Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review assesses the effect of scared straight and similar programs on criminal behaviours by juvenile delinquents or children at risk of committing crime. The review summarises findings from nine studies conducted in the United States. Participants include juveniles and young adults between the ages 14‐20. A total of 946 juveniles or young adults participated in all 9 experimental studies. Scared straight interventions cause more harm than doing nothing. The nine studies provided no evidence for the effectiveness of scared straight or similar programs on subsequent delinquency. Furthermore, analysis of seven studies reporting reoffending rates showed that the intervention significantly increased the odds of offending on the part of both the juveniles and pre‐delinquents. Abstract CONSUMER SYNOPSISPrograms like ‘Scared Straight’ involve organized visits to prison facilities by juvenile delinquents or children at risk for becoming delinquent. The programs are designed to deter participants from future offending by providing first‐hand observations of prison life and interaction with adult inmates. Results of this review indicate that not only does it fail to deter crime but it actually leads to more offending behavior. Government officials permitting this program need to adopt rigorous evaluation to ensure that they are not causing more harm to the very citizens they pledge to protect. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND ABSTRACT BACKGROUND‘Scared Straight’ and other programs involve organized visits to prison by juvenile delinquents or children at risk for criminal behavior. Programs are designed to deter participants from future offending through first hand observation of prison life and interaction with adult inmates. OBJECTIVESTo assess the effects of programs comprising organized visits to prisons by juvenile delinquents (officially adjudicated or convicted by a juvenile court) or pre‐delinquents (children in trouble but not officially adjudicated as delinquents), aimed at deterring them from criminal activity. SEARCH STRATEGYSearches by the first author in identifying randomized field trials 1945‐1993 relevant to criminology were augmented by structured searches of 29 electronic databases, including the Campbell SPECTR database of trials (through 2003) and the Cochrane CCTR (through 2011). Experts in the field were consulted and relevant citations were followed up. SELECTION CRITERIAStudies that tested the effects of any program involving the organized visits of juvenile delinquents or children at‐risk for delinquency to penal institutions were included. Studies that included overlapping samples of juvenile and young adults (e.g. ages 14‐20) were also included. We only considered studies that randomly or quasi‐randomly (i.e. alternation) assigned participants to conditions. Each study had to have a no‐treatment control condition with at least one outcome measure of “post‐visit” criminal behavior. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISWe report narratively on the nine eligible trials. We conducted one meta‐an...

The Mechanics of Reform: Implementing Correctional Programmes in English Prisons

“…In contrast to other initiatives bringing young people into prison which seek to ‘scare’ them (Petrosino et al . ), ‘BrightHorizons’ seeks to help young people see the consequences of their actions (Vennard, Hedderman and Sugg ), address pro‐criminal attitudes (Ministry of Justice ) and develop victim awareness (Izzo and Ross ; Latessa and Lowenkamp ) through a process of non‐confrontational peer education between prisoners and young people (Klenowski, Bell and Dodson ).…”

Assessing the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: An Evaluation of a Court‐Based Delinquency Prevention Program

“…Due to prohibitive costs, “Conducting evaluations of most local programs is not feasible” (Mihalic et al, , p. 5). Many preventive efforts are ineffective, and some like Scared Straight and DARE can even contribute to delinquency and future justice system involvement (Lundman, ; Petrosino, Buehler, & Turpin‐Petrosino, ). Preventives that do find support in the literature tend to be home and school based (Webster‐Stratton & Taylor, ; Mihalic et al, ; Welsh & Farrington, ) rather than juvenile court–based as the program evaluated here.…”

Effects of psychosocial interventions on behavioural problems in youth: A close look at Cochrane and Campbell reviews

“…Petrosino et al were confident, particularly in the Campbell version of their review, that the negative effects of ‘Scared Straight’ and similar programmes were due to the programme in itself being harmful, rather than to, for example, delivery or implementation issues. They simply stated that ‘As these programmes were relatively simple, none of the evaluators reported problems with implementation of the programme, that is, the youths received the intervention as intended’ (Petrosino et al, , p. 25). No other information was given to back up this claim…”