Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 79–86 | Cite as

Doing prevention science: A response to Dennis M. Gorman and a brief history of the quasi-experimental study nested within the Seattle Social Development Project

  • J. David Hawkins
  • Richard F. Catalano
Article

Abstract

The history of the quasi-experimental intervention test nested within the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) is described in the context of the history of delinquency and drug abuse prevention studies before and after 1980. Efforts to identify and assess threats to internal validity associated with the study design are discussed. The pattern of observed results associated with the intervention test is reviewed, and our efforts to advance both prevention theory and preventive interventions in light of these findings are described.

Key words

prevention prevention science quasi-experiment research design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R. & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime, Version 4.0. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved 10-29-04, from the World Wide Web: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/costbenefit.pdf.
  2. Berleman, W. C. (1980). Reports of the National Juvenile Justice Assessment Centers. Juvenile delinquency prevention experiments: A review and analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  3. Berleman, W. C., Seaberg, J. R. & Steinburn, T. W. (1972). The delinquency prevention experiment of the Seattle Atlantic Street Center: A final evaluation. Social Service Review 4, 323–346.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, E. C., Catalano, R. F., Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P. & Abbot, R. D. (in press). Adolescent substance use outcomes in the Raising Healthy Children Project: A two-part latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.Google Scholar
  5. Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B. & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health 74, 252–261.Google Scholar
  6. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (2001). 2001 annual report of the science-based prevention programs. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.Google Scholar
  7. Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R. & Markman, H. J., et al. (1993). The science of prevention. A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. American Psychologist 48, 1013–1022.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  9. Craig, M. M. & Furst, P. W. (1965). What happens after treatment? A study of potentially delinquent boys. Social Service Review 39, 165–171.Google Scholar
  10. Farrington, D. P. & Welsh, B. C. (1999). Delinquency prevention using family-based interventions. Children and Society 13, 283–303.Google Scholar
  11. Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gold, M. & Mattick, H. W. (1974). Experiment in the streets: The Chicago Youth Development Project. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Institute of Social Research.Google Scholar
  13. Gorman, D. M. (2002). Overstating the behavioral effects of the Seattle Social Development Project. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 156, 1155.Google Scholar
  14. Hackler, J. C. (1966). Boys, blisters, and behavior: The impact of work program in an urban central area. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 3, 155–164.Google Scholar
  15. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R. & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 153, 226–234.Google Scholar
  16. Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K. G., Battin-Pearson, S. & Abbott, R. D. (2001). Long-term effects of the Seattle Social Development intervention on school bonding trajectories. Applied Developmental Science: Special Issue: Prevention as Altering the Course of Development 5, 225–236.Google Scholar
  17. Janvier, R. L., Guthmann, D. R. & Catalano, R. F. (1980). An assessment of evaluations of drug abuse prevention programs (Reports of the National Juvenile Justice Assessment Centers, NIJJDP). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Lonczak, H. S., Abbott, R. D., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman, R. & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Effects of the Seattle Social Development Project on sexual behavior, pregnancy, birth, and sexually transmitted disease outcomes by age 21 years. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 156, 438–447.Google Scholar
  19. Meyer, H. J., Borgatta, E. F. & Jones, W. C. (1965). Girls at vocation high: An experiment in social work intervention. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Mihalic, S. F., Irwin, K., Elliott, D., Fagan, A. & Hansen, D. (2001). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. OJJDPJuvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, W. B. (1957a). The impact of a community group work program on delinquent corner groups. Social Service Review 31, 390–391.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, W. B. (1957b). The impact of a “total community” delinquency control project. Social Service Review 31, 169–189.Google Scholar
  23. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2003). Preventing drug use among children and adolescents: A research-based guide for parents, educators, and community leaders, (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  24. Powers, E. & Witmer, H. (1951). An experiment in the prevention of delinquency: The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  25. Reckless, W. C. & Dinitz, S. (1970). Youth Development Project: An experimental program for prevention of delinquency in vulnerable seventh-grade boys of the inner city, Columbus, Ohio. Columbus, OH: Department of Sociology, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  26. Reckless, W. C. & Dinitz, S. (1972). The prevention of juvenile delinquency. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  27. Sampson, R. J. & Lauritsen, J. L. (1994). Violent victimization and offending: Individual, situational, and community level risk factors. In A. J. Reiss, Jr. & J. A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence (pp.1Y114). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  28. Smith, C. S., Farrant, M. R. & Marchant, M. J. (1972). The Wincroft Youth Project: A social-work programme in a slum area. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Tait, C. D. & Hodges, E. F. (1962). Delinquents, their families, and the community. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Department of Education: Safe, Disciplined and Drug-Free Schools Expert Panel. (2001). Exemplary and promising safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools programs, 2001. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Development Research GroupUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations