The Crime Reduction Toolkit is an online repository for systematic reviews focused on crime reduction. The aim is for the toolkit to be the 'go to' place for decision-makers and funders when they want to see 'what works' to reduce crime. The College would like to continue to populate the toolkit with high quality systematic reviews and so has developed this guidance to help authors ensure their reviews will be included on the toolkit. The guidance covers:
In order for a systematic review to be considered for inclusion in the Crime Reduction Toolkit, it must adhere to the following basic criteria.
General measures of crime reduction/ prevention are also appropriate, including:
- Re-offending/ recidivism (general) - Anti-social behaviour - Self-reported offending
The EMMIE frameworkSystematic reviews that meet the inclusion criteria outlined above will be assessed using the EMMIE evidence appraisal framework. The EMMIE framework is explained further below.
What is EMMIE?Systematic review evidence is presented on the toolkit using the EMMIE framework. EMMIE is an evidence appraisal framework for grading and reporting systematic reviews. EMMIE was developed by academics at University College London (UCL). One of the aims of the framework is to help practitioners and decision-makers interpret evidence easily and quickly. EMMIE rates systematic review evidence against five dimensions: Effect, Mechanisms, Moderators, Implementation, and Economic cost.
The five dimensions of EMMIEThe table below provides a brief description of the five dimensions of EMMIE. It also outlines some of the key elements of a systematic review that are assessed using EMMIE. This is not an exhaustive list, rather it is intended to identify some of the important issues to consider in order to produce a review that scores highly when assessed using the EMMIE framework.
This section focuses on whether the evidence suggests the intervention led to an increase, decrease or had no impact on crime.
The systematic review needs to include a meta-analysis, other quantitative method of synthesis or narrative summary of quantitative studies.
Report on all assessments of bias of primary studies considered as part of the review.
This section focuses on what it is about the intervention that could explain its effect.
i. How is the intervention presumed to work? ii. What is needed to make it work?
Clearly state what data are being used to test the mechanism/ theory of change and whether this analysis was planned as part of the original aims of the review (a-priori) or whether the data led to post-hoc analysis.
This section focuses on the circumstances and contexts in which the intervention is likely (or unlikely) to work.
Moderator analysis is the analysis of factors that are considered causally relevant to the activation of the mechanism(s) through which the intervention is expected to work. These are factors that are a pre-existing condition (for example, the age or gender of participants) rather than a factor introduced by the researchers/implementers (like data period).
Report any data enabling moderators (for example, collection of times and places that interventions were implemented or any environmental variables), and any sub-group analysis clearly.
This section focuses on the conditions that should be considered when implementing the intervention.
Clearly state the key components that are necessary in order to replicate the intervention elsewhere.
This section focuses on the costs associated with the intervention, both direct and indirect, and whether there is any evidence of cost-benefit.
If you have any queries relating to the content of this paper please contact firstname.lastname@example.org This information has been compiled by staff from UCL Department of Security and Crime Science, University of Surrey and the College of Policing who have been involved in the EMMIE coding of the systematic reviews which are rated and summarised in the Crime Reduction Toolkit.