An analysis of nearly 700 program evaluations showed that 29 program types worked, 25 did not, and 28 were promising in preventing crime. The remaining program types were of unknown effectiveness, largely because the evaluations were poor. These results suggest that a fair amount is known about the “bottom line” of preventing crime. The results suggest three broad-based courses of action. First, governments need to increase resources devoted to those program types with demonstrated effectiveness in preventing crime. Second, governments need to stop funding those program types with proven evidence of ineffectiveness. Third, governments should begin further testing of those program types with proven evidence of effectiveness in preventing crime. Crime prevention today has a tendency to be driven more by rhetoric than reality. However, effective public policy and practice needs to be based on scientific evidence, not just words. Only those programs with scientific evidence of effectiveness in preventing crime should be funded by lawmakers and policymakers. The primary factor used to select evaluations of crime prevention programs for review was evidence, positive or negative, about their impact on crime. The study focused on crime impacts; knowing if crime went down, went up, or remained unchanged as a result of the program. The findings from the study are based on the book Evidence-Based Crime Prevention published in 2002. References