Abstract
Programs that aim to reduce gang involvement and violence can unintentionally produce adverse outcomes. A recent systematic review identified 41 controlled evaluations of gang-focused interventions, eight of which produced statistically significant adverse effects (i.e., effects that favored control groups). Understanding what caused these effects and whether they indicate that programs actually harmed participants requires careful investigation. In this critical review, we provide an overview of how gang-focused interventions can yield adverse effects and specify when effects are more likely to indicate harmful programs. We then critically review four program evaluations with adverse effects that exemplify different implementation problems (i.e., implementation failure), faulty theories about behavior change (i.e., theory failure), and evaluation methods that did not adequately measure outcomes (i.e., measurement failure). We offer hypotheses about what may have caused these adverse effects and conclude by recommending ways to maximize confidence that measured outcomes reflect real intervention effects, rather than artifacts of research design, using both time-tested methods and new technologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
We chose not to review one study where adverse effects were likely due to a statistical error (Wodarski et al., 1979), one that provided no details about program implementation (Willman & Snortum, 1982), and we review only one of three trials of the same Spergel model program (Spergel et al., 2006) with adverse effects.
- 2.
Less than half the youth at the other two sites were identified as gang members.
- 3.
Strain theory posits that society pressures individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (e.g. buying a home). Individuals who lack means to achieve such goals experience strain and commit crimes to gain financial security so they can achieve these goals (Agnew, 1992). Social learning theory posits that people learn pro-criminal attitudes and behaviors from deviant peers (Akers & Jennings, 2016). Social control theory asserts that people who feel they have a stake in legitimate society are more likely to obey the law, while those who engage in criminal behavior feel they do not have a stake in society (Hirschi, 2017).
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.
Agopian, M. W. (1990). The impact of Intensive Supervision Probation on gang-drug offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 4(3), 214–222.
Akers, R. L., & Jennings, W. G. (2016). Social learning theory. In A. R. Piquero (Ed.), Handbook of criminological theory (pp. 230–240). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010a). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010b). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta-analytic review of programme integrity. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(2), 173–187.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.
Barnett, G. D., & Howard, F. F. (2018). What doesn’t work to reduce reoffending? A review of reviews of ineffective interventions for adults convicted of crimes. European Psychologist, 23(2), 111–129.
Bhati, A. S., & Piquero, A. R. (2007). Estimating the impact of incarceration on subsequent offending trajectories: Deterrent, criminogenic, or null effect? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(1), 207–253.
Bouchard, J., & Wong, J. S. (2018). Examining the effects of intensive supervision and aftercare programs for at-risk youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1509–1534.
Braga, A. A. (2016). The continued importance of measuring potentially harmful impacts of crime prevention programs: The academy of experimental criminology 2014 Joan McCord lecture. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12, 1–20.
Braga, A. A., Piehl, A. M., & Hureau, D. (2009). Controlling violent offenders released to the community: An evaluation of the Boston reentry initiative. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 411–436.
County of San Mateo Probation. (2019). Intensive supervision. Retrieved May 27, 2019, from https://probation.smcgov.org/intensive-supervision
Crimesolutions.gov. (2019). How we review and rate a program from start to finish.
Ekblom, P., & Pease, K. (1995). Evaluating crime prevention. Crime and Justice, 19, 585–662.
Finckenauer, J. O. (1982). Scared straight! and the panacea phenomenon. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fox, A. M., Katz, C. M., Choate, D., & Hedberg, E. (2015). Evaluation of the phoenix TRUCE project: A replication of Chicago CeaseFire. Justice Quarterly, 31, 85–115.
Golembeski, C., & Fullilove, R. (2008). Criminal (in)justice in the city and its associated health consequences. American Journal of Public Health, 98, S185–S190.
Gramlich, J. (2019). 5 facts about crime in the U.S. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
Hirschi, T. (2017). Causes of delinquency. New York: Routledge.
Huey, S. J. J., Lewine, G., & Rubenson, M. (2016). A brief review and meta-analysis of gang intervention trials in North America. In C. L. Maxson & F.-A. Esbensen (Eds.), Gang transitions and transformations in an international context (pp. 217–233). New York: Springer.
Hyatt, J. M., & Barnes, G. C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime and Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38.
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gangs: Patterns and policies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Klein, M. W. (2011). Comprehensive gang and violence reduction programs: Reinventing the square wheel. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(4), 1037–1044.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93.
MacKenzie, D. L., & Souryal, C. (1994). Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration: Executive summary. National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/mse.pdf
Mackenzie, D. L., & De Li, S. (2002). The impact of formal and informal social controls on the criminal activities of probationers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(3), 243–276.
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.
MacKenzie, D.L., & Souryal, C. (1994). Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration: Executive summary. Washington, DC.
Nevada Department of Public Safety, Parole and Probation. (2019). Intensive supervision programs. Retrieved May 27, 2019, from http://npp.dps.nv.gov/Home/Offender_Supervision/Intensive_Supervision_Programs/
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2000). Preventing adolescent gang involvement. Washington, DC.
Patton, D. U., Eschmann, R. D., Elsaesser, C., & Bocanegra, E. (2016). Sticks, stones and Facebook accounts: What violence outreach workers know about social media and urban-based gang violence in Chicago. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 591–600.
Peters, M., Bullman, S., Gimbel, C., Thomas, D., Laxton, G., Opanga, M., … Croan, G. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of boot camps for juvenile offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, D.C.
Petersilia, J. (1990). When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Federal Probation, 23, 23–27.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1991). An evaluation of intensive probation in California. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 82(3), 610–658.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281–335.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Finckenauer, J. O. (2000). Well-meaning programs can have harmful effects! Lessons from experiments of programs such as Scared Straight. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 354–379.
Public Safety Canada. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation 2007–06.
Rubenson, M. P., Galbraith, K., Shin, O., Beam, C. R., & Huey, S. J. J. (2020). When helping hurts? Toward a nuanced interpretation of adverse effects in gang-focused interventions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12321
San Diego County Probation Department. (2019). Adult community supervision. Retrieved May 27, 2019, from https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/probation/adult_information_community_supervision.html
Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., Grossman, S., Sosa, R. V., Anderson, L., Arata, L., et al. (2003). The Little Village gang violence reduction project in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., & Sosa, R. V. (2002). Evaluation of the Mesa Gang Intervention Program (MGIP). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., & Sosa, R. V. (2005a). Evaluation of the Bloomington-Normal comprehensive gang program. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., & Sosa, R. V. (2005b). Evaluation of the Riverside comprehensive community-wide approach to gang prevention, intervention & suppression. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., & Sosa, R. V. (2005c). Evaluation of the Bloomington-Normal comprehensive gang program. Washington, DC.
Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., & Sosa, R. V. (2005d). Evaluation of the Riverside comprehensive community-wide approach to gang prevention, intervention & suppression. Washington, DC.
Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., & Sosa, R. V. (2006). The comprehensive, community-wide gang program model: Success and failure. In J. F. Short & L. A. Hughes (Eds.), Studying youth gangs (pp. 203–224). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Storrod, M. L., & Densley, J. A. (2017). ‘Going viral’ and ‘going country’: The expressive and instrumental activities of street gangs on social media. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(6), 677–696.
Trottier, D. (2012). Policing social media. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 49(4), 411–425.
Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1992). Focusing on high-risk parolees: An experiment to reduce commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 34–61.
Walsh, J. P., & O’Connor, C. (2019). Social media and policing: A review of recent research. Sociology Compass, 13(1), e12648.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2007). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19(4), 275–290.
Weinrath, M., Donatelli, G., & Murchison, M. J. (2016). Mentorship: A missing piece to manage juvenile intensive supervision programs and youth gangs? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58(3), 291–321.
Welsh, B. C., & Rocque, M. (2014). When crime prevention harms: A review of systematic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 245–266.
Wiebush, R. G., Wagner, D., Mcnulty, B., Wang, Y., & Le, T. N. (2005). Implementation and outcome evaluation of the intensive aftercare program: Final report. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Williams, K., Cohen, M. I., & Curry, D. (1999). Evaluation of youth gang drug intervention/prevention programs for female adolescents. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Willman, M. T., & Snortum, J. R. (1982). A police program for employment of youth gang members. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 26(3), 207–214.
Wilson, D. B., Mackenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2008). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 126–143.
Wilson, J. M., & Chermak, S. (2011). Community-driven violence reduction programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(4), 993–1027.
Wodarski, J. S., Filipczak, J., McCombs, D., Koustenis, G., & Rusilko, S. (1979). Follow-up on behavioral intervention with troublesome adolescents. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 10(3), 181–188.
Wong, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., Morselli, C., & Descormiers, K. (2012). Effectiveness of street gang control strategies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evaluation studies. Ottawa, ON: Research and National Coordination Organized Crime Division.
Worrall, J. L. (2015). Validating peer review in criminal justice evaluation research: Evidence from CrimeSolutions.gov. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 26(4), 507–529.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rubenson, M., Galbraith, K., Huey, S.J. (2020). Understanding Adverse Effects in Gang-Focused Interventions: A Critical Review. In: Melde, C., Weerman, F. (eds) Gangs in the Era of Internet and Social Media. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47214-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47214-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47213-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47214-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)