Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults

“…5 Additionally, they rated each study using a scale that they and their colleagues at the University of Maryland developed specifically for systematic reviews of correctional programs (Sherman et al, 1997). This scale, referred to as the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (the Maryland SMS), classifies studies as either experimental or quasi-experimental.…”

“…This protocol was developed with close attention to the review procedures used in the U.S. Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse (2011), as well as the procedures used in the University of Maryland's "Preventing Crime" report (Sherman et al, 1997). The resulting protocol, which is displayed in Appendix D, included four worksheets.…”

“…As noted in Chapter One, we chose the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, which was developed for the 1997 Preventing Crime report published by University of Maryland researchers (Farrington et al, 2002;Sherman et al, 1997). The Maryland SMS rates studies on a five-point scale, where Level 5 is the most rigorous, indicating a well-executed randomized controlled trial with low attrition; Level 4 is a quasi-experimental design with very similar treatment and comparison groups; Level 3 is a quasi-experimental design with somewhat dis-similar treatment and comparison groups but reasonable controls for differences; Level 2 is a quasi-experimental design with substantial baseline differences between the treatment and comparison groups that may not be well controlled for; and Level 1 is a study with no separate comparison group that does not receive the treatment.…”

“…We rated the evidence from each study according to its ability to establish causal inference, using two separate but substantively similar evidencerating scales-the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS) (Sherman et al, 1997), which is familiar to those in the criminal justice community, and the U.S. Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse (2011) rating scheme, which is familiar to those in the field of education. In the remainder of this chapter, we elaborate in greater detail on each step of our methodological approach.…”

How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation

“…Wilson and his team sought to address some limitations in Lipton et al's work, in particular by using formal meta-analytic techniques (techniques that were not yet developed when the Lipton et al study was conducted), which average findings of multiple studies into a single parameter of program or "treatment group" efficacy. Additionally, they rated each study using a scale that they and their colleagues at the University of Maryland developed specifically for systematic reviews of correctional programs (Sherman et al, 1997). This scale, referred to as the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, ranges from 1 to 5, and accords the highest rating (5) to well-executed randomized control trials and the lowest rating (1) to studies that lack a comparison group.…”