areas where the strategy is implemented.

These crime control gains were evident across specific categories of crime outcomes including drug offenses, disorder offenses, property crimes, and violent crimes.

Does policing crime hot spots inevitably produce crime displacement effects?

No. Overall, it is more likely that hot spots policing generates crime control benefits that diffuse into the areas immediately surrounding the targeted locations than displacing crime into nearby locations.

What do the findings of the review mean?

Findings from this review support hot spots policing as a proactive crime reduction strategy. Police departments should incorporate focusing resources at high-activity crime places as part of their broader approach to crime prevention.

The majority of studies included in the updated review have been published since the previous iteration of the review and utilized rigorous research designs.

Despite the drastic increase in eligible studies, only one study conducted a formal cost-benefit assessment of the hot spot policing intervention. The growth of hot spots policing warrants further empirical attention on the efficiency of hot spots policing for reducing crime.

How up-to-date is this review?

The review authors searched for studies up to February 2017.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Citizen engagement improves access to public services in low- and middle-income countries, but evidence on development outcomes is limited

Interventions promoting citizen engagement in public service management involve participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) mechanisms. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), these interventions are effective in improving active citizenship and service delivery, and may improve the responsiveness of service provider staff for services provided directly by public servants (for example, in health).

In contrast, interventions providing information to stimulate pressure on politicians are not usually effective in improving provider response or service delivery. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether these interventions are effective in improving wellbeing or the relationship between citizens and the state.

What is this review about?

Failures in governance lead to the exclusion of large portions of society from public services and to waste, fraud and corruption. This review assesses evidence for interventions promoting better governance of public services: participation (participatory planning), inclusion (involvement of marginalised groups), transparency (information about citizen rights or performance of public officials), and accountability (citizen feedback) mechanisms, known collectively as PITA mechanisms.

What is the aim of this review?

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of interventions to promote citizen engagement in public service management. The review synthesises evidence from 35 impact evaluations and 36 related studies of interventions promoting participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) mechanisms.

What studies are included?

The review includes impact evaluations relating to 35 PITA programmes from 20 LMICs. In addition, 36 qualitative and programmatic documents were included to strengthen understanding of implementation context and programme mechanisms.

What are the main findings of this review?

Citizen engagement interventions (i) are usually effective in improving intermediate user engagement outcomes, for example, meeting attendance and contributions to community funds; (ii) improve access to and quality of services but not service use outcomes; (iii) can lead to improvements in some wellbeing outcomes such as health and productive outcomes; (iv) may improve tax collection; but (v) do not usually lead to changes in provider action outcomes such as public spending, staff motivation and corruption. There may be an exception where there is direct interaction between citizens and service providers in the regular delivery of services. Interventions providing performance information do not generally improve access or lead to improvements in service quality.

Only interventions focused on services delivered by front-line staff (e.g., in health) achieve positive outcomes. Those delivered without public interaction (e.g., roads) do not. However, engagement with civil society organisations and interest groups may lead to better outcomes for services accessed independently of providers. Inclusive citizen engagement programmes have at least as big an effect on user engagement and access to services as less inclusive approaches.

Many interventions experienced challenges stemming from a lack of positive engagement with supply-side actors, whose power the interventions often sought to diminish. Interventions implemented with the strong support of the targeted service providers were better able to realise positive impacts.

Approaches to citizen-service provider engagement appear to work more effectively when implemented through phased, facilitated collaborative processes rather than one-off accountability meetings that are seen as confrontational.

Only four studies present any data on intervention costs. This limited the potential for any analysis of comparisons across programmes and settings.

In interpreting the findings, it must be noted that each individual outcome is reported in only a few studies and that included studies have important methodological weaknesses with risks of bias arising from weak design, analysis and reporting.

What do the findings of this review mean?

For policy and programme managers: A collaborative rather than confrontational approach with the service providers whose services are under scrutiny is more likely to be effective. Engaging communities may require using civil society organisations to facilitate the community’s participation. Programme design should ensure positive engagement with supply-side actors within the intervention setting.

For researchers: More high-quality studies are needed, comparing different approaches to improving service delivery, paying attention to complete description of the different approaches being compared. Since implementation is a crucial factor, mixed methods studies should be the norm, and will help focus on equity considerations which have been neglected. Finally, there should be standardisation of indicators in PITA studies.

How up-to-date is this review?

The review authors searched for studies up to March 2018.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Cognitive‐behavioural treatment for amphetamine‐type stimulants‐use disorders

What was the aim of this review?

The aim of this Cochrane review was to find out whether cognitive‐behavioural treatment (CBT) is effective to treat people with amphetamine‐type stimulants (ATS)‐use disorders. Researchers in the Drugs and Alcohol Group of Cochrane collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found two studies.

Key messages

The current evidence was inadequate to draw any firm evidence‐based treatment recommendations for the client population.

What was studied in the review?

ATS are a group of synthetic stimulants and their use has been widespread globally. These types of drugs are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia (difficulty sleeping), mood disturbances, cognitive impairments (difficulty thinking and understanding), paranoia (irrational feeling that people are 'out to get you'), hallucinations (where someone experiences something that does not exist outside their own mind) and delusion (a mistaken belief).

Currently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS‐use disorder. However, CBT is often the first choice of treatment. It is a psychological treatment (talking therapy) approach to modify distorted thoughts and beliefs, and maladaptive behaviours (things that people do to stop them from adjusting to situations). The effectiveness of CBT for other substance‐use disorders (e.g. alcohol‐, opioid‐ and cocaine‐use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS‐use disorder. These types of therapies are expected to prevent relapse and decrease drug use.

What are the main results of the review?

The review authors found two eligible studies. Both studies were conducted in Australia. One study compared a single session of brief CBT to a waiting‐list control where participants received no treatment during the study period. One study compared web‐based CBT to a waiting‐list control. Both studies were funded by the Australian Government of Health and Ageing.

The review showed that when participants received CBT, compared to waiting‐list control, there was no difference. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT was effective or ineffective at treating ATS‐use disorders.

How up‐to‐date is this review

The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to July 2018.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Adaptive teaching and individualization for K‐12 students improve academic achievement

Teaching methods that individualize and adapt instructional conditions to K‐12 learners’ needs, abilities, and interests help improve learning achievement. The most important variables are the teacher's role in the classroom as a guide and mentor and the adaptability of learning activities and materials.

What is the aim of this review?

This Campbell systematic review assesses the overall impact on student achievement of processes and methods that are more student‐centered versus less student‐centered. It also considers the strength of student‐centered practices in four teaching domains.

• Flexibility: Degree to which students can contribute to course design, selecting study materials, and stating learning objectives.
• Pacing of instruction: Students can decide how fast to progress through course content and whether this progression is linear or iterative.
• Teacher's role: Ranging from authority figure and sole source of information, to teacher as equal partner in the learning process.
• Adaptability: Degrees of manipulating learning environments, materials, and activities to make them more student‐centered.

What is this review about?

Teaching in K‐12 classrooms involves many decisions about the appropriateness of methods and materials that both provide content and encourage learning.

This review assesses the overall impact on student achievement of processes and methods that are more student‐centered versus less student‐centered (and thus more teacher‐centered, i.e., more under the direct control of a teacher). It also considers in which instructional dimensions the application of more of these student‐centered practices is most appropriate, and the strength of student‐centered practices in each of four teaching domains.

What studies are included?

This review presents evidence from 299 studies (covering 43,175 students in a formal school setting) yielding 365 estimates of the impact of teaching practices. The studies spanned the period 2000–2017 and were mostly carried out in the United States, Europe, and Australia.

What is the overall average effect of more versus less student‐centered instruction on achievement outcomes? Which demographic variables moderate the overall results?

More student‐centered instructional conditions have a moderate positive effect on student achievement compared to less student‐centered.

Which dimensions of instruction are most important in promoting better achievement through the application of more versus less student‐centered instruction? Do these dimensions interact?

The teacher's role has a significantly positive impact on student achievement; more student‐centered instruction produces better achievement. Pacing of instruction/learning—where learners have more choice over setting the pace and content navigation of learning activities—has a significant effect in the opposite direction; i.e., a significantly negative relationship. There is no relationship between adaptability and flexibility and student achievement.

There are interactive effects. The teacher's role combined with adaptability produces stronger effects, whereas flexibility (greater involvement of students in course design and selection of learning materials and objectives) has the opposite effect; it reduces the effectiveness of teacher's role on learning outcomes.

Special education students perform significantly better in achievement compared to the general population.

Three other factors—grade level; Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) versus non‐STEM subjects; individual subjects—do not have any effect on the impact of the intervention.

What do the findings of this review mean?

This review confirms previous research on the effectiveness of student‐centered and active learning. It goes further in suggesting the teacher's role promotes effective student‐centered learning, and excessive student control over pacing appears to inhibit it.

An important element of these findings relates to the significant combination of teacher's role and adaptability, in that it suggests the domain in which the teacher's role should focus.

Since adaptability relates to increasing the involvement of students in more student‐centered activities, the evidence suggests that instruction that involves activity‐based learning, either individually or in groups, increases learning beyond the overall effect found for more student‐centered versus less student‐centered activities.

Various student‐centered approaches, such as cooperative learning and peer‐tutoring, have been found to accomplish this goal.

How up‐to‐date is this review?

This meta‐analysis contains studies that date from 2000–2017.