"Scared Straight" programmes

Impact on crime
Evidence quality 4
Effect
How it works
cog full Evidence quality 1
Mechanism
Where it works
where empty Evidence quality 0
Moderator
How to do it
what full Evidence quality 1
Implementation
What it costs
cost full Evidence quality 0
Economic cost
* This is based on the strongest scores from a number of systematic reviews

What is the focus of the intervention?

Scared Straight involves organised visits to prison facilities by juvenile delinquents or children at risk of becoming delinquent. Programmes include confrontational ‘rap’ sessions in which adult inmates share graphic stories about prison life with the juveniles. Other less confrontational methods and more educational sessions include inmates sharing life stories and describing the choices they made that led to imprisonment. The aim of these is to deter those at risk by showing them the reality of incarceration.  This review focuses on both types of delivery methods.
 

This narrative summary is mainly based on two systematic reviews, review 1 (9 studies) and review 2 (12 studies), with additional information on economic costs from a separate paper (10 studies).​

EFFECT

How effective is it?

Overall, the evidence suggests that the intervention has increased crime.
 
After accounting for bias, review 1 estimated that reoffending was 68% higher amongst those juveniles who participated in the programme, as compared to those who did not. Participant reoffending was higher compared to offenders who did not receive the intervention in 7 of the 9 studies.

How strong is the evidence?

​The overall evidence is taken from review 1(covering 9 studies). The review was sufficiently systematic that most forms of bias that could influence the study outcomes could be ruled out.
 
The review did not quantify an overall effect for unanticipated outcomes caused by the intervention.

MECHANISM

How does it work?

The reviews provide a general statement of the assumed theory of the possible mechanisms through which Scared Straight might reduce crime.
 
Both reviews state that Scared Straight might reduce crime by giving programme participants realistic depictions of life in prison and access to offenders’ experiences. This may deter juvenile offenders or children at risk of becoming delinquent from further involvement with crime. This is based on deterrence theory and the hypothesis is that if punishment is swift, severe, and certain, it will deter criminal or delinquent behaviour.

MODERATORS

In which contexts does it work best?

There was no subgroup moderator analysis and both reviews noted that there was insufficient data in the primary evaluations to examine under what conditions or for what populations Scared Straight might work best.
 
All trials within both reviews were conducted in the US, and none of the individual studies were conducted after 1992.

IMPLEMENTATION

What can be said about implementing this initiative?

​The reviews provide ad hoc information on implementation. Sessions varied in the amount of time they took, ranging from two hours to a whole day. The session content also varied considerably, with some programmes including confrontational ‘rap’ sessions and others taking a softer approach, using prison tours and discussions with inmates about life choices that led to incarceration.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

How much might it cost?

​​​​There is no economic analysis in the two primary reviews, but Review 1 mentions that the delivery of a Maryland program was estimated to cost less than $1 per participant. An additional study by Aos et al. (2006) conducted a cost-benefit analysis of 10 studies of Scared Straight programmes in the US. The cost of participating in the programme was estimated to be $50 per person (in 2006).  However, after adding the estimated costs to society associated with the additional crimes committed by juveniles involved in the programme, the net cost to the tax-payer was estimated to be $14,667 per participant (again in 2006).

General considerations

  • Fear arousal tactics within the programmes either did not have a significant impact or had a negative impact on subsequent criminal behaviour.

  • The studies within both reviews either followed up cohorts on single or multiple occasions ranging from 3 to 24 months. This could affect the study findings, as longer follow up periods may have different outcomes.

Summary

​Overall, the evidence suggests that the intervention has increased juvenile offending.  In most studies reviewed, on average, more juveniles who participated in the program were found to commit offences, compared to juveniles who did not participate. This evidence suggests a backfire effect of the programme. It is not clear why or how the programme encourages offending behaviour in juveniles.

Ratings for Individual Reviews

Review 1

How it works
cog full Evidence quality 1
Mechanism
Where it works
where empty Evidence quality 0
Moderator
How to do it
what full Evidence quality 1
Implementation
What it costs
cost full Evidence quality 0
Economic cost

Review 2

How it works
cog full Evidence quality 1
Mechanism
Where it works
where empty Evidence quality 0
Moderator
How to do it
what full Evidence quality 1
Implementation
What it costs
cost empty Evidence quality 0
Economic cost

Resources

Review 1: Petrosino A., Turpin-Petrosino C., Hollis-Peel M.E., & Lavenberg J.G. (2013) 'Scared Straight' and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 4.

Review 2: Klenowski, P. M. , Bell, K. J. & Dodson, K. D. (2010) An Empirical Evaluation of Juvenile Awareness Programs in the United States: Can Juveniles be "Scared Straight"?, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49:4, 254-272, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509671003716068​​

Study: Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake. E. (2006) 'Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates', Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

 

This narrative was prepared by UCL Jill Dando Institute and was co-funded by the College of Policing and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).  ESRC Grant title: 'University Consortium for Evidence-Based Crime Reduction'.  Grant Ref: ES/L007223/1.

Uploaded on 19/02/15

Return to the Crime Reduction Toolkit