Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 245–266 | Cite as

When crime prevention harms: a review of systematic reviews




In a series of important scholarly works, Joan McCord made the case for the criminological community to take seriously harmful effects arising from individual-based crime prevention programs. Building on these works, two key questions are of central interest to this paper: What has been the state of research on harmful effects of these crime prevention programs since McCord’s works? And what are the theoretical, methodological, and programmatic characteristics of individual-based crime prevention programs with reported harmful effects?


This paper reports on the first empirical review of harmful effects of crime prevention programs, drawing upon 15 Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Altogether, 574 experimental and quasi-experimental studies (published and unpublished) with 645 independent effect sizes were reviewed.


A total of 22 harmful effects from 22 unique studies of individual-based crime prevention programs were identified. Almost all of the studies have been reported since 1990, all but 2 were carried out in the United States, and two-thirds can be considered unpublished. The studies covered a wide range of interventions, from anti-bullying programs at schools, to second responder interventions involving police, to the Scared Straight program for juvenile delinquents, with more than half taking place in criminal justice settings. Boot camps and drug courts accounted for the largest share of studies with harmful effects.


Theory failure, implementation failure, and deviancy training were identified as the leading explanations for harmful effects of crime prevention programs, and they served as key anchors for a more focused look at implications for theory and policy. Also, the need for programs to be rigorously evaluated and monitored is evident, which will advance McCord’s call for attention to safety and efficacy.


Crime prevention Harmful effect Systematic review High quality evaluation Theory failure Implementation failure 



We are grateful to David Wilson and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.


References marked with an asterisk (*) are studies with harmful effects included in the review.

  1. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  2. Boisjoli, R., Vitaro, F., Lacourse, E., Barker, E. D., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Impact and clinical significance of a preventive intervention for disruptive boys: 15-year follow-up. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 415–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. *Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. *Boyles, C. E., Bokenkamp, E., & Madura, W. (1996). Evaluation of the Colorado juvenile regimented training program. Golden: Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections.Google Scholar
  5. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 323–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2012). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.673632.Google Scholar
  7. Cécile, M., & Born, M. (2009). Intervention in juvenile delinquency: Danger of iatrogenic effects? Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1217–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  9. Cullen, F. T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond nothing works. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice in America, 1975–2025 (pp. 299–376). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. *Davis, R. C., & Medina, J. (2001). Results from an elder abuse prevention experiment in New York City. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  11. Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Peer contagion in interventions for children and adolescents: Moving toward an understanding of the ecology and dynamics of change. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  14. Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006). Deviant peer influences in intervention and public policy for youth. Social Policy Report, 20, 1–19.Google Scholar
  15. Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., et al. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekblom, P., & Pease, K. (1995). Evaluating crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention (pp. 585–662). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2006). A half century of randomized experiments on crime and justice. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 34, pp. 55–132). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Farrington, D. P., Weisburd, D., & Gill, C. E. (2011). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group: A decade of progress. In C. J. Smith, S. X. Zhang, & R. Barberet (Eds.), Routledge handbook of international criminology (pp. 53–63). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. *Finckenauer, J. O. (1982). Scared Straight and the panacea phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. *Gilbertson, T. (2009). 2008 DWI court evaluation report. Bemidji: Criminal Justice Department, Bemidji State University.Google Scholar
  22. Gottfredson, D. C. (2010). Deviancy training: Understanding how preventive interventions harm: The Academy of Experimental Criminology 2009 Joan McCord Award lecture. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. *Gransky, L. A., & Jones, R. J. (1995). Evaluation of the post-release status of substance abuse program participants. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.Google Scholar
  24. Green, J. (2000). The role of theory in evidence-based health promotion practice. Health Education Research, 15, 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene, M. B. (2004). Implications of research showing harmful effects of group activities with anti-social adolescents. In Persistently safe schools: The national conference of the Hamilton Fish Institute on school and community violence (pp. 73–83). Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
  26. Greenwood, P. W. (2006). Promising solutions in juvenile justice. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, & J. E. Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions (pp. 278–295). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  27. Greenwood, P. W., & Welsh, B. C. (2012). Promoting evidence-based practice in delinquency prevention at the state level: Principles, progress, and policy directions. Criminology and Public Policy, 11, 491–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Handwerk, M. L., Field, C. E., & Friman, P. C. (2000). The iatrogenic effects of group intervention for antisocial youth: Premature extrapolations? Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. *Harrell, A. (1991). Evaluation of court-ordered treatment for domestic violence offenders. Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  30. Hough, M. (2010). Gold standard or fool’s gold? The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Hovell, M. F., Seid, A. G., & Liles, S. (2006). Evaluation of a police and social services domestic violence program: Empirical evidence needed to inform public health policies. Violence Against Women, 12, 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, B. R., De Li, S., Larson, D. B., & McCullough, M. (2000). A systematic review of the religiosity and delinquency literature: A research note. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. *Jones, M., & Ross, D. L. (1997). Is less better? Boot camp, regular probation and rearrest in North Carolina. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lillienfeld, S. O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lopes, G., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Schmidt, N. M., Vasquez, B. E., & Bernberg, J. G. (2012). Labeling and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of formal police intervention on life chances and crime during emerging adulthood. Crime and Delinquency, 58, 456–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Preventing future criminal activities of delinquents and offenders. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 466–486). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. MacKenzie, D. L. (2013). First do no harm: A look at correctional policies and programs today: The 2011 Joan McCord Prize lecture. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. *MacKenzie, D. L., & Shaw, J. W. (1993). The impact of shock incarceration on technical violations and new criminal activities. Justice Quarterly, 10, 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. *MacKenzie, D. L., & Souryal, C. (1994). Multi-site evaluation of shock incarceration: Executive summary. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  41. MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., & Kider, S. B. (2001). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 126–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. American Psychologist, 33, 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCord, J. (2002). Counterproductive juvenile justice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35, 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. *Meekins, B. J. (2003). Deterrence in the drug court setting: Case study and quasi experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Alexandria: University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  46. *Michigan Department of Corrections (1967). A six month follow-up of juvenile delinquents visiting the Ionia Reformatory. Research Report No. 4. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
  47. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2011). Drug courts’ effects on criminal offending for juveniles and adults. Campbell Collaboration. doi: 10.4073/csr.2012.4.Google Scholar
  48. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012a). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012b). The effectiveness of incarceration-based drug treatment on criminal behavior: A systematic review. Campbell Collaboration. doi: 10.4073/csr.2012.18.Google Scholar
  50. *NPC Research. (2009). Baltimore City Circuit Court adult treatment court and felony diversion initiative: Outcome and cost evaluation. Portland: NPC Research.Google Scholar
  51. Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6, 359–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Petrosino, A., & Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Best evidence on ‘what works’ for criminal justice decision makers. Western Criminology Review, 8, 1–15.Google Scholar
  53. Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2004). “Scared Straight” and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency. Campbell Collaboration. doi: 10.4073/csr.2004.2.Google Scholar
  54. Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Collaboration. doi: 10.4073/csr.2010.1.Google Scholar
  55. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. *Porter, R. (2002). Breaking the cycle: Technical report. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  57. Poulin, F., Dishion, D. J., & Burraston, B. (2001). 3-year iatrogenic effects associated with aggressive high-risk adolescents in cognitive-behavioral preventive interventions. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 214–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rhule, D. M. (2005). Take care to do no harm: Harmful interventions for youth problem behavior. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 618–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rorie, M., Gottfredson, D. C., Cross, A., Wilson, D., & Connell, N. (2011). Structure and deviancy training in after-school programs. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. *Rosenbluth, B., Whitaker, D. J., Sanchez, E., & Valle, L. A. (2004). The Expect Respect Project: Preventing bullying and sexual harassment in US elementary schools. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 211–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance of null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sampson, R. J. (2010). Gold standard myths: Observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  64. *Scarpitti, F. R., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., Gray, A. R., & Leigey, M. E. (2005). Drug court offenders in outpatient treatment: Final report to National Institute of Drug Abuse. Newark: University of Delaware.Google Scholar
  65. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  66. Sherman, L. W. (2003). Preface: Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sherman, L. W. (2007). The power few: Experimental criminology and the reduction of harm. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2006). Evidence-based crime prevention (rev. ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. *Siegal, H. A., Wang, J., Falck, R. S., Rahman, A. M., & Carlson, R. G. (1997). An evaluation of Ohio's prison-based therapeutic community treatment programs for substance abusers: Final report. Dayton: School of Medicine, Wright State University.Google Scholar
  70. *State of New York Department of Correctional Services Division of Parole (NY DCS). (2003). The fifteenth annual shock legislative report. New York: Department of Correctional Services and the Division of Parole.Google Scholar
  71. *Terry, W. C., III. (1995). Repeat offenses of the first year cohort of Broward County, Florida’s drug court. Miami: Florida International University.Google Scholar
  72. Tremblay, R. E., McCord, J., Boileau, H., Charlebois, P., Gagnon, C., Le Blanc, M., et al. (1991). Can disruptive boys be helped to become competent? Psychiatry, 54, 148–161.Google Scholar
  73. *Vaughn, M. S., Deng, F., & Lee, L. J. (2003). Evaluating a prison-based drug treatment program in Taiwan. Journal of Drug Issues, 33, 357–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weisburd, D. (2010). Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: Challenging the folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weisburd, D., & Hinkle, J. (2012). The Importance of randomized experiments in evaluating crime prevention. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 446–465). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Weiss, B., Caron, A., Ball, S., Tapp, J., Johnson, J., & Weisz, J. R. (2005). Iatrogenic effects of group treatment for antisocial youth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1036–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2012a). Science, politics, and crime prevention: Toward a new crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2012b). The Oxford handbook of crime prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Werch, C. E., & Owen, D. M. (2002). Iatrogenic effects of alcohol and drug prevention programs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 581–590.Google Scholar
  80. Wilson, D. B. (2009). Missing a critical piece of the pie: Simple document search strategies inadequate for systematic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2008). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Collaboration. doi: 10.4073/csr.2003.1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law EnforcementAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Maine Department of CorrectionsAugustaUSA
  4. 4.University of MaineOronoUSA
  5. 5.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations