In 2003 Joan McCord uses five case studies of Crime Prevention programs in the American Academy of Political and Social Science Journal article, “Cures That Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs”, to take a look at crime prevention programs effectiveness and the program’s evaluations of their effectiveness. By using five case studies from a randomized sample, McCord takes descriptive organization data and beliefs of the organization to look at, specifically, how these organizations may have good intentions while at the same time are potentially doing harm. Many of the crime prevention programs have the belief that if the program helps one individual then it is worth it and other similar positive beliefs that are used as an excuse not to use evaluations of the program. While these programs may think positively about the work they are doing and at the same time not see a need to report their evaluation, the programs are relying on testimonials or researchers that are biased. This lack of evaluation is harmful to many as it allows a social program to continue to operate even with adverse effects. McCord concludes by insisting that these Crime Prevention Programs must be evaluated for both adverse effects and benefits. The evaluation should be unbiased and should use a random assignment of individuals for both the treatment and comparison group. Overall, McCord argues that more attention should be paid to the effects of these crime prevention programs.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/587/1/16.short