Deviancy training: understanding how preventive interventions harm
Joan McCord’s follow-up study of the Cambridge–Somerville Youth Project showed that even well-intentioned, well-implemented prevention programs sometimes have harmful effects on participants. She reported that peer reinforcement of delinquent behaviors or bragging about delinquent behaviors that occurred during summer camp experiences provided as part of the project might explain the negative outcomes observed for treatment boys. We explored this “deviancy training” mechanism in the context of an evaluation of an after-school program. The study found that peer deviancy training does occur in the context of after-school programs, that it is more likely to occur during less structured activities, and that more violent behavior also occurs during these less structured times. Also, the amount of adult supervision that is afforded in after-school programs did not counteract the reinforcing effect of peers. Finally, we showed that while teaching a prevention curriculum that was part of the after-school program, the most effective group leaders provided positive reinforcement for students’ pro-deviancy expressions. A scale assessing beliefs that illegal, violent, and risky behaviors are common and acceptable in the peer group favored the control students in the programs in which group leaders were observed providing this positive reinforcement. Implications for prevention programming are discussed.
KeywordsDeviancy training Prevention Harmful preventive interventions Experimental research
- Academy of Experimental Criminology (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2009 from http://www.crim.upenn.edu/aec/jmccord.htm.
- Allport, G. (1951). Foreword. In E. Powers & H. Witmer (Eds.), An experiment in the prevention of delinquency: The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Dynarski, M., James-Burdumy, S., Moore, M., Rosenberg, L., Deke, J., & Mansfield, W. (2003). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: Final Report. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Dynarski, M., James-Burdumy, S., Moore, M., Rosenberg, L., Deke, J., & Mansfield, W. (2004). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: New findings. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Gottfredson, D. C. (1986b). An assessment of a delinquency prevention demonstration with both individual and environmental interventions. Report No. 361, Center for Social Organization of Schools. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
- Gottfredson, D. C., Cross A., & Soule D. A. (2007). Distinguishing characteristics of effective and ineffective after-school programs to prevent delinquency and victimization. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 289–318.Google Scholar
- Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A. B., Wilson, D. M., Rorie, M., & Connell, N. (2010a). A randomized trial of the effects of an enhanced after-school program for middle school students. Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education Institute for Educational Sciences.Google Scholar
- Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A. B., Wilson, D. M., Rorie, M., & Connell, N. (in press). Effects of participation in after-school programs for middle school students: A randomized trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness.Google Scholar
- Hallfors, D., Cho, H., Dishion, T., Cuffee, J., & Hartman, S. (2007). The role of teachers in school-based interventions for high risk adolescents: An alternative paradigm for predicting deviancy training. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Huang, D., Sung Kim, K., Marshall, A., & Perez, P. (2005). Keeping kids in school: An LA’s BEST example. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Center, Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
- McCord, J. (1981). Consideration of some effects of a counseling program. In S. E. Martin, L. B. Sechrest, & R. Reder (Eds.), New directions in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders (pp. 394–405). Washington: The National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
- McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. In D. Weisburd, A. Petrosino & C. Lum (Eds.), Assessing systematic evidence in crime and justice: methodological concerns and empirical outcomes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587: 16–30. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Powers, E., & Witmer, H. (1951). An experiment in the prevention of delinquency: The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Rorie, M., Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A., Wilson, D. M., & Connell, N. (in press). Structure and deviancy training in after-school programs. Journal of Adolescence. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01.007.
- Smith, C., & Kennedy, S. D. (1991). Final impact evaluation of the Friendly PEERsuasion program for Girls Incorporated. New York: Girls Incorporated.Google Scholar
- Snyder, J., Schrepferman, L., Oeser, J., Patterson, G., Stoolmiller, M., Johnson, K., et al. (2005). Deviancy training and association with deviant peers on young children: occurrence and contribution to early-onset conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weisman, S. A., Womer, S. C., Kellstrom, M. A., Bryner, S. L., Kahler, A., Slocum, L., et al. (2002). Maryland after school community grant program, report on the 2001–2002 school year evaluation of the phase 3 after school programs. Technical report available from the authors.Google Scholar