Atlas›Domain XVI · Historical, discredited & harmful›Guide 101
Guide XVI-101

Scared Straight and juvenile awareness programmes

1975Rahway State Prison, New Jersey
A 26 · L 64 · M 1019 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programmes as evaluated in the Cochrane systematic review CD002796, "Scared Straight" and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency (Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, Hollis-Peel and Lavenberg; Cochrane listing dated 2022, evidence searched to 2011), read with its Campbell Collaboration counterpart (Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:5) and the 2014 US Department of Justice COPS Office summary by the same team. Federal positions follow the US Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP, 2011), CrimeSolutions and the National Institute of Justice (2022); cost findings follow the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP).

This guide is included for history and safety. Juvenile awareness programmes are not a therapy and are not recommended: they are deterrence programmes in which young people who have offended, or are thought to be at risk of offending, are brought into adult prisons or jails, or into jail-style settings, to see prison life and be confronted by prisoners or staff, on the theory that fear of incarceration will stop them offending [source: Cochrane CD002796; COPS 2014]. The best-known version began in the 1970s at Rahway State Prison in New Jersey, where men serving life sentences ran sessions for visiting juveniles; an Oscar-winning documentary, Scared Straight!, presented it as a near-miracle cure and the model spread to many US states and other countries [source: Finckenauer 1980 abstract; COPS 2014]. Randomised trials found the opposite of the claimed effect: participants were more likely to offend afterwards than similar young people who received no programme [source: Cochrane CD002796].

This guide covers the psychotherapist's own work: understanding the history, recognising the practice and its current variants (including television formats and sheriff- or jail-run "awareness" days), assessing and supporting young people who were sent to one, working with parents, schools and courts who are considering one, safeguarding and reporting where abuse occurred, and referring to supported alternatives. It does not describe how to run such a programme.

2. Framework

The practice in outline (historical phases).

  • Origins (mid-1970s). A lifers' programme at a New Jersey prison is dated to 1975 by the Campbell review; prisoners serving life sentences gave aggressive presentations to visiting juveniles [source: Petrosino et al., Campbell 2013]. Sponsors and the prisoners themselves claimed very high success rates; Finckenauer reported that more than half of attendees had no delinquency record and that follow-up relied on letters to parents and sponsors soon after visits [source: Finckenauer 1980 abstract].
  • Popularisation (late 1970s). The documentary (broadcast in 1979 per the COPS summary; the film is often dated 1978 [uncertain: release date]) won an Emmy and an Academy Award and was followed by Congressional hearings in 1979 and adoption in more than 30 US states [source: COPS 2014; Finckenauer 1980 abstract].
  • Evaluation (1967 to 1992 trials). Nine randomised or quasi-randomised trials in eight US states, with 946 mostly male participants aged on average 15 to 17, found that the programmes increased offending (odds of offending about 1.6 to 1.7 times higher than controls) [source: Cochrane CD002796]. Finckenauer's controlled study of the New Jersey programme found worse outcomes and more serious offences in the programme group [source: Finckenauer 1980 abstract].
  • Official rejection and revival (2011 onward). After the 2011 A&E series Beyond Scared Straight, senior US Justice Department officials wrote that such programmes are ineffective and can harm young people; OJJDP stated that it does not fund them and that they may violate federal law, because the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act bars court-involved youth from contact with adult inmates; Maryland and California suspended programmes featured in the series [source: OJJDP News @ a Glance 2011]. Local jail- and sheriff-run variants continued to be reported in news coverage [source: WBTV 2019; JJIE].

The psychotherapist's work (phases). [synthesis, informed by the sources above]

  1. Recognition and history-taking. Find out whether a young person (or an adult client, looking back) attended a prison visit, jail tour, "awareness day" or televised programme, who sent them, and what happened. Move on when the experience and its context are clear.
  2. Assessment and safety. Screen for fear, trauma symptoms, shame, anger, changes in offending or school behaviour, self-harm and suicide risk, and any physical or verbal abuse. Move on when immediate safety is established and any reporting duty has been met.
  3. Safeguarding and reporting. Where a child was injured, abused or unlawfully held, follow mandatory-reporting and child-protection routes. This phase can interrupt any other phase.
  4. Processing and repair. Help the young person make sense of the experience, and repair trust between the young person and the adults who sent them.
  5. Redirecting care. Work with parents, schools and courts towards supported alternatives such as the multimodal family-and-community programmes NICE recommends for young people aged 11 to 17 with conduct disorder, or programmes rated effective by CrimeSolutions (for example multisystemic therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy for anger) [source: NICE QS59 statement 5; NIJ 2022].
  6. Advocacy and follow-up. Where an agency still uses such a programme, raise the evidence through professional channels and track the young person's progress.

Session number, length and format follow the client's needs and the setting; use the usual format of the service (individual, family, consultation) [synthesis]. For the NICE multimodal interventions, the quality standard describes intensive contact (several meetings a week over several months) under a developer's manual [source: NICE QS59 statement 5].

3. Guiding principles

  • Follow evidence, not anecdote. The Justice Department officials' phrase "follow evidence, not anecdote" applies directly: a striking story of one young person "turned around" does not outweigh trials showing increased offending [source: OJJDP 2011]. Practical meaning: answer testimonials with the trial findings, calmly.
  • Do no harm includes harm by referral. The reviewers concluded the programmes increase delinquency compared with doing nothing [source: Cochrane CD002796]. Practical meaning: never recommend, endorse, accompany young people to, or help deliver such a programme.
  • Fear is not a treatment. Finckenauer warned that scare tactics could brutalise, terrorise and traumatise young people [source: Finckenauer 1980 abstract]. Practical meaning: treat a frightening programme experience as a possible traumatic event, not as a therapeutic "wake-up call".
  • Many attendees had no offending record. Over half of Rahway attendees had none, and a 2019 South Carolina programme took children aged 8 to 17 mostly enrolled by parents with no arrest record [source: Finckenauer 1980 abstract; WBTV 2019]. Practical meaning: do not assume the young person in front of you had done anything serious; ask.
  • Parents usually acted out of worry. Families sought these programmes hoping to protect their children [synthesis]. Practical meaning: work with the parent's fear and hope without blame, and offer something better.
  • Safeguarding comes first. Physical force, threats, humiliation or unlawful detention of a child are child-protection matters [synthesis]. Practical meaning: know your local mandatory-reporting route before you need it.
  • Equity and discrimination. WSIPP noted that in studies reporting demographics most participants were youth of colour, and an Alabama lawsuit alleged racial slurs during a jail visit [source: WSIPP; JJIE]. Practical meaning: ask about racialised treatment and its meaning to the young person.
  • Consent and assent. Many young people were sent by parents, schools or courts with little choice [synthesis]. Practical meaning: in your own work, obtain the young person's assent and the guardian's consent, and explain confidentiality and its limits.
  • Measured language. State findings as the reviews state them and avoid moralising about families, staff or prisoners [synthesis]. Practical meaning: describe what happened and what the evidence shows.
  • Stay in your role. The psychotherapist's role is assessment, treatment, safeguarding, referral and advocacy, not programme design or delivery [synthesis]. Practical meaning: if asked to "debrief" youth on site at such a programme, decline and explain why.

4. Intervention inventory

The interventions below are the psychotherapist's own work; steps not drawn from a cited source are marked [synthesis].

4.1 Historical and evidence literacy for yourself and your team

  • Purpose / when: Before working with young people, families, schools or courts in juvenile justice, so you can answer questions about these programmes accurately.
  • Steps: Learn the core facts: the Rahway lifers' programme and the documentary; the nine trials and the finding of increased offending; the 2011 Justice Department position and the federal bar on contact between court-involved youth and adult inmates; WSIPP's finding that benefits fall far below costs [source: Cochrane CD002796; Finckenauer 1980; OJJDP 2011; WSIPP]. Keep a one-page summary with citations for colleagues [synthesis]. Note current variants: televised formats, sheriff-run "awareness" days, jail work details for suspended students [source: COPS 2014; WBTV 2019; JJIE].
  • Example language (illustrative): "The trials found young people who went through these prison-visit programmes were more likely to offend afterwards, not less."
  • Watch for: Overstating the evidence (the reviewers note the mechanism of harm is unclear) [source: Petrosino et al., Campbell 2013]. Working when colleagues can state the finding and its source accurately.

4.2 Recognition questions in intake

  • Purpose / when: At intake with any young person in contact with police, courts, school discipline or youth services, and with adults whose adolescence involved such contact [synthesis].
  • Steps: Ask neutrally whether they have ever been taken to a prison or jail "to see what it is like", attended an "awareness", "reality" or "tough love" day run by a jail, sheriff or prison, or appeared in or watched a televised programme of this kind. Ask who arranged it (parent, school, court, police), whether they could refuse, how long it lasted, what was done and said to them, and whether anyone touched, restrained, handcuffed or detained them [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Some young people get sent on a visit to a jail or prison to show them what it's like. Has anything like that happened to you?"
  • Watch for: Minimising ("it was just a tour") alongside signs of fear. Working when the young person can describe the event and its context without being pushed.

4.3 Assessment after attendance

  • Purpose / when: When a young person has attended a programme, especially a confrontational one.
  • Steps: Screen for trauma-related symptoms (intrusive memories, nightmares, avoidance, hypervigilance), anxiety, shame, humiliation, anger at the adults who sent them, and changes in behaviour, school attendance and peer group; use validated child trauma and mood measures your service holds (describe, do not reproduce items) [synthesis]. Ask about offending since attendance without assuming improvement or deterioration; the trials found increased offending on average [source: Cochrane CD002796]. Note any physical injury and route to medical care [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Since the visit, have you noticed anything different, like sleep, worries, or how you feel about the people who sent you?"
  • Watch for: Bravado that hides fear; a new identification with the prisoners or staff who shouted at them; physical injury. Working when you have a clear formulation of what the experience means to this young person.

4.4 Suicide and self-harm risk assessment

  • Purpose / when: With any young person who was humiliated, physically mistreated, detained or terrified, or who shows hopelessness afterwards; coercive programmes and abusive institutions are linked to suicide and suicide attempts [synthesis].
  • Steps: Ask directly about suicidal thoughts, self-harm, intent and plans, using your service's standard risk assessment; involve guardians as safeguarding requires; build a safety plan with the young person; follow safe-messaging principles (no method detail, no glamorising). Give crisis resources: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (US, call or text 988); Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland) [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Sometimes when people have been frightened or shamed like that, they have thoughts of hurting themselves or not wanting to be alive. Has that happened for you?"
  • Watch for: Shame that blocks disclosure; access to means (lethal-means counselling on safe storage and removal only). Working when the young person and guardian know the plan and the crisis numbers.

4.5 Safeguarding and mandatory reporting

  • Purpose / when: When a child describes being pushed, struck, thrown down, verbally degraded, handcuffed or held in a jail without legal basis, or racially abused [source for such allegations: WBTV 2019; JJIE] [synthesis for steps].
  • Steps: Follow your jurisdiction's mandatory-reporting law and your agency's child-protection procedure: report to child protective services (in the UK, the local authority children's social care, with your designated safeguarding lead); where the alleged perpetrator is a law-enforcement or custodial officer, follow agency guidance on also reporting to the relevant oversight body [synthesis]. Record the child's words verbatim, the date and who was present; do not investigate yourself; tell the young person, in age-appropriate words, what you must do and why [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "What you've told me is important, and part of my job is to keep young people safe. I need to tell the people whose job is to look into this. I'll explain what happens next."
  • Watch for: Pressure from adults to treat the treatment as "discipline". Working when the report is made, documented and the young person is informed and supported.

4.6 Psychoeducation for the young person

  • Purpose / when: When the young person is confused, ashamed or believes they "deserved" the treatment.
  • Steps: Explain in plain words that these programmes were tested and did not help young people stay out of trouble, that the US Justice Department says they can harm youth, and that being frightened or upset by them is an understandable reaction [source: Cochrane CD002796; OJJDP 2011]. Separate their worth from the event; invite questions [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Researchers studied these visits carefully, and they didn't work the way people hoped. What you felt makes sense."
  • Watch for: The young person hearing this as criticism of a parent they love; balance with 4.9. Working when the young person can describe the experience without self-blame.

4.7 Trauma-informed processing of the experience

  • Purpose / when: When the experience left trauma symptoms or persistent fear.
  • Steps: Start with stabilisation and a sense of safety; help the young person name feelings and body reactions; build a coherent, paced account at the young person's pace, with consent before and a right to stop at any point; where criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder are met, offer or refer to an evidence-based trauma-focused treatment for children and adolescents delivered by a trained clinician, with the guardian involved as that model specifies [synthesis]. Do not re-expose the young person to prison imagery or confrontational role-play [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "We can go at whatever pace feels okay. You can say stop at any point and we'll stop."
  • Watch for: Dissociation, distress escalation, avoidance of sessions. Working when intrusions and avoidance fall and the young person feels more in control.

4.8 Working with parents considering enrolment

  • Purpose / when: When a worried parent asks about, or has booked, a prison visit, jail "awareness" programme or televised format.
  • Steps: Explore the worry first (what has happened, what they fear most). Share the evidence briefly with sources: increased offending in trials; ineffective and possibly harmful per the Justice Department and CrimeSolutions [source: Cochrane CD002796; CrimeSolutions; NIJ 2022]. Point out that many attendees had no offending history and that the risk of harm applies to them too [source: Finckenauer 1980; WBTV 2019]. Offer a concrete alternative plan (4.10) and an assessment of the young person [synthesis]. Respect the parent's authority while being clear you cannot recommend the programme [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "I can hear how frightened you are for him. I'd be letting you down if I didn't tell you that these programmes have been tested and made things worse on average. Can we look at what does help?"
  • Watch for: Shame or defensiveness in the parent; a parent who has already paid a fee (one 2019 programme charged parents) [source: WBTV 2019]. Working when the parent considers an alternative.

4.9 Family repair after attendance

  • Purpose / when: When a young person feels betrayed by the parent or carer who sent them.
  • Steps: Meet the young person and the parent separately first, then together; help the parent explain their intention and acknowledge the impact; help the young person say what it was like; agree a shared plan going forward [synthesis]. Keep the focus on repair rather than blame.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Your mum wanted to protect you. You were scared and hurt by what happened. Both of those can be true."
  • Watch for: A parent who defends the programme as proof of toughness; a young person who refuses joint sessions (respect it and continue separately). Working when communication resumes and both can name the event.

4.10 Referral to supported alternatives

  • Purpose / when: Whenever offending, conduct problems or school exclusion prompted the interest in a deterrence programme.
  • Steps: Assess need; for young people aged 11 to 17 with conduct disorder or in contact with the criminal justice system for antisocial behaviour, refer to the multimodal interventions NICE recommends, involving parents or carers, with an explicit family focus and work at individual, family, school, justice and community levels [source: NICE QS59 statement 5]. In the US, use programmes rated effective on CrimeSolutions, such as multisystemic therapy for young people with serious offence histories and cognitive behavioural therapy for anger-related problems [source: NIJ 2022]; mentoring was named by the Justice Department as a supported option [source: OJJDP 2011; OJP 2011]. Check local availability and eligibility [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "There are programmes that work with the whole family, school and community, and they have good evidence behind them. I can help you get a referral."
  • Watch for: Long waits that push families back to quick fixes; offer interim support. Working when the referral is accepted and engagement starts.

4.11 Consultation with schools and courts

  • Purpose / when: When a school, probation officer, diversion panel or judge proposes a jail visit, "awareness" day or jail work detail as a sanction or diversion.
  • Steps: Ask, with the family's consent, to contribute to the plan; give a short written summary of the evidence with citations (Cochrane review; CrimeSolutions "ineffective" rating with negative effects; WSIPP benefit-cost finding) [source: Cochrane CD002796; CrimeSolutions; WSIPP]; note OJJDP's statement that contact between court-involved youth and adult inmates may violate the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act [source: OJJDP 2011]; propose a supported alternative (4.10). Keep the letter factual and brief [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "I'd like to suggest an alternative. The research on prison-visit programmes found they increased reoffending, and the federal juvenile justice office does not fund them."
  • Watch for: Overstepping your role (you advise; the court decides); multiple-relationship issues if you also serve the school or court (APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05). Working when the plan is changed or your concerns are on record.

4.12 Working with a young person drawn to the programme or the television format

  • Purpose / when: When a young person asks to be sent "to get straightened out", admires the shows, or wants to prove toughness.
  • Steps: Explore what the appeal is (structure, attention, a test of courage, a wish to be stopped by an adult); acknowledge the wish for change; share the evidence in age-appropriate terms; find safer ways to meet the same need (mentoring, structured activity, family work) [source for mentoring: OJJDP 2011] [synthesis for the rest].
  • Example language (illustrative): "It sounds like part of you wants someone to help you stop. Let's find a way that actually works."
  • Watch for: Romanticising prison or prisoners; peer pressure. Working when the young person engages with an alternative.

4.13 Media literacy with families

  • Purpose / when: When families draw on documentaries or reality television (the 1979 broadcast and its 1999 sequel; Beyond Scared Straight, 2011) as evidence [source: COPS 2014].
  • Steps: Discuss how edited television shows dramatic moments and short follow-ups; compare the film's high success claims with the controlled findings [source: Petrosino et al., Campbell 2013; Finckenauer 1980]; invite the family to weigh testimonials against trials [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "TV shows the moments that make good television. The careful studies followed everyone, including the kids we never see on screen."
  • Watch for: Feeling lectured; keep it a conversation. Working when the family asks how to judge evidence for themselves.

4.14 Working with adults who attended as adolescents

  • Purpose / when: With adult clients for whom a prison visit or jail "awareness" programme remains a source of fear, shame or anger.
  • Steps: Take a history of the event and its context; assess for trauma-related symptoms and their links to later contact with police or institutions; validate the experience with the published evidence; work on meaning and, where wanted, on relationships with the family members who arranged it [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "You were a child, and adults chose to frighten you in the hope it would help. It's understandable that it still affects you."
  • Watch for: Shame about later offending attributed to "not being scared enough". Working when the client can hold a more compassionate account.

4.15 Equity and discrimination-informed assessment

  • Purpose / when: With young people of colour and other groups over-represented in juvenile justice and in these programmes [source: WSIPP] [synthesis for steps].
  • Steps: Ask whether racist or other discriminatory language or treatment occurred (an Alabama lawsuit alleged racial slurs during a jail visit) [source: JJIE]; explore the meaning of the event in the context of the family's wider experience of policing; include this in formulation and, where it amounts to abuse, in safeguarding (4.5) [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Did anyone say or do anything that felt like it was about your race or who you are?"
  • Watch for: Reluctance to name discrimination to a clinician from another background; cultural humility. Working when the young person can name the experience and feel believed.

4.16 Supporting complaints and legal routes

  • Purpose / when: When a family wants to complain about, or take legal action over, mistreatment in such a programme.
  • Steps: Explain that families have taken federal civil-rights suits in such cases and that a preliminary FBI inquiry was reported in one [source: JJIE]; signpost to legal advice, the agency's own complaints process, and state or national juvenile justice oversight bodies; provide accurate clinical records on request with consent; avoid acting as an advocate in litigation while treating (a dual role) [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "If you want to take this further, a lawyer can explain your options. I can provide my records if you ask me to."
  • Watch for: Re-traumatisation through legal processes; pace and support. Working when the family feels informed and in control of the decision.

4.17 Duties when a colleague or institution uses the practice

  • Purpose / when: When your own agency, school, partner jail or a colleague runs or refers to a juvenile awareness programme.
  • Steps: Raise the concern with the colleague or programme lead, with the evidence in writing [synthesis]; escalate through your agency's clinical governance; where children are being harmed, report under 4.5; where a licensed professional is involved, follow your professional body's published route for concerns about a colleague and, if unresolved, the licensing board or regulator [synthesis]. Decline to supervise, co-deliver or refer to the programme [synthesis]. If asked to hold a second role (for example screening youth for the programme while also treating them), weigh it as a multiple relationship under APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05.
  • Example language (illustrative): "I'm not able to be involved in referrals to this programme. I'd like to share the evidence and talk about alternatives."
  • Watch for: Pressure to stay quiet for partnership reasons. Working when the concern is on record and alternatives are under discussion.

4.18 Advocacy for evaluation and policy change

  • Purpose / when: When an agency defends a local programme as "different".
  • Steps: Cite the reviewers' position that jurisdictions permitting such programmes should evaluate them rigorously and show how they differ from those studied [source: Petrosino et al., Campbell 2013]; ask for outcome data (in 2019 sheriff's officials in South Carolina could not provide outcome documents or statistics, and said there were no written procedures or formal training) [source: WBTV 2019]; share the WSIPP benefit-cost finding [source: WSIPP] [synthesis for steps].
  • Example language (illustrative): "If the programme is different, the fair test is a proper evaluation. Until then the existing trials are the best guide."
  • Watch for: Polarisation; stick to evidence statements. Working when the agency commits to stopping or evaluating.

4.19 Working with presenters, staff and former prisoners involved in delivery

  • Purpose / when: With clients who once delivered such programmes (prisoners, officers, volunteers) and now feel conflicted, or who still believe in them.
  • Steps: Explore their motives (often a wish to protect young people) and their experiences; share the evidence without condemnation; where they feel guilt, work with moral injury and on meaningful alternatives such as mentoring [source for mentoring: OJJDP 2011] [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "You wanted to keep kids from ending up where you were. That wish matters, even if this way of doing it didn't work."
  • Watch for: Defensiveness; disclosure of past abuse of children (safeguarding duties may apply). Working when the client can hold both their intent and the evidence.

5. Handling problems

  • Parent insists "it worked for my nephew". Acknowledge the story; explain that trials compare groups and found more offending on average among those who attended; offer to track their own child's progress with an alternative [source: Cochrane CD002796] [synthesis for response].
  • Court or school has already ordered attendance. Contribute to the plan through proper channels (4.11), document your advice, prepare the young person with the family's consent, and see them soon afterwards for assessment (4.3) [synthesis]. Do not attend or co-deliver.
  • Young person dismisses the experience but shows fear. Do not push for disclosure; return to it gently, normalise mixed feelings, and monitor sleep, school and mood [synthesis].
  • Overwhelm during processing. Pause, ground, return to stabilisation; remind the young person of their right to stop; resume only with assent [synthesis].
  • Disclosure of abuse mid-session. Stop exploration, listen, reassure, and follow 4.5 immediately; do not promise secrecy [synthesis].
  • Rupture with the parent who feels blamed. Name the rupture, acknowledge their protective intent, and repair before continuing family work (4.9) [synthesis].
  • Non-adherence to the referred alternative. Explore barriers (waiting lists, travel, stigma, previous bad experiences with services); offer interim sessions; liaise with the referring service [synthesis].
  • Young person identifies with the prisoners or staff who confronted them. Explore what the identification offers (respect, belonging, toughness); avoid argument; link to safer sources of the same need (4.12) [synthesis].
  • Rising offending after attendance. Treat it as consistent with the trial findings, not as the young person's failure; reassess risk and needs and expedite referral to a supported programme [source: Cochrane CD002796] [synthesis for response].
  • Suicidal thoughts. Follow 4.4; give 988 (US) and Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland); involve guardians as safeguarding requires [synthesis].
  • Your agency partners with a jail programme. Follow 4.17; keep records of your concerns; seek supervision [synthesis].
  • A family considers a "tough love" residential or boot-camp-style programme as the next step. Share concerns and see guide 102 in this domain (boot camps for conduct disorder) and the troubled-teen industry guide (Domain XV 025) for detail; refer to supported family-based care instead [synthesis].

Harm account

What was actually done

In the original New Jersey programme at Rahway State Prison (from the mid-1970s), groups of juveniles, more than half of whom had no delinquency record, were brought into the prison and confronted by men serving life sentences, who shouted at them, gave aggressive presentations and told exaggerated stories of violence in prison, including sexual violence and murder [source: Finckenauer 1980 abstract; Petrosino et al., Campbell 2013]. Across the programmes in the trials, young people were given guided tours of prisons, sometimes placed in a cell, shown images of prison violence, put through confrontational group sessions with prisoners, and in some programmes given a prison-style haircut and made to do physical labour; some programmes were milder and educational. Most were single visits of a few hours, some repeated over several weeks [source: COPS 2014]. OJJDP described activities ranging from tours to a full day "living the life of a prisoner" [source: OJJDP 2011]. In a sheriff-run programme in Chester County, South Carolina (reported 2019), children aged 8 to 17, most enrolled by parents and none in custody for an offence, were shouted at from close range by deputies, made to exercise and run repeatedly in heat until some vomited, pushed against fences or to the ground when they stopped or cried, handcuffed and taken to the jail, and held overnight with little sleep; the sheriff's office said deputies had no formal training and there were no written procedures [source: WBTV 2019]. In Calhoun County, Alabama, a federal civil-rights suit alleged that during a jail visit a deputy and an inmate pushed a juvenile and shouted racial slurs at him; the suit was reported as pending and the outcome is [uncertain: not verified] [source: JJIE]. Justification throughout was deterrence: the belief that seeing and fearing prison would stop young people offending [source: Cochrane CD002796].

How it caused harm

  • Increased offending. Meta-analysis of seven trials found the odds of later official offending were roughly 1.6 to 1.7 times higher for participants than controls; sensitivity analyses still showed harm [source: Cochrane CD002796]. Finckenauer's controlled study found more, and more serious, offending in the programme group [source: Finckenauer 1980 abstract]. The reviewers note that the trials did not test mechanisms; they suggest a possible backfire effect or disbelief in the threatened consequences [source: Petrosino et al., Campbell 2013].
  • Psychological harm. Finckenauer warned that scare tactics could brutalise, terrorise and traumatise young people [source: Finckenauer 1980 abstract]; US Justice Department officials described the programmes as possibly harmful and titled their op-ed on traumatising at-risk children [source: OJJDP 2011; OJP 2011]. Five of six experts who reviewed video of the South Carolina programme described it as child abuse [source: WBTV 2019].
  • Physical and discriminatory mistreatment as alleged in news-reported cases [source: WBTV 2019; JJIE].
  • Cost and opportunity cost. WSIPP estimated large net losses per participant (a 4% chance that benefits exceed costs) [source: WSIPP]; families who turned to these programmes delayed supported care [synthesis].
  • Legal risk. OJJDP stated that such programmes may violate the federal bar on contact between court-involved youth and adult inmates [source: OJJDP 2011].

Recognising it today

  • Programmes described as "juvenile awareness", "scared straight", "reality check", "jail tour", "day in the life" or "tough love" days run by jails, sheriffs or prisons, sometimes advertised to parents for a fee [source: WBTV 2019] [synthesis for labels].
  • Schools or diversion panels sending suspended or court-involved students to work or spend time in a jail [source: JJIE].
  • Television and online formats that film young people being confronted by prisoners or officers [source: COPS 2014].
  • Warning signs in a young person's account: being shouted at close up, humiliated, made to exercise to exhaustion, handcuffed, put in a cell or held overnight, touched or pushed by staff or prisoners, told graphic stories of prison violence [synthesis, drawn from the accounts above].

What to do instead and how to help those harmed

  • Supported alternatives. NICE recommends that young people aged 11 to 17 with conduct disorder be offered referral to multimodal interventions involving parents or carers, with a family focus and work across family, school, justice and community [source: NICE QS59 statement 5]. CrimeSolutions rates multisystemic therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy for anger-related problems as effective [source: NIJ 2022]; the Justice Department pointed to mentoring [source: OJJDP 2011; OJP 2011].
  • Helping young people harmed. Assessment, trauma-informed care and referral for trauma-focused treatment where indicated; suicide-risk assessment with 988 (US) and Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland) (4.3, 4.4, 4.7) [synthesis].
  • Family support. Repair work with parents who enrolled their child, without blame (4.8, 4.9) [synthesis].
  • Reporting and legal routes. Mandatory reporting to child protection; agency complaints; legal advice on civil-rights claims (4.5, 4.16) [synthesis; source for civil-rights suits: JJIE].
  • Policy routes. Share the Cochrane, Campbell, CrimeSolutions and WSIPP findings with agencies; ask any programme claiming to be different to be rigorously evaluated [source: Petrosino et al., Campbell 2013].

Sources

← Previous · XVI-100Ritual castration in some sectsNext · XVI-102 →Boot camps for conduct disorder