By describing evaluations demonstrating that carefully planned and executed interventions can have harmful effects, the author argues that programs to prevent crime should be tested for safety as well as efficacy. Although client reports of benefits and improvements over predicted outcomes would have suggested benefits from intervention, randomly assigned matched cases used in one such comparison showed that an intervention lasting more than five years increased the likelihood of serious crime, alcoholism, early death, and mental illness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanduraA.WaltersR.H. (1959). Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald.
2.
BergerR.J.CrowleyJ.E.GoldM.GrayJ.ArnoldM.S. (1975). Experiment in a juvenile court: A study of a program of volunteers working with juvenile probationers. Michigan: Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan.
3.
DishionT.J.AndrewsD.W. (1995). Preventing escalation in problem behaviors with highrisk young adolescents: Immediate and 1-year outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 538–548.
4.
DishionT.J.PoeJ. (1993). Parent antisocial behavior as an antecedent to deviancy training among adolescent boys and their peers. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology meetings in Phoenix AZ, October.
5.
GottfredsonG.D. (1987). Peer group interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behavior: A selective review and a new evaluation. Criminology, 25(3), 671–714.
KleinM.W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
8.
LewisR.V. (1983). Scared straight — California style. Criminal Justice and behavior, 10(2), 284–289.
9.
McCordJ. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. American Psychologist, 33(3), 284–289.
10.
McCordJ. (1981). Consideration of some effects of a counseling program. InMartinS.E.SechrestL.B.RednerR.(Eds.), New directions in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders (pp.394–405). Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences.
11.
McCordJ. (1985). Deterrence and the light touch of the law. InFarringtonD.P.GunnJ.(Eds.), Reactions to crime: The public, the police, courts, and prisons (pp.73–85). Chichester, England: Wiley.
12.
McCordJ. (1992). The Cambridge-Somerville Study: A pioneering longitudinal-experimental study of delinquency prevention. InMcCordJ.TremblayR.E.(Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence, (pp.196–206). New York: Guilford Press.
13.
McCordJ. (1997). “He Did It Because He Wanted To...” InOsgoodD.W., (Ed.), Motivation & delinquency: Vol. 44 of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp.1–43). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
McCordJ. (2000). A Theory of Motivation and the Life Course. InKarstedtS.BussmannK.D.(Eds.), Social dynamics of crime and control: New theories for a world in transition (pp.229–241). Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
16.
MillerJ.G.HoelterH.H. (1979). Prepared testimony. Oversight on Scared Straight. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17.
PetrosinoA.Turpin-PetrosinoC.BuehlerJ. (2001). The effects of ‘Scared Straight’ and other juvenile awareness programs on subsequent offending. A Pilot Test for the Campbell Collaboration Campbell Crime & Justice Group.
18.
PowersE.WitmerH. (1951). An experiment in the prevention of delinquency: The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. New York: Columbia University Press.
