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 Altogether, 574 experimental and quasi-experimental studies (published and unpublished) with 645 independent effect sizes were reviewed.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have been reported since 1990, all but 2 were carried out in the United States, and two-thirds can be considered unpublished.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.
KeywordsCrime 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.
- Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
- *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
- Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- 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
- *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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- *Finckenauer, J. O. (1982). Scared Straight and the panacea phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- *Gilbertson, T. (2009). 2008 DWI court evaluation report. Bemidji: Criminal Justice Department, Bemidji State University.Google Scholar
- *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
- 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
- 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
- *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
- 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
- *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
- *Meekins, B. J. (2003). Deterrence in the drug court setting: Case study and quasi experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Alexandria: University of Virginia.Google Scholar
- *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
- *NPC Research. (2009). Baltimore City Circuit Court adult treatment court and felony diversion initiative: Outcome and cost evaluation. Portland: NPC Research.Google Scholar
- 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
- *Porter, R. (2002). Breaking the cycle: Technical report. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
- *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
- 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
- *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
- Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- 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
- *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
- *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
- *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
- 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
- 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
- Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2012b). The Oxford handbook of crime prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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