portion of the program was a great success, but the program ultimately failed because of a lack of funding to 
adequately seed new community programming. Funding is a major roadblock for proper implementation. 
Evaluation 
Finally, the evaluation examines the efficacy of the policy. There are three different types of evaluation: 
Impact, Process, and Cost-benefit analysis. Impact (outcome) evaluations focus on what changes after 
the introduction of the crime policy. 
1 Changes in police patrol practices aimed at reducing the level of 
residential burglaries in an area are evaluated in terms of subsequent burglaries. The difficulty with impact 
evaluations is that changes in the crime rate are rarely, if ever, due to a single intervening variable. For 
example, after the implementation of curfew laws for juvenile offenders, juvenile crime decreased. Can 
we say that was because of curfew laws? The entire crime rate for America decreased at the same time. 
Attributing a single outcome based on a solitary intervention is problematic. 
Process evaluations consider the implementation of a policy or program and involve determining the 
procedure used to implement the policy. These are detailed, descriptive accounts of the implementation of 
the policy including the goals of the program, who is involved, the level of training, the number of clients 
served, and changes to the program over time. 
2 Unfortunately, process evaluations do not address the actual 
impact policy has on the crime problem, just what was done about a specific issue or who was involved. 
While this is indeed a limitation, it is essential to know the inner workings of a program or policy if it is to 
be replicated. 
Cost-benefit evaluations, or analysis, seeks to determine if the costs of a policy are justified by the 
benefits accrued. A ubiquitous example of this would be an evaluation of the popular anti-drug D.A.R.E. 
program of the 1980s and 1990s. The D.A.R.E. program was a school-based prevention program aimed at 
preventing drug use among elementary school-aged children. Rigorous evaluations of the program show 
that it was ineffective and sometimes actually increased drug use in some youth. The cost of this program 
was roughly $1.3 billion dollars a year (about $173 to $268 per student per year) to implement nationwide 
(once all related expenses, such as police officer training and services, materials and supplies, school resources, 
etc., were factored in). 
3 Using a cost-benefit analysis, is that a good use of money to support an ineffective 
program? 
Policy formation is often a knee-jerk reaction to the current problem. Many policies are the result of 
grassroots efforts to change something in their communities. For example, let us pretend the issue is youth 
crime in our city. Kids are roaming the streets like packs of wild dogs, jeering at the elderly, and generally 
making us feel unsafe. A proposed policy might be to hold parents accountable for their child’s misbehavior. 
If parents are responsible, then they will take better care of their kids, right? Take, for example, Little Skippy. 
He’s kind of a jerk. He smokes, curses, and recently stole his neighbor’s car. Arrested after crashing into the 
drive-thru sign at the local Taco Bell, based on parental responsibility law, his mom and dad are to blame for 
his reckless driving fiasco. Let’s look at the policy process. 
1. Lab, S. (2016). Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 
2. Lab, S. (2016). Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 
3. Shepard, E. (Winter 2001-2002) A new study finds. We wasted billions on D.A.R.E. Reconsider Quarterly, 
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
148