Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40620760›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental criminology2025

Then a miracle occurs: cause, effect, and the heterogeneity of criminal justice research.

Brandon Del Pozo, Steven Belenko, Faye S Taxman, Robin S Engel, Jerry Ratcliffe, Ian Adams, Alex R Piquero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental criminology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Brandon Del PozoDivision of General Internal Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, 111 Plain Street, Providence, RI 02903 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6481-2196
Steven BelenkoDepartment of Criminal Justice, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA.
Faye S TaxmanCenter for Advancing Correctional Excellence, George Mason University, Fairfax, USA.
Robin S EngelJohn Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Jerry RatcliffeDepartment of Criminal Justice, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA.
Ian AdamsDepartment of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA.
Alex R PiqueroDepartment of Sociology and Criminology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, USA.

Funding

Police Diversion to Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Mixed Methods StudyK01DA056654 · NIDA · RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL · PI Brandon del Pozo · 2022 to 2026
$878k
NIDA NIH HHS K01 DA056654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In "Cause, Effect, and the Structure of the Social World" (2023), Megan Stevenson makes a claim that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not had a significant effect in criminal justice settings. She then draws the conclusion that the gold standard for research designs, RCTs, are inherently incapable of doing so, demonstrating that the social world they intervene on is too complex, but also too resilient, to respond to the types of interventions that are evaluable by RCT. She calls the insistence that RCTs can work an "engineer's" view of the world, which she discards as a myth. The argument then conflates RCTs with other methods of generating and sustaining change in organizations and systems, and closes suggesting RCTs should be discarded for less rigorous but more sweeping means of social reform. This article proceeds as follows: It characterizes Stevenson's argument, which she asserts is empirical, as a de facto meta-analysis of criminal justice RCTs executed as a heuristic and presented in a narrative format. It argues that if a formal meta-analysis would be rendered invalid by violating established protocols, then a heuristic analysis that commits the same errors would be invalid as well. The analysis then presents the prohibitions on pooling studies with heterogeneous designs, interventions, outcomes, and metrics for the purpose of meta-analysis. It demonstrates that Stevenson pools a wide range of heterogenous studies, rendering her empirical meta-analytic claims problematic. It is true that many criminal justice RCTs have produced null or lackluster results-which also constitute an important outcome-and attempts to replicate significant findings have often been unsuccessful. This is not unique to criminal justice: psychology was recently in crisis when it was determined few of its most prominent studies could be replicated. However, less rigorous methods of reform do not solve this problem. Instead, more comprehensive research designs such as hybrid implementation/effectiveness trials can reveal aspects of our social world that impact external validity and generalizability. Findings from these studies can help illuminate the conditions that impact outcomes and sustainably modify highly resilient human behaviors. These methods arise from techniques in medicine and public health, which Stevenson brackets off as fundamentally different from criminal justice. This type of thinking may be the actual myth that prevents progress.

Indexed as

Criminal justiceImplementation scienceMeta-analysisMethodologyPseudoscienceRandomized controlled trialsReformReplicability

Identifiers

PMID40620760
PMCPMC12222364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.