Advertisement

The first delinquency prevention experiment: a socio-historical review of the origins of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study’s research design

  • Brandon C. WelshEmail author
  • Nicole E. Dill
  • Steven N. Zane
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Begun in 1939, the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study (CSYS) is recognized as the first delinquency prevention experiment and the earliest example of a longitudinal–experimental study with criminological outcomes. This paper aims to develop a historical understanding of the origins of the study’s research design.

Methods

The present study is guided by the socio-historical approach and informed by past historical research in criminology. It draws upon a wide array of archival records and published works from the late nineteenth century to the present day.

Results

Richard Clarke Cabot designed and directed the CSYS. Major influences on the study’s research design can be traced to Cabot’s medical practice and research, his advocacy for social work practice and research, and his professional relationship with the Gluecks. The beginnings of experimentation in the social sciences during the early twentieth century may have also played a role. Joan McCord’s early involvement in the study proved instrumental to its longitudinal component.

Conclusions

The rigorous and innovative research design of the CSYS marks an important chapter in the history of experimental criminology, and its influence continues to this day. New experimental studies on the prevention of crime and delinquency must continue to strive to advance scientific knowledge and improve public policy.

Keywords

Randomized controlled experiment Longitudinal-experimental design Delinquency prevention History of criminology Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers, as well as the reference staff at the Harvard University Archives.

References

  1. Bothwell, L. E., & Podolsky, S. H. (2016). The emergence of the randomized, controlled trial. New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 501–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cabot, R. C. (1896). A guide to the clinical examination of the blood for diagnostic purposes. New York: W. Wood.Google Scholar
  3. Cabot, R. C. (1911). Social service work in hospitals. The ANNALS, 37, 223–227.Google Scholar
  4. Cabot, R. C. (1914). The four common types of heart disease: An analysis of six-hundred cases. Journal of the American Medical Association, 63, 1461–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabot, R. C. (1930). Foreword. In S. Glueck & E. T. Glueck, 500 Criminal Careers (pp. vii-xiii). New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  6. Cabot, R. C. (1931). Treatment in social case work and the need of criteria and of tests of its success and failure. Hospital Social Services, 24, 435–453.Google Scholar
  7. Cabot, R. C. (1934). 1000 delinquent boys: First findings of the Harvard law School’s survey of crime. Survey, 70(2), 38–40.Google Scholar
  8. Cabot, R.C. (1935a). Letter to H.A. Murray, October 19, 1935. HUG 4255: Box 97. Cabot Papers, Harvard University Archives.Google Scholar
  9. Cabot, R.C. (1935b). Letter to Mrs. Sheldon Glueck, June 16, 1935. General correspondence, G-H. HUG 4255: Box 39. Cabot Papers, Harvard University Archives.Google Scholar
  10. Cabot, R.C. (1935c). Letter to Mrs. Sheldon Glueck, October 1, 1935. General correspondence, G-H. HUG 4255: Box 39. Cabot Papers, Harvard University Archives.Google Scholar
  11. Cabot, R.C. (1937). Letter to Mrs. Sheldon Glueck, September 30, 1937. General correspondence, G-H. HUG 4255: Box 39. Cabot Papers, Harvard University Archives.Google Scholar
  12. Chalmers, I., Dukan, E., Podolsky, S., & Smith, G. D. (2012). The advent of fair treatment allocation schedules in clinical trials during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 105, 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. deQ. Cabot, P. S. (1940). A long-term study of children: The Cambridge-Somerville youth study. Child Development, 11, 143–151.Google Scholar
  14. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evison, I. S. (1995). Pragmatism and idealism in the professions. Unpublished dissertation. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  16. Farrington, D. P. (2006). Key longitudinal-experimental studies in criminology. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrington, D. P. (2013). Longitudinal and experimental research in criminology. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice 1975-2025 (pp. 453–527). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, R. A. (1926). The arrangement of field experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, 33, 503–513.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  20. Forsetlund, L., Chalmers, I., & Bjørndal, A. (2007). When was random allocation first used to generate comparison groups in experiments to assess the effect of social interventions? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. T. (1930). 500 criminal careers. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  22. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. T. (1934). One thousand juvenile delinquents. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gottfredson, D. C. (2010). Deviancy training: Understanding how preventive interventions harm. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1991). The Sutherland-Glueck debate: On the sociology of criminological knowledge. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1402–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lum, C., & Yang, S.-M. (2005). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacKenzie, D. L. (2013). First do no harm: A look at correctional policies and programs today. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazerolle, L. (2014). The power of policing partnerships: Sustaining the gains. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 341–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCall, W. A. (1923). How to experiment in education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. American Psychologist, 33, 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCord, J. (1981). Consideration of some effects of a counseling program. In S. E. Martin, L. B. Sechrest, & R. Redner (Eds.), New directions in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders (pp. 394–405). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. McCord, J. (1984). A longitudinal study of personality development. In S. A. Mednick, M. Harway, & K. M. Finello (Eds.), Handbook of longitudinal research (Vol. 2, pp. 522–531). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  32. McCord, J. (1992). The Cambridge-Somerville study: A pioneering longitudinal experimental study of delinquency prevention. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior (pp. 196–206). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. The ANNALS, 587, 16–30.Google Scholar
  34. McCord, J., & McCord, W. (1959a). A follow-up report on the Cambridge-Somerville youth study. The ANNALS, 322, 89–96.Google Scholar
  35. McCord, W., & McCord, J. (1959b). Origins of crime. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  36. O’Brien, L. (1985). ‘A bold plunge into the sea of values’: The career of Dr. Richard Cabot. New England Quarterly, 58, 533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Powers, E., & Witmer, H. L. (1951). An experiment in the prevention of delinquency. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sayre-McCord, G. (Ed.). (2007). Crime and family. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sherman, L. W. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. The ANNALS, 589, 6–19.Google Scholar
  40. Sherman, L. W. (2005). The use and usefulness of criminology, 1751-2005: Enlightened justice and its failures. The ANNALS, 600, 115–135.Google Scholar
  41. Speed, T. P. (1992). Introduction to Fisher (1926). In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Breakthroughs in statistics (Vol. 2, pp. 71–81). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stuart, P. H. (2004). Individualization and prevention: Richard C. Cabot and early medical social work. Social Work in Mental Health, 2, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tremblay, R. E. (2005). Towards an epigenetic approach to experimental criminology. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weisburd, D. (2010). Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: Challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weisburd, D., & Petrosino, A. (2004). Experiments, criminology. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 877–884). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  46. Welsh, B. C., & Zimmerman, G. M. (2015). Who cares about a delinquency prevention experiment of Boston boys born in the 1920s and 1930s? The need for long-term follow-ups in criminology. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 25, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. White, P.D. (1937). Ether Day address by Paul D. White, October 16, 1937. RCC General File. HUG 4255: Box 118. Cabot Papers, Harvard University Archives.Google Scholar
  48. Zane, S. N., Welsh, B. C., & Zimmerman, G. M. (2016). Examining the iatrogenic effects of the Cambridge-Somerville youth study: Existing explanations and new appraisals. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law EnforcementAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations