Abstract
This article aligns the content of this volume with the 2021–2024 priorities of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). NIJ’s mission has always been to advance justice by supporting research that can inform efforts to reduce crime and enhance public safety. This article explores the intersection of crime prevention and social justice, with an emphasis on research that incorporates the perspectives of those most impacted by crime and the criminal justice system. We discuss NIJ’s efforts during our tenures there to employ innovative methodologies to better understand the needs and perceptions of people impacted by crime, and we highlight the importance of reaching practitioner audiences in ways that promote the implementation of evidence through initiatives like Evidence to Action and the LEADS Scholars Program. We argue for a collaborative approach to crime prevention that both fosters justice and ensures that research findings are implemented to create lasting, equitable change.
Keywords
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) seeks to advance justice through research. From testing theories on what makes people inclined to commit crime to evaluating what strategies work to prevent it, the institute’s underlying theory of change is that developing knowledge in these areas can support crime reduction and public safety efforts. But producing research that helps promote social justice and equitable impact is a decidedly broader and more aspirational goal. Fortunately, the process of harnessing data and knowledge to guide equitable and sustainable improvements in safety and justice is increasingly embraced by both seasoned and emerging scholars.
Conducting research specifically on crime prevention in pursuit of social justice is particularly compelling because, by definition, crime prevention averts harm before it occurs. In addition to preventing harm to potential victims, we are also preventing harm by reducing the number of people who enter the justice system, which disproportionately impacts people of color and creates conditions that promote a vicious cycle of system involvement.
Despite the potential social justice benefits of crime prevention, relatively scant attention has been given to the topic of this volume: pursuing crime prevention while advancing social justice and social impact. This topic was squarely aligned with the priorities of the NIJ during our tenures at the institute, where we promoted the concept of inclusive research, which involves engaging with the people closest to the issue or problem under study (NIJ 2025). Given that community members residing in areas with high crime and heavy police presence are one such group, we also invested in new, more accurate methodologies to capture community members’ views and perspectives on issues of crime, safety, and justice. Implicit in these two priorities is a third one: that crime and justice research must be mindful of potential racial and other biases infused in the data we use, the methodologies we employ, and the contexts in which we do our work.
Importantly, these goals all require that the evidence generated to support crime prevention efforts reaches the people best positioned to apply that evidence in policy and practice. This vital linkage from evidence to action has been a long-standing priority for the NIJ (although, as evidenced by the second Trump administration, priorities change based on the philosophies of those in leadership). Leveraging progress made in translational criminology, an area of focus for past NIJ director John Laub (2021), the institute’s Evidence to Action Initiative used theories, models, and frameworks from implementation science to inform strategies that increase the take-up of evidence-based practices and the capacity of agencies to implement them. Each of these NIJ priorities have direct bearing on the articles in this volume, underscoring their importance and value in supporting both social justice and social impact.
Undertaking Inclusive Research
The NIJ’s advocacy for inclusive research rested on the view that including experiences and input from people on the ground to inform the development and evaluation of crime prevention strategies enhances the accuracy and validity of a study’s methods and findings (La Vigne 2025). Amplifying lived experience, professional expertise, and local context can help contextualize research findings and inform the development of more impactful policy implications. For instance, studies inviting and incorporating the voices of community members most impacted by crime and the criminal justice system’s response to it generate more valid data. In turn, these data can increase our understanding of crime’s underlying causes and the intended and unintended impacts from the justice system’s responses to crime. Conversely, excluding community voice from research not only leads to less valid and applicable research but also diminishes the community’s agency—their capacity to actively participate in shaping decisions and actions that affect their lives. This exclusion can erode trust in institutions and weaken the collaborative relationships necessary for effective crime prevention efforts.
Hodgkinson and Andresen (this volume) illustrate the value of inclusive research persuasively through a case study of SafeGrowth, a successful place-based approach to crime prevention that centers community engagement and expertise and further underscores the value of an inclusive research approach. The authors caution that when place-based approaches to crime prevention, such as those espoused by environmental criminology, are narrowly focused on place at the expense of social context and community voice, the impact is short-lived and may increase the potential for displacement to marginalized communities.
Measuring Community Perceptions
Researchers employ a variety of methods to ensure that the views of people experiencing crime and the justice system are accurately captured and represented. In the context of crime prevention, this is typically accomplished with community surveys. Direct and rigorous measurement of community perceptions enables communities to provide an assessment of the safety in their community (Rosenbaum et al. 2015). More specifically, surveys can be used to collect feedback on how particular crime prevention programs and strategies, whether implemented by police (Braga et al., this volume) or by the community (Gill et al., this volume), are experienced by community members. At the same time, there are several serious challenges to using community surveys. They are often expensive, time-consuming, and unable to provide estimates for smaller geographies within municipalities. Additionally, they underrepresent the views of community members living in impoverished areas (La Vigne et al. 2018). These characteristics hamper the ability of traditional survey methodologies to accurately represent a community’s experiences of crime prevention strategies (Rosenbaum et al. 2015).
To address barriers to accurately measuring community perceptions, the NIJ sponsored both a prize challenge to generate novel methods to measure community perceptions (NIJ 2023) and a research solicitation to test innovative measurement methodologies on the ground (NIJ 2024). The prize challenge format encouraged the development of innovative strategies that leverage solutions across disciplines. The winning challenge entries ranged from those using new data sources to those proposing innovative approaches to probability and nonprobability surveys (for descriptions see NIJ 2023). The NIJ followed the challenge with a solicitation that requested new proposals to pilot innovative approaches in communities. The solicitation funded two proposals commencing in early 2025 (NIJ 2024). Both will use small-area estimation to produce representative samples at the census block group level. One of the projects will also use a population-based survey sample created with response-driven sampling to improve representation of youth and lower-income respondents. These efforts hold great potential for increasing the affordability of using community surveys at small geographies while enhancing the robustness of the results. If successful, the studies will provide a new mechanism for including a more accurate representation of community voice when developing and evaluating the impact of crime prevention strategies.
Employing a Racial Equity Lens
The very objective of crime prevention for social justice and social impact demands that both the intervention and the evaluation of its impact be examined for potential biases based on race, ethnicity, identity, and other demographics. This makes it imperative that the NIJ, as the only federal research grantmaking entity singularly focused on issues of crime and justice, invest in research that builds evidence on racial and other disparities and strategies to reduce them. Employing a racial equity lens in research is not just about pursuing research on racial disparities but also being mindful of and avoiding the use of data and methodologies that perpetuate biases in our research and the interpretation of findings. Relatedly, more efforts are needed to remediate disparate access to research opportunities that preclude a more diverse array of scholars from contributing to the knowledge base.
For decades, the NIJ has prioritized research on ways to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system through its W. E. B. Du Bois program. Although it has ebbed and flowed with changes in administrations, the NIJ reinstated this program in 2022, making eight grant awards totaling over five million dollars over the course of three years. Research topics include how to mitigate disparities in informant incentives, wrongful convictions, prison classification, sentencing guidelines, and court-ordered compliance. And in 2023, the institute made a complementary $800,000 investment in response to a congressional directive for a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system.
The research featured in this volume aligns with the spirit of the institute’s W. E. B. Du Bois program. Employing a racial equity lens includes examining unintended consequences and is essential in ensuring that crime prevention leading to social impact also supports social justice rather than eroding it. For example, Rodriguez’s article in this volume describes strategies to reduce racially disparate experiences of youth in juvenile court and recommends investing upstream to mitigate financial hardship and support community-based organizations that serve the needs of youth and their families.
Furthermore, as Payne (this volume) notes, employing a racial equity lens in the context of implementation science could be particularly impactful since implementation efforts are often developed by people outside of the communities that could most benefit from them. As the author describes, using a racial equity lens to inform implementation science can bridge the yawning gap between evidence and action in a manner that avoids exacerbating disparate access to effective programs and arguably reduces such disparities.
Similarly, Sytsma (this volume) illustrates the value of applying Hankivsky et al.’s (2014) Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework to common criminal justice system responses to crime and victimization, underscoring the importance of extending the equity lens beyond race and ethnicity to include gender identity and disabilities. The article also demonstrates the value of exploring successful strategies employed by scholars in disciplines outside of but adjacent to criminal justice, such as public health.
Also drawing from public health and medicine, Welsh, Beazer, and Podolsky (this volume) argue that using a racial equity lens is particularly essential for approaches to prevent interpersonal violence that operate outside of the traditional criminal justice system. This “social medicine” approach to crime prevention is consistent with the NIJ’s focus on marginalized and underserved populations during our tenures at the institute.
To spur more research of this nature, we must support and empower the next generation of scholars of color, as well as those of varying identities, experiences, and perspectives. Toward that end, during the Biden administration, the institute supported two early-career initiatives. The Academy of Criminal Justice Science’s Doctoral Student Summit, developed by faculty at the University of Baltimore, aims to increase the degree completion rate of doctoral students of various underserved backgrounds and those who are first-generation. The University of Maryland’s Racial Democracy Crime and Justice Network is designed to facilitate the academic success of junior faculty from underrepresented groups and ensure that their perspectives and approaches on crime and justice reach relevant audiences. Most recently, the NIJ made a one-million-dollar investment in the Center for Enhancing Research Capacity at Minority Serving Institutions to bolster the research infrastructure and capabilities of these institutions within the criminal justice field.
Promoting Evidence to Action
Inclusive, racially equitable research brings us closer to achieving social justice, but we must also ensure that research findings reach people who can implement real-world changes, drive policy, and empower communities. The NIJ’s Evidence to Action initiative, launched in 2022, was designed to bridge the gap between research findings and practical applications in the justice field. This initiative aimed to ensure that the field learned about research, trusted and understood the findings, and was inspired to make evidence-informed changes to improve policies and practices. As referenced by Payne (this volume) in the context of school-based interventions, prevention science evidence is rarely translated into programs and practices.
However, balancing the promotion of rigorous evaluation with the recognition of promising yet evolving interventions remains a challenge. For example, the NIJ’s online searchable database, CrimeSolutions.gov, provides policymakers and practitioners with critical insights into what works—and what doesn’t—when addressing complex justice system challenges. The platform assigns programs and practices ratings of “Effective,” “Promising,” or “No Effects,” 1 based on their demonstrated outcomes. While this system is intended to guide evidence-based decisions, critics have raised concerns about its methodology (see Barton 2021). Some argue that focusing primarily on statistical significance undermines support for interventions showing partial success and potentially discourages investment in programs with demonstrated potential. Others contend that reliance on statistical significance alone fails to capture the nuanced realities of program implementation, such as contextual factors, quality of delivery, and broader outcomes that could inform incremental improvements and scalability.
The NIJ recognized the need for ongoing improvements in CrimeSolutions’ methodology, transparency, and communication to ensure its ratings would accurately reflect the complexity of research and effectively guide policy decisions. While assessing impacts beyond statistical significance would enhance CrimeSolutions, relaxing methodological standards would not. Reid et al.’s (this volume) evaluation of 151 public-area video surveillance studies finds that evaluations meeting stricter systematic review criteria provide more useful information on moderators, implementation, and economic costs—information necessary to achieve successful and sustainable implementation in real-world settings. This aligns with the “Titanium Law” of evaluation (La Vigne 2024b), which emphasizes the importance of documenting and assessing implementation challenges throughout the program evaluation process. Research methodologies must be robust enough to support flexible fidelity—the ability for others to implement a program’s core components while making informed adjustments to suit local contexts without compromising effectiveness. Systematically collecting and analyzing implementation data can enhance the usefulness and understanding of research findings, making it more likely that these insights will be used to inform decisions and guide action.
Further guidance comes from Welsh and colleagues’ review of 12 high-quality studies (Welsh, Paterson, et al., this volume), which highlights two key types of early developmental crime prevention research evaluations. The first are efficacy studies, conducted in controlled environments to provide preliminary evidence on new interventions. While valuable, these studies may not guarantee similar outcomes in scaled-up or real-world applications. To better inform decision-making, the authors advocate for prioritizing a second study type for distribution to policymakers and practitioners: effectiveness and broad dissemination (or routine practice) studies. These evaluations test interventions in diverse, real-world settings, thus offering stronger evidence of their feasibility and generalizability.
Routine practice studies also account for contextual factors, such as participant characteristics, community dynamics, and implementation quality, which often significantly influence social justice outcomes. In alignment with the Titanium Law, routine practice studies emphasize documenting whether interventions are delivered as intended and identifying strategies to address deviations or necessary adaptations. By prioritizing these methods, the NIJ and CrimeSolutions can help policymakers and practitioners identify what works, for whom, and under what conditions—laying the foundation for evidence-informed policies that are effective, adaptable, and clearly aligned with our vision of promoting social justice.
Finally, bringing evidence to action demands more than serving up a platter of rigorous research evidence and implementation guidance and hoping the field will partake of it. Practitioners must feel empowered to leverage research and integrate evidence-based practices into their work. This has been the mission of one of the NIJ’s most successful initiatives, the Law Enforcement Advancing Data and Science (LEADS) Scholars Program. The LEADS program was launched in collaboration with the International Association of Chiefs of Police in 2014. Developed to increase the research capabilities of policing professionals and agencies, the program equips police officers with the tools and knowledge needed to conduct their own research, access and understand relevant findings, and translate those findings into actionable strategies. This practitioner-driven approach not only increases buy-in for evidence-based policing but also ensures that strategies are tailored to the specific needs and contexts of different agencies and communities.
The LEADS program continues to grow and evolve. Following the 2024 cohort induction, the program consisted of 138 scholars, including sworn police officers, civilians, and academics. As the NIJ continues this and other investments that promote research use, we must remain cognizant of harmful, unintended consequences associated with “effective” crime prevention practices. The LEADS program’s emphasis on community engagement and problem-oriented policing empowers those directly impacting communities to effect meaningful change and implement evidence-based strategies in ways that respect individual rights and minimize unintended harm, aligning with the ethical framework advocated by Braga et al. (this volume). Focusing on risky people and places is an effective and efficient use of scarce public resources, but an expanded and intentional focus on ethics and equity helps to fulfill our vision of generating and applying research that also serves social justice.
Summing Up
This volume’s focus on crime prevention through the lens of social justice and social impact has important implications for academic and practitioner audiences alike. The NIJ’s efforts in support of these goals have taken many forms, from prioritizing proposals that meaningfully engage with practitioners and people with lived experience to providing funding opportunities that focus on how crime prevention strategies can be implemented successfully. These actions have funded innovative and important research, and the institute dedicates considerable resources to translate the findings into understandable and actionable guidance to support adoption in the field. While we take pride in these accomplishments, they can far too easily be dismantled by subsequent presidential administrations. That makes it even more essential that the academy and practitioner communities remain committed to supporting crime prevention for social justice and social impact.
From an academic perspective, the articles in this volume and our own work at the NIJ highlight the need for researchers to engage with the professionals and community members experiencing the public safety problem and to conduct evaluations that measure fidelity of implementation, including equitable delivery of the intervention being examined. The academic community can also ensure that doctoral students are well trained in both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (La Vigne 2025), incentivize and reward public criminology (La Vigne 2024a), and engage with practitioners who are best suited to translate research findings into on-the-ground impact.
For practitioner communities, this volume magnifies the importance of anticipating and mitigating the likelihood that interventions—and the research tied to them—impose uneven access to public safety and disparate negative impacts on marginalized and underresourced communities. It also calls for a shift in the way practitioners see their role in knowledge production, moving from passive to active participants. Together, we can support the critical intersection of research, practice, and community engagement. Doing so requires collaboration, intentionality, and a shared commitment to social justice. This volume underscores these imperatives and provides a helpful roadmap for driving forward impactful change.
Footnotes
Notes: The authors thank our former NIJ colleagues for their commitment to the mission of the institute in pursuit of safety and justice. We also thank Yiping Li and Elizabeth Groff as well as editors Eric Piza and Brandon Welsh for their thoughtful feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript, and the authors of the articles in this volume for providing constructive and thought-provoking content.
Notes
Nancy La Vigne is the dean of Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice and former director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research and evaluation agency within the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Her main priority at NIJ was promoting rigorous, inclusive, and multidisciplinary research methodologies in the service of safety and justice.
Tamara D. Herold is an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Nevada and former senior advisor for NIJ, helping to lead the institute’s Evidence to Action (E2A) initiative. Her E2A efforts and research are focused on bridging the gap between science and practice.