Northeastern University Alternative Methods of Crime Prevention Article Response

ARTICLE 1:

In the 2013 article by Welsh and Pfeffer (one of our formerPh.D. students!), the authors claim that the growth of alternative (ornon-criminal justice) crime prevention approaches in past decades in theUnited States has been attributed largely to a loss of faith in thecriminal justice system. This loss of faith is mostly a function ofthree major research findings/claims: (1) in the 1970s, the claim that“nothing works” in the treatment of offenders; (2) in the 1970s,research evidence showing that traditional police practices had verylittle or no effect on crime rates; and (3) from the 1970s through theearly 1990s, the dramatic growth in the use of prisons with no evidenceof a decline in crime.

In your opinion, which one is the most important as anexplanation for the growth in alternative crime prevention approaches?And why is it the most important? In your response, give some thought tohow it may relate to developmental crime prevention, community crimeprevention, situational crime prevention, or some combination. (There isno right or wrong answer here. Dig into the article and let us knowwhat you think.)

ARTICLE 2:

In Welsh and Farrington (2007), there is a long, drawn-out discussionabout how evaluations used to assess the impact or effectiveness ofcrime prevention programs are not all made equal. Some are high-quality,providing a great deal of confidence in reported or observed effects;others are weak, providing little confidence in reported effects.Important to this discussion is the Scientific Methods Scale (SMS), a5-level instrument for assessing the rigor of evaluations based oninternal validity, and first developed by Sherman et al. (1997).Describe the key features of a level 3 evaluation on the SMS. Also, whatmakes level 3 evaluations so important? In your response, give someconsideration to key threats to internal validity.