Translational Criminology: A United States Orientation

Definition

Translational criminology is the process of using scientific findings to inform criminal justice policy and practice. While seemingly straightforward, the translational process can encounter barriers, including politics, ideology, resource constraints, and causal uncertainty. Despite these challenges, promising practices, including mutually beneficial partnerships and the use of champions, have allowed translational criminology to advance.

1. Introduction

Criminology in the United States (U.S.) began as a somewhat more applied discipline in the early 20th Century, working to understand and ameliorate the pathologies found in the urban slums of America at the time. Much of what we term “applied criminology” came from these early beginnings. In this context, criminological research was used in attempts to solve real-world social and political problems. However, for much of the 20th Century, it continued to develop into a scientific discipline concerned with developing and testing theories that explained the causes of crime rather than targeting policies and practices intended to reduce its negative consequences [1,2,3]. Since the early 2000s, there has been a renewed and growing interest in bridging the gap between the academic discipline of criminology and criminal justice policy through what has become known as translational criminology.

More specifically, translational criminology is the practice of utilizing scientific research methods to develop new knowledge and information and, importantly, using the research findings to inform criminal justice policy and practice [4]. Significant support for this movement exists among many criminologists and practitioners [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. However, this has not always been the case, and historically, there has been reluctance from some scholars concerned with the potential harm that could occur from criminological research lacking causal certainty and the supposed “gold standard” of randomized controlled trials [13,14]. In addition to resistance from those within the field, several other barriers exist that impede the success of translational criminology, such as the polarizing world of ideology and politics [6]. Despite these obstacles, various promising practices have been developed and utilized over several decades, which have enabled translational criminology to work through some of these deterrents.

The term “public criminology” also emerged during the early 21st century but is often more associated with involving the public, the media, and advocacy groups in the discourse regarding crime, criminological research, and the criminal justice system [15,16]. Although both applied criminology and public criminology share some common attributes with translational criminology, translational criminology is more focused on translating rigorously produced research evidence into criminal justice policy and practice, and it grew out of more recent U.S. social and political contexts. The present paper provides an overview of translational criminology, including the movement’s development, promising practices, examples, and current challenges.

2. Emergence of Translational Criminology

During the 1970s, criminology entered a period often referred to as the “nothing works era.” This reflected the work of Robert Martinson, who asserted that various prison reforms and rehabilitation strategies did little to reduce recidivism [17]. In the years following Martinson’s report, the criminal justice field implemented a series of “tough on crime” policies to address rising crime rates. Examples of these policies include three-strikes laws, zero-tolerance, and mandatory minimum sentencing. Many of these policies were later determined to be empirically unsound and ineffective, resulting in high recidivism rates following incarceration [18,19,20,21]. The outcomes of the “tough on crime era” were also incredibly expensive as sentence lengths increased, prison populations grew, and a demand for more penal institutions ensued. For example, the United States spent around $36 billion on corrections, police, and courts in 1982. However, that number rose to $265 billion in 2012, reflecting an increase of about 639% [22]. Prison, being a costly solution to crime, became even more apparent as the United States entered a financial crisis in 2008 known as the “Great Recession.” This recession led to government austerity and budget constraints throughout federal and state governments. As a result, states struggled to address the cost of prisons in their already strained budgets [12,23,24]. Budget constraints caused a number of policymakers, practitioners, and criminologists to more closely examine the effectiveness of certain penal policies in an effort to determine and fund policies and programs that produced cost-efficient and desirable outcomes. Many criminologists and practitioners began to focus on evidence-based policies in prevention, intervention, treatment, and the use of risk and needs assessment instruments to better diagnose and treat criminogenic behavior while also reducing the amount spent on prisons. This evidence-based research has been identified by some as the “what works” movement [25,26,27,28,29,30,31].

One early pioneer in this evidence-informed movement was Joan Petersilia. During her 1990 presidential address to the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Petersilia discussed criminology’s practitioner-based roots and reasons for the field’s distance from the world of policy at the time [32]. She urged criminologists to care more about their separation from the practical world and suggested a need to work towards reducing this gap by reverting back to a discipline heavily influenced by and involved with practitioners [32]. Petersilia went on to work with the California legislature from 2004 to 2008 to reform the prison system, which included several efforts such as the reorganization of parole supervision policies as well as the advancement of prison rehabilitation programs [33].

After Petersilia’s call to action, the American Society of Criminology made efforts to better link the academic organization’s efforts to public policy. In 2001, the American Society of Criminology established Criminology & Public Policy, now recognized as one of criminology’s top peer-reviewed journals, with the goal of disseminating evidence-based and policy-relevant research to both practitioners and researchers [34]. Further, the American Society of Criminology also established the Division of Experimental Criminology in 2009, which promoted applied methods and experimental designs in the field of criminology with the goal of further informing policy [7]. The ASC continued to promote the influence of research on public policy by facilitating conversations between researchers and legislators through the organization’s sponsorship of congressional luncheons with its first one taking place in 2011 [35].

Furthering the translational agenda, John Laub was inspired by translational research methods in the medical field and sought to apply these methods to criminology. From 2010 to 2013, Laub served as the Director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). During his time as director, Laub remained dedicated to the principles of translational criminology. Under his leadership, he organized the 2011 NIJ annual conference around the theme, “Translational Criminology: Shaping Policy and Practice with Research” [8]. The National Institute of Justice also funded and continues to fund research focused on the process and methods of translational criminology. From 2012 to 2014, the National Institute of Justice awarded specific grants focused on translational research [12]. Additionally, in 2014, the NIJ funded its first translational fellowship and several grants that focused on utilizing research to better inform criminal justice decision-making [10]. Further, the NIJ and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) founded the Law Enforcement Advancing Data and Science (LEADS) program in 2014. This program helped law enforcement officers gain experience in conducting research, and in 2019, it began incorporating academic scholars to create and sustain research-practitioner-partnerships in law enforcement [10].

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, several criminology programs in higher education throughout the United States also began implementing research centers and institutes with a translational focus. For example, the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Criminal Justice founded the Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR) in 1996, which has worked with agencies and practitioners at the local, state, and federal level to disseminate research to justice administration. The University of Cincinnati then developed the Corrections Institute (UCCI) in 2002 and has since worked with various state agencies across the United States to develop and evaluate evidence-informed policies and programs. Similarly, Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice established the Center for Criminology and Public Policy in 2004 with the goal of informing public policy with criminal justice research. The Center has since grown with the addition of specific institutes in areas such as the financial exploitation of older adults, corrections, jails, juvenile justice, and law enforcement. Additionally, the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University developed the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (CEBCP) in 2008, which now publishes the magazine Translational Criminology that provides real-world examples of research translated into policy. Other notable examples of criminology programs across the United States taking a translational approach to research include Northeastern University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Department of Criminal Justice, and the University of California, Irvine’s Department of Criminology, Law and Society.

As a result of these various initiatives, the current focus of many scholars in criminology and criminal justice has been on meaningful partnerships that are mutually beneficial and empirically sound. Despite the fear of some that more harm than good can come from policies and practices developed by a field that lacks causal certainty, many have embraced the idea that problems in the world cannot wait for causal certainty to be established, which, in many cases, may never occur [36]. Crime and incarceration are financially and socially costly not only to those who directly experience it, but also to those indirectly impacted [37]. According to the National Victimization Survey (NCVS), after experiencing violent victimization, 47% of victims experienced moderate to severe distress, 22.1% reported problems with friends and family, and 17.6% described problems with school or work [38]. In terms of costs to those involved with the justice system, a study utilizing data from the U.S. Department of Justice found that out of the 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005, around 44% were rearrested at least once during their first-year post-release [18]. The families of those experiencing incarceration also endure negative outcomes. Children with incarcerated parents face adverse outcomes such as higher rates of psychiatric diagnoses, social isolation, and poor educational outcomes [39]. The broader societal costs of crime and incarceration remain high as well. A study by Cohen and Piquero estimated the lifetime cost of a single career criminal to be $5.7 million, accounting for various figures such as lost wages, the cost of police contact, and incarceration costs [40]. The prevalent thinking is that researchers must use the scientific methods developed over the years and the knowledge that has been amassed to work with policymakers and practitioners to effectively reduce crime and its harmful effects [36,41].

3. Practices and Examples in Translational Criminology

Since the emergence of the “what works” movement, several translational programs, policies, and collaborations have proven to be effective and beneficial for both the practitioner and researcher [2,42,43]. Many of these examples are grounded in the promising practices of strong communication, trust, reciprocity, and shared goals [44]. Research methods commonly used in policy and practice research include program evaluation, risk assessment validation, forecasting, and systematic reviews. For example, program evaluation serves as a fundamental method for assessing the effectiveness of various criminal justice interventions, programs, and prevention initiatives. In particular, mixed methods evaluations that assess both the impact and implementation (process) of an intervention are useful for informing policymakers and practitioners on how well something works, why it may or may not work, and under what conditions. Risk assessment tools, developed by criminologists, are used to better inform various criminal justice processes regarding participants’ risk to reoffend, risk of specific future behavior, and often include differentiation of needs for programming that target participants’ criminogenic factors [45]. Crime and incarceration forecasts are often used for public policy planning to determine future capacity for law enforcement personnel, jails, and prisons [46,47]. Importantly, when prior research exists, systematic reviews can be useful for informing policy and practice. Rather than relying on one evaluation or study, systematic reviews provide a summary of information on a specific criminal justice issue, considering the results of various studies, often in different jurisdictions. The use of systematic reviews to inform criminal justice policy, particularly in the form of rapid reviews, proliferated during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic as information was needed quickly to respond to rapidly changing social problems involving court operations, prisons, jails, and police response [48]. Though these and other research methods often focus on specific criminal justice policies and practices, they do not ensure that their findings are used to inform the policies and practices they target.

In response, many criminologists have worked to discover effective strategies for advancing the use of research to inform criminal justice policy and practice. This section discusses some of the promising practices used to translate research findings and use research results to inform policy and practice, including the establishment of researcher-practitioner partnerships, the timing of collaborations, the use of research and policy champions, the accessibility of research findings, and the necessary shifts in U.S. higher education to promote and sustain a translational research agenda. The section also provides examples of translational projects along with their impact on criminal justice research and policy that involved universities, juvenile justice agencies, correctional facilities, legislatures, and law enforcement agencies. These various translational partnership examples illustrate the wide-reaching impact of efforts in translational criminology. Additionally, these examples demonstrate the policy-relevant, mutually beneficial outcomes that can result from well-supported translational partnerships.

3.1. Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships (RPPs)

One of the most routinely cited best practices for connecting research to policy and practice is the use of researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPPs) [6,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. RPPs are collaborative, mutually beneficial relationships that exist between researchers and practitioners who often work to produce policy relevant research [52]. There are several prior studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of RPPs and that identify the key characteristics of their success [12,43,49,50,53,54]. The most routinely identified components of successful RPPs are consistent engagement, trust, and reciprocity. Consistent engagement refers to RPPs that have ongoing, sustained relationships. These collaborations are typically not a single project. These consistent relationships often collaborate over several years and on many projects [12,49,50]. Successful partnerships are often described as practitioners and researchers acknowledging the expertise of one another, having mutual goals, and seeing the benefit that both sides bring to the research [12,43]. Further, the involvement of an embedded criminologist in RPPs can play a major role in its success. An embedded criminologist is an academic who works within a criminal justice agency, receives first-hand knowledge of the agency’s operations, and is able to collaborate with the agency on a day-to-day basis [55]. Joan Petersilia and her work with the California legislature, as well as Anthony Braga and his work within the Boston Police Department, are great examples of the work and potential impact of partnerships with embedded criminologists [33,53]. RPPs can be implemented between universities or other research groups and various criminal justice agencies. Examples from law enforcement, juvenile justice, and corrections follow.

3.1.1. Policing

Law enforcement agencies can be an ideal partner for researchers looking to utilize research to inform policy. Alpert and colleagues found that successful RPPs with police agencies, in particular, involve an openness to change in agency practices, consistency of points of contact in the partnership, and proper management of interpersonal ties [56]. The NIJ-funded collaboration between the Boston Police Department’s Youth Violence Strike Force (YVSF) and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on the project “Operation Ceasefire” is a great example of a successful RPP. YVSF implemented Operation Ceasefire in 1996 to reduce gang and juvenile gun violence in Boston, Massachusetts. Anthony Braga, who is known for his translational work with police agencies, and his team of researchers at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, were tasked with evaluating Boston’s Operation Ceasefire [53,57]. This problem-oriented policing project focused on reducing youth firearm violence and homicide in Boston through criminal justice intervention with a focus on a small number of youth gangs that made up a large amount of Boston’s youth firearm and homicide issue. With the help of Braga and his team of researchers, analyses revealed that Boston’s Operation Ceasefire was associated with significant decreases in gun assaults, calls for service involving shots-fired, and youth homicide victimization [57]. As a result of a translational collaboration between researchers and a criminal justice agency, an innovative and successful deterrence strategy was developed to reduce youth gun violence in the city of Boston, with the potential to impact other larger cities.

A translational example involving a university and a state law enforcement agency includes the partnership between George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy and the Iowa State Patrol (ISP). In this translational partnership, researchers from George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy evaluated the Fatality Reduction Enforcement Effort (FREE) that was implemented in 2018 by the ISP. The goal of FREE was to decrease the number of crashes in rural counties by having officers carry out high-visibility patrols in hot spot locations for vehicle crashes [58]. Researchers found an 18% decrease in alcohol and drug-related crashes and a 46% decrease in speed-related crashes under FREE. Overall, this evaluation revealed that the FREE program, more specifically, high-visibility patrols in rural counties, may present a promising strategy for reducing speed and substance-related vehicle crashes [58]. This translational partnership demonstrates the potential to be replicated in other rural law enforcement agencies in the United States.

Other examples of successful RPPs include the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Smart Policing Initiative (SPI) and Project Safe Neighborhood [56]. Through these federally funded collaborations, criminologists can serve a diagnostic function and are able to assist law enforcement agencies with program evaluations and policy implementation, while paving the way for future projects between researchers and practitioners, further promoting the development of translational criminology [55].

3.1.2. Juvenile Justice

Given the frequent use of various prevention, intervention, and delinquency programs practiced in the juvenile justice system, juvenile justice agencies and programs are another prevalent area for RPPs. For example, using embedded researchers, one long-term partnership that translated into significant research and policy results and fostered future partnerships was the Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program (JJEEP). JJEEP was a partnership between the Florida Department of Education (FDOE), Juvenile Justice (FDJJ), and researchers at Florida State University (FSU). This partnership began in 1998 as a result of court-mandated reforms in education across approximately 200 juvenile facilities in the state of Florida [59,60]. JJEEP’s mission was to enhance Florida’s educational services for youth in juvenile justice facilities through an embedded approach using research, technical assistance, and annual quality assurance program reviews. These efforts were critical in identifying best practices in the education of incarcerated youth [61]. Examples of these best practices in juvenile facilities included individualized planning and services, high-quality teachers, and reentry planning for the youth as they return to their homes, schools, and communities [60,61]. Importantly, the partnership facilitated researchers’ access to Florida’s juvenile facilities, staff, and youth, as well as statewide student data, resulting in several validated findings. Findings included that higher educational achievement while incarcerated was associated with higher school attendance and lower recidivism rates among youth once released [62,63]. Further, youth who were rearrested after release were arrested for less serious offenses if they attended school more regularly than those who did not attend school regularly post-release [62]. As a result of the project’s methods and research findings, JJEEP received federal recognition from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) as well as funding to host several national conferences aimed at assisting juvenile justice education leaders from other states to improve their state’s juvenile justice education system [60]. After 12 years of operation, from 1998 to 2010, JJEEP helped to establish a lasting relationship between FSU and the Florida Departments of Education and Juvenile Justice.

Another translational example relating to juvenile justice involved researchers from the University of Maryland and George Mason University collaborating with juvenile justice probation and parole case managers. The main goal of this research was to gather more information on the best evidence-based practices for juvenile assessment, referral, treatment planning, and placement (JARPP) to reduce juvenile recidivism rates [64]. To help execute the study’s goals, the researchers recruited a professional experienced in JARPP training to create curriculum for trainings that would be for some of the case managers. The case managers were divided into three groups and randomly assigned to training conditions: no training, standard training, and enhanced training (i.e., training with a follow-up from peer coaches). Results based on the recidivism rates of over 1500 youth revealed that those exposed to the case managers who received enhanced training demonstrated a pattern of reduced recidivism rates when compared to the youth who were exposed to case managers who received only standard training or no training at all. This translational work furthered both criminal justice practitioners’ and researchers’ knowledge on “what works” when it comes to case manager training and reducing recidivism rates among youth [64].

3.1.3. Corrections

Similar to RPPs in juvenile justice, correctional policies and programs can often benefit from partnerships with researchers. An example of a translational partnership in corrections is the long-term collaboration between the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) and FSU that resulted in several research projects. One specific project funded by the National Institute of Justice relied on the support of champions on both sides [43]. The collaborative work between the FDC and the researchers at FSU was mutually beneficial to both parties as the FDC provided researchers access to unique data that facilitated future projects, dissertations, and research agendas, while the researchers provided FDC with expertise in statistical analyses and research methods and findings that were policy-relevant to the FDC. One example that came from this collaboration includes a study that analyzed the impact of work release programs on post-release outcomes such as recidivism and employment. This study found that inmates who were released from work release facilities had lower recidivism rates and an increased likelihood of obtaining employment post-release [65]. Several other studies resulted from this partnership, including studies that analyzed the impact of prison-based substance abuse treatment and post-release supervision on post-release recidivism and employment, as well as a study that looked at the effect of restrictive housing on inmate, staff, and prison outcomes [66,67,68]. These studies were impactful for several reasons including their policy and program relevance, their ability to provide both the researchers and practitioners with beneficial information, and their ability to support future research projects between the two entities.

Researcher-practitioner partnerships are a frequently used and cited best practice in the translational criminology movement. RPPs and the relationships, trust, and reciprocity they can foster throughout all sectors of the criminal justice system are an important and potentially effective method that can be utilized to support translational criminology’s goal of using research to inform criminal justice policy and practice.

3.2. Champions

In line with the importance of relationships is the equally important and often cited strategy of champions. Champions are individuals who are respected leaders within research organizations, practitioner agencies, and/or the inner circles of policymaking bodies that can support and are willing to champion the use of collaborative research and help navigate the political processes within their respective organizations [7]. Champions typically believe in the goals of the research and, as a result of their inner-circle respect, champions can advocate on behalf of the research and further the translational agenda within their agency/organization [6]. Similar to the aforementioned qualities of RPPs, partnerships with champions are best achieved when trust, respect, and commitment are involved. Additionally, it is important to have champions who see the value of the work and vision promoted by the collaborative research. Further, it is helpful when champions exist on both sides of the collaboration, meaning that both practitioners and researchers have a champion advocating on their behalf [12].

Holt and their colleagues described the power and importance of champions in a cold case collaboration between law enforcement and academics [69]. In their work, Holt and their colleagues explained that Detective Sergeant Larry Rothman from the Michigan State Police began solo work on cold cases during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. However, after realizing that this task would be too much for one person alone, he sought out advice from other cold case investigators. These investigators recommended partnering with local academics at Michigan State University. Once Rothman contacted the university and this collaboration began, he was able to play the pivotal role of a champion between the Michigan State Police and the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. In his role as a champion, Rothman advocated on behalf of the academics within his own agency so that they could be included in the cold case process and helped his colleagues see the importance and value of collaborating with academics [69]. As a result of this individual champion, this partnership has been ongoing since 2020 and has even expanded in 2025 to include the Lansing Police Department [70].

Edward Latessa and his colleagues at the University of Cincinnati are another example of translational champions who are known for their collaboration with the Ohio correctional system. During his time as a professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati, Latessa worked with numerous correctional partners and institutions throughout the state of Ohio to help inform their policies and programs with evidence-based practices [71]. Some examples of these evidence-based practices that Ohio correctional institutions adopted included the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) and the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS). These risk assessments were developed after both the youth and adult correctional agencies partnered with Latessa. The ORAS and OYAS contained frameworks that were completely novel at the time and would go on to be used state-wide to focus on each individual’s risks and needs [71]. Latessa was also contacted by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC) to evaluate a project that is now known as the Community Corrections Act. After their evaluation, Latessa and his team provided clear and extensive results in addition to policy recommendations to the practitioners within ORDC. After the evaluation was complete, Latessa and his research team continued to collaborate on this project throughout its progression [71]. Latessa’s many contributions and collaborations throughout Ohio correctional agencies demonstrates the vast policy and program potential that may come from the involvement of champions in the translational process.

3.3. Timing & Opportunity

The timing of the research is also crucial to the success of the translational process. Researchers should collaborate early in the policymaking process in order to contribute effectively and in a meaningful way to the creation or modification of the policies under consideration. This is especially important when researchers work with legislative policymakers. Legislatures and the politicians within them are working under specific, and often short, time constraints. Legislative sessions typically run on an inflexible timeline and solutions to their constituents’ concerns are often demanded immediately [48]. A case study of a partnership between FSU’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice and the Florida Senate Criminal Justice Committee (Committee) found that, in order for researchers to effectively contribute to legislation, a relationship between the researchers and legislators should begin early in the legislative process so that bills can be informed with empirical findings prior to their drafting [44]. This partnership operated during the 2019 legislative session when researchers at FSU were recruited by a Florida Senator to analyze the potential racial and ethnic impact of ten different proposed bills [44]. Utilizing data from various Florida agencies, the researchers at FSU presented impact statements for all ten proposed bills as well as forecasted trends for the next five years on arrest rates and prison admissions if the proposed bills were enacted. More specifically, the researchers were able to use empirical evidence to predict significant racial and ethnic disparities that would occur as a result of several proposed bills [72]. This partnership resulted in the creation of a statewide interagency criminal justice data repository [72]. Additionally, the partnership gave the researchers a better understanding of legislative processes, including challenges and factors unique to legislative partnerships such as timeline constraints. With that in mind, the researchers realized that if involvement does not begin in a timely manner, research and evidence are less likely to successfully inform policy and practice. Additionally, research is more effective when it is used to inform the development of the legislative agenda and the policy debates rather than research and findings that are conducted and provided in response to already drafted bills [44].

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted the importance of timing within translational criminology. During this time, several different criminal justice agencies and lawmakers needed immediate guidance for criminal justice questions during the health crises. One area of particular focus during the pandemic was the impact of lockdown orders on domestic violence. International health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and UN Women, as well as prominent media outlets such as the New York Times, began to bring attention to the potential victimization that could be on the rise due to such orders [73,74]. As a result of these various calls to action, researchers were tasked with producing findings and policy responses to the increase in violence as a result of stay-at-home orders [75].

A research team involving individuals from several universities within the United States collaborated to gather and analyze crime data from Los Angeles, CA and Indianapolis, IN amid the required social distancing of the pandemic. One crime that saw a significant increase in calls for police service during this time on lockdown was domestic violence [76]. Similarly, researchers from Columbia Law School and Northwestern University analyzed 911 calls for police service to measure the impact of COVID-19 quarantine on calls for domestic violence. Their evaluation revealed that rates of domestic violence increased by 20% during what the authors defined as working hours (e.g., 9 a.m.–9 p.m.) and in total, on average, by 12%. Additionally, neighborhoods that had no recent history of violence saw a 16% increase in calls for domestic violence on average [77]. This study, in particular, was one of many that prompted the Center for Global Development to demand a “shift to more action-oriented studies–those that go beyond identifying trends in VAW/C rates and begin to pinpoint ‘what works’ to effectively prevent and/or respond to violence” in one of their three 2020 research round ups [75]. These studies, along with others, emphasized the need for policymakers and government officials to direct resources to groups of people who were at-risk for being isolated and for groups of people who have been historically marginalized [48].

Correctional practitioners also required rapid information from researchers to stop the spread of COVID-19 within institutions across the United States. Researchers at Emory Center for Health of Incarcerated Persons developed provisional guidance for the National Commission on Correctional Health Care on reducing the spread of COVID-19 in detention settings within the first few months of the virus being detected in the United States. This provisional guidance provided recommendations for all detention facilities in the United States for various scenarios including the booking of a singular exposed individual, the detection of an ill individual after being moved between facilities, and the detection of multiple ill individuals within the same facility [78]. The pandemic also led researchers and policymakers to encourage a reduction in the use of cash bail and for correctional practitioners to utilize “cite and release” practices, which meant that low-level offenders were cited for their crime rather than placed in a detention facility [79]. Practitioners were also being urged to decarcerate by releasing certain individuals back into the community to reduce their facility’s population and, therefore, decrease the spread and risk of COVID-19 infections [80]. These recommendations to practitioners came from researchers across several fields including the medical field, social work, and criminology and show the potential reciprocity and potential impact of translational work.

The above examples of working with legislative-making bodies and reacting to the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate both opportunity and time constraints that researchers and practitioners must sometimes work through in order to produce safety-enhancing, research-informed policy. This process is made easier when prior relationships and trust have been established between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

3.4. Research Accessibility

Translational criminology also relies on the accessibility of research findings to policymakers and practitioners and their relevance to their needs. In the desire for criminology to be scientifically respected, academics embraced methodological rigor, which was largely focused on theory testing and accompanied by considerable jargon and the placement of research findings in subscription-based peer-reviewed scientific journals. These journals are often inaccessible to policymakers and practitioners through paywalls, and the journals’ missions are not often aligned with the needs and agendas of practitioners [32,34]. Pesta and colleagues found that research findings being difficult to interpret or use was one of the main barriers mentioned by state-level correctional and juvenile justice officials [12]. Similarly, officials mentioned that their main sources for gathering research-related information were government websites and peer networking, with traditional academic research being among the most infrequently mentioned sources utilized by practitioners [12]. Given these findings, a best practice for translational criminology includes academics moving toward practitioner-centered research. This includes employing clear and direct language regarding the applicability of the research findings to policy and practice and disseminating their published findings through outlets that are more accessible to policymakers and practitioners.

There are several tools that have been developed since the recognition of this best practice that attempt to better disseminate and enhance the accessibility of research for practitioners and policymakers. One example that is funded by the National Institute of Justice is CrimeSolutions.gov [81]. This website is a comprehensive resource that gathers and allows users to search for criminal justice studies from various topics including corrections and reentry, courts, crime prevention, drugs and substance abuse, juveniles and schools, law enforcement and policing, and victims and victimization. These studies are given ratings of effective, promising, ineffective, or negative effects based on the evaluations of multiple experts in each topic [81]. Since 2011, 35 programs and 16 practices have been rated as “effective,” and 192 programs and 43 practices have been rated as “promising” in the area of crime prevention [82].

Another example of a tool that aids in the accessibility of research for policymakers and practitioners is the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix created by George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy [83]. This tool is updated annually and contains policing studies dated as far back as the 1990s that are scored as having results that are effective, ineffective, have mixed effects, or null results. Further, this tool allows users to narrow down studies based on a desired target (e.g., neighborhood, individuals, groups, etc.), method of deterrence (e.g., general or focused), and the level of proactivity of the study’s tactic (e.g., reactive, proactive, or highly proactive) [84]. Despite the Matrix initially being developed without funding, a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in 2011 allowed for the creation of a more advanced website for the Matrix as well as several subsequent studies [81,83]. These translational tools help practitioners and policymakers easily access “what works” in criminal justice research and, as a result, increases the chances of research informing policy and practice.

3.5. Priorities of Academia

Translational criminology’s success also relies on the organizational efforts of research universities. Most academics are currently rewarded and recognized based on the rigor of their methods, the prestige of the academic journals they publish in, and the number of peer-reviewed articles they publish [7,34]. Additionally, many criminal justice programs across the United States lack curriculum that encourages and allows for collaboration with practitioners and policymakers [12]. Translational criminology would benefit from universities recognizing and rewarding faculty members for conducting policy relevant, collaborative, and practitioner-focused research. This includes rewarding policy-relevant research, encouraging publishing in practitioner-focused journals, supporting and sustaining long-term collaborative research projects, and restructuring course curriculum to introduce students to applied research methods and research partnerships.

For example, criminal justice programs could develop and offer coursework that focuses on policy development, program evaluations, collaborative partnership building and research, and criminal justice-related internships rather than strictly training students on theory and research [12]. There are several criminal justice and criminology programs in the United States that currently require internships in order to graduate. For example, the University of North Georgia, Georgia State, Florida Gulf Coast University, the University of Georgia, the University of Arizona, North Carolina Central University, Florida State University, and Wright State University all require their criminal justice students to participate in an internship as part of their degree requirements [85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92]. By requiring students to participate and collaborate with criminal justice agencies and professionals, the foundation for future partnerships and the formation of champions on both the side of the university and the agency may be created.

In addition to a number of universities requiring internships prior to graduation, there are also some that offer degrees and programs dedicated to creating and evaluating criminal justice policy as well as an overall emphasis on translational criminology. For example, Penn State University offers a Master of Professional Studies in Criminal Justice Policy and Administration. This program’s curriculum centers around creating policy proposals, evaluating current policies, and analyzing research [93]. Similarly, the University of Mississippi offers a Criminal Justice Policy Studies doctoral program within its School of Applied Sciences that allows students to develop and evaluate criminal justice policies [94]. FSU’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice has incorporated a translational focus and classes into its graduate training. Through their Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, students and faculty are able to impact public policy at the local, state, and national levels through evidence-based research [95]. Further, universities like Carnegie Mellon and Harvard offer specific courses that students can take to learn effective writing meant for public policy and political sectors [96,97]. By offering courses and degrees that focus on policy creation and evaluation, universities are setting their students up to translate research into policy successfully.

4. Current Challenges

Translational criminology has faced numerous challenges in the past including resource scarcity, causal uncertainty, unsupportive leadership, and strained relationships between researchers and practitioners [12]. Although these past challenges have not disappeared completely, the role of politics is a more significant past and present-day obstacle for translational criminology. Politics and ideology can make translational efforts difficult at times for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that, occasionally, what is empirically sound is not always politically popular [7]. For example, some studies suggest that longer sentences and prison as a whole have little to no deterrent effect [98,99,100]. However, a politician may risk appearing “soft on crime” if their campaign promise is centered around reducing sentences for convicted individuals. As a result, it may be hard for policymakers to implement evidence-based research if it presents a potential risk to their political and career interests. This clash between political agendas and criminal justice research is nothing new and is well-documented [101]. However, academics of various disciplines in the United States are presently facing distrust of science and higher education. A poll from the Pew Research Center found that, from 2019 to 2023, there has been a growing percentage of Americans who lack confidence in scientists to act in the best interests of the public [102].

In 2025, universities and research organizations across the United States are experiencing cuts in research funding. Further exacerbating this issue, criminal justice policy and practice organizations are also feeling the strain of staff shortages and resource constraints. This may result in fewer collaborative efforts with researchers, as resources are needed and focused elsewhere. Although it may be too soon to see the direct impact these constraints will have on the translational criminology movement, a 2024 survey conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police revealed that out of the 1158 United States agencies that responded, 70% reported that the recruitment process is harder than it was five years ago. Further, the association reported that agencies, on average, are experiencing an almost 10% deficit in their authorized staffing levels [103]. Regarding other criminal justice agencies, state prisons across the United States have seen a 12% decrease in their full-time staff between the years 2013 to 2023 [104]. With new cuts to an already strained field, it may be hard for practitioners and other key players within the translational criminology to focus on partnerships and projects when they are concerned with addressing front-line staffing issues.

Furthermore, the aforementioned anti-science sentiment may widen the gap and increase mistrust between policymakers, practitioners, and researchers that, in recent years, the field has worked to bridge. In times of political and research uncertainty, the aforementioned best practices of translational criminology may act as buffers against financial and ideological strains [6]. Some research has found that budget constraints can act as an incentive to fund validated, research-informed best practices instead of spending money on programs and policies that may not work, which could further encourage collaboration between practitioners, policymakers, and researchers [12]. With that in mind, trusting, mutually beneficial relationships involving the work of champions may prove to be the best option for sustaining translational research and narrowing the gap between policy and research.

5. Conclusions

Translational criminology focuses on applying rigorous research to inform criminal justice policies and practices. Although American criminology grew out of an applied approach to understanding and solving the problems of urban slums and crime during the beginning of the 20th Century, it soon became concerned with theory development and establishing itself as a scientific discipline [7]. After the “nothing works” and tough on crime era of the 1980s and 90s, many criminal justice scholars began to conduct research with the goal of identifying “what works.” This evidence-based approach led to strategies that included collaborating with policymakers and practitioners to conduct research, which further highlighted the need to not only conduct policy-relevant research but also to translate that research into policy and practice. The current context of partisan politics, ideology, and attacks on science create further challenges for conducting translational research.

Now more than ever, it is critical to identify research and policy champions that can bridge this growing divide. Given the current political climate in the U.S., criminologists should enhance their efforts to build trust with the general public as well as policymakers and criminal justice practitioners. During times of major political and policy change, research could and should be used to inform new agendas, initiatives, and crime control strategies. However, for research to have an opportunity to inform policies and practices, it must first be trusted and viewed as value-added. The promise of translational criminology is that, when successful, it not only produces new knowledge through sound scientific research but also reduces the pain and suffering associated with crime through policies and practices that can reduce, prevent, and ameliorate it.