Research Summary This article compares the criteria and methods applied by three registries designed to identify what works in crime and delinquency prevention. We discuss and demonstrate how variation in the methodological rigor of these processes affects the number of interventions identified as “evidence based” and provide recommendations for future list‐making to help increase the dissemination of effective crime prevention programs and practices. Policy Implications As support for evidence‐based crime prevention grows, so too will reliance on what works registries. We contend that these lists must employ scientifically rigorous review criteria and systematic review processes to protect public resources and ensure interventions recommended for dissemination do not risk harming participants. Lists must also be constructed and findings communicated in ways that are responsive to community needs. Ensuring this balance will help increase public confidence in scientific methods and ensure greater diffusion of evidence‐based interventions.